may be in the market for a new assistant principal following last night’s meeting of the .
In the early part of the Aug. 27 meeting, in a seemingly straightforward vote, the board unanimously accepted a list of five resignations, including that of Janine Mathesz, assistant principal at Emmaus High School, effective Aug. 20.
It wasn’t until the tail end of the meeting -- when Board President Charles Ballard asked if anyone had any “New Business” to bring before the board -- that things got interesting.
That’s when School Director Lynn Donches made a motion not to fill the open assistant principal position at the high school. “[We should] consolidate the duties among the remaining four principals,” Donches said.
“A number of people have asked me, ‘why do we have so many assistant principals?’ There are a lot of administrators. We are top-heavy on the administration side. Like in any business, when someone vacates a position, we need to evaluate and see if we can consolidate things.
“We need to start cutting spending, and I think that this is a good place to start,” she said.
Ballard told Donches that she had a responsibility to let the board know that she was considering such a motion prior to the last five minutes of the meeting in order to give people time to do their own research into the idea and prepare their thoughts on the topic.
“I don’ t know where to begin on this one,” Ballard said. “This is classic micro-management by the board. We hire a superintendent to manage the district. If you disagree with his policies you should make that known to him and to the board.
“You owe a duty to the other members of this board to float this out as soon as you received your packet. It is damn unfair to try to spring surprise after surprise after surprise.
“That is entrapment of the worst sort. It is political entrapment, making such a statement without having the intestinal fortitude to make your feelings known beforehand,” Ballard said. “Why someone would think they can do a better job than the superintendent, I don’t know.”
Donches’ motion failed by a 5 to 2 vote, with Donches and School Director Julian Stolz voting in favor of the measure. School Director Michael Policano abstaine from the decision, stating that he didn’t feel he had enough information to participate in the vote.
After the meeting, Donches said that there wasn’t a lot of time to talk to the other board members about the motion she proposed between when the board received its packet on Thursday and the Monday night meeting. “I really didn’t think about it sooner,” she said, adding that she was not surprised by the board’s ultimate decision.
School director Rebecca Heid was absent from Monday night’s meeting.
If I was on the board, I would have broached the subject first with the superintendent's office, or at least give them a heads-up. If the relationships on the board were more congenial, I might have brought it up as a discussion point when the resignation was voted on, rather than as new business. However, in the last few years, the board presidents have been very arrogant and might have prohibited the discussion and demanded that it be handled as new busines. Ms. Donchez did that, apparently on her own, because, they might have otherwise tried to silence her, based on past history. Perhaps it could have been handled differently with slightly different tactics, but it was still parlimentarily correct and proper. Kudos for bringing the subject up publicly, even if maintaining the position is the right thing to do. Finally, I wasn't at the meeting, but read the agenda, where the VP apparently asked for a waiver of a 60 day notice. Somewhat curious why the administration and board would allow the VP to leave them high and dry a week before school started, instead of helping the new employer.
1. You do not surprise fellow board members with a substantive motion when they have had no time to research the issue. You ask for a motion to be put on the agenda ahead of time. Mrs. Donchez had enough time to request that the administrative salaries issue be separated out from the general personnel issues earlier in the day, she couldn't ask for a motion to be put on the addenda for the meeting too? 2. It is highly insulting and disrespectful to undermine your superintendent by trying to micromanage the district through individual board votes on personnel issues. The board sets personnel policies, it does not make individual personnel decisions, other than hiring the superintendent. If there is a valid policy-related reason for a motion, I have no problem with it. If the motion is simply designed to score political points with people who do not want to pay their fair share for education, I do have problems with that. For someone who harps on transparency and the Sunshine Law, Mr. Landi, it is amazing that you do not look upon your secret manipulations with certain board members with the same disdain. Having you speak in public comment about how 'only those administrators making over $45k should get raises', and then have Mrs. Donchez just happen to make another 'surprise' motion to that effect really shows 'transparently' what you and your cabal are doing.
As for the argument of what life was like back in the good old days when William Allen only had 1 principal and 1 assistant, that was because there was less for principals to contend with. I'm sure the amount of gang activity in the 1960's was far less than today, so that is a flimsy argument at best. Lastly, I am happy to pay high taxes. Because I see the value in them. People can sell their homes for above market value in East Penn because the school district is one of the best. You want low property taxes, then move back into Allentown and pay next to nothing in property taxes, you'll also get next to nothing as far as education.
Lastly, kudos to Lynn Donches for questioning whether the position really needs to be filled. Out here in the real world, that's what we do - question whether an expense is really justified and needed.
2nd - I personally don't believe that because someone has a terminal or higher degree they should be slotted into a payscale... not in any profession. While continuing education is critical in all professions, continuing education should be tied to an increase in job performance and only THEN you get the raise. If I pay for one of my employees to go to a seminar or conference you bet I expect a return on my investment when I see that I'll gladly pay their new market value. Used to work in higher ed. both at a public and private institutions. In the profession the goal was to "get into a state school to get into a union". Of course not everyone thought that way, but many did. This is a fact. The assumption was because it equaled job security and a higher pay rate. Nothing wrong with that because that was/still is the system and your foolish not to play it. The very fact that in the public sector you do in a sense get slotted into certain payscales is the crux of many issues we have today.
But I digress...Is our above average rankings (which I'll very happily acknowledge) we have here in EPSD in fact a product of simply throwing more and more money at the schools? I tend to think and certainly hope that it's not. If thats the case we're all in trouble. I and many others in my cohort (early 30's) put off home ownership because the cost was no longer justifiable. The age old saying that a home is the most critical investment you make in your life simply wasnt true anymore. School taxes have alot to do with this. Average valued home saw increase of nearly 500 dollars over the last few years. I will happily pay my fair. But we ARE hitting critical mass. Thats a fact. Thats a reality.
Saw two opportunities for cost cutting over the last couple months. Willow bussing and a 5th AP at the high school. Both instances decisions were made to keep expenditures at the same. One is 60k another is nearly 90k Ok fine. Seperate not much in the grand scheme. But like the "small" tax increases every-single-year.... They add up. Maybe the right decisions are being made, maybe not. But I certainly appreciate someone in the role of watchdog as it seems we have in Donches et al. A school board needs that. Sometimes I disagree with them. But I do appreciate that we have someone filling that role. A community needs it.
1. The Sunshine Act does not address surprises. Perhaps if you thought about fiscal management every once in a while you would have had the same thought. 2. Given the choice between "micromanagement" or in your case "lack-o-management" when it comes to my tax dollars I'll take the micromanagement. Also, if the board does not make individual personnel decisions, then why did the board have to approve individual raises? The board could have provided the superintendant with a dollar amount and told him to distribute it as he saw fit. That's how most companies handle increases, they give the manager a budgeted amount and he distributes it however he wants. Thank you for correcting that point that I didn't speak at last night's meeting. At first I wasn't sure what you were talking about. Then I realized that all of us concerned taxpayers probably look the same to you.
While I appreciate your respectful tone, I have to disagree with a few key points. First, I am a believer in merit based pay, for some professions. The problem with levying a merit based system on educators is that there, unfortunately, are going to be sub-performers in any class. I do not feel that a teacher should be held solely accountable for a student failing. I feel that they may share some of the blame, but considering that students are only in school for 182 days, and roughly 8 hours a day, it is difficult to ignore the fact that parents play an integral role in the success or failure of the students. To merely institute merit based pay is ridiculous. In my opinion, pay raises congruent with established benchmarks such as ed hours, certification levels and advanced degrees is the only fair way to increase pay for educators. You noted that EPSD is above average in many academic categories, one of the driving forces behind this is the incentives that EPSD offers its educators. One of these incentives is a very good paycheck and benefits. While the benefits package may seem exorbitant to some, it produces academically superior results. I would make a strong argument for the correlation between low pay districts with a low tax base compared to high paying districts with a high tax base. Look at Philadelphia Public Schools compared to any district in the Main Line, or Allentown compared to EPSD or Parkland.
Secondly, you're right about cutting costs in terms of bussing and eliminating a 5th AP class. Except for two important facts. First, a child was struck by a car last year in front of Willow. I feel that if we eliminate buses and enforce the walking rule, it will only be a matter of time before something happens again because people drive like crazy or don't pay attention when they are driving. When this happens a second time and it is revealed that it was a cost-cutting initiative, press and lawyers will have a field day over it. Secondly, eliminating an AP class is completely counter-productive to education. As an AP student in high school, I can attest to the pure merit of the system. I feel that I was much better prepared for college and I feel that I did better because I was challenged beyond what on-level education could provide. I am not intending to sound like Johnny Democrat here, but I feel there are better things to complain about that are much more pertinent. These blogs have turned into a partisan circus and instead of coming up with well thought out arguments and respectful dialogue, some resort to name calling and extremism. It's shameful and it is unproductive.
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/allentown/index.ssf/2012/05/allentown_school_bus_for_stude.html With the bussing issue my take is very simple. Emmaus students walk. There should absolutely not be a double standard for boroughs and the suburbs. (I live in the suburbs) When I mentioned AP, I meant assistant principal. I absolutely agree about the partisan circus... http://lowermacungie.patch.com/blog_posts/george-washingtons-words-of-wisdom-in-seemingly-polarized-times
I think we have fantastic educators in EPSD, but I think the main driver of success is the parents. I believe the parents in EPSD don't get enough respect and acknowledgment, especially after hearing of the disparaging remarks made by Mr. Ballard and Mr. Earnshaw about Willow Lane parents. I don't think the correlation exists between low pay districts with a low tax base compared to high paying districts with a high tax base exists because of they pay. I think it exists because the parents in high tax base districts have more time to spend helping their children with homework and projects. If money solved everything Washington D.C. would be leading the nation in academics. According to the Census Bureau, D.C. spends over $29,000 per student, yet they are almost last in the nation academically.
I agree that it was a bit unfair to throw the accident out there. It was an easy argument however, I think that the real cause for the bussing problem is the stranglehold in which First Student has on EPSD. Last year we had no school because First Student failed to have contingency plans in place to deal with road closures. This control is not only bad for the education of students, but it is bad for the economic well-being of the district. The alternative, which would be purchasing the necessary equipment to bring transportation in house, would be a significant expense that would take years to recoup. Because of this, I feel it is lose/lose regardless because citizens will complain that transportation costs are too high but will not vote to bring transportation in house. It is unfortunately a cyclic battle. Giovanni, As the spouse of an educator who teaches at Willow Lane, I can attest to the faults of parents, but I can also attest to the merit of many. While we are blessed to have great parents, there are many who aren't. The main problem lies in the fact that standardized testing, as prescribed under No Child Left Behind, simply does not work. It ties the hands of educators and when you combine this with the percentage, however large or small, of parents who do not parent, you are guaranteed to have subpar results. However, when you state that the main driving force is parents, it almost sounds like you are touting the effect of someone who holds multiple...
We have an outstanding school district with above average results because we live in a middle to upper-middle class area and we pay middle to upper-middle class taxes. If you cannot see this direct correlation, then I am done arguing with you. Ron(again), I apologize for the AP confusion. I do however disagree with eliminating the fifth assistant principle. As I stated earlier, we do not have the luxury of living 20 to 30 years ago, or even 15 when crime in the area wasn't as rampant. This crime has unfortunately found its into our schools and assistant principals are the disciplinarians. If the population of East Penn is really interested in balancing our budget, maybe they should towards the charter school. The school has consistently performed well under standards and while it is not affiliated with East Penn, EPSD has to foot the $1.5M bill to operate it. I don't care what party you align with, that is terrible for this area.
More disturbing to me is that the board is allowing the resigning VP to leave just before the school year starts, leaving the position vacant (especially if it is so critical). The resignation letter attached to the agenda requested a waiver of a 60 day hold in the Administartors agreements so that (s)he could get going and start at the new place. Sure helps them, but not EPSD! By waiving the 60 -day notice in this case, are you setting a precedent?