Shouldn’t we but administrators’ pay before we cut teachers’ wages?
“More than 3,000 educators in Orange County were notified last month they could be out of a job in June, and programs ranging from music to sports to counseling have been put on the chopping block as local schools face a combined $287 million budget shortfall,” according to the O.C. Register.
In the face of this financial disaster, some are calling for teachers’ wages to be cut. Here are three examples given by the O.C. Register:
- The Orange Unified School District is exploring a plan to slash all employees’ pay by 3.75 percent to help eliminate a $30.1 million budget deficit.
- Mission Viejo city leaders want all Saddleback Valley Unified employees to take a 4 percent pay cut to save a beloved elementary school from closing.
- And Capistrano Unified’s school board is clashing with employee unions over a proposed 10 percent across-the-board cut.
But what about the administrators? They make a lot more than the teachers do. In Santa Ana, the Superintendent of the SAUSD makes over $250,000 a year! Why not start by cutting overpaid administrators’ wages?
And what about the millions that many school districts spend on overpaid consultants?
“With an average base pay of $74,528 annually, Orange County teachers have a higher average salary than the average of any U.S. state, including California, according to an Orange County Register analysis of 2007-08 salary data,” according to the O.C. Register.
That may be true, but Orange County has one of the highest costs of living in the entire state of California! Teachers are not getting rich at these salaries and many of them spent thousands on advanced degrees that they are still paying for.
The Register had to concede that point, “Average teacher salaries in Orange County – ranked the sixth-most expensive place in the United States – plunge to 20th in the nation, with average buying power at $49,226 annually. California’s average salaries drop to 30th in the nation, with average buying power at $47,163.”
Art, I think it is a good Idea for Everybody to get a paycut/ layoff/ Share the pain etc! Do you know id these are REAL CUTS? or the BS where they reduce the rate of growth? It makes me sick to know how many inthe government think if they get 75K this year, are supposed to get a raise to 77K next year, and due to the econmy they only get a RAISE to 76K that is somehow a “CUT”
I fully agree that everyone has to look at the possibility of taking a hit in this economy. The problem in SAUSD is that they already played that card a few years ago, and the certificated employees took the hit for a few years. While others were enjoying pay increases, we took a 4% cut for 2 years and relatively nothing since then. Keep in mind that when you ask teachers in SA to take a pay cut, they already have. Accepting no increases for the last two years after 2 years of pay cuts is essentially the same as a pay cut relative to other districts.
It may come to a vote of the employee’s, should they take a pay cut of 10 to 15 percent. Or a layoff of 20 to 25 percent?
Layoff percent is always higher cause the cheapest are the targets first.
In Santa Ana, our current certificated ratified contract which is up for vote to be completed by April 24th calls for no decrease in pay. Of course, benefits will be reduced and costs will increase, so that is a pay cut of sorts. I believe many other districts will see a percent pay reduction, but like I said, we already did that.
Tmare its amazing what a selective memory you have! Yes we did take a 4% pay cut for two years but on the third year we got full restoration which included restoring the 4% to the salary schedule plus full COLAs for those two year, a 13.4%. In addition, that year we got a 5% salary increase. I would not call an 18.4% “relatively nothing”!
Hey , teacher, ever take an econ class? Inflation and market bubbles in real estate, start with those. No wonder the schools are so pathetic.
Let’s see 58 Counties in California.
999 School districts. That means 999 Super’s, Assistant Super’s aides and staff. Eliminate 1/3 of these and there you go.
BTW – Elimination of salaries is the ONLY way to balance the education budget.
I don’t consider the oversight of Bonds or the hiring/retaining of consultants and legal help as being transparent on the district’s website. Is there a way to obtain this information?
Other large districts will have similar problems posed in SAUSD decisions. This article on LAUSD caught my attention and I think it is worth finding out how SAUSD spends their “hidden” monies on folks that are not even regular employees:
AUDIT: LAUSD MUST CUT SPENDING ON CONSULTANTS
The audit by Inspector General Jerry Thornton found that consultants had taken over much of the day-to-day running of the building program and that there were no policies “limiting the types of functions consultants may perform.”
Focusing on the 2006-07 school year, the audit said district officials could have saved $77 million that year had they used their own employees rather than consultants.
To take back more control of the program, the audit says district officials should remove consultants from senior-level management positions and replace them with district employees.
The audit tallied the number of consultants employed in LAUSD’s Facilities Services Division, which oversees the building program; their total cost; and the cost of using consultants versus employees. A review of consultant and contractor policies also was included.
The audit was sharply criticized by Greg Garcia, director of facilities contracts.
“The current program is widely regarded as one of the most successful public works programs in the nation,” Garcia wrote.
Chief Facilities Executive Guy Mehula declined to comment on the audit.
Thornton’s audit also recommends that the district:
Ensure consultants meet minimum requirements, such as a college degree and previous work experience.
Prevent conflict of interest in consultants approving time cards for other consultants.
Prevent consultants from supervising other consultants from the same firm.
Require consultants to clearly identify themselves so as not to be confused with district employees.
Properly document project management hiring, evaluation and promotion.
“This raises many questions and concerns about who is being held to account for the use of public dollars in the most responsive way,” said Board of Education member Yolie Flores Aguilar, who chairs the facilities committee.
“I’ve been asking these questions for a year and it took an I.G. (Inspector General) report to get clear answers.”
Flores Aguilar and other board members will be briefed in closed session today about the report and reorganization plans.
On average, consultants earned 70percent more than LAUSD employees in the same position in the 2006-07 school year. During that period, 1,277 consultants were employed at a cost of $186million.
Consultants are paid with money from the district’s $27billion bond program.
The audit said 84 percent of consultants have worked for the district for more than two years and 16percent for more than five years. For years, LAUSD has justified its heavy reliance on consultants in the building program because it lacked expertise, and the district did not offer wages competitive with the private sector.
But after 12 years of school- building, top officials say it’s to time rethink the dependence on contractors.
Superintendent Ramon Cortines said the majority of construction funds should now be going to repair and maintenance, reducing the need for construction consultants.