Several weeks ago, I voted in favor of a contract that took me from a 12 month employee to a 10 month employee – even though I know that I’m going to work for much of the summer. The contract also now has me paying more for health care and all in, it will mean that I see about 15% less in my paycheck every week.
I voted for it, not because I really am excited to make less money, but because it was the responsible thing to do in the midst of a massive budget crisis. If we are to make the case that we, as principals, are the responsible stewards of the education of the children of Philadelphia, then we have to be willing to lead and make sacrifices for the sake of our children. I am proud to say that the contract passed with overwhelming support from principals.
Today, many of those same administrators went to City Council to ask our council members to end the political squabbling and make the hard decisions to put the children above the politics and fund our schools. Specifically, we need City Council to do the following:
- Pass the extension of the 1% sales tax extension.
- Shift the property tax millage so that the School District gets 60% of the revenue, not 55%.
- Press the PA State legislature to approve a cigarette tax for Philadelphia.
- Work with the Philadelphia delegation and the parents and students and educators in Philadelphia to demand a fair and equitable funding formula and to restore charter reimbursement funding at the state level.
These are not easy decisions for our council members. No one likes passing new taxes. But leaders do what is hard. I was thrilled that several members of council told us – unequivocally – that they will vote in favor of the proposals to create and sustain funding streams for our schools. I was honored to stand with my fellow principals today and ask City Council to do what is hard.
This is about the children of our city, which means this is about our city and our future.
When SLA students asked me about the contract the principals just signed, and they ask me why I voted for a contract that lowered my take home pay, I told them simply, “Because I care more about you than I care about the money they took.”
Now, we need our political leaders to speak powerfully and clearly to our students and say, “I care more about the children of this city than I care about political posturing.”
We – the principals I stood with today and the politicians who serve in City Hall – are merely the stewards of our city for the amazing young men and women who will inherit it. We will be judged by the quality of our stewardship. It is long past time to be worthy of that stewardship and simply, powerfully do what is right.
As much as I normally agree with your posts on topics of education I have to disagree with your thoughts related to the principals contract. I think there is a false juxtaposition between “caring about students” vs. “caring about money.” The cuts in benefits and salary of principals were enormous – a loss of tens of thousands of dollars that will (and already has) caused some principals to leave their jobs. I am also certain there would be people looking at administrative jobs in Philadelphia but are now more deterred because of this new contract.
But the final aspect that is bugging me relates to the idea of stewardship itself – yes we educators should be stewards for the children who will come after us, but not to the detriment of our own lives. I will push myself as much as I can to help a child (calling home, holding meetings, offering support, etc) but at some point I can’t give any more. Personally, I think that point has been reached in Philadelphia and giving more now (as principals or teachers) is too much. I hope I am wrong but from everything I am reading and discussing, that is the case.
As always, I appreciate your thoughts and look forward to discussing more in the future.
Brian – in many respects, I agree. But here’s the thing on this one… *someone* has to act like an adult. Principals make the most of any bargaining unit in the district… and while, yes, the cut hurts, we will still make a six-figure salary in a city where the median household income is $37,000 / yr. So if that means that I have to tighten my belt, I’ll do so… but here’s the thing, no one has the moral authority to say that the principals are not the moral leaders and stewards of this district. We are. Unequivocally. When someone had to sacrifice, we did.
So, City Council, Mayor Nutter, Governor Corbett, we did our part. Now, fix the budget, fund our schools, and make sure that the teachers the kids need… the counselors they need… the adults they need… are in the schools, working with the kids, where they belong… with a wage that allows teachers to live their lives.
Chris I absolutely agree with you on this one, and if those who knew the history of principals becoming 12 month employees rather than ten month employees which we always were, they would understand CASA’s collective rationale and 83% approval.
The school district ran just fine when all principals and AP’s were ten month employees. We always gave six “reorganization days” to each AP and 12 to the principal for August. That system worked just fine.
Since my theme for the year is “Let’s be honest,” in all honesty making the principals and some AP’s 12 month employees was a colossal waste of money. Dr. Ackerman did that.
The loss of some very talented and caring principals and the lack of ability to get talented people to come to our district does not come from the salary schedule of principals — it comes from the way we are treated by the management of the district.
Everybody likes to make more money, and once given, it is hard to give it back. You know and I know that the district will be perfectly fine with principals as ten month employees. You know and I know how hard most of you (and teachers) work, and to keep your mental health from the stress and emotion we put into our schools, that principals and teachers need a break to rejuvenate themselves and recharge their batteries. July is just perfect for rejuvenation of one’s spirits, and stress relief. Those who wanted to work in July, in the past, could work summer programs.
I find the school district’s stance on teacher pay cuts and give backs to be horrendous and misplaced. It is counter productive to the “community of our schools” which is absolutely necessary to have Great schools for children.
What we need is more principals to have the courage to say to the SRC that we should stop jerking the teachers around and settle the PFT contract in good faith. I do not see the PFT as the axis of evil in any of this. They, like they always have, only want — basic fairness.
Thank you for your contribution to what we do, and your dedication and belief in SLA.
I will admit ignorance on the account of the 10- or 12-month employee argument. I did not realize that was imposed under Arlene Ackerman’s administration. Upon hearing that I automatically think it should be reduced back but that is my personal bias.
I always hesitate to compare salaries with the median in a particular neighborhood/city because that might not be what the median *should* be in ideal circumstances. If I want to advocate for a living wage, shouldn’t I then advocate for more funding overall instead of a pay cut? My argument would be that acting like the adult in the room would be fighting to change the way the system functions through political action (i.e. rallies, media relations, picketing, etc) and if it warrants it, a strike.
Granted, I have no experience in this regard as I only began teaching five years ago and the last strike in Philadelphia was in the ’80s, but it is possible that it would be necessary to push back.
I hear your argument about acting like an adult when the going gets rough, but I disagree with your solution for it. Regardless, I respect your decision and how you came about it.
Most of the time when you hear about leaders making cuts they are talking about cuts to their department. Occasionally you might hear of someone freezing pay (usually for staff). Once in a great while you hear of an ultra-wealthy individual taking a $1 salary. Never do you hear of a group of people voting to willingly cut their own pay. It says a lot.
My understanding is that the principals will be reimbursed for time spent working during the summer.
The principals did not ratify this contract because it was “the responsible thing” to do or that it was an act of leadership and sacrifice. If that were true, the principals would have volunteered to do it before negotiations even took place.
The principals ratified the contract because they were blackmailed and threatened by the district. Their own union president told them they had no choice.
Rewriting this as a selfless act on the part of administrators feeds right into the narrative advanced by Hite and Green that the teachers are being selfish by not “stepping up” and doing their part. The principals chose to give up salary, benefits and seniority rights rather than fight back. The teachers cannot afford those kind of givebacks. The least the principals can do is not make it easier for the district to screw the teachers too.
There was a faction of administrators — myself being one of them — who have been advocating for taking a cut for a long time. Moreover, I voted against the last contract because I think both the PFT and CASA should have seen that the raises we got were being paid for with stimulus money that wasn’t sustainable and were essentially a pay-off in return for allowing Promise Academies and Renaissance Charter schools, and a not insubstantial part of this crisis is because of the irresponsible stewardship of far too many leaders at every level over the last decade.
We will be reimbursed for two weeks in August, which will not come close to ameliorating the cut.
We have different views of what the unions should be doing right now. I don’t see the continued stagnant negotiations as helping teachers, kids or the district as a whole. That’s o.k. – we can disagree on strategies. I ask that you keep your tone civil in your comments on this blog.
Hi again to both Lisa and Chris. I am all for passionate, open and honest debate on the issues of today which are so crucial to a healthy and vibrant profession of education. Collegial discussion is essential for “truth seeking” which is part and parcel of the democratic process, which you know, I believe in very strongly.
I did not find Lisa’s comment to be disrespectful or uncivil at all. Lisa is someone, like you, that I have a very high regard for. I respect her tremendously and find her to be one of the most honest, credible and forthright advocates that I know. In my mind, she stands right up there with Helen Gym.
I realize her honesty and passion can sometimes be seen in different ways. She is always very honest with me, too. I respect her for that. But I like honesty and passion. I call her friend.
I love this debate. We are all in this together and we have a professional responsibility to do the right thing for our students and “our community.”
One of my favorite books on leadership is Mchael Fullan’s “The Moral Imperative of School Leadership.” His theme is that we, as leaders of individual schools, also have a collective moral responsibility to the common good of all students and all schools in our district.
I use that as one of my most cherished core values. To me, the moral imperative of school leadership is just as important as the “the democratic imperative of school leadership.”
Thank you for opening up this discussion. When we hold ourselves out as leaders, we voluntarily enter the arena of leadership, and we should expect disagreement with some things which we say. It is part and parcel of effective leadership.
Chris, your blog entry may be an appropriate one for you personally- but less so for administrators in less attractive schools, even less so for teachers who will be compensated less and working more if Green, Hite, Corbett, and the PSP have their way.
I think the reason a recent reply may have had a tone is that what may be appropriate for you can be construed as a veiled judgment of those who are in a far less favorable position than you are in.
Chris, my reading of you blog had the immediate effect of making me feel that teachers are being judged. Perhaps that was not your intention. Did you mean to suggest teachers take a significant pay cut in a new contract?
Sensitivity to this disparity of experience among educators will go a long way towards teachers and principals having some semblance of solidarity in this dog eat dog world that the Philadelphia School partnership promotes.
I hope you do not read my disagreement as being uncivil. I know for me it is getting harder and harder to try and remain civil as the destruction of much I cherish unfolds.
Hi Eileen – I don’t read your reply as uncivil at all… and while I think we all know the teachers’ contract will be worse than the current one, the purpose of my post was not directed at the teachers, it was directed at the politicians. Principals are the highest paid bargaining unit in the district. If anyone should have to take a cut, it should be us. Moreover, if the teachers are going to end up taking a cut (whether they should have to or not – and I do not believe they should), then I don’t know how any principal stands in front of his/her faculty if we have not taken one ourselves.
Thanks you Chris.
Sorry,
My computer auto changes spelling.
Thank you.
Oh dear, Mr. Lehmann. You certainly don’t get paid enough to deal with me as it, and even less isn’t really helping your case a whole lot. For all you do for my peers and me, this is crazy. The current state of education is pitiful actually, and the fact that educators are willing to give so much for kids that aren’t even theirs always blows my mind.
Need a like button for this comment