Unanswered questions

We here in the patch are used to seeing some weak "news" stories in the Herald-Standard, but today's effort regarding the new teachers' contract in the Uniontown Area School District takes the cake.

"UASD negotiators reach contract agreement" has left us wondering if the newspaper now has a prohibition against asking any probing questions, if it has expanded its list of partnerships, or if it simply relishes dumb-downed stories.

Check it out for yourself and see if you agree with this assessment. http://www.heraldstandard.com/news/local_news/uasd-negotiators-reach-contract-agreement/article_ee0ec9ca-4e95-5015-a8c3-2b559d6919c8.html

This story shows a remarkable lack of detail. We learn that the school board voted 8-1 to approve a new three-year teachers' contract after 19 months of negotation. We also find out that the new deal "will afford some movement for lower step educators and a change in the health care plan."

But what, exactly, is "some movement"? And who are these "lower step educators"?

A newspaper's job is to make sense of jargon, deciphering it and boiling it down to words the reader understands. That clearly wasn't done with a passage like this:

The terms of the three-year contract state that teachers up to step 15 will receive a halfstep movement retroactive for the 2010-11 academic year. For 2011-12 and 2012-13, teachers up to step 15 will receive an increase of three percent of the payroll. Teachers over the 15-year mark will receive no increase for 2010-11 and 2011-12, but will receive $500 in year three of the contract.

What is step 15? What is a halfstep movement? What is an increase of three percent of the payroll? The only part of the above paragraph that's easily understood is that teachers with more than 15 years of service won't get an increase -- we are left to assume that means no pay increase -- in the first two years, but will get $500 in year three.

We also read that school board member Lloyd Williams is warning that the district will have to cough up another $1 million next year to comply with this contract. Any reporter or editor worth his or her salt should be able to translate that million-dollar figure into the projected millage-rate increase for 2012-13. But, alas, that takes some brains and a little work.

We also find out that: The new contract also offers teachers a lesser insurance plan that will require them to have higher co-pays and deductibles. According to Director Thomas George, teachers will not be required to contribute to the premium and the district will save about $190,000 this year on the total premium.

Before the taxpaying public can decide whether they like this deal or not, should it not be informed of what are these "higher co-pays and deductibles"? If the copay rises from $10 to $11, that is a far different animal than it if rises from $10 to $100. A deductible that rises from $500 to $1,000 is one thing; one that rises from $500 to $2,500 is something else.

We would also ask why the teachers won't have to contribute to the monthly premium, which is the norm for most private employers, and how much that move might have saved beyond the $190,000 cited by director George.

A school district story that leaves so many unanswered questions doesn't deserve any grade better than a D.