Editor’s Note: An opinion piece was sent to the Voice by John Barton, PAUSD Board President, with the following cover letter:

Dear Editor,

On Thursday March 3 Diana Diamond, of the Palo Alto Daily News, wrote a column on teachers. The column was filled with inaccuracies and at least one very odd implication. In response I wrote a letter to the editor challenging some of those inaccuracies. It was submitted via e-mail on Tuesday March 8. On Friday of that week I was invited to expand that letter to guest editorial length. That submission was made on Sunday March 13. On Thursday March 17 a staff member of the Daily called me to say that there were some issues with my piece and that perhaps it would not run after all. Upon questioning it became apparent that the issues revolved around Ms. Diamond’s elevation to Editor-in-Chief of the Daily. The staff member apologized and stated that Ms. Diamond would call me. I provided him my cell phone number as Ms. Diamond already has my office and home numbers. She did not call. I called her on Friday and was told she was not available and left a message saying I hoped to speak with her.

On Sunday March 20 Ms. Diamond wrote a new editorial lamenting the letters she had received in response to her piece on March 3. In it she defends herself and stated her concern that those who wrote in response seemed unwilling to have a discussion about the troubles in the state’s school systems. I of course found this odd since discussion needs two voices – not one. Late on Sunday afternoon Ms. Diamond did call me back at my house. She stated that she had issues with my piece and that they centered around her position being misquoted or misinterpreted. I found this quite ironic given the Daily’s almost routine lack of accuracy. She offered to edit my piece and to send it back to me. Though having the author of one piece edit the rebuttal seemed odd I said I would review, though not necessarily accept, her edits.

This morning I received her edits and found them unacceptable. I formally withdrew the piece. But since I feel that our teachers were unfairly attacked I cannot simply let the matter go. Thus I provide you with my original guest editorial and hope you find it worthy of publication at the Voice. Perhaps you can initiate the discussion Ms. Diamond says she wants, though her actions clearly state otherwise.

Editor,

I found Diana Diamond’s column on teachers very troubling. While she is entitled to her own opinions about the School District she is not entitled to make up her own facts. In that column she argued that Palo Alto teachers are paid more than those in neighboring districts and that the Voluntary Transfer Program (VTP) could simply be ended. She also argued that the cost of teacher children attending our schools costs Palo Alto taxpayers $1.2 million dollars each year. And, lastly, she opined that we should pay our married teachers less.

Her "facts" are wrong, plain and simple. But of greater concern, her underlying assumptions make horrific public policy.

Over the past two years Palo Alto teachers have been given 0% on the salary schedule and they have had to pick up a greater portion of their health care benefits. Many are taking home less today than they
were two years ago. In fact we have now slipped below many neighboring districts in our pay scale. This is a matter of concern to my colleagues and me as it makes our district a less attractive place for
both new and experienced teachers.

That Ms. Diamond used data from two different years to support her position is disconcerting, but her underlying argument that our fine teachers should be paid at the average is very troubling. This community and board expect an excellent school system. Teachers are the heart of that excellence. While those who teach do not do so primarily for the money we recognize that those who seek excellence
must be willing to pay for it. If Ms. Diamond wants an average education for the next generation she has argued its foundation. However, I do not want to lead a district that aims for mediocrity. I want to lead to excellence. That requires paying our fine teachers as if they matter – and they do.

Despite its name the VTP is not "voluntary." The VTP, or Tinsley Decision, is a court ordered desegregation program involving several school districts over two counties. It has been in place for 20 years and it is a legal impossibility for the Board to unilaterally opt out. To end this program would take years of legal work by all of the districts involved. Even then it remains questionable, at least to me, whether it would be ended completely as it is irrational to conclude
that there is no racial or economic disparity between the Ravenswood District and the other districts in the program. But, more importantly, our VTP students are a part of our community and we do
not make children expendable in the budget process.

Because Palo Alto Unified is a Basic Aid District we receive no additional dollars for new students. Thus, with a few exceptions including the VTP students and children of teachers, we do not enroll
students who live outside the district. Several years ago, concerned about cost, we required that teachers work at least 80% time to claim this benefit. At that time we also directed staff to end Allen Bill transfers – students of employees working for Palo Alto businesses that do not live in the District. The cost to the district of a new student is about $5,000/year. We have about 101 teacher children in our district with a cost of $505,000 per year – not $1.2 million.

Finally I was stunned by Ms. Diamond’s apparent feeling that we should pay married teachers less because they may have another income from their spouse. This nineteenth century idea is silly. The argument that 21st century public policy should be marriage-based is ludicrous, illegal, and a waste of time.

Times are hard for local agencies, local families, and local businesses. But we must cease to blame public employees for the woes of the economy. It is counterproductive and makes for poor public policy. When we allow ourselves to be drawn into "blame that group" politics we expend precious public capital that should be used to develop real solutions. The state’s school districts have challenges but they are not the fault of teachers or teacher pay any more than the problems in Iraq are the fault of soldiers or soldier pay.

Our challenges lie in chronic under-funding and over regulation. Those of us who struggle everyday to educate the next generation resent those who comment from ignorance and pass it off as knowledge.

John Barton

When it comes to the subject of money and the Palo Alto School District, taxpayers may find some rather interesting statistics below, particularly involving the pay and the many perks some teachers receive.

For example, school district employees — faculty and staff — are allowed to have their own children attend Palo Alto schools even if they do not live here. The district has 116 students who fall under this "employee privilege." The cost to Palo Alto School District taxpayers is approximately $1.2 million.

The district spends $10,300 a year for each student in Palo Alto. So, in effect, we are giving the teachers and employees who don’t live in the district a $10,300 tuition-per-child perk because we let their kids attend our schools for free. School officials say this is a benefit to the district and a cost-savings in the long run. "It helps us to attract and retain teachers and staff," said school board member Cathy Kroymann.

Perhaps. Yet the district seems a bit fixated on attracting and retaining teachers. It gets about 10 applicants for each job. And while four years ago during the dot-com boom, the district’s teacher retention rate was 63 percent, it is now up to 89 percent, according to school board member Mandy Lowell. Teachers get good salaries, free health and dental benefits and a good pension program, so why would they leave and why is the district worried? Plus we have bright kids in Palo Alto, which most teachers view as a benefit.

The Tinsley decision

Palo Alto School District has 557 students from the Ravenswood School District who attend by a court-ordered arrangement that dates back to 1979. That "Tinsley Decision" required this and other area districts to admit Ravenswood kids for a complete kindergarten-through-12th grade education. The decision classified Ravenswood as a racially segregated district and said that as a result there is unequal education, so the court ordered this "voluntary transfer program" — voluntary for the students, not for the district. Palo Alto schools must accept 600 students (students who drop out or move do not have to be replaced). The district gets $3,500 per student in return. But Palo Alto spends approximately $10,300 per student, so it is "subsidizing" these students by about $6,800 apiece for a total of $3.7 million a year.

I happened to think this is money well spent. But it may be time to review the formula since $3,500 is not that much, especially since East Palo Alto is now getting more tax dollars. And we should all be aware of these expenditures because if I add the $3.7 million to the $1.2 million figure, that comes to a significant $4.9 million expenditure for students who do not live in the district. And their parents pay no Palo Alto school taxes. The district, by the way, has always been very open about these numbers.

‘Step’ increases going up

Then there’s the entire salary issue. The average salary we pay teachers in Palo Alto is $73,789, although a number of teachers who have been in the district earn well over $90,000. These figures do not include health, dental and vision insurance, which the district pays for, nor does it include retirement pensions, which the state provides to all teachers. Teachers get paid for the 186 days a year they work. Teachers complain that they have had no across-the-board salary increases the past two years, but approximately 50 percent of them have had "step" increases -— and higher paychecks, according to Lowell.

While Palo Alto salaries are slightly higher than neighboring districts (see chart), the teachers in top-performing districts all are paid quite well. Then there’s the two-income per family issue. According to Palo Alto School District’s former business director, Robert Golton, the school district last year had 150 male and 592 female teachers. The district has no statistics on how many of them are married, but we can presume that at least half are, with a four-to-one female-to-male ratio, we can also presume that there are double incomes in many of the households, since most men do work.

Rankings

Finally, while California is ranked near the bottom in student test scores, the state is 25th in per-pupil spending for the current K-12 operations, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, part of the U.S. Department of Education. It is No. 1 in teacher salaries nationwide — the U.S. average is $45,810 while the California average is $56,283 (2002-03).

Arnold’s on the right track.

This week Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger launched his drive "to go to the people" to get major changes enacted in this state. He’s on the right track — especially involving teacher tenure. Instead of being awarded lifetime tenure during the second year on the job, Schwarzenegger is proposing teachers receive tenure after five years on the job. And he is asking that districts be allowed to fire teachers more easily, presumably for poor performance or inability to teach. Lowell has said that if the teacher files an objection, the "firing" can cost a district a much as $500,000 in legal fees. That certainly makes dismissal a very expensive proposition that most districts would want to avoid.

Layoffs

Even layoffs can become difficult. Union rules say length of employment is a trump suit. So, hypothetically, if the district wants to cut back on a kindergarten class, that teacher, who may have worked in the district three years, can insist that a fourth grade teacher who has worked only two years be laid off instead. The kindergarten teacher can then teach fourth grade. This is called "bumping." It has nothing to do with teacher performance or abilities; it is discretionary and it is irrational.

As to tenure, right now teachers get tenure in March of their second year in a district — after only 16 months of teaching. That’s pretty ridiculous. Teachers are still on a learning curve their second year on the job, since schools of education around the country do not always have grade-specific preparation.

As Michael Kirst, professor of education at Stanford’s School of Education, has said, "Teacher training is brief and broad — we train teachers at the graduate level for a year in everything. We spend 11 weeks in teaching reading, audio-visual, teaching kindergarten and teaching high school. We don’t know where the teachers will end up so we teach for everything. It is not very adequate — it is too broad." Kirst advocates that the newer teachers receive coaching in the classroom by more experienced teachers. He also urges more intensive on-the-job teacher training.

So Schwarzenegger’s proposed tenure after five years makes sense. Teachers should not complain. They should feel lucky. After all, lifetime job tenure is a perk few of the rest of us ever get.