Hiring practices of Laurel Highlands School District
Just a reminder from the Laurel Highlands Board Meeting from June when the district was in a financial crisis. The school board decided to furlough 22 teachers, or raise taxes and take a bond (loan) for $1.4 million. All of the cost saving measures were passed: pay to participate, band and cheerleaders not going to away football games, cut student clubs’ / organizations’ teacher sponsors and a hiring freeze.
At the very next meeting they reinstated all cuts except for student clubs and organizations and they hired a teacher.
Well they are spending freely again. In neighboring districts a few years ago, the staff was reorganized to save jobs with cooperation of the administration and the teachers’ union. We don’t believe in that at Laurel Highlands School District. We hired one teacher for a salary of $38,600 plus benefits an addition minimum of $15,000.
Then at the September 20 meeting Laurel Highlands hired two teachers for $95,800.00 plus a minimum of $30,000 for benefits. One of the positions was created and filled at the same time. I have been going to Laurel Highlands School Board meetings since 2007 and I believe this is the first time they created and hired in the same night. I guess they decided to not follow their past practice of always interviewing for the best candidates. I guess interviews, input from the building principals and evaluations do not matter.
This letter is no reflection on candidates hired for the positions more questioning the need for the position and the policy/procedure.
The reason is that the kindergarten class sizes were 23 per class and the classrooms are too small. A board member, thinking outside of the box, suggested switching rooms with another grade that has less students per class. Not Laurel Highlands School District we would rather put the 4th kindergarten class in the music room. A few years ago, kindergarten class size at another elementary school in the district was 25 per class no teacher was hired? I wonder why?
When considering the $30,000 cost to reinstate the clubs/organizations, it is a small cost since the board reinstated all of the cost savings measures that saved more money. Or do we only reinstate programs that benefit certain students and or sponsors that are related to board members.
I would like to see this board make the motion to reinstate all of the clubs and organizations that benefit all students on college applications. The upper tier colleges look for the well-rounded student with leadership roles. Five members of the board didn’t think it important enough to hold the line on spending. Why diminish the opportunities for the students to achieve their goals of attending the university of their dreams?
Now let’s figure this out, we don’t have the money in June but now we have rescinded most of the cuts except for clubs. Total to date in additional spending is $253,200 minimum and we are only one month into the school year.
North and South Union Township residents be confident that I will be watching the spending and hiring practices and let you know how your tax dollars are being spent.
Joseph D’Andrea, South Union Township