BPS Teacher Salaries: Shocking For All the Wrong Reasons

The following is a guest post by Susan Field. She is a friend, a fellow Ellis Mendell School parent, a former BPS teacher and a current Instructor at the University of Massachusetts. She has gracefully articulated all that is wrong with the culture of teacher shaming happening in Boston right now.

Prepare to be shocked parents, citizens, and taxpayers: the average teacher salary in Boston Public Schools is close to $91,000. And “salaries account for the largest expense for the Boston Public Schools, making up 65% of the Fiscal Year 2017 General Fund Budget". Cue the collective gasps and whispers: “How can a teacher make that much money?”. BPS and the City of Boston published a fancy flyer entitled “Overview of Salary Budgeting” highlighting all the details. The flyer is working. I’m hearing sharp inhales and whispers all over the place, even from my public education advocate friends.

I’m shocked too, that’s for sure, but not because of the numbers on the fancy charts and graphs. I’m shocked that this propaganda is working. When we all begin to whisper about teacher salaries, it shifts the focus and our appropriately placed anger away from the city, even though they are half of the bargaining committee that ratified the current teacher contract. I’m not falling for it and you shouldn’t either. Let’s be collectively shocked, but for the right reason: propaganda like this frames our teachers as the culprits behind the current budget crisis.

That contract, a legally binding agreement for the years 2010 – 2016, was negotiated by the city and the BTU over a 2 year period and was ratified in 2012. The city knew what was coming. They knew how many teachers they employed in 2012, how long they had been working for BPS and how much money these employees were projected to make in 2016. They had time to prepare. They didn’t. This flyer is an attempt to draw attention away from their lack of foresight.

The information in this flyer suggests experienced, veteran teachers are not an asset, but a budgeting problem. According to the contract, first year BPS teachers make between $52K and $55K. Why don’t we simply fill schools with these bright, young, enthusiastic, cheap employees? Experienced teachers aren’t just an asset, they’re a necessity in any urban education system. From experience, I can tell you the first 2 – 3 years of teaching are a continuation of teacher education, no matter what degree you hold or where you got it. Replacing veteran teachers means losing institutional knowledge (school specific and system wide), as well as mentors. This is not to say "young" teachers are not valuable or can’t be successful. They are and they can; but they’re much more likely to succeed with support from veterans who are familiar with the nuances of classrooms and the system, the stuff you don’t learn in college. Novice teachers are also more likely to return for a 2nd, 4th or 6th year with such support, and eventually become veteran teachers themselves.

The teacher pay scale incentivizes experience and education, pointing to the idea that the City of Boston actually values these things. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts goes one step further: they require continued education. You can’t get your professional license without it. After 5 years in the system, if you don’t qualify for a professional license you can’t teach. Acquiring a Master's Degree is the most straightforward way of achieving this. Teachers are offered up to $1,000 a year in tuition reimbursement, but a graduate degree in education from UMass Boston costs just under $20,000. The authors of this flyer hold teachers responsible for the salary increases related to the credentials that the City of Boston encourages and the state requires.

The contract states “the development of a professional teacher career ladder is one way to provide [these] incentives to attract and keep quality teachers in the profession” (87). Boston and the BTU recognized that people can’t stay in a job where increased earning potential is nil. Upward mobility is tricky for teachers no matter what. They can’t abandon their post for a better school that pays more. "Better" schools don’t pay more. They can’t become administrators because, well, administration isn’t teaching and upward mobility shouldn’t require teachers to switch careers. Let’s not blame the teachers for wanting to stick with the job; let’s be grateful this contract grants them upward mobility and reason to stay. I’ve met a lot of teachers over my 12 years in the BPS (7 as a teacher, 5 as a parent, all 12 of them married to a BPS teacher). On the whole, they’re caring, intelligent, compassionate, giving people, the opposite of selfish. Not one that I know got into teaching for the money.

I wonder if those who are shocked by this flyer for all the wrong reasons have asked themselves why they didn’t get into teaching? Would they admit it’s because they can’t, or don’t want to, even if it might mean eventually making close to $90,000 a year? Teaching for BPS isn’t easy. We all know that. The City recognized this and came up with a plan, a legally binding contract, to reward teachers for sticking with a hard job few of us want to do. And now, they’re suggesting the current budget crisis is due to having too many educated, experienced teachers, the kind they name as integral to the success of our students.

Let’s not fall for it.

You can follow Susan Field on Twitter: @SusanRField

Charter School Dollars and Sense Part 1: Who is Winning (and Losing) with Commonwealth Charter Schools’ Operational Gains?

Collaborative post by BPS Parents Bob Damon (Research and writing)
and Kristin Johnson (Writing and graphics)

Here we go again! It’s a new and improved version of the annual 20-year old ritual: Adults engaged in a bitter, often acrimonious ideological battle with each other about “THE BEST” educational model “on behalf” of “OUR” students. And after 20 years of battling it out, what have we created? A “brand new” system that behaves a lot like the old system. It puts a whole ton of money in the hands of adults, and keeps it from going where it really belongs: with the students.

This is the first in a series of posts about the most important (sorry teachers, administrators, and education thought leaders) component of our ongoing debate about lifting the current cap on the number of Charter Schools in Massachusetts: Resources. This entry is about a little known but very important part of how we fund Charter Schools in Massachusetts: Operational Gains.

What are Operational Gains?

Operational gains, also known as an operational surplus, occur when a Commonwealth Charter School, and/or its supporting Foundation, collect revenue that exceeds its expenses. This commonly accepted financial management practice for non-profit organizations is permitted under Massachusetts State Law. According to the law, “Commonwealth charter schools are permitted to retain a reasonable surplus as working capital for the upcoming fiscal year”. It turns out that most, if not all, Commonwealth Charter schools have “operational gains”. And not just every once in a while, they have them every year. 

So naturally, this concept started to intrigue us, especially given the stark contrast of the millions of dollars of deficits that continue to plague Boston Public Schools. We decided to dig a little deeper. Had the system been designed this way? Or was something else going on? Here’s just a snapshot of what we found:

• All three State statutes related to operational surpluses (either for non-profits or Charter Schools) provide calculations for permissible single year-over-year surplus. All three also use the term “cumulative,” but provide little or no clarification about whether the term refers to a carryover for a single year or for multiple years.

• A 2009 Independent State Auditor’s Review of Certain Aspects of Charter School Financial Results and Financial Reporting identified operational gains as an important factor for assessing the financial health of Charter Schools. The audit determined that “For charter schools to remain fiscally solvent, sufficient funding needs to be available over and above their annual operating costs in order to properly capitalize their operations.”

• Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) uses an online Financial Dashboard of standard financial indicators that incorporate factors such as “Change in Net Assets Ratio” to assess the financial health and risks of individual charter schools. Since 2011, DESE has posted annual Excess Surplus Reports, presenting annual amounts as outlined in the statute..

• DESE’s annual reports only include and evaluate operational surpluses for a single year. The Financial Dashboard does provide 5-year cumulative data, but for single schools, not whole systems. Little or no information exists on the cumulative impact of annual operational surplus upon the entire system.

It strikes us as odd that public charter schools in Massachusetts are being more thoroughly evaluated by DESE for their investment risk than they are for their ability to accurately collect student demographics and manage their own waitlists.

While the laws around cumulative operational surpluses sure seem fuzzy, the numbers definitely are not. Let’s take a look.

The Dollars: A Whole Lot of Them!

Before we do, it’s important to remember that the number of Charter School seats has been growing steadily since 2010 thanks to the last Charter cap lift. From FY11 to FY14, the number of charter students in MA increased by 6683, at an average of 6.83% per year. By the end of  FY14, just a little over 3% of the state’s students attended Charter Schools. Below are actual operational surpluses made by all Charter Schools and their foundations during that time.

Operational Gains at Commonwealth Charter Schools FY11-FY14*

*FY11 Marked the start of new reporting regulations for operational gains.
FY15 End of Year Reports have not been released yet.

All data is from DESE End of Year Reports located at http://www.doe.mass.edu/charter/finance/revexp/

Current statutes annually exempt fundraising revenues and significant portions of the operational gains created at the building level.  However, the 2009 MA Audit of Charter Schools Financing took a different view of charter school income:

“In conducting our analysis, we combined the revenues and expenses from both the charter schools and their component units due to the significance of component unit’s operational and financial relationship with charter schools. Moreover, since charter schools have access to their component unit’s financial resources, we believe that combining the revenues and expenses of each charter school with those of its component unit provides a true picture of the charter school’s financial health and ability to operate effectively in the future.”

We made some startling discoveries when we began to look more closely at the combined assets of the Commonwealth Charter Schools and their Foundations.

Current Assets

Current assets are items on an organization’s balance sheet that are cash, a cash equivalent, or can be turned into cash within one year. By the end of FY14, Commonwealth Charter schools held over $277 million in current assets. From FY11 to FY14, the collected current assets of Commonwealth Charter Schools increased by $77 million dollars. The assets of their associated Foundations increased by $28 million during that same time. That’s a lot of cash from tuitions (paid with state and local taxes) and fundraising that didn’t get spent on students!

Current Assets at Commonwealth Charter Schools FY11-FY14*

* Financial Data collected directly from DESE's Charter School Revenue and Expenditure Data webpage

 http://www.doe.mass.edu/charter/finance/revexp/

Net Assets

Net assets are the combined value of an organization’s current assets (cash) and their fixed assets (buildings, hardware, etc). From FY11-FY14, the Net Assets all Commonwealth Charter Schools and their Foundations increased by 13% per year, for a total $138 million. That’s the equivalent  $20,614 per new Charter School student. Keep in mind that during this time, the numbers of students increased at an average rate of 6.83% per year; the Commonwealth Charters are able to accumulate assets at nearly twice the rate that they accumulate students.

 Net Assets at Commonwealth Charter Schools FY11-FY14*

*Financial Data collected directly from DESE's Charter School Revenue and Expenditure Data webpage

 http://www.doe.mass.edu/charter/finance/revexp/

The Sense

Shocked by the amounts? So are we! Now what do we do with this information? Well, from our point of view, it leads logically to this question:

Does Massachusetts have the resources to support an expansion of the current Charter financial system?

Our opinion?  NO.

From our point of view, it’s pretty clear what Charter Schools and the 3% of Massachusetts students they serve are getting out of the system. But just in case you’re not convinced, we’ll close out this entry with some things for you to consider as you form your own opinion.

Massachusetts Education funding resources are at a tipping point. The existing Chapter 70 Foundation Budget Formula is severely out of date and underfunded. State reimbursement programs for Charter Schools tuition, transportation, and the Special Education Circuit Breaker are underfunded annually.

By design, the current funding system enables Charter Schools (who do not have the same financial obligations as whole school districts) to spend considerably more per pupil at the building level than their Public School counterparts.

The vast majority of cities and towns in the State will be seeing a rise in their property taxes next year, but proposition 2.5 limits our ability to leverage this growth.  

We still don’t have information about how much more money was retained by Charter Schools as surplus during this year (FY16) and last year (FY15).

Under the current system, annual and cumulative operational surpluses from State and Local tuitions constitute approximately 75% of the funds retained by Charter Schools to ensure their financial stability.1  The FY11-FY14 data demonstrates that as the current Charter financing system grows, sound financial practices dictate that over time it must pull more and more resources out of the system. 2

Charter Foundation fundraising operations constitute 25% of the funds retained by Charter Schools.1  The FY11-14 DESE Charter School data clearly demonstrates that the long-term financial health of Charter schools is a direct function of their abilities to fundraise, both locally and in the Charter Education marketplace.2  This leaves the existing Charter School financing system vulnerable to market forces far beyond its control.3

Stay tuned for Part 2: We will look more closely at what expense reports can tell us about who and what Charter Schools actually spend their money on. 

1. Based on calculations of financial Data collected directly from DESE's Charter School Revenue and Expenditure Data webpage: http://www.doe.mass.edu/charter/finance/revexp/

2. See Charter School “Dashboard” evaluation system used by DESE to rate the financial/operational health of Commonwealth Charter Schools: http://www.doe.mass.edu/charter/finance/dashboard/

3. See The Boston Foundation’s June 2012 report Understanding Boston:  Passion and Purpose Revisited – Massachusetts Nonprofits and the the Last Decade’s Rollercoaster  http://www.tbf.org/understanding-boston/~/media/TBFOrg/Files/Reports/PP2012Final.pdf

BPS High School Budget Cuts Persist

Photo by Kenny Jervis

School Site Councils at BPS High Schools are rushing to re-evaluate their budget situation ahead of the Boston School Committee vote on Wednesday, a little over a week after BPS restored some of the cuts on the high school level. I’ve frantically continued my work contacting our high schools to assess the new financial landscape, and unfortunately the news is bleak. While the budget cuts at the exam schools were reduced to $96,000 at Boston Latin School (down from $705,000) and to $100,000 at Boston Latin Academy (down from $492,000), deep cuts persist at some of our most vulnerable schools. Boston Community Leadership Academy’s budget cut is still a whopping $500,000, down from $800,000. Charlestown High, home of the Diploma Plus (DP) Program, still has a $350,000 budget cut and the DP Program is still on the chopping block. Snowden International, the school where the planning of the BPS walkout began, is still slated to lose $240,000, down from $370,000. I’m awaiting updates from several other high schools that are scheduled to have their School Site Council meetings early this week.

These high school budget cuts persist because of the changes in Weighted Student Funding (WSF) for students with autism and emotional impairment. The weight for students with autism has been changed from 4.3 to 3.9, and for students on the high school level with emotional impairment, the weight has changed from 3.5 to 3.0. The changes in WSF were intended to equally distribute budget cuts. However, students with special needs tend to be concentrated within certain schools, so they are getting hit harder than schools with a higher concentration of regular ed. To state this frankly: The children at schools who have always benefited from a softer landing will continue to do so, while the students who have always had to struggle to overcome challenges must now work even harder.

Throughout this budget cycle, one thing that has bothered me is that all of these cuts to Special Education come in the wake of the recent Foundation Budget Review Commission report that Massachusetts is already drastically under-funding Special Ed. When it comes to identifying the “fat” in BPS, I would respectfully suggest that we look somewhere else.

Photo by Andrea Doremus Cuetara

Ante up

I was going to try to write an articulate piece about why cutting student weights for our teens and special needs children is an immoral way to balance the BPS budget, but honestly I'm so sick of playing this game. When you listen to Mayor Walsh speak about the BPS budget, there is one thing he always says again and again: After the new contract is signed with the BTU he will make more money available for Boston Public Schools. He never says there is not enough money to fully fund BPS. This budget standoff is not just about finding efficiencies with Boston Public Schools; this standoff is about the Mayor getting his way in collective bargaining negotiations. It is an interesting coincidence that Sam Tyler’s BMRB report from last week indicates that there is $13 million in excessed teachers while we are facing $13 million in cuts on the school level.

The Mayor is playing political poker and our children are his bargaining chips. The last BTU contract for 2010 - 2016 was signed 2 and half years late in September 2012. The Mayor should not be forcing this contract through and withholding money from our schools until it’s signed. The last time he rushed into an agreement with the BTU, we were forced to roll out Extended Learning Time before anyone in BPS had a chance to evaluate the necessary transportation implications and before BPS was able to put in proper supports for teachers and schools.

Furthermore, the City of Boston HAS a robust collective bargaining reserve to pay for raises related to contracts. The $13.5 million that the Mayor gave this year does not take into account the estimated $21 million dollar increases associated with this year’s contract increases.

While the adults continue to fight, our schools are being deliberately underfunded. The cuts are real, the layoffs are real, and the time and angst over all of this for students and parents is real.

Please, Mayor Walsh, fully fund our schools. Enough is enough.

Why the #BPSWalkout?

This list was collected by Boston Latin School parents in collaboration with the Citywide Parent Council Budget Subcommittee. 

Boston Arts Academy

• Losing $367,000 plus $187,000 that the BAA foundation is working to raise (Total being raised by Foundation is over $2 million dollars - almost the entirety of the arts education budget)

• Losing 1 teaching position

• Losing Health and wellness staff and support

• Losing administration staffing

Boston Community Leadership Academy

• Losing over $800,000

• Losing 5 - 7 teaching positions, including librarian, theater teacher

• Losing free SAT prep course

• Advanced Placement classes cut

• Losing teacher of the leadership program

• Cuts to autism program

Boston Latin Academy

• Losing $492,000 despite an increase in enrollment

• One 7th/8th grade math teacher retiring, will not be replaced

• Arabic program eliminated

• History Dept. Director eliminated

• Arts Dept. Director eliminated

• No supply budget

• If any cuts happen next year, then electives will be cut

Boston Latin School

• Losing $705,000

• A teacher in each department (7 teachers)

• Larger class sizes (up to 31)

• Eighth Grade Science (an MCAS Requirement)

• Reduction of Support Services

• Reduction of AP Courses, including a proposed an AP African American History Class

Boston Teachers Union (BTU) K-8 School

• Losing $339,000

• Losing two teachers: one middle school and one learning specialist

• Field trips cut
• Spanish class cut

Brighton High School
• Losing $434,000 
• Losing ESL and Health Careers Pathway (retirement, not replacing)
• Losing a History, a Math, a PE, and an ELA position
• Losing one Librarian, one Admin (centrally funded) and a half time tech support position.

Charlestown High

• Losing $600,000

• Losing Diploma Plus program, an alternative ed program serving 70 teens who are behind grade level, many of them living in extreme hardship and crisis. Program helps them rapidly catch up to grade level and graduate high school. Described as a “family” by current students and graduates.

Chittick Elementary

• Losing the specialist that Chittick got to make ELT work last year; going down to 4 specialists

Dearborn Academy

• No information about the budget. Principal also doesn't have access to the budget as they're run by an outside operator, the Boston Plan for Excellence

East Boston High

• Losing $680,000

Edison K-8

• Losing one K0 teacher and one K1 teacher

Excel High

• Losing $500,000

• Losing technology class and art class, JV sports cut

Fenway High School

• Losing $134,000

• Losing Career and College Readiness coordinator

• Languages cut so students can't fulfill language requirements for college/graduation requirement

• Losing SAT prep program

Guild Elementary

• Losing $281,329
• Losing 6.5 paraprofessionals

• Cut 1.3 ESL teacher, cut .6 specialist, cut. 8 resource too and very low supply line

Jeremiah E. Burke High School

• Losing $300,000

• Losing librarian, technology teacher, social worker
• Spanish teacher cut (only language offered)

JFK Elementary

• Losing $150,000

• Losing 1 teacher, 1 para, 2 lunch monitors, limited field trip budget and $0 for supplies

John D. O’Bryant School of Math and Science

• Losing $339,782

• Losing 6 positions

• No foreign language instruction (a requirement for most colleges)

• Loss of computer technology department

• Reduction of library hours

• Reduction in health and wellness services

Lee K-8

• Losing $253,000

Lyndon K-8

• Losing $253,000

Manning Elementary

• Losing 5.1%, or over $91,000

• Losing two part-time resource specialists, which is the equivalent of one full-time position.

• Losing library services, dropping the librarian from 1.0 FTE to 0.8 FTE.

• Losing Playworks and music program

Mather Elementary

• 2 positions cut, 2 positions hours reduced

• Loss of funding for Playworks and ANET materials.

Mendell Elementary

• Losing $85,000

• Losing Playworks coach

• Potential loss of interns who support inclusive practice in grades 1-5

• Lost lunch monitor

• Supply budget cut to $0

Roger Clap

• Losing $53,000

• 4 Inclusion classes only .5 resource teacher

Roosevelt K-8

• Losing $319,000

Snowden School

• Losing $370,000

• Elimination of Japanese program

• Losing part time librarian, calculus teacher, registrar, guidance counselor, reduction of 2 English teachers to part time

Tech Boston

• Due to weighted student funding cuts, they have no music or art. Other cuts unclear

Timilty Middle School
• Losing $390,000
• Losing Registrar, the history teacher, and the cluster substitute
• Gym teacher and the resource room/IEP teacher reduced to part time
 
 West Roxbury Academy

• Losing $500,000

West Zone Early Learning Center

• Losing $108,000

Young Achievers K-8

• Losing $470,000

Across the system, schools are being asked to cut into critical services. Many of these cuts will mean that some schools cannot be accredited, and in some cases students will not be able to take the courses needed to enter most colleges. This is completely unacceptable.

As parents and families, what are we asking for a complete review of these devastating cuts.

Please, help us, and help our schools.

The Citywide Parent Council Budget Subcommittee

Kristin Johnson, Boston Latin School

Kristin Johnson, Citywide Parent Council Rep for the Ellis Mendell