As the economic news turns bleaker and bleaker it is probably time Catholic school principals begin looking at budgeting in light of the coming recession. Every school, given their socioeconomic makeup and geographic location will face the coming storm with varying levels of severity. I've been digging into some research into Catholic school enrollments during the Great Depression but have begun to realize the makeup and economics of private schools were radically different then. Our students are not by and large immigrants and few of us operate with 95% religious staff, no technology needs, and no employee health premiums to pay. Therefore comparisons go only so far. I'm hoping those of you who were school administrators during the most recent tech bubble burst and slide in the late 1980's can offer some words of wisdom.
In general i've been discussing these issues with some long standing members of various school finance committees and local principals and we've come up with some general ideas and points of action that may be helpful in weathering the storm. Take them all with a grain of salt because every recession is unique.
1. Evaluate School Foundations and Explore Options for Tapping them in an Appropriate Way: Most Catholic high schools operate with some type of foundation. Usually these foundations manage or oversee the investments of the school's endowment. Earnings are typically applied towards operating costs at a certain rate or earmarked towards financial assistance at many schools. Exploring the nature of your endowment and the willingness of whoever manages it to reexamine its use protocols in light or emergency situations is important. Granted accessing these funds when the market has given them a rather awful beating may not be wise. But if the recession is for a few years it could provide the cash flow needed to prevent major staff cuts.
2. Evaluate and alter R.I.F. policies to give more freedom: Some schools and diocese have reduction in force (RIF) policies some don't. They are often based on seniority. Deciding who to let go is never fun. Although the policies provide some guidance they also raise other issues. Most base cuts off of seniority or religious affiliation. Last one in first one out or sacrifice the non-Catholics first are the usual procedures. Another issue revolves letting go of staff who are already receiving pensions from the public school. Although it could probably be construed as ageism it certainly feels more just to try to keep around those who need the job to survive and feed their families as opposed to the double dip.
3. Freezes and Frills: Freezing or halting contributions to 403 b and defined benefit plans for a year or two is another way to avoid laying off staff. It is fairly easy to calculate your annual savings. Freezing pay for a year or two saves money as well. These decisions of course come loaded with massive negative affect if the direness of the situation is not explained. Most people can go along with the halting of the 403b for a while, suspension of free lunches, and watering down the free coffee in the lounge but let's be fair most of the cost is associated with salaries so the bulk of savings will have to come from there. Going paperless and handing out less chalk isn't going to slash 300 k from anyone's budget. Cutting out "frills" is another way to cut back. Maybe the soccer team wears the same uniform for another year, the parking lot lines fade a bit more, and the roof with a patch is much more cost effective than a new one. Pay freezes across the board also save money but can cause some staff to look for employment elsewhere.
4. Staff Cuts: No easy way around them. Basing the cuts on the least minimal impact to the quality of education is the best way to go. This translates into cuts across departments and administration not just throwing out art and music. Schools need fine arts, PE, and broad curriculum offerings to remain competitive and advance their mission. They need counselors, administrators, and support staff. Spreading the cuts across the whole school at least helps maintain the integrity of the academic programs. It may make you universally hated by the staff but at least the kids suffer the least.
If you have any other ideas please share the with our readers by commenting below.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Monday, November 24, 2008
Employee Benefits and Staff Retention
At a recent budget meeting, our staff came to the realization that our faculty is certainly divided into two camps. Camp one consists of those staff members who have been lifers with twenty to twenty five plus years of service. Camp two are the faculty members with five or fewer years experience. What was staring us right in the face was the lack of the middle group. Where were our faculty in the thirty to fifty year age group with ten to twenty years experience? They seemed to be missing.
We went back and poured over employee records and discovered that a number of faculty seem to disappear in the five to seven years experience range. What we wanted to know was why? As any school or organization knows, to lose top talent and find worthy replacements is a significant obstacle. Faculty with long tenures help shape the culture of the school and contribute to a common experience that graduates remember fondly. These long standing groups often contain seasoned veterans who contribute endless hours towards the school's culture as moderators, coaches, and mentors. Developing their replacements should be of the utmost importance.
We noticed that the exodus of young talented faculty coincided with changes to our benefits plan. Our diocese as many if not all across the country when faced with rising health care costs chose out of necessity to pass a portion of the cost onto employees. Our family monthly premium went from $0 to $467 a month in a matter of three quick years and lead to an exodus of male teachers with young families. Many of these teachers were among the most talented of the staff and filled a large part of our coaching and moderator duties. In addition, our pay sagged to below 70% of the local public school before a diocesan mandated policy to pay 80% of the local public school was enacted. As openings become available each year, our applicant pool continues to consist of newbies right out of college and retiring public school teachers looking for a few more years of employment as they double dip from their public school pension. Some of these retirees are great finds, but many of them are at a place where they have no intention of doing the extra work that goes into running a high school.
As our senior group is set to retire over the next ten years, it is quickly becoming one of our priorities to retain our current crop of young talent and to attract the best of the best from other schools. We are taking for granted that without restructuring our tuition ( a paltry $4,400 a year) we will not be able to reduce health care costs or greatly increase the base pay above the 80% we are required to pay. We are, however, experimenting with a series of "graduated" benefits to push faculty retention that have a smaller impact on the bottom line.
Our plan is basically as follows. To encourage long time faculty retention, the more years someone puts in the better the benefit package becomes. In addition, these benefits are tied to developmental marks in a teacher's career. To clarify, we are just beginning to develop this plan. To encourage families and faculty retention we are exploring the costs of offering on-site greatly discounted child care for the children of our teachers. The average family can expect to pay between $400 to $700 a month in child care at a private day care center. By using our child development class and subsidizing the salary of a full time day care coordinator with the allocation of a significant space for this endeavor, this benefit could greatly increase retention of young faculty. As a young faculty member with a family, paying $100-$200 a month for subsidized high quality on site day care would be a huge advantage especially given the fact that the center's schedule will mirror the schools.
Another factor we have looked at is reducing tuition for our faculty. We currently offer a 50% reduction on our high school tuition. Granted our tuition is already laughably low, but if we can crunch the numbers and offer free tuition for our teachers' children, this benefit would go a long way in stretching the modest salaries and producing goodwill.
For faculty on the older edge, these benefits might not mean that much. For our faculty with 20 to 25 year experience, we are looking at reducing the full course load from six to five sections and adding a higher match to our 403b plan. In addition, we will look at offering free lunch to our faculty. We've also toyed with the idea of adding free babysitting tied to our Christian Service Program.
As with all endeavors there is probably something we are glaringly missing and I am sure our first round of attempts will piss off as many people as it pleases, but thus is the joy of trying something new. A graduated benefits plan while leaving alone the health care and salary issue may at the least increase the quality of life for our faculty and lead to higher retention rates.
Another issue we struggle with is the distinction of who to apply these benefits to. For example, are teachers the ones making the bigger sacrifice? Are our secretaries, bus drivers, and maintenance workers making similar wages to their public school counterparts or not? Should we offer these benefits to them as well? Everyone contributes to the well-being of the school do they not? It takes a village to raise a child.
We'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter. Attached below is a link to a benefits survey. On the upper left of the web page is a link to the live results as they come in. I am sure many of us face these same issues every day. Maybe collectively we can come up with a world-class plan that minimizes costs and increases happiness. Then again that is pretty idealist but I'd beg to offer that if anyone deserves it our teachers do.
Link to Survey: Faculty Benefit Survey Here
We went back and poured over employee records and discovered that a number of faculty seem to disappear in the five to seven years experience range. What we wanted to know was why? As any school or organization knows, to lose top talent and find worthy replacements is a significant obstacle. Faculty with long tenures help shape the culture of the school and contribute to a common experience that graduates remember fondly. These long standing groups often contain seasoned veterans who contribute endless hours towards the school's culture as moderators, coaches, and mentors. Developing their replacements should be of the utmost importance.
We noticed that the exodus of young talented faculty coincided with changes to our benefits plan. Our diocese as many if not all across the country when faced with rising health care costs chose out of necessity to pass a portion of the cost onto employees. Our family monthly premium went from $0 to $467 a month in a matter of three quick years and lead to an exodus of male teachers with young families. Many of these teachers were among the most talented of the staff and filled a large part of our coaching and moderator duties. In addition, our pay sagged to below 70% of the local public school before a diocesan mandated policy to pay 80% of the local public school was enacted. As openings become available each year, our applicant pool continues to consist of newbies right out of college and retiring public school teachers looking for a few more years of employment as they double dip from their public school pension. Some of these retirees are great finds, but many of them are at a place where they have no intention of doing the extra work that goes into running a high school.
As our senior group is set to retire over the next ten years, it is quickly becoming one of our priorities to retain our current crop of young talent and to attract the best of the best from other schools. We are taking for granted that without restructuring our tuition ( a paltry $4,400 a year) we will not be able to reduce health care costs or greatly increase the base pay above the 80% we are required to pay. We are, however, experimenting with a series of "graduated" benefits to push faculty retention that have a smaller impact on the bottom line.
Our plan is basically as follows. To encourage long time faculty retention, the more years someone puts in the better the benefit package becomes. In addition, these benefits are tied to developmental marks in a teacher's career. To clarify, we are just beginning to develop this plan. To encourage families and faculty retention we are exploring the costs of offering on-site greatly discounted child care for the children of our teachers. The average family can expect to pay between $400 to $700 a month in child care at a private day care center. By using our child development class and subsidizing the salary of a full time day care coordinator with the allocation of a significant space for this endeavor, this benefit could greatly increase retention of young faculty. As a young faculty member with a family, paying $100-$200 a month for subsidized high quality on site day care would be a huge advantage especially given the fact that the center's schedule will mirror the schools.
Another factor we have looked at is reducing tuition for our faculty. We currently offer a 50% reduction on our high school tuition. Granted our tuition is already laughably low, but if we can crunch the numbers and offer free tuition for our teachers' children, this benefit would go a long way in stretching the modest salaries and producing goodwill.
For faculty on the older edge, these benefits might not mean that much. For our faculty with 20 to 25 year experience, we are looking at reducing the full course load from six to five sections and adding a higher match to our 403b plan. In addition, we will look at offering free lunch to our faculty. We've also toyed with the idea of adding free babysitting tied to our Christian Service Program.
As with all endeavors there is probably something we are glaringly missing and I am sure our first round of attempts will piss off as many people as it pleases, but thus is the joy of trying something new. A graduated benefits plan while leaving alone the health care and salary issue may at the least increase the quality of life for our faculty and lead to higher retention rates.
Another issue we struggle with is the distinction of who to apply these benefits to. For example, are teachers the ones making the bigger sacrifice? Are our secretaries, bus drivers, and maintenance workers making similar wages to their public school counterparts or not? Should we offer these benefits to them as well? Everyone contributes to the well-being of the school do they not? It takes a village to raise a child.
We'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter. Attached below is a link to a benefits survey. On the upper left of the web page is a link to the live results as they come in. I am sure many of us face these same issues every day. Maybe collectively we can come up with a world-class plan that minimizes costs and increases happiness. Then again that is pretty idealist but I'd beg to offer that if anyone deserves it our teachers do.
Link to Survey: Faculty Benefit Survey Here
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Reframing Conversations with the Miserable
As principals we all spend a part of each week listening to or hearing from unhappy parents. As long as our schools enroll students we will have the added pleasure of dealing with parents on a consistent basis. Sadly the top jobs at those few high schools meeting the needs of orphans have been filled for years.
To be fair most of us are a little jaded when it comes to interacting with parents. The five percent who are chronically miserable in all areas of their life usually fill up ninety five percent of the parent meetings on our schedule. The truth is that most of our parents are happy well-adjusted individuals with a firm grasp on reality. The Church rightfully declares parents as "the primary educator" and our roll of assisting in their child's development and growth is more often than not a shared blessing. But alas the buck stops with us and so too does the final stop for the unhappy parent.
I'm willing to argue that the large percentage of unhappy parents that make it to your door are usually upset over non-academic or core issues. More likely than not their concerns will have to do with some co-curricular aspect of the school. Little Johnny has been cut from the basketball team, played in the wrong position for the wrong amount of time, or has suffered some other life altering injustice that if uncorrected could ruin his life forever. Some parents just need to be heard and quickly ignored. Others take a little more work to appease.
I'm writing this post to share a concept gained from a recent professional development day that helps reframe these lovely conversations with an eternal lens that honors our rich Catholic heritage.
About a month ago I had the opportunity to sit through a presentation about "happiness" by the Spitzer Center. Our board chair and former fortune 500 exec had arranged for the group to visit our little corner of the midwest and provide a session for local business and civic leaders. I left for the meeting with the usual enthusiasm for a day away from the office during the middle of the school week. The Spitzer Center is the brain child of Father Robert Spitzer S.J. the president of Gonzaga University and mentor for the positive thinking guru Lou Tice.
The session focused on seeking happiness. What was interesting about the session was the retelling of truths that as Catholics we've known for a couple thousand years. Essentially in the end we all want to be happy. As Catholic educators we are drilling this drive for happiness into our children every day mindful of the fact that eternal happiness rests in union with God. There are four levels of happiness. Level one has to do with pleasure. A nice piece of prime rib and a beer on a Friday afternoon are all pleasure giving in their own right but these pleasures are fleeting. Building our life around the accumulation of level one items is doomed for failure if not addiction. Level two has to do with things that are good by comparison. A certain job over another, a house with large square footage, a new car are all good in their own right. But their worth is valued in a large way by being compared to something not as good. To focus on level two items like wealth, power, and position will eventually lead to spiritual emptiness and poverty of soul. Level three happiness has to do with altruism and leaving the world better than we find it and recognizing that our individual gifts are properly expressed in service to others. Level four happiness is the perfect happiness that we are created for which is found eternally with God.
None of the above is new to our faith. Apparently the business world doesn't often grasp the truth of the above statements. Imagine that. But what is potentially exciting and new is reframing parent conversations around these levels. The family concerned about "playing time" or Billy's role in the school play is not helping their child reach level three and level four happiness. They are overvaluing level two and teaching Billy to express his self-worth in ways that will not lead to lasting happiness. Of course getting the conversation to this point is always easier said than done. I like to drop somewhere in the conversation that if, "high school athletics are the highlight of life then life is pretty empty in the end". The timing has to be there of course but usually the sooner I can get it out the better.
I have to believe that the more our students and faculty grasp the meaning and value of the different levels of happiness the more these concerns over perceived injustices will go away. Perhaps a little suffering will lead to a little self growth.
Please share your thoughts below and your own tricks and methods for dealing with difficult conversations.
To be fair most of us are a little jaded when it comes to interacting with parents. The five percent who are chronically miserable in all areas of their life usually fill up ninety five percent of the parent meetings on our schedule. The truth is that most of our parents are happy well-adjusted individuals with a firm grasp on reality. The Church rightfully declares parents as "the primary educator" and our roll of assisting in their child's development and growth is more often than not a shared blessing. But alas the buck stops with us and so too does the final stop for the unhappy parent.
I'm willing to argue that the large percentage of unhappy parents that make it to your door are usually upset over non-academic or core issues. More likely than not their concerns will have to do with some co-curricular aspect of the school. Little Johnny has been cut from the basketball team, played in the wrong position for the wrong amount of time, or has suffered some other life altering injustice that if uncorrected could ruin his life forever. Some parents just need to be heard and quickly ignored. Others take a little more work to appease.
I'm writing this post to share a concept gained from a recent professional development day that helps reframe these lovely conversations with an eternal lens that honors our rich Catholic heritage.
About a month ago I had the opportunity to sit through a presentation about "happiness" by the Spitzer Center. Our board chair and former fortune 500 exec had arranged for the group to visit our little corner of the midwest and provide a session for local business and civic leaders. I left for the meeting with the usual enthusiasm for a day away from the office during the middle of the school week. The Spitzer Center is the brain child of Father Robert Spitzer S.J. the president of Gonzaga University and mentor for the positive thinking guru Lou Tice.
The session focused on seeking happiness. What was interesting about the session was the retelling of truths that as Catholics we've known for a couple thousand years. Essentially in the end we all want to be happy. As Catholic educators we are drilling this drive for happiness into our children every day mindful of the fact that eternal happiness rests in union with God. There are four levels of happiness. Level one has to do with pleasure. A nice piece of prime rib and a beer on a Friday afternoon are all pleasure giving in their own right but these pleasures are fleeting. Building our life around the accumulation of level one items is doomed for failure if not addiction. Level two has to do with things that are good by comparison. A certain job over another, a house with large square footage, a new car are all good in their own right. But their worth is valued in a large way by being compared to something not as good. To focus on level two items like wealth, power, and position will eventually lead to spiritual emptiness and poverty of soul. Level three happiness has to do with altruism and leaving the world better than we find it and recognizing that our individual gifts are properly expressed in service to others. Level four happiness is the perfect happiness that we are created for which is found eternally with God.
None of the above is new to our faith. Apparently the business world doesn't often grasp the truth of the above statements. Imagine that. But what is potentially exciting and new is reframing parent conversations around these levels. The family concerned about "playing time" or Billy's role in the school play is not helping their child reach level three and level four happiness. They are overvaluing level two and teaching Billy to express his self-worth in ways that will not lead to lasting happiness. Of course getting the conversation to this point is always easier said than done. I like to drop somewhere in the conversation that if, "high school athletics are the highlight of life then life is pretty empty in the end". The timing has to be there of course but usually the sooner I can get it out the better.
I have to believe that the more our students and faculty grasp the meaning and value of the different levels of happiness the more these concerns over perceived injustices will go away. Perhaps a little suffering will lead to a little self growth.
Please share your thoughts below and your own tricks and methods for dealing with difficult conversations.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Off-Campus Jurisdiction and Sanity
Schools are messy places. Balancing the mission of Catholic education with the competing needs and wants of students, parents, and staff is certainly a daunting and heroic task. What makes it even more challenging and exciting is worrying about what happens off of school grounds. How do the off campus activities of our student body effect what we do within our halls? Is it our right and our place to discipline students for actions that take place at events that are not school sponsored?
We all have written drug and alcohol policies. Our past surveys indicate that primarily those policies limit the school's jurisdiction regarding alcohol consumption to school events, incidents that take place en route to school events, or incidents of a public nature in which a police report or ticket is issued. What about other incidents? What about the well intended but often neurotic parent who calls to anonymously report a drinking party over the weekend? Does the school have an obligation to act? What about cyber-bullying that takes place off of campus? Are these problems the domain of the school administrator? Does in loco parentis really apply twenty four hours a day? Do Catholic schools have greater or lesser responsibility than our public counterparts?
Most or our institutions contain clauses embedded in our handbooks that give us the right to discipline students for morally offensive behavior that occurs off campus. We operate on contract law and as such live and die by our handbook for defining the limits and reaches of school authority. In the public world the courts have been mixed in terms of limiting school jurisdiction to the school house gates and granting broad reaching power. In Kusnir vs. Leach 1982 the courts ruled in favor of a college taking disciplinary action against a student for morally inappropriate behavior at an off campus and non school sponsored social event. In terms of free speech courts have trended to allow school intervention only when the off campus event has a negative and substantial impact to the school day (Thomas vs. Board of Education Granville 1979). Events that take place off campus that do not disrupt the school's normal operation involving free speech are considered to be off limits for our public school counterparts. Dr. Scott McCleod of CASTLE provides an excellent summary via this podcast (link here).
I had the privilege a few weeks ago of receiving a lovely phone call on a Monday morning from a parent concerned that parents had allegedly hosted a party over the weekend and provided alcohol to the students. Our school has suffered from a similar incident four years ago in which the offending parent spent time in jail besides paying a hefty and substantial fine. I turned the case over to our school's drug and alcohol preventionist who coordinated the investigation and suspended ten students who the employee determined were involved with the event. We try to avoid anonymous complaints and concerns but given the gravity of the claim found it worth investigating. Our investigation concluded that the accusation of parents providing alcohol was unfounded yet drinking did take place in their home without their complicit knowledge. Our policy is based off a local city ordinance that deems minors who are "knowingly present and choose to remain" as guilty. A number of the students appealed their consequences to the disciplinary committee on the grounds that they were not "knowingly present". They argued in attending that they knew parents were to be present, that a small number of uninvited students brought the alcohol and where then asked to leave and that they did not personally violate the school's code. The majority of the appeals were successful. The students have a right to an appeal and I can live with the results of the process but what it brings to my attention is the question of boundaries?
Students who spend the night at a sleep over and engage in name calling or arguments that are unchristian do not find themselves facing school discipline the following Monday nor should they. The parents of the students are expected to deal with it. Why does bullying that takes place outside the school grounds via the net fit a different category? Why is the party the domain of the school? If parents are the primary educators of their children as CCC 2223 points out where is their obligation in policing and dealing with off campus issues? One can see where cyber-bullying could spill into the normal operation of the school and cause substantial issues with the smooth operation of the school. At the same time we have a moral obligation to keep our students safe and to encourage their moral development.
As a principal how do you decide when and when not to become involved with off campus issues? Do you have any memorable incidents to share? What is the proper balance? How aggressive need a school be regarding off campus issues to protect the moral development of students? What are the pros and cons of being overly aggressive?
We all have written drug and alcohol policies. Our past surveys indicate that primarily those policies limit the school's jurisdiction regarding alcohol consumption to school events, incidents that take place en route to school events, or incidents of a public nature in which a police report or ticket is issued. What about other incidents? What about the well intended but often neurotic parent who calls to anonymously report a drinking party over the weekend? Does the school have an obligation to act? What about cyber-bullying that takes place off of campus? Are these problems the domain of the school administrator? Does in loco parentis really apply twenty four hours a day? Do Catholic schools have greater or lesser responsibility than our public counterparts?
Most or our institutions contain clauses embedded in our handbooks that give us the right to discipline students for morally offensive behavior that occurs off campus. We operate on contract law and as such live and die by our handbook for defining the limits and reaches of school authority. In the public world the courts have been mixed in terms of limiting school jurisdiction to the school house gates and granting broad reaching power. In Kusnir vs. Leach 1982 the courts ruled in favor of a college taking disciplinary action against a student for morally inappropriate behavior at an off campus and non school sponsored social event. In terms of free speech courts have trended to allow school intervention only when the off campus event has a negative and substantial impact to the school day (Thomas vs. Board of Education Granville 1979). Events that take place off campus that do not disrupt the school's normal operation involving free speech are considered to be off limits for our public school counterparts. Dr. Scott McCleod of CASTLE provides an excellent summary via this podcast (link here).
I had the privilege a few weeks ago of receiving a lovely phone call on a Monday morning from a parent concerned that parents had allegedly hosted a party over the weekend and provided alcohol to the students. Our school has suffered from a similar incident four years ago in which the offending parent spent time in jail besides paying a hefty and substantial fine. I turned the case over to our school's drug and alcohol preventionist who coordinated the investigation and suspended ten students who the employee determined were involved with the event. We try to avoid anonymous complaints and concerns but given the gravity of the claim found it worth investigating. Our investigation concluded that the accusation of parents providing alcohol was unfounded yet drinking did take place in their home without their complicit knowledge. Our policy is based off a local city ordinance that deems minors who are "knowingly present and choose to remain" as guilty. A number of the students appealed their consequences to the disciplinary committee on the grounds that they were not "knowingly present". They argued in attending that they knew parents were to be present, that a small number of uninvited students brought the alcohol and where then asked to leave and that they did not personally violate the school's code. The majority of the appeals were successful. The students have a right to an appeal and I can live with the results of the process but what it brings to my attention is the question of boundaries?
Students who spend the night at a sleep over and engage in name calling or arguments that are unchristian do not find themselves facing school discipline the following Monday nor should they. The parents of the students are expected to deal with it. Why does bullying that takes place outside the school grounds via the net fit a different category? Why is the party the domain of the school? If parents are the primary educators of their children as CCC 2223 points out where is their obligation in policing and dealing with off campus issues? One can see where cyber-bullying could spill into the normal operation of the school and cause substantial issues with the smooth operation of the school. At the same time we have a moral obligation to keep our students safe and to encourage their moral development.
As a principal how do you decide when and when not to become involved with off campus issues? Do you have any memorable incidents to share? What is the proper balance? How aggressive need a school be regarding off campus issues to protect the moral development of students? What are the pros and cons of being overly aggressive?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
