WakeEd

The WakeEd blog is devoted to discussing and answering questions about the major issues facing the Wake County school system. How much will the new Democratic majority on the school board do to undo the changes made by Republicans since 2009? Will the new student assignment plan be a hybrid of the last two models or primarily be a return to the use of busing for diversity? Who will replace Tony Tata as the new superintendent of the state's largest district? How will voters react to a likely request in 2013 to borrow potentially more than $1 billion to build and renovate schools?

WakeEd is maintained by The News & Observer's Wake schools reporter, T. Keung Hui. While Keung posts information and analysis on the issues, keep us posted on your suggestions, questions, tips and what you're doing to cope with the changes in Wake's schools.

Choose a blog

County manager recommends less money than what schools want

Bookmark and Share

County Manager David Cooke isn't recommending giving the school system the full amount it has requested.

Cooke proposed today that county commissioners give around $313 million in school funding. The school board is asking for $316.8 million.

You can see this as a cut, or as Cooke views it, a gain for the schools. If you factor in the $5.7 million that the school board returned to the county late last year, Cooke is proposing an increase over the $310.5 million baseline budget number.

School officials have been focusing on how their request is only slightly over the $316.2 million that commissioners agreed to provide last year.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The BOE's attorney addressed

The BOE's attorney addressed the board in a meeting within the past couple of months and outlined some of the insurance coverage they have. WCPSS will have to fix older buildings as there is no coverage for "sick buildings" and they could be sued for neglecting their properties and would likely pay a hefty fee if found guilty. I would think that given the situation the attny. described the BOE would need to ensure that all the older campuses are renovated before they allow the property to fall into a state of disrepair and have to pay damages as well as construction costs. I thought the last huge bond provided funds for the renovation of all the older schools in Beverly Clarks district.

Dear Fellow Tax Payer, Every

Dear Fellow Tax Payer,

Every year there are more and more initiatives that are introduced into education with no real foundation in research to indicate that they will be able to do anything worthwhile. Take, for example, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. In 2009 there were 14,197 NC teachers holding NBPTS Status in their area of teaching. This is the greatest number of NBPTS teachers than in any other of the 50 states. The NBPTS proponents chide in on the difficulty of the process. They declare that every teacher that makes it through the process successfully (achieving status or passing the process) three do not. Now outwardly that sounds like a very rigorous process. Please note the following:
There are 4 major submissions made with two of these involving a 20 minute video or DVD of the teacher teaching and then providing written commentary on the segment. The assessor NEVER meets the teacher being assessed.
The actual test that tests the teacher on the content of their subject area (science, math, etc) is weighted VERY little. Theoretically a teacher could, in fact, fail all content area tests and still be a NBPTS teacher.

Now let’s take the fact that there are 14,197 teachers that have, at your expense, achieved NBPTS status. At around $2500 a pop that would be $35,492,500 of your tax money spent. If three teachers do not successfully complete the process for every one that makes it then this total tax money spent is $141,970,000. Even if you prove that NBPTS teachers are better than regular teachers then you can see that only 25% of your tax dollars are being utilized effectively. Also, there is a 12% pay raise involved in which your tax dollars are being spent on teachers that MAY teach better than a teacher that does not have status.

The NBPTS process cannot be undertaken unless a teacher has 3 years of teaching experience. A teacher with a 4 year degree who achieves NBPTS status will make $36,560 per year according to the 2009 NC pay scale for teachers. A teacher with a Masters Degree (usually meaning 2 more years of college with face to face time with instructors and monitored practicum/teaching) and not NBPTS will make $35,900. So the 4 month long process of NBPTS makes a teacher with a 4 year degree more valuable than a teacher with 2 more YEARS of education.

So let us take a look and a very conservative estimate here. Let’s say ALL of the 14,197 NBPTS teachers all have a BS degree in their field and they all had 3 years of experience at the time of their NBPTS status:

So ONLY for the NBPTS costs we have:

One teacher fee for application for the NBPTS process. $2500
This teacher, with a Bachelors Degree, will make an extra $3920 for the next 10 years (the duration of the NBPTS status) (pay source, NCDPI website) *this does not include pay raises based on years experience $39,200

Total $41,700
The number of teachers with NBPTS Status in NC as of 2009 (14,197, source, NBPTS website) and projecting only BS degreed teachers 14,197 x $41,700 = $592,014,900
Added costs if for every one teacher that made NBPTS status ONE did not. The application costs only were 35,492,500 for these teachers. $592,014,900 + $35,492,500 =
$627,507,400

The Evergreen Freedom Foundation has a few reports on the effectiveness of NBPTS teachers. One very impressive study shows intricate details of the NBPTS process. This report asks if NC is getting its money’s worth. Authored by George Leef it is eye opening as to the ins and outs of the NBPTS process. Two other reports can be found at this site:
http://www.effwa.org/NATIONAL%20BOARD%20FOR%20PROFESSIONAL%20TEACHING%20STANDARDS.php

I smell another rally coming!

Before it's over there is no telling how many teachers will be gone.
Anyone notice fuel flying up the charts again? THAT will mess up their budgets even more and yet no one is talking about those sky rocketing fuel prices! Bet you Don Haydon budgeted for it to be at $2/gallon for the rest of the year! Fill ups never stop in Wake County, especially with the never ending Forced Year Round schools!

Maybe someone should suggest closing some of these new schools that will only be 50-60% full and filling up the ones they are emptying out? Nah, that'd make too much cents!

Will he go so far as to

Will he go so far as to suggest cuts? Has there been more discussion about saving money by keeping Leesville Middle from converting to year-round? That conversion is such a total waste and so many other year-round schools should discontinue MYR for instant budget cuts.

You say this every time. 

You say this every time.  When I look at the school data there are 137k kids and 123k seats.  If you add in 20% of the kids in trailer that put us at 94% capacity.   If we got rid of the trailers 14k would be sitting in the parking lot.   Unless you in love with trailers which are a short term arrangement, it appears we need more permanent seats some where for these kids.

Yes I do. I will change my

Yes I do. I will change my tune when the BoE changes guard and becomes a more responsive organization. Perhaps 23 MYR reversals is too many. What is the magic number? How many are under capacity next year? 5? 10? 15? At $100,000 a pop 10 schools=$1,000,000. That's a lot of textbooks, salaries, remedial programs...why not?

If we have 14k more kids

If we have 14k more kids than seats than we need more capacity.  We have temporary capacity with trailers.  They have a limited life and are most expensive.  Maybe they are bad for education, I don't know. 

So, if you don't like MYR, than you just need to convince people that trailers are good, we don't need to get rid of them and we don't have a capacity issue so there is no reason for MYR.

If the goal is to get rid of trailers and a few more people move here, you have an uphill battle. 

 

In a nutshell

Voluntary year round schools provide a good use of school buildings and meets the needs of some people.

MYR is another issue, they are IN THEORY a result of poor planning in the past.

The trailers amplify that poor planning since they should of been a huge indicator that more permanent capacity was needed. That blame falls on the CC's more than the BoE.

Trailers themselves are not a problem if they are used as they were really intended. Trailers should be used as a stop gap measure until more capacity is built. Then they should be removed and relocated as needed elsewhere. Trailers are not energy efficient, are less safe, and do not last as long as permanent structures. The real problem is the school's infrastructure was not designed  to handle the overflow students. I talk mainly about libraries, media centers, auditoriums, gyms, etc.

The sad truth is often trailers are added to schools almost as soon as they are built and are rarely moved. Cost is part of it, it costs a lot of money to site and move a trailer. Personally I think there is something fishy with the costs. If I were a reporter, I think I could find an interesting story there. (Just a gut feel) We used to move things very similar to those modular units in the military for far less cost. I think the costs are over $100K just to site.

But why do we keep buying trailers? Are we expecting a wide scale disaster that will decimate our population? Even normal growth should make permanent structures more efficient to build.  It not like we plan to shrink in the future.

I agree ... "But why do

I agree ...

"But why do we keep buying trailers?"

I am guessing that it may be a building comes from the capital budget and a trailer from the operating budget.  Maybe there are more restriction on capital expenditures and less on operating funds.  Maybe the state pays for trailer or pays for operating cost but not capital so it is better to pump up trailer cost.  Finally, like you said, maybe lack of forecasting make trailers the easiest fastest "fix" each time.  There is usually a funding issue behind apparently unusual decisions.

Well...

I think in this case, capacity and MYR are two separate things completely.  I think MYR was pushed through on the premise of a capacity crisis - but I don't believe that there was ever not enough capacity.  Does that make sense?

IMO MYR was pushed through so that the board ultimately could place specific demographics at specific schools. 

If there truly was/is a capacity crisis - then the first course of action should have been to fill the Voluntary Year Round schools up - many of them are under-enrolled because they were too white or too rich or whatever... WCPSS could have "forced" those schools to admit more children - even could have force assigned kids to those schools (since they have had bases for a long time anyway!) before going the route of converting 23 other schools.

It will be interesting to see what happens capacity wise at the current MYR schools next year - now that the board does not have to ask for permission to assign - it might well happen that many of them fill up - although not because families want to go there...

Keep sayin' it...

If WCPSS is so desperate for permanent seats, why did they use the funds for the construction of 2 new elementary schools from the 06 bond for a renovation instead?  It is these sorts of decisions by our BoE that make taxpayers "say this every time".  And rightly so.

 

 

"why did they use the funds

"why did they use the funds for the construction of 2 new elementary schools from the 06 bond for a renovation instead?"

You should know how I would answer that given that I am in an older school wanting renovation and resent new schools sucking up the capital funds ... so, if the BOE wanted to do a renovation now and stretch the trailers life a few more years that would be ok .. lets say a trailer has a 10 year expected life ... once you bought one, there is no reason to make it obsolete before you got your 10 years of wear and tear ... they may be balancing things such that the trailer reaches it's 10th year as the permanent seat comes on line ... in the meantime, they can use the funds for renovation.

...

So you support the need for permanent seats and the reduction of trailers only if it doesn't interfere with your renovation? Spoken like a true Board member.

 

I support optimization …

I support optimization … so, are you saying you support making trailers obsolete early and not taking advantage of their full life?  Spoken like a true spendthrift.

...

You just said WCPSS needs more permanent seats. Then, you made an arugment to keep trailers for 10 years. And furthered it by saying trailers shouldn't be made obsolete early.

You're all over the place, user. I don't mind an opposing opinion but it's hard to tell what that is. 

And calling me a spendthrift is hilarious. I'm surprised you couldn't work in the word "warehoused" somewhere.

 

 

"warehoused" in trailer

"warehoused" in trailer "ghettos" full of "anti-diversity" students from "rich" families.

It hurts when you hear the

It hurts when you hear the truth unvarnished doesn't it.

  [You just said WCPSS

 

[You just said WCPSS needs more permanent seats.]

 

I guess... if the goal is to have out of trailers... seems like a good goal but maybe some kids learn better in trailers??

  

[Then, you made an argument to keep trailers for 10 years. And furthered it by saying trailers shouldn't be made obsolete early. ]

 

Correct … why buy temporary space and immediately obsolete it … surely you would have a field day with that error …

 

This is not a hard concept … (are you a non-Wake graduate?)

 

WCPSS has 20% trailers with five more years of life.  WCPSS can invest in permanent seats and make those trailers obsolete or they can put the cash into renovation during the lull.  The best financial decision is to renovate and use the remaining trailer life.  Good job WCPSS.

It's doubtful Cooke will

It's doubtful Cooke will suggest specific areas to cut. As to the commissioners, they removed the budgeting by category provision so it's not as likely they'd suggest specific areas. It would probably come down to the school board deiciding where to makie cuts should commissioners not increase the amount recommended by Cooke.

Cars View All
Find a Car
Go
Jobs View All
Find a Job
Go
Homes View All
Find a Home
Go

Want to post a comment?

In order to join the conversation, you must be a member of newsobserver.com. Click here to register or to log in.

About the blogger

T. Keung Hui covers Wake schools.
Advertisements