by Frank Schroth

Last Tuesday the Milton Educators Association membership ratified a three year contract and last night the School Committee voted to approve that contract. The vote was 5-1 with Mary Kelly being the dissenting vote. Town Administrator Annmarie Fagan was present at the table and voted. Member Kristen Bagley-Jones was absent.

Member Leroy Walker, who served on negotiating team, acknowledged it was a long process but he was pleased with the outcome and thanked the bargaining team. He said that three key objectives were met:

• the Milton school district remain competitive with other comparable districts
• fiscal responsibility is being exercised to ensure the money spent is allocated in the best way
• professional development and collaborative time for faculty be increased

The contract will add 4 additional 1/2 days of professional development, restore spring parent teacher conferences, moderate salary growth and compress the range of step increases. The 3 year contract which commenced on 9/1/2013 and ends 8/31/2016 provides cost of living increases for each year of the contract:

• 2% effective September 1, 2013
• 2% effective September 1, 2014
• 1% effective September 1, 2015 and another 1% effective on the 92nd day (mid-year) of the 2015-2016 School Year.

The issue of keeping Milton competitive with other districts in terms of salary was especially important to member Zullas. He has voiced in the past his belief that remaining competitive is critical to attracting and retaining talent. He spoke at Wednesday’s meeting on the issue and presented a chart that identified how Milton compared to other districts of similar profile. The schools included but were not limited to Belmont, Holliston, Canton, Wellesley, Westwood, and Dedham. (You can find the chart here.) The chart illustrates how a Milton master B teacher’s step increases would compare with the average salary of the other districts. (Master B refers to the “lane” the teacher is in – most teachers fall into this lane and then the lane in turn has steps which are identified in the chart.) Master B teachers in the 3rd year of this contract at a step 7 or above, for example, will make ~5% – 8% above the average.

Ms. Kelly said she appreciated the chart but that did not sway her. “I am voting against this contract,” she said. She explained that the step increases were higher than she wanted. She said she agreed to a slight increase but then the negotiating team increased it slightly more. Mr. Walker said the choice was whether to walk away from the table with “an energized” group of teachers or face “picketing” the next day. The committee voted 5-1 to accept the contract.

Walker also noted that the effort to reinsert a spring parent teacher conference was an element that member Padera worked to have included and advocated for.

The school committee also took up the issue of budget cuts that would be required to answer a request from the Warrant Committee. The schools have asked for a FY15 budget that is $2.1 million above FY14. The increase will cover increases in operational costs and continue the academic advancement budget begun last year to, among other things, close the achievement gap (see related posts here and here.) The Warrant Committee asked that the schools submit a budget that is $1.3 million above FY14. The $2 million amount might consume all the revenue available for FY15. As Asst Superintendent Pavlicek noted in his remarks, the actual revenue amount that will be available to the town is not completely known at this time. The Warrant Committee historically takes a conservative approach.

The difference between the school’s original request and the Warrant Committee’s is $747,591. The school administration identified the  cuts required to meet that number. They were 3 categories of cuts:

• non-postion reductions – these total $250,000 and include (but are not limited to) reductions in school supplies, chargebacks, and tuition received for a non-resident student as well as hoped for savings in transportation contracts
• moderate impact staff cuts – these total $88,000 and include (but are not limited to) removing science and geography sections from the middle school (.2 FTE each).The total is 1.6 FTEs.
• higher impact staff cuts – these total $409,000 and include (but are not limited to) eliminating 10-11 electives, eliminating a middle school history teacher, eliminating chorus as a separate class at Gr 5, loss of a iSTEM elective and a section of Gr 8 math investigations. The total is 7.1 FTEs.

It was noted that any staff reductions will result in higher class sizes and that some of the reductions which relate to Special Education classes are enrollment driven. Current enrollment figures indicate the cuts can be made but that may change between now and the fall.

Member Padera was not pleased. She stated that she might not have supported all of the advancement initiatives in light of understanding what other cuts might be required. It was explained that these specific cuts were a starting place. There will be budget meetings with all the PTOs and subsequent discussions may result in changes to specific cuts. However, Walker said the Warrant Committee had been very “generous” to the Schools. He said all other town departments had been required to have their budgets submitted back in December and that they had also been asked for level service and level dollar budgets. Neither of those had been requested of the school department. He said the committee had an “obligation to start the discussion.” The committee voted unanimously to approve the budgets cuts as a starting point for discussion.