From the BCCT
Pa. Right-to-Know law contains 30 exceptions
By The Associated Press
The Associated Press
Pennsylvania's new Right-to-Know Law contains exceptions for 30 categories of records. Most do not apply to financial records or aggregated data, such as spreadsheets and databases. A summary of the exceptions:
1. LOSS OF FUNDS/PERSONAL SECURITY: Records that, if disclosed, would result in the loss of federal or state funds. Also, records whose release would be reasonably likely to result in substantial and demonstrable risk of physical harm to a person or to his or her personal security.
2. PUBLIC SAFETY: Records that, if disclosed, would be reasonably likely to jeopardize homeland security or public safety or preparedness.
3. INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY: Records that, if disclosed, would be reasonably likely to endanger the safety or security of a building, public utility, infrastructure or information storage system.
4. COMPUTER SECURITY: Records that, if disclosed, would be reasonably likely to jeopardize computer security.
5. HEALTH RECORDS: Medical, psychological and related records that contain individually identifiable health information.
6. PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION: Records containing all or part of a person's Social Security number; driver's license number, personal financial information; home, cellular or personal telephone numbers; personal e-mail addresses; employee numbers or other confidential personal identification numbers; a spouse's name, marital status, beneficiary or dependent information. Also, records containing home addresses of law-enforcement officers and judges.
7. PERSONNEL RECORDS: Letters of reference or recommendation, unless they involve an appointment to fill a vacancy in an elected office or an appointed office that requires confirmation by the state Senate.
Also, performance ratings or reviews; academic transcripts; state civil-service test results and certain local test results; applications of job applicants who are not hired; workplace support services information; written criticism about a public employee; grievance material; information about discipline, demotion or discharge contained in a personnel file, unless it involves final action by an agency that results in demotion or discharge.
8. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: Records related to collective-bargaining strategy or negotiations, and exhibits and transcripts in arbitration cases involving collective-bargaining disputes or grievances. Final contracts and arbitration awards are public.
9. DRAFTS: Drafts of bills, resolutions, regulations, policies, management directives and ordinances.
10. DELIBERATIONS: Records reflecting internal, predecisional deliberations of agencies, such as a budget recommendation, a legislative proposal or the strategy for winning approval of such proposals.
(Records requesting state funding or grants or the results of public-opinion polls are public. Also public are documents that are presented to a quorum of a public board for deliberation , such as the packets board members routinely receive , so long as they are not otherwise exempt under the law.)
11. TRADE SECRETS: Records that reveal trade secrets or other confidential proprietary information.
12. WORKING PAPERS: Notes and working papers used by a public official or employee strictly for personal use, such as message or routing slips.
13. DONATIONS: Records revealing the identity of a person who makes a donation to an agency, unless the donation is intended to provide remuneration or other tangible benefit to a public official or employee.
14. UNPUBLISHED ACADEMIC PAPERS: Unpublished lecture notes, manuscripts, articles, creative works, research material and scholarly correspondence related to a community college or state-owned university.
15. ACADEMIC TRANSCRIPTS: Academic transcripts; examinations; examination questions and answers; and examination scoring keys used by schools and licensing agencies.
16. CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE RECORDS: Records related to or resulting in a criminal investigation. (Police blotters, private criminal complaints and traffic reports are public.)
17. NON-CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE RECORDS: Records related to non-criminal investigations, including complaints submitted to agencies, work papers underlying an audit and records that reveal the identities of confidential sources. (Records of civil fines or penalties, settlement agreements, license revocations or similar decisional documents are public.)
18. 911 CALLS: Recordings and transcripts of 911 calls, although an agency or court may release these if deemed to be in the public's interest. Time-response logs are public.
19. DNA & RNA: Records containing DNA & RNA information.
20. AUTOPSIES: Contents of autopsy report, except for the victim's name, cause of death and manner of death.
21. MINUTES: Draft minutes of any public meeting until the next scheduled meeting of the agency. Any records of private, executive-session discussions.
22. APPRAISALS & REVIEWS: Records involving real-estate appraisals, engineering estimates, environmental reviews, audits and other evaluations involving a potential agency lease, acquisition or disposal of real property. Exception ends when a final decision is made.
23. LIBRARY & ARCHIVE USERS: The circulation and order records of an identifiable individual or group.
24. LIBRARY & MUSEUM DONORS: Rare books, documents and other materials contributed by gifts, grants or bequests to the extent imposed as a condition by the donor.
25. ENDANGERED SITES & SPECIES: Records identifying the location of an archaeological site or endangered plant or animal species not already known to the public.
26. CONTRACT BIDS: Proposals for the procurement or disposal of supplies, services or construction before the award of a contract or the opening and rejection of all bids. Also, certain financial information about the bidders.
27. INSURANCE: Records of communication between an agency and its insurance carrier, administration service organization or risk-management office. (Contracts between agencies and these entities are public.)
28. SOCIAL SERVICES: Records identifying people who apply for or receive social services, or disclosing the services they receive and other personal information.
29. CONSTITUENTS: Correspondence between state legislators and their constituents, and accompanying records that identify constituents who request assistance or other services. (Correspondence between lawmakers and lobbyists is public.)
30. MINORS: Records containing the name, home address or date of birth of child who is 17 or younger.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Right to Know Q and A
From the BCCT
How to file a Right-to-Know request under Pa. law
By The Associated Press
The Associated Press
Common questions and answers about how to file a request under Pennsylvania's new Right-to-Know Law:
Q: How do I request a record from a local, county or state agency?
A: You may make the request in person, by mail, fax or e-mail. You may make the request verbally, but to preserve your right to appeal a negative decision, you must put it in writing.
A standard request form can be downloaded from the state Office of Open Records Web site , http://openrecords.state.pa.us , and printed. Local agencies may use their own forms, but also must accept this one.
Your request must be specific enough for the agency to understand what record you want. Officials may need to ask you questions to fulfill your request, but the law bars them from requiring you to explain why you want the record.
Q: How soon can I expect a response?
A: Agencies are required to respond promptly within five business days. They may grant or deny your request in that time, or under certain circumstances , if a request is extensive, for example, or a record contains nonpublic information that must be blacked out, or redacted , may advise you that it will take as much as 30 additional days to produce the records.
Q: How far back in time may I go in requesting records?
A: All records in the possession of an agency are covered by the law, no matter how old they are.
Q: Will I have to pay anything for these records?
A: Under a fee schedule established by the state Office of Open Records, agencies may charge as much as 25 cents per page for photocopying. The fee schedule bars additional charges for the cost of retrieving or redacting records, although they may charge you the actual cost of reproducing blueprints and certain other specialized documents.
Q: Can agencies require me to pay in advance?
A: Only if the total bill is expected to exceed $100.
Q: What if my request is turned down or ignored?
If the agency fails to respond in five business days, your request is deemed denied. In that event, or if the agency denies the request within the period, you have 15 business days to file an appeal to the Office of Open Records.
Judicial agencies, ranging from district judges to the state Supreme Court; legislative agencies; the statewide row offices (attorney general, auditor general and treasurer) are allowed to designate their own appeals officers in place of the Office of Open Records. District attorneys may appoint officers to hear appeals related to criminal investigative records of local agencies.
Further appeals may be pursued in court by either side. Appeals involving state agency denials would be filed in Commonwealth Court, and appeals involving local agencies would be filed in county common-pleas court.
Q: What are the penalties for violating the Right-to-Know Law?
A: Public agencies found by a court to have denied access to records in bad faith face a civil fine of as much as $1,500. Agencies or officials that do not promptly comply with a court order can be fined as much as $500 a day until the records are provided.
How to file a Right-to-Know request under Pa. law
By The Associated Press
The Associated Press
Common questions and answers about how to file a request under Pennsylvania's new Right-to-Know Law:
Q: How do I request a record from a local, county or state agency?
A: You may make the request in person, by mail, fax or e-mail. You may make the request verbally, but to preserve your right to appeal a negative decision, you must put it in writing.
A standard request form can be downloaded from the state Office of Open Records Web site , http://openrecords.state.pa.us , and printed. Local agencies may use their own forms, but also must accept this one.
Your request must be specific enough for the agency to understand what record you want. Officials may need to ask you questions to fulfill your request, but the law bars them from requiring you to explain why you want the record.
Q: How soon can I expect a response?
A: Agencies are required to respond promptly within five business days. They may grant or deny your request in that time, or under certain circumstances , if a request is extensive, for example, or a record contains nonpublic information that must be blacked out, or redacted , may advise you that it will take as much as 30 additional days to produce the records.
Q: How far back in time may I go in requesting records?
A: All records in the possession of an agency are covered by the law, no matter how old they are.
Q: Will I have to pay anything for these records?
A: Under a fee schedule established by the state Office of Open Records, agencies may charge as much as 25 cents per page for photocopying. The fee schedule bars additional charges for the cost of retrieving or redacting records, although they may charge you the actual cost of reproducing blueprints and certain other specialized documents.
Q: Can agencies require me to pay in advance?
A: Only if the total bill is expected to exceed $100.
Q: What if my request is turned down or ignored?
If the agency fails to respond in five business days, your request is deemed denied. In that event, or if the agency denies the request within the period, you have 15 business days to file an appeal to the Office of Open Records.
Judicial agencies, ranging from district judges to the state Supreme Court; legislative agencies; the statewide row offices (attorney general, auditor general and treasurer) are allowed to designate their own appeals officers in place of the Office of Open Records. District attorneys may appoint officers to hear appeals related to criminal investigative records of local agencies.
Further appeals may be pursued in court by either side. Appeals involving state agency denials would be filed in Commonwealth Court, and appeals involving local agencies would be filed in county common-pleas court.
Q: What are the penalties for violating the Right-to-Know Law?
A: Public agencies found by a court to have denied access to records in bad faith face a civil fine of as much as $1,500. Agencies or officials that do not promptly comply with a court order can be fined as much as $500 a day until the records are provided.
Bristol's $34M School Opening Soon
While Reiter is shuttered, and Grandview and the high school are serving temporary duty, lets think about "what if"...
$34M school expected to be completed by spring
Posted in News on Tuesday, December 23rd, 2008 at 4:17 pm by Joan Hellyer
The price tag for Bristol’s new pre-kindergarten through eighth-grade school is pushing $34 million thanks to a 2007 soil remediation delay, change orders and contractor claims, officials said.
That’s almost $4 million more than originally estimated when construction got underway in late 2006, and about $800,000 more than the most previous estimate on the project. The school board plans to use bond money and about $1.7 million from the district’s capital reserve fund to cover all the expenses, said Joseph Roe, Bristol’s business manager.
The building, located at 450 Beaver Street adjacent to Warren Snyder-John Girotti Elementary School, is designed to serve approximately 1,110 students, district officials said.
It was supposed to open in September, but various delays, including the removal of about 2,000 tons of urban fill last year, have forced officials to push its scheduled opening to Sept. 2009.
Construction on the expansive, two-story brick building with a red and gray color scheme is about 80 percent complete, said Angelo Rago, the district’s project representative, during a tour of the school last week.
The building’s roof, structural supports, and heating and cooling systems are in place. Crews are now working on the school’s interior. The project should be finished by the spring, Rago said.
The school includes about 70 classrooms spread across a couple different floors and wings to separate the different age groups of the students, he said. The early learning center is positioned on the west side of the building and includes a separate entrance for pre-kindergarten and kindergarten students.
The first floor of the classroom wing on the building’s east side will be for first- through fifth-grade students and the wing’s second floor will be for middle school-aged students, said Rago and Snyder-Girotti Principal Rosemary Parmigiani during the tour. Special education classes will be spread throughout the building.
The school includes a cafeteria, gymnasium and auditorium, and not just one space for all three, as is the case at the old Snyder-Girotti.
“Now we’ll be able to have three events going on at the same time,” Parmigiani said. “It’s something we didn’t have before.”
The school also includes a family and consumer science room and a state-of-the-art media center and library.
Along the tour, Principal Parmigiani, Rago, and John D’Angelo, the school board’s vice president, repeatedly pointed out areas designated for storage. “That’s because we don’t have any room now,” Parmigiani said.
At this point in the project, district officials don’t foresee any major problems developing, D’Angelo said.
“But we remain vigilant, because we want to stay on top of the [project’s] expenses,” he said.
$34M school expected to be completed by spring
Posted in News on Tuesday, December 23rd, 2008 at 4:17 pm by Joan Hellyer
The price tag for Bristol’s new pre-kindergarten through eighth-grade school is pushing $34 million thanks to a 2007 soil remediation delay, change orders and contractor claims, officials said.That’s almost $4 million more than originally estimated when construction got underway in late 2006, and about $800,000 more than the most previous estimate on the project. The school board plans to use bond money and about $1.7 million from the district’s capital reserve fund to cover all the expenses, said Joseph Roe, Bristol’s business manager.
The building, located at 450 Beaver Street adjacent to Warren Snyder-John Girotti Elementary School, is designed to serve approximately 1,110 students, district officials said.
It was supposed to open in September, but various delays, including the removal of about 2,000 tons of urban fill last year, have forced officials to push its scheduled opening to Sept. 2009.
Construction on the expansive, two-story brick building with a red and gray color scheme is about 80 percent complete, said Angelo Rago, the district’s project representative, during a tour of the school last week.
The building’s roof, structural supports, and heating and cooling systems are in place. Crews are now working on the school’s interior. The project should be finished by the spring, Rago said.
The school includes about 70 classrooms spread across a couple different floors and wings to separate the different age groups of the students, he said. The early learning center is positioned on the west side of the building and includes a separate entrance for pre-kindergarten and kindergarten students.
The first floor of the classroom wing on the building’s east side will be for first- through fifth-grade students and the wing’s second floor will be for middle school-aged students, said Rago and Snyder-Girotti Principal Rosemary Parmigiani during the tour. Special education classes will be spread throughout the building.
The school includes a cafeteria, gymnasium and auditorium, and not just one space for all three, as is the case at the old Snyder-Girotti.
“Now we’ll be able to have three events going on at the same time,” Parmigiani said. “It’s something we didn’t have before.”
The school also includes a family and consumer science room and a state-of-the-art media center and library.
Along the tour, Principal Parmigiani, Rago, and John D’Angelo, the school board’s vice president, repeatedly pointed out areas designated for storage. “That’s because we don’t have any room now,” Parmigiani said.
At this point in the project, district officials don’t foresee any major problems developing, D’Angelo said.
“But we remain vigilant, because we want to stay on top of the [project’s] expenses,” he said.
Right to Know, Part III
From the BCCT.
Private business under scrutiny
By MARK SCOLFORO
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Part 3 of 5/Read Part 4 Friday
HARRISBURG — Private businesses that do business with state and local governments in Pennsylvania are about to find themselves having to make some records available to the public.
But there are signs that many of those contractors are unaware of the provision in the new Right-to-Know Law, and experts are debating just how it will apply — a dispute that may end up being resolved by the courts.
One such group consists of the hundreds of school bus contractors, who provide about 85 percent of student transportation for the state’s 501 school districts.
Pennsylvania School Bus Association Executive Director Selina Pittenger said she hasn’t fielded questions from members about the new law.
“They’re probably thinking, ‘We’ve already been under the microscope,’ ” Pittenger said.
Terry Mutchler, director of the state Office of Open Records, said there’s a “very solid legal question” as to whether, for example, the resume of a school bus contractor’s driver would be a public record.
“If you have a bus driver that’s fired for child molestation or whatever criminal act it is, I think that there is a very strong public policy argument that the public should be made aware,” Mutchler said. “The reality is, we’re going to see a lot of litigation over very astute questions just like that.”
Major state agencies and officials with Pennsylvania townships and boroughs also said the contractor issue has barely registered on their radar screens, although that may change once the new law takes effect next month.
For county governments, the most significant third-party contracts likely to be affected involve nursing homes, mental health services and similar functions, said Doug Hill, executive director of the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania.
The trade group is advising county governments to review their existing contracts to see if they need to be revised in light of the additional reporting duties the new law requires, Hill said.
A lawyer for the Pennsylvania School Boards Association who has researched the issue argues there may be very few — if any — documents that fit the new law.
It lets anyone obtain contractor records directly related to a governmental function the contractor has performed for a state or local agency. The records would be obtained through the agency, not directly from the contractor.
PSBA lawyer Emily Leader said the problem is that the law doesn’t define “government function.” She believes, for example, that a paving company filling potholes on a township road or a bus company driving students to school wouldn’t necessarily fit the bill.
Governments are restricted by the state Constitution in what powers they can delegate, Leader said.
The state Supreme Court, in a 2003 decision, grappled with the relationship between a governmental body and an outside vendor. In that case, the justices ordered that the records be made public.
Even though the Westmoreland County Housing Authority allowed its insurer to completely handle the legal defense and negotiate terms of a confidential settlement in a federal gender discrimination lawsuit, it lost the case and had to give the Tribune-Review Publishing Co. a copy of a settlement agreement.
Clouding the issue is a 1997 state Supreme Court decision that said Millersville and West Chester universities, while state agencies subject to the Right-to-Know Law, didn’t have to provide a textbook seller with a list of course material. The state’s high court reasoned that the universities had no part in ordering or selling textbooks and did not solicit, compile or retain information on course materials.
Leader believes it’s significant that the new law refers to governmental functions rather than simply contracts. She considers it unbroken legal ground that the courts might have to plow.
Pennsylvania Newspaper Association lawyer Teri Henning, on the other hand, believes the intent of the law is straightforward.
Determining what qualifies, she said, involves looking at what role the contractor is playing, how it relates to the operations of government and whether it has previously been performed by governments.
“A lot of government functions are being outsourced by government agencies,” Henning said. “They are certainly entitled to do that if it makes more sense from an economic or efficiency standpoint. But it should not mean these records should be shielded from public view.”
Private business under scrutiny
By MARK SCOLFORO
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Part 3 of 5/Read Part 4 Friday
HARRISBURG — Private businesses that do business with state and local governments in Pennsylvania are about to find themselves having to make some records available to the public.
But there are signs that many of those contractors are unaware of the provision in the new Right-to-Know Law, and experts are debating just how it will apply — a dispute that may end up being resolved by the courts.
One such group consists of the hundreds of school bus contractors, who provide about 85 percent of student transportation for the state’s 501 school districts.
Pennsylvania School Bus Association Executive Director Selina Pittenger said she hasn’t fielded questions from members about the new law.
“They’re probably thinking, ‘We’ve already been under the microscope,’ ” Pittenger said.
Terry Mutchler, director of the state Office of Open Records, said there’s a “very solid legal question” as to whether, for example, the resume of a school bus contractor’s driver would be a public record.
“If you have a bus driver that’s fired for child molestation or whatever criminal act it is, I think that there is a very strong public policy argument that the public should be made aware,” Mutchler said. “The reality is, we’re going to see a lot of litigation over very astute questions just like that.”
Major state agencies and officials with Pennsylvania townships and boroughs also said the contractor issue has barely registered on their radar screens, although that may change once the new law takes effect next month.
For county governments, the most significant third-party contracts likely to be affected involve nursing homes, mental health services and similar functions, said Doug Hill, executive director of the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania.
The trade group is advising county governments to review their existing contracts to see if they need to be revised in light of the additional reporting duties the new law requires, Hill said.
A lawyer for the Pennsylvania School Boards Association who has researched the issue argues there may be very few — if any — documents that fit the new law.
It lets anyone obtain contractor records directly related to a governmental function the contractor has performed for a state or local agency. The records would be obtained through the agency, not directly from the contractor.
PSBA lawyer Emily Leader said the problem is that the law doesn’t define “government function.” She believes, for example, that a paving company filling potholes on a township road or a bus company driving students to school wouldn’t necessarily fit the bill.
Governments are restricted by the state Constitution in what powers they can delegate, Leader said.
The state Supreme Court, in a 2003 decision, grappled with the relationship between a governmental body and an outside vendor. In that case, the justices ordered that the records be made public.
Even though the Westmoreland County Housing Authority allowed its insurer to completely handle the legal defense and negotiate terms of a confidential settlement in a federal gender discrimination lawsuit, it lost the case and had to give the Tribune-Review Publishing Co. a copy of a settlement agreement.
Clouding the issue is a 1997 state Supreme Court decision that said Millersville and West Chester universities, while state agencies subject to the Right-to-Know Law, didn’t have to provide a textbook seller with a list of course material. The state’s high court reasoned that the universities had no part in ordering or selling textbooks and did not solicit, compile or retain information on course materials.
Leader believes it’s significant that the new law refers to governmental functions rather than simply contracts. She considers it unbroken legal ground that the courts might have to plow.
Pennsylvania Newspaper Association lawyer Teri Henning, on the other hand, believes the intent of the law is straightforward.
Determining what qualifies, she said, involves looking at what role the contractor is playing, how it relates to the operations of government and whether it has previously been performed by governments.
“A lot of government functions are being outsourced by government agencies,” Henning said. “They are certainly entitled to do that if it makes more sense from an economic or efficiency standpoint. But it should not mean these records should be shielded from public view.”
Souderton Update
From the BCCT.
Battle fought over teacher pay
By RICH PIETRAS
Staff Writer
Practically everyone living in the Souderton Area School District got an unexpected — and unwanted — course in “Contract Negotiations 101” when teachers went on strike at the beginning of the school year.
Teachers returned to classes Sept. 19, but there is still no contract and teachers could strike again come spring.
At the crux of the debate has been salary and benefits — the school district has offered a three-year contract with pay raises averaging 2.5 percent, while the union wants a four-year pact with raises averaging 8.2 percent.
And if the request from the union didn’t raise eyebrows in September, it most certainly has during the economy’s scary slide. Jeffery Sultanik, the school board’s solicitor and chief negotiator, said the entire process has been disappointing.
“Obviously whenever there is a cessation in public services, the taxpayers who pay for the services, the school district, and especially the students suffer. Clearly the district is not pleased over this situation,’’ he said. “But we also remained baffled as to why the teachers have refused to move one inch on their salary demands, particularly in what has been characterized as the worst economic environment since the Great Depression. You don’t get a lot of people getting 8.2 percent increases.”
The teachers union points out that Souderton teachers’ starting salaries are the lowest in Montgomery County. The school board has argued it does not have the commercial tax base other areas enjoy, thus making comparing salaries difficult. Bill Lukridge, president of the union, said that while it has always considered the state of the economy, there are other factors to consider.
“The real issue is the amount of teachers we are losing … 20 teachers have left the district since the beginning of June for better pay. We know the economy isn’t the best, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay teachers fairly,” Lukridge said.
Lukridge also pointed to the new Souder Hill Towne Center proposed for what is now Souderton Area High School.
According to Lukridge, an economic survey of the area was completed for the nearly $66 million project and showed that residents who live within a mile of it have an average household income of $70,000. The average Souderton teacher salary is $61,600, which is $3,000 lower than the average teacher in Montgomery County.
“A 2.5 percent average increase will only keep them at the bottom for years to come and prevent us from keeping, as well as attracting, good teachers,” Lukridge said.
One of the few areas both sides have agreed upon is the low ranking of Souderton teachers’ starting salaries. At just over $37,000, they rank the lowest in the county. The school board has offered to increase them to just over $40,000.
Currently, both sides’ proposals are being reviewed by an arbitration panel, which has been reviewing data including public comments, since October. After a decision is rendered by the panel, both sides take it to a vote. But if either sides reject’s the final recommendation, the teachers could go back on strike in the spring for about a week.
“We’re hoping something happens soon after the holiday,” Lukridge said. “My goodness, we have been waiting since September.”
Battle fought over teacher pay
By RICH PIETRAS
Staff Writer
Practically everyone living in the Souderton Area School District got an unexpected — and unwanted — course in “Contract Negotiations 101” when teachers went on strike at the beginning of the school year.
Teachers returned to classes Sept. 19, but there is still no contract and teachers could strike again come spring.
At the crux of the debate has been salary and benefits — the school district has offered a three-year contract with pay raises averaging 2.5 percent, while the union wants a four-year pact with raises averaging 8.2 percent.
And if the request from the union didn’t raise eyebrows in September, it most certainly has during the economy’s scary slide. Jeffery Sultanik, the school board’s solicitor and chief negotiator, said the entire process has been disappointing.
“Obviously whenever there is a cessation in public services, the taxpayers who pay for the services, the school district, and especially the students suffer. Clearly the district is not pleased over this situation,’’ he said. “But we also remained baffled as to why the teachers have refused to move one inch on their salary demands, particularly in what has been characterized as the worst economic environment since the Great Depression. You don’t get a lot of people getting 8.2 percent increases.”
The teachers union points out that Souderton teachers’ starting salaries are the lowest in Montgomery County. The school board has argued it does not have the commercial tax base other areas enjoy, thus making comparing salaries difficult. Bill Lukridge, president of the union, said that while it has always considered the state of the economy, there are other factors to consider.
“The real issue is the amount of teachers we are losing … 20 teachers have left the district since the beginning of June for better pay. We know the economy isn’t the best, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay teachers fairly,” Lukridge said.
Lukridge also pointed to the new Souder Hill Towne Center proposed for what is now Souderton Area High School.
According to Lukridge, an economic survey of the area was completed for the nearly $66 million project and showed that residents who live within a mile of it have an average household income of $70,000. The average Souderton teacher salary is $61,600, which is $3,000 lower than the average teacher in Montgomery County.
“A 2.5 percent average increase will only keep them at the bottom for years to come and prevent us from keeping, as well as attracting, good teachers,” Lukridge said.
One of the few areas both sides have agreed upon is the low ranking of Souderton teachers’ starting salaries. At just over $37,000, they rank the lowest in the county. The school board has offered to increase them to just over $40,000.
Currently, both sides’ proposals are being reviewed by an arbitration panel, which has been reviewing data including public comments, since October. After a decision is rendered by the panel, both sides take it to a vote. But if either sides reject’s the final recommendation, the teachers could go back on strike in the spring for about a week.
“We’re hoping something happens soon after the holiday,” Lukridge said. “My goodness, we have been waiting since September.”
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Right to Know, Part II
Part 2 of the BCCT Right to Know law series.
Director vows to err on side of openness
By PETER JACKSON
HARRISBURG — In high school, Terry Mutchler’s tenacity could be measured in broken field-hockey sticks, including the time she broke her wooden stick in the heat of a game and had to use one belonging to her coach.
“She broke that one,” too, recalled her mother, Star Mutchler. But she broke it scoring the winning goal for her team.
Mutchler will need all the toughness she can muster as she leads the implementation of Pennsylvania’s new Right-to-Know Law, which takes effect Jan. 1.
“She’s a go-getter and she speaks what she thinks is right,” Star Mutchler, 78, said of her 42-year-old daughter during a telephone interview from her Stroudsburg home. Already, Mutchler has dis- played a willingness to break ranks with her boss, Gov. Ed Rendell, on politically hot issues.
For example, she advocated the disclosure of confidential lists of legislators picked by party leaders to share hundreds of millions of dollars a year for pet projects in their districts. She also called for barring public agencies from charging extra for the labor involved in redacting nonpublic information from public records.
On both sides of the open records debate, Mutchler has impressed people with her energy, work ethic and grasp of the legal complexities that confront her fledgling Office of Open Records.
“She sees both what the agencies’ concerns and issues are [and] she knows what the reporters [want],” said Elam Herr, director of the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors, which speaks for 1,455 townships.
Craig Staudenmaier, a Harrisburg lawyer who specializes in media law, called Mutchler “fair-minded but steadfast, in that what’s public is public and what’s not is not.”
Passionate, intense and no nonsense, Mutchler has firm ideas about her new job. She tells people in government and in the news media that her office will evenly enforce the law but makes clear she will err on the side of openness and won’t tolerate attempts to end-run the new requirements.
“I genuinely believe that this government does not belong to the government. It belongs to citizens,” she said in an interview earlier this month. “And it irks me when a citizen comes to the very thing it owns and is denied access to it. There’s just something fundamentally wrong about that.
“Somewhere along the line, we have forgotten the servant in public servant,” she said.
A Monroe County native, Mutchler is the youngest of seven children. Her father, a retired Army sergeant who was a World War II veteran, died several years ago.
She harbored a childhood dream of becoming a lawyer. But after working as a reporter for her high school paper and then at The Daily Collegian at Penn State University, she wound up with a bachelor’s degree in journalism.
She worked at The Morning Call in Allentown for a couple of years, then was hired by The Associated Press at its Capitol bureau in Harrisburg. She worked for the news cooperative for six years, including stints at bureaus in Atlantic City, Illinois and Alaska.
In Springfield, shortly after she took over the Illinois statehouse bureau in 1993, Mutchler’s professional and personal lives intersected in a way that changed her career path. Mutchler fell in love with a state senator, the late Penny Severns, the Democratic whip who would be nominated for lieutenant governor in 1994.
Increasingly troubled over the ethical conflict created by the relationship, Mutchler transferred to AP Alaska shortly before the election, which the Democrats lost. In 1995, she left the AP and returned to Springfield to work as Severns’ spokeswoman and speechwriter until she died of breast cancer in 1998.
Mutchler earned her law degree in 1999 at Chicago’s John Marshall Law School. She was a litigation attorney in Chicago when she was lured back to Springfield in 2003 for a job in the attorney general’s office helping settle open-records disputes.
Mutchler and her partner, Maria Papacostaki, a professor and poet, rent a home in Delaware County while Mutchler continues trying to sell her home in Springfield. She receives a $120,000 salary and a state-owned car.
Question
Q: What is the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records?
A: It is a new agency in the executive branch of state government, part of the Department of Community and Economic Development. The agency’s first director is Terry Mutchler, a reporter-turned-lawyer who previously worked in a similar position under the Illinois attorney general. The 10-person staff will include six lawyers besides Mutchler.
Generally speaking, the office will decide appeals by people whose Right-to-Know Law requests have been rejected by state executive agencies or by county and local agencies. It also will provide training for those agencies and issue advisory opinions interpreting the law.
Director vows to err on side of openness
By PETER JACKSON
HARRISBURG — In high school, Terry Mutchler’s tenacity could be measured in broken field-hockey sticks, including the time she broke her wooden stick in the heat of a game and had to use one belonging to her coach.
“She broke that one,” too, recalled her mother, Star Mutchler. But she broke it scoring the winning goal for her team.
Mutchler will need all the toughness she can muster as she leads the implementation of Pennsylvania’s new Right-to-Know Law, which takes effect Jan. 1.
“She’s a go-getter and she speaks what she thinks is right,” Star Mutchler, 78, said of her 42-year-old daughter during a telephone interview from her Stroudsburg home. Already, Mutchler has dis- played a willingness to break ranks with her boss, Gov. Ed Rendell, on politically hot issues.
For example, she advocated the disclosure of confidential lists of legislators picked by party leaders to share hundreds of millions of dollars a year for pet projects in their districts. She also called for barring public agencies from charging extra for the labor involved in redacting nonpublic information from public records.
On both sides of the open records debate, Mutchler has impressed people with her energy, work ethic and grasp of the legal complexities that confront her fledgling Office of Open Records.
“She sees both what the agencies’ concerns and issues are [and] she knows what the reporters [want],” said Elam Herr, director of the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors, which speaks for 1,455 townships.
Craig Staudenmaier, a Harrisburg lawyer who specializes in media law, called Mutchler “fair-minded but steadfast, in that what’s public is public and what’s not is not.”
Passionate, intense and no nonsense, Mutchler has firm ideas about her new job. She tells people in government and in the news media that her office will evenly enforce the law but makes clear she will err on the side of openness and won’t tolerate attempts to end-run the new requirements.
“I genuinely believe that this government does not belong to the government. It belongs to citizens,” she said in an interview earlier this month. “And it irks me when a citizen comes to the very thing it owns and is denied access to it. There’s just something fundamentally wrong about that.
“Somewhere along the line, we have forgotten the servant in public servant,” she said.
A Monroe County native, Mutchler is the youngest of seven children. Her father, a retired Army sergeant who was a World War II veteran, died several years ago.
She harbored a childhood dream of becoming a lawyer. But after working as a reporter for her high school paper and then at The Daily Collegian at Penn State University, she wound up with a bachelor’s degree in journalism.
She worked at The Morning Call in Allentown for a couple of years, then was hired by The Associated Press at its Capitol bureau in Harrisburg. She worked for the news cooperative for six years, including stints at bureaus in Atlantic City, Illinois and Alaska.
In Springfield, shortly after she took over the Illinois statehouse bureau in 1993, Mutchler’s professional and personal lives intersected in a way that changed her career path. Mutchler fell in love with a state senator, the late Penny Severns, the Democratic whip who would be nominated for lieutenant governor in 1994.
Increasingly troubled over the ethical conflict created by the relationship, Mutchler transferred to AP Alaska shortly before the election, which the Democrats lost. In 1995, she left the AP and returned to Springfield to work as Severns’ spokeswoman and speechwriter until she died of breast cancer in 1998.
Mutchler earned her law degree in 1999 at Chicago’s John Marshall Law School. She was a litigation attorney in Chicago when she was lured back to Springfield in 2003 for a job in the attorney general’s office helping settle open-records disputes.
Mutchler and her partner, Maria Papacostaki, a professor and poet, rent a home in Delaware County while Mutchler continues trying to sell her home in Springfield. She receives a $120,000 salary and a state-owned car.
Question
Q: What is the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records?
A: It is a new agency in the executive branch of state government, part of the Department of Community and Economic Development. The agency’s first director is Terry Mutchler, a reporter-turned-lawyer who previously worked in a similar position under the Illinois attorney general. The 10-person staff will include six lawyers besides Mutchler.
Generally speaking, the office will decide appeals by people whose Right-to-Know Law requests have been rejected by state executive agencies or by county and local agencies. It also will provide training for those agencies and issue advisory opinions interpreting the law.
Another bailout: Pension tension
From the BCCT.
There's no sense going after the local officials who only enforce policy. Take your concerns about tax policy to the tax writers in Harrisburg.
You don't have to go that far.
Rep. Galloway has a local office in Levittown
8610 New Falls Road
Levittown, PA 19054
Phone: (215) 943-7206
Monday - Friday
8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Senator McIlhinney is even more local than that.
56 East Bridge Street
Suite 1
Morrisville, PA 19067
Phone: 215-736-5960
Toll Free: 866-739-8600
FAX: 215-736-5964
Another bailout: Pension tension
Pennsylvania taxpayers will have to dig deeper to help state and school workers retire — even as private pensions wither away.
There is not good news and bad news for Pennsylvania taxpayers. There is only bad news and worse news.
As taxpayers helplessly watch their 401(k) plans and other retirement savings dwindle, they are being asked to dig deeper into their pockets to prop up pensions for state and school employees. School pension costs will be the biggest hit, since nearly half the funding comes from the local property tax.
The Pennsylvania Public School Employees Retirement System recently urged school districts to start putting funds in reserve to prepare for a huge jump in pension costs anticipated in three more years. The districts’ share is projected to go from 4.78 percent of payroll in 2009-2010 to 16.4 percent in 2012-13. And that estimate, prepared before the stock market tanked this fall, assumes the pension fund will earn an 8.5 percent return on investment each year.
Since pension payments are mandatory, districts either must cut other expenses or raise taxes.
The state reimburses districts for about half the cost, but it all comes from taxpayers.
Unlike private employers, the state and school districts are prohibited by law from reducing or eliminating employee pension benefits or increasing the mandatory employee payroll deduction for pensions. School employees contribute an average of 7.3 percent of salary.
Two years ago, an Associated Press series on the pension crunch projected the taxpayer subsidy for state and school employee pensions would triple by 2012 to the equivalent of $240 a year for every man, woman and child in Pennsylvania.
And that didn’t include the multi-billion dollar cost of medical, dental, vision and prescription benefits for retirees.
The blame for this mess lies with the state Legislature (who else?). Mesmerized by a stock market boom, legislators in 2001 increased their own pensions by 50 percent and — to divert attention from their own avarice — gave more than 300,000 state and school employees a 25 percent hike.
This means public employees receive a pension based on 2.5 percent of salary (the average of the three top years of compensation) for each year worked. Employees 60 and older may retire at 75 percent of salary after 30 years of service and at 100 percent after 40 years, guaranteed for life.
Even by public sector standards, Pennsylvania is extremely generous.
Maryland, for instance, increased state and school employee pensions in 2006 from 1.4 percent of salary a year to 1.8 percent. A Maryland teacher may retire at 54 percent of salary after 30 years and 72 percent after 40 years.
Meanwhile, Pennsylvania taxpayers are stuck with the bill due to the Legislature’s fecklessness. We don’t know what the long-term solution is, but the first step should be for voters to “retire” those legislators who feathered their own nest at the public’s expense.
There's no sense going after the local officials who only enforce policy. Take your concerns about tax policy to the tax writers in Harrisburg.
You don't have to go that far.
Rep. Galloway has a local office in Levittown
8610 New Falls Road
Levittown, PA 19054
Phone: (215) 943-7206
Monday - Friday
8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Senator McIlhinney is even more local than that.
56 East Bridge Street
Suite 1
Morrisville, PA 19067
Phone: 215-736-5960
Toll Free: 866-739-8600
FAX: 215-736-5964
Another bailout: Pension tension
Pennsylvania taxpayers will have to dig deeper to help state and school workers retire — even as private pensions wither away.
There is not good news and bad news for Pennsylvania taxpayers. There is only bad news and worse news.
As taxpayers helplessly watch their 401(k) plans and other retirement savings dwindle, they are being asked to dig deeper into their pockets to prop up pensions for state and school employees. School pension costs will be the biggest hit, since nearly half the funding comes from the local property tax.
The Pennsylvania Public School Employees Retirement System recently urged school districts to start putting funds in reserve to prepare for a huge jump in pension costs anticipated in three more years. The districts’ share is projected to go from 4.78 percent of payroll in 2009-2010 to 16.4 percent in 2012-13. And that estimate, prepared before the stock market tanked this fall, assumes the pension fund will earn an 8.5 percent return on investment each year.
Since pension payments are mandatory, districts either must cut other expenses or raise taxes.
The state reimburses districts for about half the cost, but it all comes from taxpayers.
Unlike private employers, the state and school districts are prohibited by law from reducing or eliminating employee pension benefits or increasing the mandatory employee payroll deduction for pensions. School employees contribute an average of 7.3 percent of salary.
Two years ago, an Associated Press series on the pension crunch projected the taxpayer subsidy for state and school employee pensions would triple by 2012 to the equivalent of $240 a year for every man, woman and child in Pennsylvania.
And that didn’t include the multi-billion dollar cost of medical, dental, vision and prescription benefits for retirees.
The blame for this mess lies with the state Legislature (who else?). Mesmerized by a stock market boom, legislators in 2001 increased their own pensions by 50 percent and — to divert attention from their own avarice — gave more than 300,000 state and school employees a 25 percent hike.
This means public employees receive a pension based on 2.5 percent of salary (the average of the three top years of compensation) for each year worked. Employees 60 and older may retire at 75 percent of salary after 30 years of service and at 100 percent after 40 years, guaranteed for life.
Even by public sector standards, Pennsylvania is extremely generous.
Maryland, for instance, increased state and school employee pensions in 2006 from 1.4 percent of salary a year to 1.8 percent. A Maryland teacher may retire at 54 percent of salary after 30 years and 72 percent after 40 years.
Meanwhile, Pennsylvania taxpayers are stuck with the bill due to the Legislature’s fecklessness. We don’t know what the long-term solution is, but the first step should be for voters to “retire” those legislators who feathered their own nest at the public’s expense.
Young students often most vulnerable to toxic air
From USA Today.
Young students often most vulnerable to toxic air
By Blake Morrison, Brad Heath and Rick Jervis, USA TODAY
BATON ROUGE — From the front door of the aged brick school, the 4-year-olds at Wyandotte Early Childhood Center can spot the cottony plumes from a refinery just over the trees.
The ExxonMobil plant, the nation's second-largest refinery, processes about a half-million barrels of crude oil each day. Its sprawling complex sits a few blocks from the school — and from the swing set on the playground and about 120 pairs of developing lungs.
Chris Trahan, a spokesman for the East Baton Rouge Parish School System, says he's certain ExxonMobil would let the school district know if there were an accident at the plant that could hurt children. As for air quality, "It just doesn't come up in conversation," Trahan says. "It's just part of daily life out here."
The circumstances at Wyandotte mirror those at thousands of other schools across the nation, including many schools that house the youngest — and most vulnerable — kids. USA TODAY spent eight months examining the impact of industrial pollution on schoolchildren and found that 20,000 schools — about one in every six — are within a half-mile of a major industrial plant.
To help identify schools where children might be at greatest risk from toxic chemicals, USA TODAY used the government's most up-to-date computer simulation for tracking industrial pollution. Then USA TODAY mapped the locations of 127,800 public, private and parochial schools. It is a task the Environmental Protection Agency has never undertaken.
Based on the levels and potential health hazards of the chemicals likely to be outside, the model ranked Wyandotte among the worst 1% of schools in the nation — and the worst in Louisiana. It also indicated that the ExxonMobil refinery — which emits sulfuric acid, naphthalene, ammonia and benzene, among two dozen chemicals — was primarily responsible for its ranking. The model's most recent version is based on reports by more than 20,000 industrial sites in 2005.
The Baton Rouge refinery opened in 1909. Wyandotte, built in 1925, was an elementary school for much of its life. In 2000, it became an early-childhood center, a place where 4-year-olds prepare for kindergarten. The rationale for sending the youngest kids there: "It was the most available resource that we had," says Bobbie Robertson, preschool director for the district.
Proximity to industries — and the exposures to toxic chemicals that often go with it — can portend unique dangers for young children. Their bodies still are developing, and they breathe more air per pound than adults.
That means they get "a heavier dose of the chemical" with each breath, says Philip Landrigan, a pediatrician who leads a unit at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York on children and the environment.
By his account, their biological fragility and the amount of air they breathe make kids at least 10 times more susceptible than adults to most toxic chemicals.
"In early childhood and the nine months before birth, there occur 'windows of vulnerability,' " Landrigan says. "We're beginning to learn that a lot of diseases appear to be triggered by early exposures, but it takes years, even decades, for those to progress to diseases like cancer, like Parkinson's disease, like Alzheimer's."
Not every child who is exposed faces those outcomes, but Landrigan and others say it is impossible to know which children might be affected and which might not. Too little is understood about the impact of thousands of chemicals on children. In part, that's because most government assessments of the dangers assume those exposed are adults.
"The science doesn't know — it can't establish — what a safe level is" for children, says Stephen Lester, the science director of the Center for Health, Environment & Justice, an advocacy group that focuses on children and schools. "There's no tool, scientifically, for evaluating cumulative risk."
Landrigan says the lack of detailed knowledge on safe levels of exposure, coupled with today's rates of childhood cancer, asthma and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, begs "the obvious question: Is there a cause-and-effect relationship?"
Health concerns persist
School district spokesman Trahan says "there are no reported illnesses or health issues" at Wyandotte. He says the district knows of only one student at the school whose parents told the district that their child has asthma. Districtwide, parents of about 3,000 students — 6% of total enrollment — notified the school that their child was asthmatic, Trahan says. "There's probably more," he says, "but we're just not aware of them."
Residents and at least one area physician worry the problems at Wyandotte may be greater than the statistics suggest.
Charmaine Venters, a physician and director of the Louisiana State University Mid-City Clinic a few miles from the school, says she treats students from Wyandotte and other area schools who battle asthma or other respiratory ailments.
The number of children here suffering from respiratory problems is greater than anywhere else she's seen in her almost 30-year career, she says.
The differing perspectives underscore the challenge of spotting asthma in children so young, says Patrick Breysse, director of the Center for Childhood Asthma in the Urban Environment at Johns Hopkins University.
"With young kids, a lot of pediatricians say it's impossible to diagnose asthma because they might just be at a wheezy stage," Breysse says. "A 4-year-old would be kind of borderline."
ExxonMobil says it has taken many steps to make the air cleaner. Spokesman Prem Nair says the company is "continually improving the air quality near our Baton Rouge complex through emissions controls, technology enhancements and process changes."
Last week, ExxonMobil agreed to pay about $6.1 million in penalties for violating terms of a previous agreement aimed at curbing emissions at its refineries, including the plant here.
Nair says only $3,000 of that penalty related to violations in Baton Rouge. The penalties were based on the company's failure to monitor and control sulfur, a chemical burned in refinery furnaces that can cause respiratory illnesses, the EPA determined.
Derek Reese, the environmental supervisor for the Baton Rouge facility, says he appreciates what is at stake.
"My wife is a teacher in the Baton Rouge school system. My son goes to Baton Rouge High," he says. "You don't have to worry about me not understanding. I don't feel any disconnect between working at Exxon and kids and families."
'I want to know'
The computer simulation used by USA TODAY to identify schools that might be in toxic hot spots was developed by the EPA. Called Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators, its purpose is to trace the potential path of chemicals and compare one location to another. Bob Lee, an EPA official who oversees the model, called USA TODAY's use of it "highly appropriate" and "the kind of thing that makes a lot of sense."
With the help of researchers from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA TODAY plotted the locations of schools to rank them based on chemicals likely to be in the air outside. Some of the schools and the companies responsible for the chemicals have closed or moved since the government collected the data. Others may have opened. That means the data are not definitive but a snapshot in time.
The rankings showed 435 schools with air more toxic than the air outside Meredith Hitchens Elementary, a suburban Cincinnati school that closed in 2005 after air samples outside the building showed high levels of carcinogens coming from the plastics plant across the street.
Among the schools that ranked worse, about half were elementary or pre-K schools — places where children were likely to spend the most time outside, usually during recess. Those schools included Wyandotte; Stony Brook Elementary in York, Pa.; Edison Elementary in Council Bluffs, Iowa; and the Early Childhood Center in Kennett, Mo.
Without monitoring for toxic chemicals, often for months, no one is certain what's in the air at those locations. USA TODAY's findings, however, have prompted action in several states:
• Pennsylvania environmental authorities have pledged to monitor outside the York school and at least six others.
In some cases, they may find air quality better than the model indicates — or substantially worse. That's because USA TODAY focused on industrial pollution, which accounts for about 15%-20% of toxic chemicals in the air. In a news release, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection noted the newspaper's analysis doesn't include pollution sources such as cars, which "can greatly elevate health risks."
• Iowa regulators launched their own analysis. "We will be coming up with a plan to take a look at the schools that are ranked high," says Wayne Gieselman, the state's head of environmental protection. "If we have to place some monitors out at these sites, we'll do that."
• In Kennett, Mo., where USA TODAY identified two schools that appeared to have air worse than at Hitchens, the school district is pushing for answers. Superintendent Jerry Noble says state regulators have pledged to take months' worth of air samples at district schools.
"It's very important. If we've got a problem, I want to know," Noble says. "I believe a lot of good's going to come out of this."
Much remains unknown
The current head of EPA's Office for Children's Health Protection and Environmental Education, Ruth McCully, says protecting children also is a high priority for the agency. They are "being considered in the agency's activities, from standards to regulations to research to outreach."
In October, for instance, the EPA strengthened its standards for airborne lead, making them 10 times more stringent. It was the first time in decades the standards were strengthened.
Critics contend the changes took too long, weren't tough enough and will be difficult to enforce, in part because the agency has only about 130 monitors nationwide that can measure lead in the air. John Balbus, chief scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, supported the change but says the EPA's own research justified an even more rigid standard.
Much is known about the impact of lead on a child. Far less is clear about other chemicals.
In a chapter of an upcoming edition of a book on pediatrics and the environment, Landrigan writes that more than 80,000 chemicals are "registered for commercial use" with the EPA.
"Children are most at risk of exposure to the 3,000 synthetic chemicals produced in quantities of more than 1 million pounds per year," he writes. But "information on potential toxicity is publicly available for only about half of the 3,000" and "information on developmental toxicity or capacity to harm infants and children is available for fewer than 20%" of these chemicals.
That leaves scientists and regulators largely guessing about the impact of specific chemicals. Those guesses often are based on their experiences, such as the determination that lead — even at low levels — stunts a child's intellectual development.
"The more we study most toxicants, the more effects we find at lower and lower doses," says Herbert Needleman, professor of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh and one of the nation's foremost experts on lead.
"The developing brain," Needleman says, "is much more sensitive than the developed brain."
Despite the lack of scientific certainty, research has indicated the impact of chemicals, especially on elementary schoolchildren, can be life-long.
A recent study by the University of Texas correlated increased cases of leukemia and lymphoma among children to levels of butadiene in the Houston air. The carcinogen is often released by petrochemical plants and rubber and plastics manufacturers.
The 18-month study indicated that children living within 2 miles of the Houston Ship Channel had a 56% higher risk for childhood leukemia than did those living more than 10 miles away.
"You're talking about facilities that are in neighborhoods where there are schools, parks, playgrounds," says Elena Marks, director of health and environmental policy for the city of Houston, which requested the study.
At thousands of locations, the model used by USA TODAY indicated that the air outside schools appeared far more toxic than the air in the neighborhoods where the kids lived.
At 16,500 schools, the air outside appeared at least twice as toxic as the air at a typical location in the school district.
At Wyandotte, the model indicated the air was 71.3 times more toxic than the average air in the district. That means kids who lived more than a kilometer away were likely leaving homes where the air outside was better than the air outside the school.
Rodney Mallett, a spokesman for the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, says the closest monitoring station to Wyandotte that could measure toxic chemicals is about 2 miles away. Despite the vulnerability of children, "we don't have them placed outside of any schools," Mallett says of state monitors. The reason? "If you put them just where the schools are," he says, "you're going to get just what's outside the school."
Company-school partnership
ExxonMobil has developed a special relationship with area schools. Schools spokesman Trahan says company officials try "to get students to get into science. They offer free tutoring" to some students and professional development for teachers.
The company, which also operates a chemical plant here and employs about 2,250 people at those facilities, has worked with citizen groups. Two representatives of the company sit on the board of North Baton Rouge Neighborhoods United, says Bea Gransberry, a board member. ExxonMobil officials have assured the board they are doing everything possible to reduce emissions, she says.
"We felt that if they were over there working, they're closer than we are to it, and they weren't going to do anything to harm themselves," she says.
Activist Lois Gibbs, director of the Center for Health, Environment & Justice, says parents are too often willing to accept a local industry's assurances that all is well — and that, if pollution were dangerous, the government would know. "It's easy to believe that," she says. "It's our economy. It's our jobs. And then there's the guilt — 'I have to admit I'm willingly, knowingly allowing my child to be poisoned.' "
"The answer," Gibbs says, "is to move that guilt and frustration into action."
That's why monitoring is so important, says Ruth Breech, program director for Global Community Monitor, a non-profit that works with communities interested in testing air quality. "Ultimately," Breech says, "it's about putting pressure on your city government, your EPA and the polluter themselves."
Physician Landrigan faults government agencies for making assumptions about the safety of toxic chemicals. One assumption: "Chemicals are safe until they are proven dangerous." Landrigan says history — and the best science — show how dangerous that assumption can be. "We've learned from long and bitter experience (that toxic chemicals) in fact turned out to be dangerous, and especially so to children."
That leaves one option, scientists say. "The only authentic response is prevention. Stop exposure before it happens," says Needleman, an expert on lead. "The payoffs would be enormous. I don't think we know how smart our kids could be."
Young students often most vulnerable to toxic air
By Blake Morrison, Brad Heath and Rick Jervis, USA TODAY
BATON ROUGE — From the front door of the aged brick school, the 4-year-olds at Wyandotte Early Childhood Center can spot the cottony plumes from a refinery just over the trees.
The ExxonMobil plant, the nation's second-largest refinery, processes about a half-million barrels of crude oil each day. Its sprawling complex sits a few blocks from the school — and from the swing set on the playground and about 120 pairs of developing lungs.
Chris Trahan, a spokesman for the East Baton Rouge Parish School System, says he's certain ExxonMobil would let the school district know if there were an accident at the plant that could hurt children. As for air quality, "It just doesn't come up in conversation," Trahan says. "It's just part of daily life out here."
The circumstances at Wyandotte mirror those at thousands of other schools across the nation, including many schools that house the youngest — and most vulnerable — kids. USA TODAY spent eight months examining the impact of industrial pollution on schoolchildren and found that 20,000 schools — about one in every six — are within a half-mile of a major industrial plant.
To help identify schools where children might be at greatest risk from toxic chemicals, USA TODAY used the government's most up-to-date computer simulation for tracking industrial pollution. Then USA TODAY mapped the locations of 127,800 public, private and parochial schools. It is a task the Environmental Protection Agency has never undertaken.
Based on the levels and potential health hazards of the chemicals likely to be outside, the model ranked Wyandotte among the worst 1% of schools in the nation — and the worst in Louisiana. It also indicated that the ExxonMobil refinery — which emits sulfuric acid, naphthalene, ammonia and benzene, among two dozen chemicals — was primarily responsible for its ranking. The model's most recent version is based on reports by more than 20,000 industrial sites in 2005.
The Baton Rouge refinery opened in 1909. Wyandotte, built in 1925, was an elementary school for much of its life. In 2000, it became an early-childhood center, a place where 4-year-olds prepare for kindergarten. The rationale for sending the youngest kids there: "It was the most available resource that we had," says Bobbie Robertson, preschool director for the district.
Proximity to industries — and the exposures to toxic chemicals that often go with it — can portend unique dangers for young children. Their bodies still are developing, and they breathe more air per pound than adults.
That means they get "a heavier dose of the chemical" with each breath, says Philip Landrigan, a pediatrician who leads a unit at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York on children and the environment.
By his account, their biological fragility and the amount of air they breathe make kids at least 10 times more susceptible than adults to most toxic chemicals.
"In early childhood and the nine months before birth, there occur 'windows of vulnerability,' " Landrigan says. "We're beginning to learn that a lot of diseases appear to be triggered by early exposures, but it takes years, even decades, for those to progress to diseases like cancer, like Parkinson's disease, like Alzheimer's."
Not every child who is exposed faces those outcomes, but Landrigan and others say it is impossible to know which children might be affected and which might not. Too little is understood about the impact of thousands of chemicals on children. In part, that's because most government assessments of the dangers assume those exposed are adults.
"The science doesn't know — it can't establish — what a safe level is" for children, says Stephen Lester, the science director of the Center for Health, Environment & Justice, an advocacy group that focuses on children and schools. "There's no tool, scientifically, for evaluating cumulative risk."
Landrigan says the lack of detailed knowledge on safe levels of exposure, coupled with today's rates of childhood cancer, asthma and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, begs "the obvious question: Is there a cause-and-effect relationship?"
Health concerns persist
School district spokesman Trahan says "there are no reported illnesses or health issues" at Wyandotte. He says the district knows of only one student at the school whose parents told the district that their child has asthma. Districtwide, parents of about 3,000 students — 6% of total enrollment — notified the school that their child was asthmatic, Trahan says. "There's probably more," he says, "but we're just not aware of them."
Residents and at least one area physician worry the problems at Wyandotte may be greater than the statistics suggest.
Charmaine Venters, a physician and director of the Louisiana State University Mid-City Clinic a few miles from the school, says she treats students from Wyandotte and other area schools who battle asthma or other respiratory ailments.
The number of children here suffering from respiratory problems is greater than anywhere else she's seen in her almost 30-year career, she says.
The differing perspectives underscore the challenge of spotting asthma in children so young, says Patrick Breysse, director of the Center for Childhood Asthma in the Urban Environment at Johns Hopkins University.
"With young kids, a lot of pediatricians say it's impossible to diagnose asthma because they might just be at a wheezy stage," Breysse says. "A 4-year-old would be kind of borderline."
ExxonMobil says it has taken many steps to make the air cleaner. Spokesman Prem Nair says the company is "continually improving the air quality near our Baton Rouge complex through emissions controls, technology enhancements and process changes."
Last week, ExxonMobil agreed to pay about $6.1 million in penalties for violating terms of a previous agreement aimed at curbing emissions at its refineries, including the plant here.
Nair says only $3,000 of that penalty related to violations in Baton Rouge. The penalties were based on the company's failure to monitor and control sulfur, a chemical burned in refinery furnaces that can cause respiratory illnesses, the EPA determined.
Derek Reese, the environmental supervisor for the Baton Rouge facility, says he appreciates what is at stake.
"My wife is a teacher in the Baton Rouge school system. My son goes to Baton Rouge High," he says. "You don't have to worry about me not understanding. I don't feel any disconnect between working at Exxon and kids and families."
'I want to know'
The computer simulation used by USA TODAY to identify schools that might be in toxic hot spots was developed by the EPA. Called Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators, its purpose is to trace the potential path of chemicals and compare one location to another. Bob Lee, an EPA official who oversees the model, called USA TODAY's use of it "highly appropriate" and "the kind of thing that makes a lot of sense."
With the help of researchers from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA TODAY plotted the locations of schools to rank them based on chemicals likely to be in the air outside. Some of the schools and the companies responsible for the chemicals have closed or moved since the government collected the data. Others may have opened. That means the data are not definitive but a snapshot in time.
The rankings showed 435 schools with air more toxic than the air outside Meredith Hitchens Elementary, a suburban Cincinnati school that closed in 2005 after air samples outside the building showed high levels of carcinogens coming from the plastics plant across the street.
Among the schools that ranked worse, about half were elementary or pre-K schools — places where children were likely to spend the most time outside, usually during recess. Those schools included Wyandotte; Stony Brook Elementary in York, Pa.; Edison Elementary in Council Bluffs, Iowa; and the Early Childhood Center in Kennett, Mo.
Without monitoring for toxic chemicals, often for months, no one is certain what's in the air at those locations. USA TODAY's findings, however, have prompted action in several states:
• Pennsylvania environmental authorities have pledged to monitor outside the York school and at least six others.
In some cases, they may find air quality better than the model indicates — or substantially worse. That's because USA TODAY focused on industrial pollution, which accounts for about 15%-20% of toxic chemicals in the air. In a news release, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection noted the newspaper's analysis doesn't include pollution sources such as cars, which "can greatly elevate health risks."
• Iowa regulators launched their own analysis. "We will be coming up with a plan to take a look at the schools that are ranked high," says Wayne Gieselman, the state's head of environmental protection. "If we have to place some monitors out at these sites, we'll do that."
• In Kennett, Mo., where USA TODAY identified two schools that appeared to have air worse than at Hitchens, the school district is pushing for answers. Superintendent Jerry Noble says state regulators have pledged to take months' worth of air samples at district schools.
"It's very important. If we've got a problem, I want to know," Noble says. "I believe a lot of good's going to come out of this."
Much remains unknown
The current head of EPA's Office for Children's Health Protection and Environmental Education, Ruth McCully, says protecting children also is a high priority for the agency. They are "being considered in the agency's activities, from standards to regulations to research to outreach."
In October, for instance, the EPA strengthened its standards for airborne lead, making them 10 times more stringent. It was the first time in decades the standards were strengthened.
Critics contend the changes took too long, weren't tough enough and will be difficult to enforce, in part because the agency has only about 130 monitors nationwide that can measure lead in the air. John Balbus, chief scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, supported the change but says the EPA's own research justified an even more rigid standard.
Much is known about the impact of lead on a child. Far less is clear about other chemicals.
In a chapter of an upcoming edition of a book on pediatrics and the environment, Landrigan writes that more than 80,000 chemicals are "registered for commercial use" with the EPA.
"Children are most at risk of exposure to the 3,000 synthetic chemicals produced in quantities of more than 1 million pounds per year," he writes. But "information on potential toxicity is publicly available for only about half of the 3,000" and "information on developmental toxicity or capacity to harm infants and children is available for fewer than 20%" of these chemicals.
That leaves scientists and regulators largely guessing about the impact of specific chemicals. Those guesses often are based on their experiences, such as the determination that lead — even at low levels — stunts a child's intellectual development.
"The more we study most toxicants, the more effects we find at lower and lower doses," says Herbert Needleman, professor of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh and one of the nation's foremost experts on lead.
"The developing brain," Needleman says, "is much more sensitive than the developed brain."
Despite the lack of scientific certainty, research has indicated the impact of chemicals, especially on elementary schoolchildren, can be life-long.
A recent study by the University of Texas correlated increased cases of leukemia and lymphoma among children to levels of butadiene in the Houston air. The carcinogen is often released by petrochemical plants and rubber and plastics manufacturers.
The 18-month study indicated that children living within 2 miles of the Houston Ship Channel had a 56% higher risk for childhood leukemia than did those living more than 10 miles away.
"You're talking about facilities that are in neighborhoods where there are schools, parks, playgrounds," says Elena Marks, director of health and environmental policy for the city of Houston, which requested the study.
At thousands of locations, the model used by USA TODAY indicated that the air outside schools appeared far more toxic than the air in the neighborhoods where the kids lived.
At 16,500 schools, the air outside appeared at least twice as toxic as the air at a typical location in the school district.
At Wyandotte, the model indicated the air was 71.3 times more toxic than the average air in the district. That means kids who lived more than a kilometer away were likely leaving homes where the air outside was better than the air outside the school.
Rodney Mallett, a spokesman for the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, says the closest monitoring station to Wyandotte that could measure toxic chemicals is about 2 miles away. Despite the vulnerability of children, "we don't have them placed outside of any schools," Mallett says of state monitors. The reason? "If you put them just where the schools are," he says, "you're going to get just what's outside the school."
Company-school partnership
ExxonMobil has developed a special relationship with area schools. Schools spokesman Trahan says company officials try "to get students to get into science. They offer free tutoring" to some students and professional development for teachers.
The company, which also operates a chemical plant here and employs about 2,250 people at those facilities, has worked with citizen groups. Two representatives of the company sit on the board of North Baton Rouge Neighborhoods United, says Bea Gransberry, a board member. ExxonMobil officials have assured the board they are doing everything possible to reduce emissions, she says.
"We felt that if they were over there working, they're closer than we are to it, and they weren't going to do anything to harm themselves," she says.
Activist Lois Gibbs, director of the Center for Health, Environment & Justice, says parents are too often willing to accept a local industry's assurances that all is well — and that, if pollution were dangerous, the government would know. "It's easy to believe that," she says. "It's our economy. It's our jobs. And then there's the guilt — 'I have to admit I'm willingly, knowingly allowing my child to be poisoned.' "
"The answer," Gibbs says, "is to move that guilt and frustration into action."
That's why monitoring is so important, says Ruth Breech, program director for Global Community Monitor, a non-profit that works with communities interested in testing air quality. "Ultimately," Breech says, "it's about putting pressure on your city government, your EPA and the polluter themselves."
Physician Landrigan faults government agencies for making assumptions about the safety of toxic chemicals. One assumption: "Chemicals are safe until they are proven dangerous." Landrigan says history — and the best science — show how dangerous that assumption can be. "We've learned from long and bitter experience (that toxic chemicals) in fact turned out to be dangerous, and especially so to children."
That leaves one option, scientists say. "The only authentic response is prevention. Stop exposure before it happens," says Needleman, an expert on lead. "The payoffs would be enormous. I don't think we know how smart our kids could be."
Monday, December 22, 2008
Pennsylvania Right to Know Law
The BCCT is beginning a series on the new Pennsylvania Right to Know Law.
Who are the Morrisville contacts?
For the borough: George Mount, borough manager
For the school district: Paul DeAngelo, business administrator
Considering the secrecy that the Emperor and the board of chosen accomplices has employed over the past year of amazing cosmic power, I'm expecting Mr. DeAngelo's waiting room to be a bit too small to accommodate the number of people wanting answers.
The school district has a link right on the home page. I did not see one on the borough webpage.
New law makes secrecy more difficult
Seeking records used to mean proving why they should be released; now the government must prove why they shouldn’t.
By PETER JACKSON
HARRISBURG — PennDOT’s list of dangerous roads and intersections is an official secret, shielded from the public because of loopholes in the state’s Right-to-Know Law.
In 2006, a Commonwealth Court panel upheld PennDOT’s refusal to turn over a partial list to a Pittsburgh television station. The court said the station had failed to prove the information was sufficiently connected to an account, contract, voucher or decision — categories in the law that define what is a public record.
“The situation is a Catch-22 for requesters, in that the agencies and courts hold them to an impossible standard — prove there is a connection, but you cannot have the records that will enable you to do so,” said Gayle Sproul, a media lawyer who represented Hearst-Argyle Television Stations, WTAE’s owner, in the case.
Public-access advocates hope that widely shared frustration will subside after Jan. 1, when an overhaul of the state’s Right-to-Know Law takes effect. The changes are expected to dramatically expand what people can find out about what goes on behind the scenes of the state and local governments.
The new Right-to-Know Law will repeal the 52-year-old original, long regarded as one of the nation’s weakest.
No longer will you, journalists or activists interested in mining government records have to cross their fingers and hope the document they want fits into one of a half-dozen narrow categories. Nor will they have to hire a lawyer and go to court to challenge an agency’s refusal to turn over a record.
The new law is built on the presumption that most government records are open — the opposite presumption of the current law. It also places on public agencies — from state bureaucracies to county governments and local school districts — the legal burden of showing why a record should be withheld, instead of forcing requesters to establish why it should be made public.
“This is really a change in the culture of governance in Pennsylvania,” said Barry Kauffman, director of Pennsylvania Common Cause. “In too many cases, employees and officials of government agencies had an attitude that they own the government records instead of just being the caretakers of the government records.”
In most case, those whose requests are denied will be able to appeal directly to a new, nonjudicial agency — the Office of Open Records — whose director has a track record as an advocate of public access.
Teri Henning, general counsel for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, which spearheaded lobbying for the new law, said the hope “is that, over time, these fundamental changes will create a culture of openness in Pennsylvania government.”
That spirit of openness is tempered in the law by a list of 30 wide-ranging exceptions that are tailored to respond to such concerns as personal privacy, public safety and internal deliberations by public officials.
The exceptions, which make up about one-fifth of the law, are “very wordy, very detailed and dense, filled with what I will call, kindly, mumbo jumbo,” said Sproul, who’s also president of the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information Coalition. “That in itself is an impediment to getting public records.”
The law also expands access to government contracts: Private businesses that do business with state and local governments are required to make some records available to the public. It covers all of state government, including — to a limited extent — the Legislature and the state’s judicial system, both previously exempt.
It covers an array of state affiliated entities including community colleges, the 14 state owned universities in the State System of Higher Education and the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association. The state related universities — Penn State, Pittsburgh, Temple and Lincoln — are generally exempt, but required to issue annual financial reports that include their highest 25 employee salaries.
Local agencies covered by the law include counties, boroughs, townships and school districts, as well as charter schools, vocational schools and intermediate units.
By now, every agency should have designated an open-records officer to oversee compliance, adopted a policy for managing its records and briefed employees on how to handle records requests.
No one is predicting a flawless implementation.
“There’s going to be confusion at the beginning ... from citizens, from public officials and from members of the media,” said Terry Mutchler, the lawyer and former reporter that Gov. Ed Rendell appointed to a six-year term as director of the openrecords office.
Many observers predict a spike in records requests — and appeals to Mutchler’s office — in early 2009 as Pennsylvanians test their access under the new law. That will likely be followed by a gradual return to a more normal pace.
“After five years, we’ll forget it was ever such a big deal,” said Emily Leader, a lawyer for the Pennsylvania School Boards Association, which speaks for the state’s 501 school districts.
Mutchler, who’s hiring six staff lawyers to help her handle the expected deluge of appeals, has been working with associations representing county commissioners, township supervisors and school boards — as well as newspapers. At some sessions, concerns were expressed about the status of e-mails.
The new law defines a record as “information, regardless of physical form or characteristics, that documents a transaction or activity of an agency.” That includes not only e-mails, but audio recordings, photos and even films.
“Here’s the e-mail training,” Mutchler told a Pennsylvania School Boards Association workshop in October. “If you don’t want to read it on Page One, don’t put it in e-mail. If you’re sending an e-mail, envision it on letterhead.”
Access advocates hope the new law will open records like PennDOT’s hazardous-sites list to public scrutiny.
PennDOT spokesman Rich Kirkpatrick said the lists are kept confidential because the rankings can be misleading and state law bars such information from being used in legal claims against the state.
Asked if PennDOT plans to withhold the information after the new law takes effect, he said, “I can’t speculate.”
Who are the Morrisville contacts?
For the borough: George Mount, borough manager
For the school district: Paul DeAngelo, business administrator
Considering the secrecy that the Emperor and the board of chosen accomplices has employed over the past year of amazing cosmic power, I'm expecting Mr. DeAngelo's waiting room to be a bit too small to accommodate the number of people wanting answers.
The school district has a link right on the home page. I did not see one on the borough webpage.
New law makes secrecy more difficult
Seeking records used to mean proving why they should be released; now the government must prove why they shouldn’t.
By PETER JACKSON
HARRISBURG — PennDOT’s list of dangerous roads and intersections is an official secret, shielded from the public because of loopholes in the state’s Right-to-Know Law.
In 2006, a Commonwealth Court panel upheld PennDOT’s refusal to turn over a partial list to a Pittsburgh television station. The court said the station had failed to prove the information was sufficiently connected to an account, contract, voucher or decision — categories in the law that define what is a public record.
“The situation is a Catch-22 for requesters, in that the agencies and courts hold them to an impossible standard — prove there is a connection, but you cannot have the records that will enable you to do so,” said Gayle Sproul, a media lawyer who represented Hearst-Argyle Television Stations, WTAE’s owner, in the case.
Public-access advocates hope that widely shared frustration will subside after Jan. 1, when an overhaul of the state’s Right-to-Know Law takes effect. The changes are expected to dramatically expand what people can find out about what goes on behind the scenes of the state and local governments.
The new Right-to-Know Law will repeal the 52-year-old original, long regarded as one of the nation’s weakest.
No longer will you, journalists or activists interested in mining government records have to cross their fingers and hope the document they want fits into one of a half-dozen narrow categories. Nor will they have to hire a lawyer and go to court to challenge an agency’s refusal to turn over a record.
The new law is built on the presumption that most government records are open — the opposite presumption of the current law. It also places on public agencies — from state bureaucracies to county governments and local school districts — the legal burden of showing why a record should be withheld, instead of forcing requesters to establish why it should be made public.
“This is really a change in the culture of governance in Pennsylvania,” said Barry Kauffman, director of Pennsylvania Common Cause. “In too many cases, employees and officials of government agencies had an attitude that they own the government records instead of just being the caretakers of the government records.”
In most case, those whose requests are denied will be able to appeal directly to a new, nonjudicial agency — the Office of Open Records — whose director has a track record as an advocate of public access.
Teri Henning, general counsel for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, which spearheaded lobbying for the new law, said the hope “is that, over time, these fundamental changes will create a culture of openness in Pennsylvania government.”
That spirit of openness is tempered in the law by a list of 30 wide-ranging exceptions that are tailored to respond to such concerns as personal privacy, public safety and internal deliberations by public officials.
The exceptions, which make up about one-fifth of the law, are “very wordy, very detailed and dense, filled with what I will call, kindly, mumbo jumbo,” said Sproul, who’s also president of the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information Coalition. “That in itself is an impediment to getting public records.”
The law also expands access to government contracts: Private businesses that do business with state and local governments are required to make some records available to the public. It covers all of state government, including — to a limited extent — the Legislature and the state’s judicial system, both previously exempt.
It covers an array of state affiliated entities including community colleges, the 14 state owned universities in the State System of Higher Education and the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association. The state related universities — Penn State, Pittsburgh, Temple and Lincoln — are generally exempt, but required to issue annual financial reports that include their highest 25 employee salaries.
Local agencies covered by the law include counties, boroughs, townships and school districts, as well as charter schools, vocational schools and intermediate units.
By now, every agency should have designated an open-records officer to oversee compliance, adopted a policy for managing its records and briefed employees on how to handle records requests.
No one is predicting a flawless implementation.
“There’s going to be confusion at the beginning ... from citizens, from public officials and from members of the media,” said Terry Mutchler, the lawyer and former reporter that Gov. Ed Rendell appointed to a six-year term as director of the openrecords office.
Many observers predict a spike in records requests — and appeals to Mutchler’s office — in early 2009 as Pennsylvanians test their access under the new law. That will likely be followed by a gradual return to a more normal pace.
“After five years, we’ll forget it was ever such a big deal,” said Emily Leader, a lawyer for the Pennsylvania School Boards Association, which speaks for the state’s 501 school districts.
Mutchler, who’s hiring six staff lawyers to help her handle the expected deluge of appeals, has been working with associations representing county commissioners, township supervisors and school boards — as well as newspapers. At some sessions, concerns were expressed about the status of e-mails.
The new law defines a record as “information, regardless of physical form or characteristics, that documents a transaction or activity of an agency.” That includes not only e-mails, but audio recordings, photos and even films.
“Here’s the e-mail training,” Mutchler told a Pennsylvania School Boards Association workshop in October. “If you don’t want to read it on Page One, don’t put it in e-mail. If you’re sending an e-mail, envision it on letterhead.”
Access advocates hope the new law will open records like PennDOT’s hazardous-sites list to public scrutiny.
PennDOT spokesman Rich Kirkpatrick said the lists are kept confidential because the rankings can be misleading and state law bars such information from being used in legal claims against the state.
Asked if PennDOT plans to withhold the information after the new law takes effect, he said, “I can’t speculate.”
Property Tax Hit for Taxpayers
From the BCCT.
I remember former business manager Reba Dunford warning about some of these items. Does anyone remember how the President Emperor responded?
A big hit expected for taxpayers
Early this month, the state increased its projections for how much school districts will have to pay into the employee pension fund in coming years.
By GARY WECKSELBLATT
The next decade is not expected to be kind to those who pay property taxes.
After hearing the numbers released Dec. 12 by the people running the public school pension system, Bob Reinhart did some calculations.
The business administrator for the Pennridge School District looked at the 2012-13 school year, when figures show the current contribution residents will have to fork over rises from next year’s 4.78 to 16.4 percent. The 16.4 was adjusted up from 11.23 after the Pennsylvania Public School Employee Retirement System fund fell 2.8 percent.
Reinhart’s math shows Pennridge’s cost rising by $6 million. A hefty number for a district that finds itself in a $900,000 hole for the 2009-10 school year.
“It’s going to be a big concern for us,” he said.
Probably worse than Reinhart and his fellow business managers across the state realize. The projections released earlier this month by PSERS’ actuarial firm, Buck Consultants, are based on the pension fund’s performance through June 30 — well before the fall’s carnage to the stock market.
If the fund fell 12.8 percent from $62.7 billion to $54.7 billion by Sept. 30 — as PSERS reported — a period when the S&P 500 and Nasdaq dropped 9 percent and the Dow Jones dropped 4 percent — what might the fund look like now?
Since Oct. 1, those wellknown investment indicators are down significantly. The Dow has been the best performer, losing 26.5 percent; the S&P is down 31 percent, the Nasdaq 34 percent.
It’s conceivable the fund, with a membership of more than 272,000 active school employees and more than 173,000 retirees, might have fallen to $40 billion.
If a 2.8 percent setback pushes future employer contributions up more than 5 percent a year from 2012-13 to 2017-18, what would a decline 10 times greater mean to the pocketbooks of area homeowners who are watching their own retirement savings dwindle?
Central Bucks, the area’s largest school district, could feel a significant hit. Even before the PSERS’ projected rates rose, CB business manager Dave Matyas expected his district’s costs to double in three years from $10 to $20 million.
“It is unrealistic to predict the fund will be able to earn its way out of the projected rate spike given the current investment market conditions and the precarious state of the economy,” PSERS Executive Director Jeffrey B. Clay said in a statement. “Previously PSERS made significant progress dropping the projected rate spike by earning outstanding investment returns for four years. It is highly unlikely, given the current recession taking place in the U.S., that the fund will be able to re-create those outstanding returns in the short-term.”
PSERS, which assumes an annual return of 8.5 percent for its pension fund, is the 14th largest defined benefit pension fund in the country. Members contribute between 5.25 and 7.5 percent of their salary to help fund their retirement.
During this past year, school districts budgeted 4.76 percent of teacher salaries for the pension fund. That was down from 7.13 percent in 2007-08.
In a letter to school districts last December, John Godlewski, the state department of education’s former director of budget and fiscal management, recommended that districts disregard the lower number and set aside money at the 7.13 percent rate in preparation for future increases.
Clay agrees with creating a reserve in anticipation of the large projected rate increase.
“It would be very prudent for school employers to do so,” he said.
Like some other local districts, Pennridge has taken that approach and is budgeting 7.13 percent rather than next year’s 4.78 figure. Had Reinhart budgeted the lower number, the district’s current $900,000 budget hole would shrink to about $265,000.
“The board and myself want to be prudent,” he said.
I remember former business manager Reba Dunford warning about some of these items. Does anyone remember how the President Emperor responded?
A big hit expected for taxpayers
Early this month, the state increased its projections for how much school districts will have to pay into the employee pension fund in coming years.
By GARY WECKSELBLATT
The next decade is not expected to be kind to those who pay property taxes.
After hearing the numbers released Dec. 12 by the people running the public school pension system, Bob Reinhart did some calculations.
The business administrator for the Pennridge School District looked at the 2012-13 school year, when figures show the current contribution residents will have to fork over rises from next year’s 4.78 to 16.4 percent. The 16.4 was adjusted up from 11.23 after the Pennsylvania Public School Employee Retirement System fund fell 2.8 percent.
Reinhart’s math shows Pennridge’s cost rising by $6 million. A hefty number for a district that finds itself in a $900,000 hole for the 2009-10 school year.
“It’s going to be a big concern for us,” he said.
Probably worse than Reinhart and his fellow business managers across the state realize. The projections released earlier this month by PSERS’ actuarial firm, Buck Consultants, are based on the pension fund’s performance through June 30 — well before the fall’s carnage to the stock market.
If the fund fell 12.8 percent from $62.7 billion to $54.7 billion by Sept. 30 — as PSERS reported — a period when the S&P 500 and Nasdaq dropped 9 percent and the Dow Jones dropped 4 percent — what might the fund look like now?
Since Oct. 1, those wellknown investment indicators are down significantly. The Dow has been the best performer, losing 26.5 percent; the S&P is down 31 percent, the Nasdaq 34 percent.
It’s conceivable the fund, with a membership of more than 272,000 active school employees and more than 173,000 retirees, might have fallen to $40 billion.
If a 2.8 percent setback pushes future employer contributions up more than 5 percent a year from 2012-13 to 2017-18, what would a decline 10 times greater mean to the pocketbooks of area homeowners who are watching their own retirement savings dwindle?
Central Bucks, the area’s largest school district, could feel a significant hit. Even before the PSERS’ projected rates rose, CB business manager Dave Matyas expected his district’s costs to double in three years from $10 to $20 million.
“It is unrealistic to predict the fund will be able to earn its way out of the projected rate spike given the current investment market conditions and the precarious state of the economy,” PSERS Executive Director Jeffrey B. Clay said in a statement. “Previously PSERS made significant progress dropping the projected rate spike by earning outstanding investment returns for four years. It is highly unlikely, given the current recession taking place in the U.S., that the fund will be able to re-create those outstanding returns in the short-term.”
PSERS, which assumes an annual return of 8.5 percent for its pension fund, is the 14th largest defined benefit pension fund in the country. Members contribute between 5.25 and 7.5 percent of their salary to help fund their retirement.
During this past year, school districts budgeted 4.76 percent of teacher salaries for the pension fund. That was down from 7.13 percent in 2007-08.
In a letter to school districts last December, John Godlewski, the state department of education’s former director of budget and fiscal management, recommended that districts disregard the lower number and set aside money at the 7.13 percent rate in preparation for future increases.
Clay agrees with creating a reserve in anticipation of the large projected rate increase.
“It would be very prudent for school employers to do so,” he said.
Like some other local districts, Pennridge has taken that approach and is budgeting 7.13 percent rather than next year’s 4.78 figure. Had Reinhart budgeted the lower number, the district’s current $900,000 budget hole would shrink to about $265,000.
“The board and myself want to be prudent,” he said.
Wanted: Generous souls in tough times
From the BCCT.
Yes, times are tight. You can still do some good. Give at that office collection, the Salvation Army bell ringer, your church, the local food bank, or even your neighbor you know is having a hard time. This is not a specific endorsement of any specific way to help: There's plenty of outlets where your generosity can be used.
Maybe this year, the tables are turned. You've always been the generous giver. This year, you need to be the receiver. Reach out. It's hard to extend a helping hand when only one is reaching.
Wanted: Generous souls in tough times
The faces of the unemployed, the foreclosed upon and those in poverty in Bucks County demonstrate how much your help is needed.
By CARL LAVO
STAFF WRITER
The economy sputters on Wall Street and Main Street. Fortunately, the spirit of giving continues to burn bright in Lower Bucks County.
For 50 years and counting, you and your neighbors have contributed everything you can to the annual Give-A-Christmas fund sponsored by the Levittown-Bristol Kiwanis Club and the Bucks County Courier Times. Your generosity has made a difference to those who are crushed by circumstances during the holiday season.
This year, the heartbreak of families in trouble continues and is all around us.
Here’s just a sampling:
“I am a single mother with breast cancer. I have 2 daughters, ages 4 and 6. I am not working due to my illness and have no way to provide Christmas to my girls. If there is any way you could help, it would be greatly appreciated.” — Northampton
“This family has always donated to the needy but now finds themselves in desperate need. The husband and wife, both injured, are barely surviving on a fraction of their original income while trying to support their children, as well as their 20-year-old daughter who had to drop out of college when they couldn’t afford her tuition. They’re struggling to just keep a roof over their heads.” —
Levittown
“I have two children and receive $650 a month to live on from Social Security. God bless what you’re doing.” — Langhorne
“I am writing to you about a family in great need. They just lost their apartment and they have two children, ages 3 and 2, and the mother is expecting any day. The father was working 2 jobs when he lost one of them. … They aren’t having Christmas this year due to no money. They have no tree, no gifts for the children. Please help.” —
Northampton
“Mom and 4 boys — She has cancer and no money to get the boys anything for Christmas. Please help.” —
Levittown
“I work so hard to take care of my son and I. One of the Grey Nuns in Yardley gives me her old things and I sell them at flea markets to make ends meet. Please help make Christmas possible.” —
Bensalem
“I am writing for a friend who could use some holiday cheer and a touch of kindness this Christmas season. … He has been laid off several weeks ago, cannot collect unemployment or find a fulltime job. He has worked for some temp services but only gets two to three days a week. I know he could use a little help but would never ask.” —
Morrisville
These are just some of the faces behind sobering statistics in Bucks, where poverty is mostly hidden behind an aura of affluence. Here, where the average household income is a comfortable $88,888, others struggle just to get by:
Nearly 5 percent of workingage adults in Bucks are unemployed, up 1.5 percent from last year. That translates into more than 31,000 county residents out of work — from Morrisville to Quakertown, Bensalem to Riegelsville.
More than 5 percent of county residents live below the poverty line. That’s at least 32,000 people earning less than $22,200 a year, the federal poverty threshold. One county official estimates the number is far higher in Bucks because it requires $33,000 to $37,000 a year for a family of three just to afford basic necessities here.
One house out of every 1,868 homes in Bucks County is in foreclosure. People also are being evicted from apartments for failure to pay their rent.
So here’s your chance to help.
Give these families a little hope in these final days leading to Christmas. Give them something to smile about. Give them something to be thankful for — a reminder that there are neighbors like you out there who care.
Contribute what you can to Give-A-Christmas. Every penny, every nickel, every dime, quarter and dollar will mean a lot.
Yes, times are tight. You can still do some good. Give at that office collection, the Salvation Army bell ringer, your church, the local food bank, or even your neighbor you know is having a hard time. This is not a specific endorsement of any specific way to help: There's plenty of outlets where your generosity can be used.
Maybe this year, the tables are turned. You've always been the generous giver. This year, you need to be the receiver. Reach out. It's hard to extend a helping hand when only one is reaching.
Wanted: Generous souls in tough times
The faces of the unemployed, the foreclosed upon and those in poverty in Bucks County demonstrate how much your help is needed.
By CARL LAVO
STAFF WRITER
The economy sputters on Wall Street and Main Street. Fortunately, the spirit of giving continues to burn bright in Lower Bucks County.
For 50 years and counting, you and your neighbors have contributed everything you can to the annual Give-A-Christmas fund sponsored by the Levittown-Bristol Kiwanis Club and the Bucks County Courier Times. Your generosity has made a difference to those who are crushed by circumstances during the holiday season.
This year, the heartbreak of families in trouble continues and is all around us.
Here’s just a sampling:
“I am a single mother with breast cancer. I have 2 daughters, ages 4 and 6. I am not working due to my illness and have no way to provide Christmas to my girls. If there is any way you could help, it would be greatly appreciated.” — Northampton
“This family has always donated to the needy but now finds themselves in desperate need. The husband and wife, both injured, are barely surviving on a fraction of their original income while trying to support their children, as well as their 20-year-old daughter who had to drop out of college when they couldn’t afford her tuition. They’re struggling to just keep a roof over their heads.” —
Levittown
“I have two children and receive $650 a month to live on from Social Security. God bless what you’re doing.” — Langhorne
“I am writing to you about a family in great need. They just lost their apartment and they have two children, ages 3 and 2, and the mother is expecting any day. The father was working 2 jobs when he lost one of them. … They aren’t having Christmas this year due to no money. They have no tree, no gifts for the children. Please help.” —
Northampton
“Mom and 4 boys — She has cancer and no money to get the boys anything for Christmas. Please help.” —
Levittown
“I work so hard to take care of my son and I. One of the Grey Nuns in Yardley gives me her old things and I sell them at flea markets to make ends meet. Please help make Christmas possible.” —
Bensalem
“I am writing for a friend who could use some holiday cheer and a touch of kindness this Christmas season. … He has been laid off several weeks ago, cannot collect unemployment or find a fulltime job. He has worked for some temp services but only gets two to three days a week. I know he could use a little help but would never ask.” —
Morrisville
These are just some of the faces behind sobering statistics in Bucks, where poverty is mostly hidden behind an aura of affluence. Here, where the average household income is a comfortable $88,888, others struggle just to get by:
Nearly 5 percent of workingage adults in Bucks are unemployed, up 1.5 percent from last year. That translates into more than 31,000 county residents out of work — from Morrisville to Quakertown, Bensalem to Riegelsville.
More than 5 percent of county residents live below the poverty line. That’s at least 32,000 people earning less than $22,200 a year, the federal poverty threshold. One county official estimates the number is far higher in Bucks because it requires $33,000 to $37,000 a year for a family of three just to afford basic necessities here.
One house out of every 1,868 homes in Bucks County is in foreclosure. People also are being evicted from apartments for failure to pay their rent.
So here’s your chance to help.
Give these families a little hope in these final days leading to Christmas. Give them something to smile about. Give them something to be thankful for — a reminder that there are neighbors like you out there who care.
Contribute what you can to Give-A-Christmas. Every penny, every nickel, every dime, quarter and dollar will mean a lot.
"The Parallels are Striking"
Thanks to the emailer who sent me this information along with the cryptic notation that "the parallels are striking." :)
The American Debate: He leaves with a record of contempt, secrecy, lies
By Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
I last saw Dick Cheney at a Colorado rodeo arena, in August of 2004, flashing his grin-grimace on a stage flanked by bales of hay, his hands seemingly glued to thick thighs encased in cowboy jeans - and it was painfully obvious that he wanted to rid himself of these campaign rituals and return to a secret, undisclosed location.
He had little patience for his fans, even when they yelled nice things at him ("Knock it off," he yelled back), and after posing for their digital cameras, he parted the curtain and vanished. Which made perfect sense, because, unlike your typical politician and vice president, this was truly a guy who lived in the shadows, like a mushroom. He thrived where nobody could see him.
And that's where he did the most damage to the very notion of honest, democratic self-rule.
It's impossible to critique the failures of the Bush era without targeting the de facto deputy president, a historically unique veep who did the policy work and the dirty work for his detail-averse boss. Not that Cheney would care what I think. Or what you think. His governing style was always predicated on the notion that he knew best and that public opinion was a mere irritant, as consequential as a fly buzzing a picnic basket. And it was always his basket, to restock as he pleased.
Cheney biographer Barton Gellman, whose groundbreaking new book, Angler, has been praised even by Cheney supporters, wrote: "Cheney's most troubling quality was a sense of mission so acute that it drove him to seek power without limit . . . [He] did not much admire the way his fellow Americans made decisions. Our fickle loyalties, our emotional swings, our uneven grasp of facts, our failure to see the main point, our logical errors - all the things that made our collective conversation so unlike Dick Cheney's conversation with himself - brought the vice president close to saying he need not bother listening."
Nor did he bother communicating, at least in ways that approximated the truth.
The Bush administration went into free fall for a host of reasons - such as its documented incompetence in Iraq and New Orleans - but it can fairly be argued that, at some point, a landslide majority of Americans simply decided that the White House was telling too many lies. And Cheney was a prime offender. No leader, even a legendarily skillful infighter like Cheney, can repeatedly insult the public and get away with it indefinitely.
He viewed the average citizen as moldable clay, and he crafted his prewar propaganda accordingly. He shaped the intelligence on Iraq to reflect his post-9/11 fixation on Iraq; as our British allies wrote on July 23, 2002, in a now-infamous memo, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." And then he went out and sold us on the fix.
He declared publicly in August 2002 that "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction; there is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us." In reality, intelligence officials had been voicing their doubts, and reporting their doubts, all year. But Cheney opted not to share those doubts with the citizens who would have to finance the war and, in some cases, send their kids to fight it.
And whereas Cheney kept publicly telling us in 2002 that Hussein was in close cahoots with Osama bin Laden, the president's own Daily Brief of Sept. 21, 2001, said there was "scant credible evidence" of any "significant collaborative ties" - a conclusion since endorsed by the 9/11 Commission report in 2004 and a new Pentagon report in 2008.
Cheney's characteristic debasement of factual empiricism was not limited to the war, of course. Even after voters booted the GOP out of power on Capitol Hill in 2006, he sought to deny statistical reality. He said the Democrats had won only "a narrow victory," whereas, actually, the aggregate tally of all contested House races showed the Democrats winning by 6.6 percentage points nationwide - a wider margin than when Newt Gingrich and the GOP captured the House in 1994. And the swing-voting independents favored the Democrats in 2006 by 18 points - a portent of the Democratic seizure of the center in 2008.
Yet even though Cheney is currently playing out the string with the lowest favorability rating of any veep in modern polling (scraping bottom with Dan Quayle, which says a lot), and even though he no longer has the clout that he enjoyed when ally Donald Rumsfeld ran the Pentagon, there is nary a hint that he confess error or lighten his hubris with a dose of humility.
On ABC News recently, Cheney was still justifying the Iraq invasion, claiming that the postwar inspectors had determined "that Saddam Hussein still had the technology to produce weapons of mass destruction. He had the technology, he had the people, he had the basic feedstocks." This was yet another lie. The authoritative postwar Duelfer Report concluded four years ago that Hussein's mass weapons programs had "progressively decayed" since 1991, and that inspectors found no evidence of any "concerted efforts to restart the program."
But perhaps the GOP should have the final word. During the early presidential primaries, one of the candidates was asked, "Would you grant your vice president as much authority and as much independence as President Bush has granted to Vice President Cheney?" The candidate simply replied: "No" - and the Republican audience cracked up. And that alone should be the verdict on Cheney's legacy.
The American Debate: He leaves with a record of contempt, secrecy, lies
By Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
I last saw Dick Cheney at a Colorado rodeo arena, in August of 2004, flashing his grin-grimace on a stage flanked by bales of hay, his hands seemingly glued to thick thighs encased in cowboy jeans - and it was painfully obvious that he wanted to rid himself of these campaign rituals and return to a secret, undisclosed location.
He had little patience for his fans, even when they yelled nice things at him ("Knock it off," he yelled back), and after posing for their digital cameras, he parted the curtain and vanished. Which made perfect sense, because, unlike your typical politician and vice president, this was truly a guy who lived in the shadows, like a mushroom. He thrived where nobody could see him.
And that's where he did the most damage to the very notion of honest, democratic self-rule.
It's impossible to critique the failures of the Bush era without targeting the de facto deputy president, a historically unique veep who did the policy work and the dirty work for his detail-averse boss. Not that Cheney would care what I think. Or what you think. His governing style was always predicated on the notion that he knew best and that public opinion was a mere irritant, as consequential as a fly buzzing a picnic basket. And it was always his basket, to restock as he pleased.
Cheney biographer Barton Gellman, whose groundbreaking new book, Angler, has been praised even by Cheney supporters, wrote: "Cheney's most troubling quality was a sense of mission so acute that it drove him to seek power without limit . . . [He] did not much admire the way his fellow Americans made decisions. Our fickle loyalties, our emotional swings, our uneven grasp of facts, our failure to see the main point, our logical errors - all the things that made our collective conversation so unlike Dick Cheney's conversation with himself - brought the vice president close to saying he need not bother listening."
Nor did he bother communicating, at least in ways that approximated the truth.
The Bush administration went into free fall for a host of reasons - such as its documented incompetence in Iraq and New Orleans - but it can fairly be argued that, at some point, a landslide majority of Americans simply decided that the White House was telling too many lies. And Cheney was a prime offender. No leader, even a legendarily skillful infighter like Cheney, can repeatedly insult the public and get away with it indefinitely.
He viewed the average citizen as moldable clay, and he crafted his prewar propaganda accordingly. He shaped the intelligence on Iraq to reflect his post-9/11 fixation on Iraq; as our British allies wrote on July 23, 2002, in a now-infamous memo, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." And then he went out and sold us on the fix.
He declared publicly in August 2002 that "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction; there is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us." In reality, intelligence officials had been voicing their doubts, and reporting their doubts, all year. But Cheney opted not to share those doubts with the citizens who would have to finance the war and, in some cases, send their kids to fight it.
And whereas Cheney kept publicly telling us in 2002 that Hussein was in close cahoots with Osama bin Laden, the president's own Daily Brief of Sept. 21, 2001, said there was "scant credible evidence" of any "significant collaborative ties" - a conclusion since endorsed by the 9/11 Commission report in 2004 and a new Pentagon report in 2008.
Cheney's characteristic debasement of factual empiricism was not limited to the war, of course. Even after voters booted the GOP out of power on Capitol Hill in 2006, he sought to deny statistical reality. He said the Democrats had won only "a narrow victory," whereas, actually, the aggregate tally of all contested House races showed the Democrats winning by 6.6 percentage points nationwide - a wider margin than when Newt Gingrich and the GOP captured the House in 1994. And the swing-voting independents favored the Democrats in 2006 by 18 points - a portent of the Democratic seizure of the center in 2008.
Yet even though Cheney is currently playing out the string with the lowest favorability rating of any veep in modern polling (scraping bottom with Dan Quayle, which says a lot), and even though he no longer has the clout that he enjoyed when ally Donald Rumsfeld ran the Pentagon, there is nary a hint that he confess error or lighten his hubris with a dose of humility.
On ABC News recently, Cheney was still justifying the Iraq invasion, claiming that the postwar inspectors had determined "that Saddam Hussein still had the technology to produce weapons of mass destruction. He had the technology, he had the people, he had the basic feedstocks." This was yet another lie. The authoritative postwar Duelfer Report concluded four years ago that Hussein's mass weapons programs had "progressively decayed" since 1991, and that inspectors found no evidence of any "concerted efforts to restart the program."
But perhaps the GOP should have the final word. During the early presidential primaries, one of the candidates was asked, "Would you grant your vice president as much authority and as much independence as President Bush has granted to Vice President Cheney?" The candidate simply replied: "No" - and the Republican audience cracked up. And that alone should be the verdict on Cheney's legacy.
What Are Inclusive Programs?
Thanks to the emailer who sent this information.
Everyone seems to have their ideas about Inclusive Practices. What do the experts have to say about Inclusive Programs?
The National Organization of School Psychologists is the premier source of knowledge, professional development, and resources, empowering school psychologist to ensure ALL children and youth attain optimal learning and mental health.
http://www.nasponline.org/about_nasp/pospaper_ipsd.aspx
Position Statement on Inclusive Programs for Students With Disabilities
The 1997 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 97) created significant educational opportunities for students with disabilities and established important safeguards that ensure the provision of a free, appropriate public education to students with special needs. NASP strongly supports the continuation and strengthening of this mandate. NASP also recognizes the need to continually evaluate the effectiveness of all aspects of our educational system and to promote reform when needed.
A Call for Inclusive Schools
NASP, in its continuing commitment to promote more effective educational programs for all students, advocates the development of inclusive programs for students with disabilities. Inclusive programs are those in which students, regardless of the severity of their disability, receive appropriate specialized instruction and related services within an age appropriate general education classroom in the school that they would attend if they did not have a disability. NASP believes that carefully designed inclusive programs individualized to meet the needs of students with disabilities represent a viable and legitimate option on the special education continuum that must be examined for any student who requires special education. Inclusive education is within the continuum of special education services, and must be based upon the individual needs, goals, and objectives determined by IEP teams.
Potential Benefits
Some of the benefits of inclusive programs include:
* typical peers serving as models for students with disabilities;
* the development of natural friendships within the child’s home community;
* learning new academic and social skills within natural environments, facilitating generalization of skills;
* students with disabilities existing in “natural” proportions within the school community;
* all students learning to value diversity; and
* general education classrooms that are better able to meet the needs of all students as a result of additional instructional resources, staff development for general and special educators, a more flexible curriculum, and adapted instructional delivery systems.
Developing Inclusive Programs
In advocating for the development of these programs, NASP takes the position that:
* Inclusive programs must provide all the services needed to ensure that students make consistent social, emotional, and academic gains.
* General education teachers, special education teachers, school psychologists, other related services providers, and parents must collaborate to ensure appropriate services for all students and to ensure that all programs are based upon a careful analysis of each student’s needs. Decisions regarding services must be made on an individual child basis.
* Outcome-based data on inclusive programs must be collected to ensure that students with and without disabilities are making consistent educational progress. Ongoing empirical examination and further research are needed.
* All educators and administrators involved in implementing inclusive programs must participate in planning and training activities. When developing inclusive programs, adults with disabilities serving as experts and/or advocates, in addition to the students themselves, need to be included as much as possible.
* Knowledge and skills in effective collaboration, curriculum adaptation, developing supportive social relationships, and restructuring special services are but a few of the areas in which skills are needed.
* Preservice and inservice training based upon the needs of the staff involved in planning these programs is essential. The active involvement of general educators and administrators in staff development is critical for successful inclusion.
* School districts with limited resources may have difficulty meeting the needs of all students, particularly those with low incidence or severe disabilities. It may be necessary to provide planning and training for the provision of reasonable accommodations to students with low incidence or severe disabilities attending their neighborhood schools.
The Role of the School Psychologist
School psychologists can provide effective leadership in the development of inclusive programs. School psychologists have training and experience in collaborative consultation, behavioral and academic intervention design, curriculum adaptation, modification of learning environments, program evaluation, peer mediated learning, facilitating friendships, and other issues critical to effective inclusive programs. Because of this expertise, school psychologists are in a unique position to assist schools in assessing student needs, reallocating existing resources, and restructuring service delivery systems to better meet the educational and mental health needs of all students. School psychologists can foster the development of inclusive schools by:
* gathering and providing information regarding the strengths and needs of individual students;
* providing meaningful support and consultation to teachers and other educators implementing inclusive programs;
* distributing articles and research to fellow educators and district committees responsible for educational restructuring;
* leading or serving as members of groups that are evaluating or restructuring education programs;
* planning and conducting staff development programs that support inclusion;
* offering training and support to teachers, students and families;
* developing new resources through grant writing and collaboration with other community agencies, and other activities;
* providing information on needed changes to legislators and state and federal policy-makers; and,
* collecting and analyzing program evaluation and outcome based research.
Concerns Regarding the Traditional Special Education System
Certain aspects of traditional special education include a number of problems that create unintended negative outcomes for students:
* A referral and evaluation system that does not function as originally intended. Some of the weaknesses of this system include:
o Over reliance upon a classification system of disability categories that lacks utility and reliability for this purpose, and lacks acceptance by many parents and professionals.
o A lack of empirical research showing that students with mild disabilities grouped by category learn differently or are taught differently.
* Inequities in implementation of the least restrictive environment and access to general education curriculum provisions of IDEA 97. Data suggest that the restrictiveness of many special education placements is not based upon the severity of students’ disabilities, but may instead result from the configuration of the service delivery system that is available in the community.
* Concerns that traditional special education programs are not effective in terms of learner outcomes.
* Overly restrictive special education programs housed in separate schools or “cluster” sites that result in social segregation and disproportionate numbers of students with disabilities being grouped together. For example, some students, especially those with more severe disabilities, must attend separate schools to receive special services, rather than being provided appropriate services in his/her neighborhood school. Many parents and professionals feel that it is inherently inequitable that some students must leave their neighborhood schools and communities to receive appropriate services. Although neighborhood schools may be the best decision for most students, decisions must be made on an individual basis.
Changing our Schools
NASP recognizes that the traditional framework of special education policies and regulations is often incompatible with inclusive programs. Consequently, NASP joins with the National Association of State Boards of Education in calling for a fundamental shift in the policies which drive our compensatory education system. Changes are suggested in:
* The system used to identify and evaluate students with special needs. This should be made more reliable and less stigmatizing. Noncategorical services (Rights without labels) may be appropriate for inclusive education.
* The traditional special education funding system. The link between funding and placements must be severed. Many aspects of the funding system are driven by labels and program locations rather than by student needs. Special education funding systems must be based on the provision of services to students and not on the maintenance of programs, facilities, personnel, etc.
* School improvement planning. School improvement /restructuring plans must include students with disabilities. The integration of general and special education issues must be reflected in building and district level improvement plans. This requires collaboration and staff development for both general and special educators in order to address the needs of all students.
* NASP recognizes that the shift toward more inclusive schools will require profound changes in the ways in which schools are organized. We are committed to working with parents, other professional groups, and state and national policy-makers in creating new funding and regulatory mechanisms that promote effective programs within neighborhood schools and ensure that students with special needs continue to receive appropriate resources. We endorse a process of planned change that involves all stakeholders in research, planning, and training to ensure that our nation’s schools can attain excellence for all of our children.
References
Baker, E.T., Wang, M.C., & Walberg H.J. (1994). The effects of inclusion on learning. Educational Leadership, 52(4), 33-35.
Falvey, M.A. (Ed.). (1995). Inclusive and heterogeneous schooling. Assessment, curriculum, and instruction. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
National Association of State Boards of Education. (1992). Winners all: A call for inclusive schools. Alexandria, VA: Author.
National Association of State Boards of Education. (1995). Winning ways: Creating inclusive schools, classrooms, and communities. Alexandria, VA: Author.
National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities (NICHCY). (1995) The national study of inclusive education. New York: National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion, The Graduate School and University Center, The City University of New York.
Rogers, J. (1993) The inclusion revolution. Research Bulletin, no. 11. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan Center for Evaluation, Development, and Research.
Salisbury, C.L., Pumpian, I., Fisher, D., Roach,V., & McGregor, G. (1995). A framework for evaluating state and local policies for inclusion. Consortium on Inclusive Schooling Practices.[On-line]. Available: http://www.icdi.wvu.edu/others.htm#g10
Stainback, S. & Stainback, W. (Eds.). (1996). Inclusion: A guide for educators. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Staub, D. & Peck, C.A. (1994). What are the outcomes for nondisabled students? Educational Leadership, 52(4), 36-40.
Thompkins, R. & Deloney, P. (1995) Inclusion: The pros and cons. Issues About Change, 4, 3. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Waldron, N.L. (1997). Inclusion. In G.G. Bear, K.M. Minke, & A.Thomas (Eds.), Children’s needs II: Development, problems and alternatives. Bethesda,MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
- Adopted by the NASP Delegate Assembly, 1993
- Revision adopted by NASP Delegate Assembly, April 1, 2000
© 2002 National Association of School Psychologists, 4340 East West Highway, Suite 402, Bethesda MD 20814 - 301-657-0270.
Please note that NASP periodically revises its Position Statements. We encourage you to check the NASP website at www.nasponline.org to ensure that you have the most current version of this Position Statement.
Everyone seems to have their ideas about Inclusive Practices. What do the experts have to say about Inclusive Programs?
The National Organization of School Psychologists is the premier source of knowledge, professional development, and resources, empowering school psychologist to ensure ALL children and youth attain optimal learning and mental health.
http://www.nasponline.org/about_nasp/pospaper_ipsd.aspx
Position Statement on Inclusive Programs for Students With Disabilities
The 1997 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 97) created significant educational opportunities for students with disabilities and established important safeguards that ensure the provision of a free, appropriate public education to students with special needs. NASP strongly supports the continuation and strengthening of this mandate. NASP also recognizes the need to continually evaluate the effectiveness of all aspects of our educational system and to promote reform when needed.
A Call for Inclusive Schools
NASP, in its continuing commitment to promote more effective educational programs for all students, advocates the development of inclusive programs for students with disabilities. Inclusive programs are those in which students, regardless of the severity of their disability, receive appropriate specialized instruction and related services within an age appropriate general education classroom in the school that they would attend if they did not have a disability. NASP believes that carefully designed inclusive programs individualized to meet the needs of students with disabilities represent a viable and legitimate option on the special education continuum that must be examined for any student who requires special education. Inclusive education is within the continuum of special education services, and must be based upon the individual needs, goals, and objectives determined by IEP teams.
Potential Benefits
Some of the benefits of inclusive programs include:
* typical peers serving as models for students with disabilities;
* the development of natural friendships within the child’s home community;
* learning new academic and social skills within natural environments, facilitating generalization of skills;
* students with disabilities existing in “natural” proportions within the school community;
* all students learning to value diversity; and
* general education classrooms that are better able to meet the needs of all students as a result of additional instructional resources, staff development for general and special educators, a more flexible curriculum, and adapted instructional delivery systems.
Developing Inclusive Programs
In advocating for the development of these programs, NASP takes the position that:
* Inclusive programs must provide all the services needed to ensure that students make consistent social, emotional, and academic gains.
* General education teachers, special education teachers, school psychologists, other related services providers, and parents must collaborate to ensure appropriate services for all students and to ensure that all programs are based upon a careful analysis of each student’s needs. Decisions regarding services must be made on an individual child basis.
* Outcome-based data on inclusive programs must be collected to ensure that students with and without disabilities are making consistent educational progress. Ongoing empirical examination and further research are needed.
* All educators and administrators involved in implementing inclusive programs must participate in planning and training activities. When developing inclusive programs, adults with disabilities serving as experts and/or advocates, in addition to the students themselves, need to be included as much as possible.
* Knowledge and skills in effective collaboration, curriculum adaptation, developing supportive social relationships, and restructuring special services are but a few of the areas in which skills are needed.
* Preservice and inservice training based upon the needs of the staff involved in planning these programs is essential. The active involvement of general educators and administrators in staff development is critical for successful inclusion.
* School districts with limited resources may have difficulty meeting the needs of all students, particularly those with low incidence or severe disabilities. It may be necessary to provide planning and training for the provision of reasonable accommodations to students with low incidence or severe disabilities attending their neighborhood schools.
The Role of the School Psychologist
School psychologists can provide effective leadership in the development of inclusive programs. School psychologists have training and experience in collaborative consultation, behavioral and academic intervention design, curriculum adaptation, modification of learning environments, program evaluation, peer mediated learning, facilitating friendships, and other issues critical to effective inclusive programs. Because of this expertise, school psychologists are in a unique position to assist schools in assessing student needs, reallocating existing resources, and restructuring service delivery systems to better meet the educational and mental health needs of all students. School psychologists can foster the development of inclusive schools by:
* gathering and providing information regarding the strengths and needs of individual students;
* providing meaningful support and consultation to teachers and other educators implementing inclusive programs;
* distributing articles and research to fellow educators and district committees responsible for educational restructuring;
* leading or serving as members of groups that are evaluating or restructuring education programs;
* planning and conducting staff development programs that support inclusion;
* offering training and support to teachers, students and families;
* developing new resources through grant writing and collaboration with other community agencies, and other activities;
* providing information on needed changes to legislators and state and federal policy-makers; and,
* collecting and analyzing program evaluation and outcome based research.
Concerns Regarding the Traditional Special Education System
Certain aspects of traditional special education include a number of problems that create unintended negative outcomes for students:
* A referral and evaluation system that does not function as originally intended. Some of the weaknesses of this system include:
o Over reliance upon a classification system of disability categories that lacks utility and reliability for this purpose, and lacks acceptance by many parents and professionals.
o A lack of empirical research showing that students with mild disabilities grouped by category learn differently or are taught differently.
* Inequities in implementation of the least restrictive environment and access to general education curriculum provisions of IDEA 97. Data suggest that the restrictiveness of many special education placements is not based upon the severity of students’ disabilities, but may instead result from the configuration of the service delivery system that is available in the community.
* Concerns that traditional special education programs are not effective in terms of learner outcomes.
* Overly restrictive special education programs housed in separate schools or “cluster” sites that result in social segregation and disproportionate numbers of students with disabilities being grouped together. For example, some students, especially those with more severe disabilities, must attend separate schools to receive special services, rather than being provided appropriate services in his/her neighborhood school. Many parents and professionals feel that it is inherently inequitable that some students must leave their neighborhood schools and communities to receive appropriate services. Although neighborhood schools may be the best decision for most students, decisions must be made on an individual basis.
Changing our Schools
NASP recognizes that the traditional framework of special education policies and regulations is often incompatible with inclusive programs. Consequently, NASP joins with the National Association of State Boards of Education in calling for a fundamental shift in the policies which drive our compensatory education system. Changes are suggested in:
* The system used to identify and evaluate students with special needs. This should be made more reliable and less stigmatizing. Noncategorical services (Rights without labels) may be appropriate for inclusive education.
* The traditional special education funding system. The link between funding and placements must be severed. Many aspects of the funding system are driven by labels and program locations rather than by student needs. Special education funding systems must be based on the provision of services to students and not on the maintenance of programs, facilities, personnel, etc.
* School improvement planning. School improvement /restructuring plans must include students with disabilities. The integration of general and special education issues must be reflected in building and district level improvement plans. This requires collaboration and staff development for both general and special educators in order to address the needs of all students.
* NASP recognizes that the shift toward more inclusive schools will require profound changes in the ways in which schools are organized. We are committed to working with parents, other professional groups, and state and national policy-makers in creating new funding and regulatory mechanisms that promote effective programs within neighborhood schools and ensure that students with special needs continue to receive appropriate resources. We endorse a process of planned change that involves all stakeholders in research, planning, and training to ensure that our nation’s schools can attain excellence for all of our children.
References
Baker, E.T., Wang, M.C., & Walberg H.J. (1994). The effects of inclusion on learning. Educational Leadership, 52(4), 33-35.
Falvey, M.A. (Ed.). (1995). Inclusive and heterogeneous schooling. Assessment, curriculum, and instruction. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
National Association of State Boards of Education. (1992). Winners all: A call for inclusive schools. Alexandria, VA: Author.
National Association of State Boards of Education. (1995). Winning ways: Creating inclusive schools, classrooms, and communities. Alexandria, VA: Author.
National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities (NICHCY). (1995) The national study of inclusive education. New York: National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion, The Graduate School and University Center, The City University of New York.
Rogers, J. (1993) The inclusion revolution. Research Bulletin, no. 11. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan Center for Evaluation, Development, and Research.
Salisbury, C.L., Pumpian, I., Fisher, D., Roach,V., & McGregor, G. (1995). A framework for evaluating state and local policies for inclusion. Consortium on Inclusive Schooling Practices.[On-line]. Available: http://www.icdi.wvu.edu/others.htm#g10
Stainback, S. & Stainback, W. (Eds.). (1996). Inclusion: A guide for educators. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Staub, D. & Peck, C.A. (1994). What are the outcomes for nondisabled students? Educational Leadership, 52(4), 36-40.
Thompkins, R. & Deloney, P. (1995) Inclusion: The pros and cons. Issues About Change, 4, 3. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Waldron, N.L. (1997). Inclusion. In G.G. Bear, K.M. Minke, & A.Thomas (Eds.), Children’s needs II: Development, problems and alternatives. Bethesda,MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
- Adopted by the NASP Delegate Assembly, 1993
- Revision adopted by NASP Delegate Assembly, April 1, 2000
© 2002 National Association of School Psychologists, 4340 East West Highway, Suite 402, Bethesda MD 20814 - 301-657-0270.
Please note that NASP periodically revises its Position Statements. We encourage you to check the NASP website at www.nasponline.org to ensure that you have the most current version of this Position Statement.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
School Board Bickering
The Danville News from Sunbury PA provides us with a break from our school board bickering: Some old-fashioned bickering of their own.
Published December 19, 2008 12:45 am - NetSummary
District divided on building decision
By Karen Blackledge, The Danville News
DANVILLE -- School board members often bicker at public meetings, and sometimes to the point of personality conflicts. This week's meeting was no exception.
At the end of the meeting, two residents including Mike Benjamin, said they were embarrassed by some board members' behavior. At the start of the meeting, he said the board needs to be fiscally responsible and "emotionally based decisions need to be replaced with a rational decision. Consolidation is the only plan on the table that meets any of these needs," he said of a consolidated elementary school. The board rescinded its vote to renovate and expand three elementaries and has no project at this time.
The arguing began when director Kellie Krum asked who would "step up to the plate all the time" and attend planning meetings on design if a consolidated elementary school is approved. While not in favor of a consolidated school, she represented the board at previous meetings on a consolidated school. Her attendance made the difference in space being provided for special education and for Head Start in the plans, she said.
"I work 60 hours a week, have two kids and am a single parent," said director Megan Raup who also represents the board on the Columbia-Montour Vocational-Technical School Board. "You work weekends and Carol (Bisordi, previous board member who attended the planning meetings with Krum) didn't work," Raup said. "You're attacking board members," she told Krum.
Member Jennifer Henning said someone needs to attend the meetings if the board votes again on a consolidated school. Before she was appointed to the board, she served on the building committee for the consolidated school, which at that time was proposed for district property across from the high school.
Board President Allan Schappert said he was willing to represent the board at meetings if a consolidated school is approved. Director Steve Schooley said he could assist Schappert.
Schappert said the district can't afford any other choice but a consolidated school. "Doing nothing will delay the inevitable further and put our children at a greater disadvantage," he said.
Vice President Dr. Paul Moser said a consolidated school will save nearly $700,000 a year. "One single school is less expensive than three little ones. If we forgo consolidation, there are safety and security issues. There are modules that were supposed to be temporary and have become part of the landscape and systems in those schools that aren't quite right. Class size is easier to control at one location and we face the prospect of reorganizing personnel with one school," he said.
Schappert said the cost to maintain the three schools amounts to a half-mill of taxes every year or an average of $75 per year for a taxpayer. "With a consolidated school, we avoid that. Looking at the numbers, everything pales in comparison," he said. "It's not just us taxing our citizens. It's the borough, the county, state and federal taxes. Everyone in this room is hit in the pocketbook and who's going to pay for this? Every day we hear more and more jobs are being lost and I don't want to contribute to this. We are still pouring money into these old schools and kicking that can down the road. Waiting makes it more expensive," he said.
Schooley, who favors consolidation, wanted to put the project on hold for six months due to the economy. The state has indicated it will be cutting revenues to districts, he said.
Business Administrator Richard Snodgrass said a consolidated school is a "more cost-effective way of running the schools than we are doing now." He said there is a potential need to raise taxes if they do not consolidate.
While saying there is no perfect project, Snodgrass recommended taking the best option and working it through. While the current economy is difficult, he believes it creates some opportunities for construction costs if we can get in the market at the right time, we will realize some savings, and if we get a bid at a time people are hungry for jobs and projects."
A number of residents spoke at the meeting. Most of them favor consolidation.
Retired Danville teacher Joan Kessler wants Danville Elementary as the consolidated school. "The day will come to build a new middle school and you'll be talking about building it on this hill," she said of the high school site. She favors Mahoning-Cooper becoming a location for administration and maintenance.
"We are not a community with a population increase around the bend and school population isn't expected to increase," she said.
"We need to find a consensus either way, stick to it or we need to table it," Christy Payton of Mahoning Township said. Payton favors keeping neighborhood schools.
Richard Snyder of Valley Township, who attended a one-room school and then the first consolidated school in Danville, asked, "Where will we get the tax money? I'm over 65 and there are a lot more people over 65. A big elaborate school -- I think we can live with what we have now."
Amy Andrews, with a son at Riverside and a son in Head Start, was concerned about her special needs son in Head Start being thrown into a large group in a consolidated school. "I'm afraid he will be bullied. I'd like to keep Riverside as a family school," she said.
Craig Welliver said building a consolidated school at the high school will compound parking problems. "It's not big enough for a playground and young drivers will be around the elementary school. You need to consider where it will be built before you decide on consolidation," he said.
Wes Wertman, businessman and long-time resident, said it comes down to the economy. "Now is not the time to do anything," he said. "Money that is spent for architecture is all on paper and not lost. I had a lot of plans for 2009 but I canceled them as of October. My products went back 20 years. This effects the whole economy and everybody's business is going downhill. People are losing their jobs."
Bob Snyder of Mahoning Township suggested Danville Elementary become the consolidated school for kindergarten through third grades.
Joe Mahoney, who has taught in the buildings being discussed, said the Liberty-Valley Elementary is still considered a neighborhood school but it is a large school. He questioned rebuilding in outdated schools when the trend in the nation is to go green. "We built a stadium that was outdated. We have to look at what our needs are and what's best for our kids and for the community," he said.
Marcy Taylor of Danville reminded everyone that President-Elect Barack Obama said he will provide money for schools. "Maybe if we take a step back and wait to see what he wants to do, maybe he can help us with this funding," she said.
George Wagner of Riverside earlier didn't favor a consolidated school, but with the cost difference between the three elementaries and a consolidated school widened considerably now, he has changed his mind.
Published December 19, 2008 12:45 am - NetSummary
District divided on building decision
By Karen Blackledge, The Danville News
DANVILLE -- School board members often bicker at public meetings, and sometimes to the point of personality conflicts. This week's meeting was no exception.
At the end of the meeting, two residents including Mike Benjamin, said they were embarrassed by some board members' behavior. At the start of the meeting, he said the board needs to be fiscally responsible and "emotionally based decisions need to be replaced with a rational decision. Consolidation is the only plan on the table that meets any of these needs," he said of a consolidated elementary school. The board rescinded its vote to renovate and expand three elementaries and has no project at this time.
The arguing began when director Kellie Krum asked who would "step up to the plate all the time" and attend planning meetings on design if a consolidated elementary school is approved. While not in favor of a consolidated school, she represented the board at previous meetings on a consolidated school. Her attendance made the difference in space being provided for special education and for Head Start in the plans, she said.
"I work 60 hours a week, have two kids and am a single parent," said director Megan Raup who also represents the board on the Columbia-Montour Vocational-Technical School Board. "You work weekends and Carol (Bisordi, previous board member who attended the planning meetings with Krum) didn't work," Raup said. "You're attacking board members," she told Krum.
Member Jennifer Henning said someone needs to attend the meetings if the board votes again on a consolidated school. Before she was appointed to the board, she served on the building committee for the consolidated school, which at that time was proposed for district property across from the high school.
Board President Allan Schappert said he was willing to represent the board at meetings if a consolidated school is approved. Director Steve Schooley said he could assist Schappert.
Schappert said the district can't afford any other choice but a consolidated school. "Doing nothing will delay the inevitable further and put our children at a greater disadvantage," he said.
Vice President Dr. Paul Moser said a consolidated school will save nearly $700,000 a year. "One single school is less expensive than three little ones. If we forgo consolidation, there are safety and security issues. There are modules that were supposed to be temporary and have become part of the landscape and systems in those schools that aren't quite right. Class size is easier to control at one location and we face the prospect of reorganizing personnel with one school," he said.
Schappert said the cost to maintain the three schools amounts to a half-mill of taxes every year or an average of $75 per year for a taxpayer. "With a consolidated school, we avoid that. Looking at the numbers, everything pales in comparison," he said. "It's not just us taxing our citizens. It's the borough, the county, state and federal taxes. Everyone in this room is hit in the pocketbook and who's going to pay for this? Every day we hear more and more jobs are being lost and I don't want to contribute to this. We are still pouring money into these old schools and kicking that can down the road. Waiting makes it more expensive," he said.
Schooley, who favors consolidation, wanted to put the project on hold for six months due to the economy. The state has indicated it will be cutting revenues to districts, he said.
Business Administrator Richard Snodgrass said a consolidated school is a "more cost-effective way of running the schools than we are doing now." He said there is a potential need to raise taxes if they do not consolidate.
While saying there is no perfect project, Snodgrass recommended taking the best option and working it through. While the current economy is difficult, he believes it creates some opportunities for construction costs if we can get in the market at the right time, we will realize some savings, and if we get a bid at a time people are hungry for jobs and projects."
A number of residents spoke at the meeting. Most of them favor consolidation.
Retired Danville teacher Joan Kessler wants Danville Elementary as the consolidated school. "The day will come to build a new middle school and you'll be talking about building it on this hill," she said of the high school site. She favors Mahoning-Cooper becoming a location for administration and maintenance.
"We are not a community with a population increase around the bend and school population isn't expected to increase," she said.
"We need to find a consensus either way, stick to it or we need to table it," Christy Payton of Mahoning Township said. Payton favors keeping neighborhood schools.
Richard Snyder of Valley Township, who attended a one-room school and then the first consolidated school in Danville, asked, "Where will we get the tax money? I'm over 65 and there are a lot more people over 65. A big elaborate school -- I think we can live with what we have now."
Amy Andrews, with a son at Riverside and a son in Head Start, was concerned about her special needs son in Head Start being thrown into a large group in a consolidated school. "I'm afraid he will be bullied. I'd like to keep Riverside as a family school," she said.
Craig Welliver said building a consolidated school at the high school will compound parking problems. "It's not big enough for a playground and young drivers will be around the elementary school. You need to consider where it will be built before you decide on consolidation," he said.
Wes Wertman, businessman and long-time resident, said it comes down to the economy. "Now is not the time to do anything," he said. "Money that is spent for architecture is all on paper and not lost. I had a lot of plans for 2009 but I canceled them as of October. My products went back 20 years. This effects the whole economy and everybody's business is going downhill. People are losing their jobs."
Bob Snyder of Mahoning Township suggested Danville Elementary become the consolidated school for kindergarten through third grades.
Joe Mahoney, who has taught in the buildings being discussed, said the Liberty-Valley Elementary is still considered a neighborhood school but it is a large school. He questioned rebuilding in outdated schools when the trend in the nation is to go green. "We built a stadium that was outdated. We have to look at what our needs are and what's best for our kids and for the community," he said.
Marcy Taylor of Danville reminded everyone that President-Elect Barack Obama said he will provide money for schools. "Maybe if we take a step back and wait to see what he wants to do, maybe he can help us with this funding," she said.
George Wagner of Riverside earlier didn't favor a consolidated school, but with the cost difference between the three elementaries and a consolidated school widened considerably now, he has changed his mind.
School Pension Fund Bonuses
From lehighvalleylive.com
The bonuses probably aren't going anywhere. Both Gov. Rendell and top members of the state legislature have suggested not awarding the bonuses.
It's nice when even public officials catch on to the idea that times are tight.
Pa. school pension fund staff bonuses ending
12/16/2008, 4:07 p.m. EST
The Associated Press
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Twenty-one investment staffers at Pennsylvania's public school pension fund received more than $854,000 in bonuses for the 2007-08 fiscal year, even though the fund's investments experienced a $1.8 billion net loss, a newspaper reported Tuesday.
The Public School Employees' Retirement System board plans to end the practice at the end of the month, however, citing market conditions and other factors.
"There was some concern given the unprecedented markets at this point," PSERS executive director Jeffrey Clay told The Patriot-News of Harrisburg. "Across the country, there are issues raised with respect to incentive compensation for investment professionals in this market."
Bonuses for the fiscal year ended June 30 ranged from $9,720 to $106,223. The fund's investment staff receive base salaries between $63,179 and $251,542.
Gov. Ed Rendell sent a letter to system officials in November in which he advised against awarding the bonuses.
"Given the fund's recent performance and the serious financial challenges now facing the commonwealth as a whole, the payment of large bonuses to PSERS employees would be inappropriate and indefensible," Rendell wrote.
But the system's lawyers concluded that it was contractually obligated to award the bonuses because the board's policy already authorized the payments, system officials told the newspaper.
Despite the investment losses, the system's in-house investors outperformed their peers nationally, system officials said.
The investment staff's base salaries are lower than the going rate for professional investors, system officials said. The board might consider increasing the salaries in the future to keep them competitive or seek other suggestions from an outside consultant, Clay said.
Investors at Pennsylvania's other state pension fund, the State Employees' Retirement System, will not likely receive bonuses this year, given the fund's losses for the 2008 calendar year, spokesman Robert Gentzel said. The fund's investments fell 14.4 percent from January through September.
SERS investment employees are eligible for bonuses if they achieve at least an 8.5 percent rate of return.
Pennsylvania is among a minority of states that offer bonuses to the investment staff of its state pension funds, said Keith Brainard, research director for the National Association of State Retirement Administrators.
"I think the fact that more don't do it has more to do with the politics of the issue rather than the merits of it," Brainard said.
Pennsylvania Auditor General Jack Wagner said his agency was considering a possible audit of PSERS' contracts to determine why the system could not legally forgo the bonuses when its investments were losing money. Last year, Wagner released an audit criticizing Pennsylvania's student-loan agency for awarding $7.5 million in employee bonuses over a three-year period.
___
Information from: The Patriot-News, http://www.pennlive.com/patriotnews
© 2008 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
The bonuses probably aren't going anywhere. Both Gov. Rendell and top members of the state legislature have suggested not awarding the bonuses.
It's nice when even public officials catch on to the idea that times are tight.
Pa. school pension fund staff bonuses ending
12/16/2008, 4:07 p.m. EST
The Associated Press
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Twenty-one investment staffers at Pennsylvania's public school pension fund received more than $854,000 in bonuses for the 2007-08 fiscal year, even though the fund's investments experienced a $1.8 billion net loss, a newspaper reported Tuesday.
The Public School Employees' Retirement System board plans to end the practice at the end of the month, however, citing market conditions and other factors.
"There was some concern given the unprecedented markets at this point," PSERS executive director Jeffrey Clay told The Patriot-News of Harrisburg. "Across the country, there are issues raised with respect to incentive compensation for investment professionals in this market."
Bonuses for the fiscal year ended June 30 ranged from $9,720 to $106,223. The fund's investment staff receive base salaries between $63,179 and $251,542.
Gov. Ed Rendell sent a letter to system officials in November in which he advised against awarding the bonuses.
"Given the fund's recent performance and the serious financial challenges now facing the commonwealth as a whole, the payment of large bonuses to PSERS employees would be inappropriate and indefensible," Rendell wrote.
But the system's lawyers concluded that it was contractually obligated to award the bonuses because the board's policy already authorized the payments, system officials told the newspaper.
Despite the investment losses, the system's in-house investors outperformed their peers nationally, system officials said.
The investment staff's base salaries are lower than the going rate for professional investors, system officials said. The board might consider increasing the salaries in the future to keep them competitive or seek other suggestions from an outside consultant, Clay said.
Investors at Pennsylvania's other state pension fund, the State Employees' Retirement System, will not likely receive bonuses this year, given the fund's losses for the 2008 calendar year, spokesman Robert Gentzel said. The fund's investments fell 14.4 percent from January through September.
SERS investment employees are eligible for bonuses if they achieve at least an 8.5 percent rate of return.
Pennsylvania is among a minority of states that offer bonuses to the investment staff of its state pension funds, said Keith Brainard, research director for the National Association of State Retirement Administrators.
"I think the fact that more don't do it has more to do with the politics of the issue rather than the merits of it," Brainard said.
Pennsylvania Auditor General Jack Wagner said his agency was considering a possible audit of PSERS' contracts to determine why the system could not legally forgo the bonuses when its investments were losing money. Last year, Wagner released an audit criticizing Pennsylvania's student-loan agency for awarding $7.5 million in employee bonuses over a three-year period.
___
Information from: The Patriot-News, http://www.pennlive.com/patriotnews
© 2008 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
Special Education Inclusion
From the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.
Schools aim for inclusion with special-needs
Amy Crawford, TRIBUNE-REVIEW Saturday, December 20, 2008
Most of the first-graders at Bon Air Elementary in Lower Burrell raised their hands, eager to sound out the words that teachers Courtney Barbiaux and Jennifer Hartung spelled with magnetic letters on the blackboard.
As Hartung spelled out jump, hump, and stump, Barbiaux, a special education teacher, scanned the room, looking for students who were having trouble grasping the concept of blended consonants.
Schools aim for inclusion with special-needs
Amy Crawford, TRIBUNE-REVIEW Saturday, December 20, 2008
Most of the first-graders at Bon Air Elementary in Lower Burrell raised their hands, eager to sound out the words that teachers Courtney Barbiaux and Jennifer Hartung spelled with magnetic letters on the blackboard.
As Hartung spelled out jump, hump, and stump, Barbiaux, a special education teacher, scanned the room, looking for students who were having trouble grasping the concept of blended consonants.
Among the 19 children in the class are two with autism and one with a learning disability. Despite their special education status, they were fully a part of the class, working on the same lesson as everybody else.
A few years ago, those students would have been sent to another room for separate lessons. Today, students with special needs are more often included in the mainstream classroom, an approach proponents say helps special education students academically and socially.
The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, passed in 1990 and revised in 1997 and 2004, says that students with disabilities should spend as much time as possible with their non-disabled peers. In 2004, the Pennsylvania Department of Education settled a class-action lawsuit over that requirement, and since then the state has held school districts more accountable.
Four years later, many schools still are scrambling to get it right, often simply "dumping" all of their special education students in mainstream classes, said Bernard Miller, director for exceptional programs at the Pennsylvania State Education Association.
Critics, including some advocates for the disabled, say mainstreaming can be taken too far, when students with serious learning problems are left to fend for themselves in regular classrooms.
"Inclusion is really big right now," Miller said.
But, while the teachers' union favors inclusion when appropriate, Miller said, "This is a big state and there are huge differences district to district."
Ideally, Miller said, general education teachers would be trained and prepared to have special-needs students in their classrooms, and those students who need extra help would still have access to a special education teacher. For many students, Miller said, pulling them out of the regular classroom is still the best option.
"Inclusion isn't an exact science," Miller said. "When it is working, we need to celebrate it, and when it's not, we need to go back to the drawing board."
One strategy used by several districts in Westmoreland and Allegheny counties is co-teaching, where two teachers team up to teach a class, as in the first grade at Bon Air.
It's an idea that has been around since the 1990s, but in recent years has become more widespread.
Ellen Estomin, who directs the special education programs in the Pittsburgh Public Schools, said every school in the city district has an inclusion program.
Some of those schools use co-teaching, she said, and the district plans to expand the method to more schools.
"For inclusion to work, it takes a team of people," Estomin said. "We are really working hard to make it work well."
The Franklin Regional School District has used co-teaching since 2000, longer than most districts, said special education director Ron Tarosky.
"Our kids do very well," Tarosky said proudly, noting that the district's special education students met requirements under the No Child Left Behind Act every year.
Most general education teachers do not have much experience with special education, Tarosky said, and that can make mainstreaming difficult. The benefit of co-teaching is that it allows a teacher who knows the content --- reading, math or science, for example ---- to work together with one who understands how to adapt it for special-needs students.
Recently at Franklin Regional Senior High School in Murrysville, English teacher Susan White and special education teacher Tina Girt were guiding ninth-graders, several of whom have learning disabilities, through the play "A Raisin in the Sun."
Using tests and evaluations, the pair could tell which students were grasping the material and who needed extra help or a modified assignment. White said the two-teacher team seemed to benefit all the students, not just those with special needs.
With more than a decade's experience in special education, Girt remembered a time when students with learning disabilities usually were segregated from their peers. The push for inclusion was an improvement, she said.
"The minute you put them in the special ed class, they misbehave because they feel like the expectations are lower there," Girt said.
Nancy Janicak, whose son Justin, 14, has Down syndrome, said she noticed that inclusion can boost a student's confidence.
The family moved to Export from Indiana County last year, and Justin now is part of an inclusion program at Franklin Regional Middle School. He still works on math and English with a special education teacher, but goes to class with his seventh-grade peers for other subjects, learning the same lessons.
"He doesn't have to remember as much as the other children," Nancy Janicak said, "but he's held accountable for the curriculum."
Being included has made Justin more excited about school, his mother said, and he has been making friends.
"He's one of the gang now," she said, "instead of the kid in 'that room.' "
At Bon Air Elementary, administrators said the first official year of co-teaching has been going well. Barbiaux and Hartung, who co-teach language arts, were pleased with their first-graders' progress.
"We've seen them improve," said Hartung, who attributed gains over last year's class to having a second teacher in the room. "It's easier for us to pick up on a lot more --- who's struggling, who needs more help."
Every student benefits from a lower student-teacher ratio, Hartung said.
Administrators in Burrell School District have high hopes for the co-teaching program, which operates under the motto "Every child can learn."
"There have been some times when students have been mainstreamed and it hasn't worked out," said Matthew Conner, who began the program last year as the special education director. "But with this model, they have more support and it hasn't been an issue."
Conner, who now is principal at Burrell's Charles A. Huston Middle School, said he hopes to find that co-taught students will do better on the PSSA, the standardized test Pennsylvania uses to determine whether schools are making progress under No Child Left Behind.
Bon Air officials already were noticing substantial improvements on scores for the 4Sight test, which projects PSSA scores.
"If they're mainstreamed and they're successful, it increases their confidence," Conner said. "We hope that spills over into the PSSAs."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)