Is it the responsibility of Wake County school board members to ask for how much money they think they need or how much they think they can get?
As noted in today's article, that represented the split among Republican and Democratic board members when voting on the school budget proposal on Tuesday. Democrats on the board argued they need to ask for at least the same amount in local per-pupil funding as last year, even if it means asking for more money from the county commissioners.
"While I think the superintendent's budget is a very good one that has some very innovative ideas that protects classrooms and is overall a very good budget, I do think that we have a responsibility as a board to seek more funding, particularly given that we're in the third year of flat funding," said Democratic board member Keith Sutton.
At issue is that Superintendent Tony Tata was asking commissioners for $313.5 million, the same amount that's been given the past two years. While it's not an overall cut, it is a per-pupil cut.
In this current fiscal year, that $313.5 million means $2,108 per student. With Wake projecting 3,759 more students in the coming fiscal year, that $313.5 million translates into $2,056 per student.
The budget was brought up by several speakers during public comment.
Anne Sherron said the "buck starts" with the school board because commissioners won't give the extra money if they're not asked.
"Ask for the money so parents can identify those elected officials that are not pro-public education from the wallet," Sherron said.
Jim Martin asked the board to ask for enough from the county to maintain per-pupil funding.
During the budget discussion, Anne McLaurin said it was her responsibility to ask that commissioners at least maintain the current per-pupil funding level. While no amount was brought up during the meeting, it would take a $7.9 million increase to keep it at $2,108 per student.
GOP school board vice chairwoman Debra Goldman asked if it would be possible to adopt the budget proposal as is and ask for more money anyway. She also asked about the May 15 deadline for submitting a budget proposal to the county.
GOP school board member Chris Malone asked Chief Business Officer David Neter what he knew about the state of county revenues. Neter said that's he's not an expert on it but said the county is under budge pressure as well.
McLaurin proposed discussing the budget revision on May 10 so they could still get the budget to the commissioners by May 15.
Neter told board members that they if they were planning on asking for the extra money then they should readjust the budget to say how it would be used. He said staff would need to work quickly to determine how to allocate that money before the May 15 deadline.
GOP school board member John Tedesco noted that "the county is in tight times." While "it's not optimal," he said the fact that they've received the same amount the previous two years is much better than the cuts the county has made elsewhere in their budget.
"They’re trying to work with us much more cooperatively," Tedesco said of the commissioners. "They understand the challenges we're facing. If they had the additional resources at this time, they’d try to work with us in light of that."
GOP school board member Deborah Prickett said McLaurin's proposal "seems to kind of be just a last-minute sort of we'll throw this out there in desperation."
"It’s a very good budget for the times we’re working in," Prickett said as she added that she hoped "the state will come through for us" with more funding.
But Sutton said they need to make sure that county funding stays current with growth. He said asking the state for more funding "doesn't take commissioners off the hook" for giving more money.
"We need to step up to our responsibility as a board to provide necessary funding for our students in Wake County," Sutton said.
Goldman said that while she would like to ask for more money "it’s just time and effort that will not be rewarded."
Noting how much less school funding has been cut than other areas by commissioners, Goldman said "they have done more for us for education for our dollars to keep them where they are than they've been able to do anywhere else.
Goldman said they need to move forward with the budget and would be "better served" to appeal to state legislators for more funding.
Tedesco said he'd encourage working with commissioners to set up in the future a funding formula based on a per-pupil amount. He also said he felt that approach would best be done with a purpose and function budget.
McLaurin challenged her colleagues to answer this one question:
"We are perfectly willing to ask the state for more money after they've told us that we can't have any but we're not willing to ask our county commissioners to keep us at the funding level where we ought to be," McLaurin said. "Is that what you're saying?"
Sutton responded to Prickett's earlier comment about it being last-minute by noting how he had brought up a per-pupil funding formula idea last year.
Goldman questioned their ability to change the budget in the next 12 days. Sutton said that if they had the wherewithal and the commitment they could do so in that time period.
The vote went 4-3 with the Republicans voting no and the Democrats voting yes for McLaurin's budget amendment.
“I’m really torn,” Goldman said. “But I have to vote no.”
When it came time to vote on the whole budget, the vote went 5-2 when Democrat Carolyn Morrison voted yes. She said she was doing so because they have to have a budget.
School board chairman Ron Margiotta applauded Morrison for "being responsible," which prompted Sutton to ask if he was being considered irresponsible because of his no vote.
The budget was adopted without the use of purpose and function requested by commissioners.
Comments
BoE members are...
Thu, 05/05/2011 - 08:30 — bpuli9999getting ahead of themselves. Their primary responsibility is to the school system - not the county or state. They should do their best to ensure funding levels to the school system. And they seem to be forgetting that. Partisan hacks are what they proving themselves to be.
Big WCPSS school budget cuts
Thu, 05/05/2011 - 10:23 — stan_norwalkThe most reliable fix I have on the number of school personnel that will have to be cut to conform to the NCGA House budget is 16,500 statewide. That translates to roughly 1650 in Wake.
However, WCPSS has $27 million in reserve from Federal stomilus grants. That is one time money with no replacement once it is used. Depending how it is used that could save temporarily 500-600 jobs. This is apparently what Tata to do. A tough call.
Losing teacher assistants and assistant principals will put more of the workload onto teachers,,,many of whom work long hours already. Our ability to recruit the best of the new crop of teachers will go down. NC starting teacher salry is the lowest of neighboring states and working conditions are declining.
Neighborhood schools, charter schools and high poverty schools will make the financial outlook worse.
With this as background it is incredible that the BOE would not ask the BOC for more money. Their decision is a based purely on party politics and not on whats good for kids.
Cuts in teacher assistants
Sat, 05/07/2011 - 08:45 — stan_norwalkFrom the NC Public School Forum
The Real Impact of Teaching Assistant Cuts
In a letter to members of the General Assembly, Eddie Ingram, the Superintendent of Franklin County Schools very thoughtfully (and thoroughly) shared with them the real impact of proposed cuts to teacher assistants. His letter illustrates the unintended, and potentially long-term, impact of the proposed cuts:
Gentlemen:
I am concerned that the General Assembly doesn’t fully understand funding for teacher assistants. I have been working with our Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance, Mr. Doug Moore on this issue, and I want to share the dilemma in Franklin County Schools regarding teacher assistants.
Point #1 Although the state, in theory, funds teacher assistants K-3, the current allotment of $1,131.29 per student in K-3 does not equal a teacher assistant in each K-3 classroom. So please don’t think that it does. The average annual cost of a teacher assistant (salary and benefits) is approximately $29,500. I will illustrate how this affects Franklin County Schools after I outline three other points.
Point #2 About 40 % of our teacher assistants also drive buses. This extra duty pushes the assistants into overtime that we have to pay as prescribed by federal law. The overtime cost for Franklin County Schools equates to approximately 1.56 teacher assistant positions or $46,000, which we have to pay out of the 2010-11 teacher assistant allotment of 3,123,258. That leaves us a total of $3,077,258 for salaries or about 104 potential teacher assistant positions.
Point #3 State allotted teacher assistant positions also must support exceptional children’s classrooms. This year, that requires about 10 positions for exceptional children’s classrooms in our district. Due to the fragile nature of some of the classes, more than one assistant is required.
Point #4 We use state allotted teacher assistant positions for elementary media centers, 8 positions in our county.
In 2010-2011, Franklin County has a teacher assistant in each of our 35 kindergarten classrooms, a teacher assistant in each of our 34 first grade classrooms, 17 assistants shared among 35 second grade classrooms, and NO teacher assistants in 36 third grade classrooms. Even if we took out our 8 media assistants and put them in the second grade, we still would not have a teacher assistant in each second grade classroom and none in the 36 third grade classrooms. We can’t take teacher assistants away from exceptional children’s classrooms. That would be illegal and irresponsible. Many people erroneously believe when it is said that the state currently funds assistants for k-3 classrooms, that every class at these four levels has an assistant. THIS IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN THE CASE. I have worked in several school districts in this state during my 30 year career, and I know of no district that has assistants in every third grade classroom, even in districts that employ significant numbers of teacher assistants with local funds.
The proposed cut to teacher assistants will have a devastating effect in Franklin County. Not only will we experience even greater difficulty in finding enough bus drivers for our 102 buses, but we will likely have only a teacher assistant in every kindergarten, and maybe 23% of our first grade classrooms, yet the state will tout that it has funded assistants for kindergarten and 1st grade.
Next year, we will use our ONE TIME Edu-Jobs money (about 1.7 million) to protect as many positions as we can. We will have the unpleasant task of deciding whether to give life support to our teacher assistants, custodial staff, or clerical staff. We will not be able to cover all three areas adequately. Please remember, that teacher assistants, custodians, and clerical workers in our public schools are most often life-long residents of their communities, and those in the smaller rural areas will less likely be able to find private sector jobs that carry health insurance and retirement benefits. Most importantly, these employees provide valuable services to our children and the absence of their services will have a huge negative impact on the efficient and effective operations of our public schools.
With that said, the citizens of North Carolina need and deserve for our General Assembly to recognize that a “cuts only” mentality is only going to erase many improvements that we have witnessed in the last 30 years in public education.
This budget proposal clearly, under the guise of “fiscal responsibility,” appears to be designed to dismantle public education. Diverting public money for charter schools that don’t offer transportation or food service which effectively excludes disenfranchised populations of children, and giving tax credits for private education without accountability is simply wrong.
Many of the proposed education cuts could be made less painful if we would simply continue the penny sales tax that is set to expire June 30, 2011. Our state and our children are worth the penny.
I do appreciate the enormous responsibility you bear. Please reconsider your positions should the governor veto the budget proposal in its current or similar form.
duplicate
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 22:49 — woodstockduplicate
I agree that the BOE should
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 08:44 — jenmanI agree that the BOE should be asking for more money, such as a per-pupil expenditure. Sutton said he brought this up before, which is good. But why is it only coming up again now, 12 days before the budget is due? I'm not asking this in an accusatory way--I'm honestly wondering where this topic has been the past few months.
The BOE members who wanted to ask for more money would have been wise to reach out to others in the community for support. Just reading this blog over the past year, there are people who don't agree with the minority on assignment issues but who do agree that we should have asked for more money. They really need to look beyond GSIW and the NAACP/Calla Wright's group for support on other issues.
I will say, though, that I do agree with Tedesco and the others that the commissioners are in a tight spot and I don't think there's much they can do. I'd hate for it to turn into "we asked the commissioners for more money and they refused because they don't support public education". This really should have been worked on continuously for several months and it does seem a bit like a last ditch effort. I think both groups on the board had valid points, but I ultimately agree that we should be asking the commissioners for at least the same spending per pupil as last year.
yup...
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 09:25 — Bob_SconceThe commissioners want to be in charge of how much money the schools get. For example, each of them has stated his/her opposition to giving the school board taxing authority. That means that the commissioners should bear the responsibility and the blame when they underfund the schools. By not asking for more, the school board is essentially giving political cover to the commissioners.
Its more than cover
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 12:08 — stan_norwalkBob,
You are on the right track.
Note how the County's education budget has become a political issue, divided by party, and not what is in the best interests of WCPSS's students. What I have obseved as BOC member is this happens much of the time.
What I believe is really happening is that key decisions are made behind closed doors between Margiotta and BOC leadership on a party line basis. Margiotta then pushes down the decision to the loyal Republicans on the BOE. Even on trivial matters, I have seen then BOC chair Gurley accuse me of whatever and the next day Margiotta echos the accusation the next day. This has happened often enough that it can't be attributed to mental telepathy or birds of a feather supporting one another.
I will be the first to say that I have no hard proof since this is not being done in a transparent manner.
The same is true of joint BOC-BOE meetings. The two chairs control the agenda. None of the BOC minrity are on the education or finance committees. At best the BOC chair might ask for input - and then ignore what they want. The time during the meeting is consumed with canned messages about budgets, facilities utilization etc. Little time is left for discussions between the two boards. "OMG, the media will be there and we can't control what they will say."
This is not away to run a particapitory, open democracy - or even to foster cross party relationship between the two boards. It will only be changed if the public insists it be changed. Also the public can come to the public speaks out session of the BOC and voice their opinion about the contribution to the WCPSS operating budget.. Numbers count.
Seems like a political stunt
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 12:50 — DrActualFactualSeems like a political stunt to me. Sutton and McLaurin (both may be running in the upcoming election) asking for more money so late in the game that even if the CCs had money, it probably wouldn't be reallocated. I think they did it just so they could say on some voting brochure "I asked for more funding to support schools and students, my opponant did not; or voted against it". If you really thought you could get it, why not try earlier. Supt. Tata and staff would have to rework the budget which would cost staff time/$$$, it has to stop somewhere. Even Mr. Neter flinched somewhat when he said you couldn't just ask for more $$$$ you'd actually have to show the CC's what program/area you need it for etc. I hope the voters will judge the candidates this fall on their Effectiveness for their respective districts and the overall system. This discussion should have occurred at the joint meetings--not a week before the deadline--what voter takes that seriously. BTW, I would support more funding for the schools, just think the reps squandered their opportunity.
Bob, I rarely disagree with
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 09:49 — shearertwBob,
I rarely disagree with you but in this case I will have to.
This is a game played in government all the time. Figure out out much money you need, multiply that number x2 and ask for that. Perhaps you'll get 1.2 x what you need. I don't believe the job of the BOE is to get as much money for education as possible. Its actually refreshing to me to have a group of citizens (which is what the BOE is) actually realize the reality of a budgetary situation and be responsible about the amount of money they request. When I worked in government, it always erked me when people inflated their budgets to get as much money as possible instead of the actual amount they could get by with. There's not a lot of money flowing from the money tree these days and I'm very happy to see at least one arm of the government face reality and not play this stupid game. When they really need the more money in the future (and its there), perhaps they'll have more credibilty considering the actions they took this time around (when the money is not there).
When I Worked in Government....
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 12:15 — JanisTangoWhen I worked in government, it always erked me when people inflated their budgets to get as much money as possible instead of the actual amount they could get by with.
When I worked in goverment, it always erked me that departments would spend the entire budget on extra stuff towards the end of the fiscal year so they didn't risk losing the same budget amount next year. In some years they needed the entire budget and in some years they didn't. I wish our government would not penalize a group for spending less one year when they might need that actual budget amount the following year.
So....
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 10:45 — Bob_SconceI understand how that works. It's the same mentality that says "Oh, you cut my budget, well I'll cut the services that are the most popular first to create political support to give me more."
But, that's not what's happening here. The BoE and administration have done a good job of cutting things that don't affect the classroom. But, when you start cutting teaching assistants and when it looks like teachers might need to be cut if the State cuts more than 5%, then you're too thin.
It's not a question of the money being "there" or not -- there's never a pool of leftover money. No matter how much revenue the government takes in a given year, there are always competing interests for how the entirety should be spent. That means that, when budgeting, you always have to choose among priorities. The Commissioner's have prioritized Blue Jay Point over Teaching Assistants. Does that make sense?
I think the board should have said, approximately, "We're worried that the GA is going to cut by 8% and not 5%. So, we're asking the county to make up that extra 3%. If they don't, then we'll give the money back to you." We can't ask for it later, because you will have already spent it then.
When cuts are made, and this
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 14:03 — shearertwWhen cuts are made, and this is a cut (and I'm every bit as much a conservative as woodstock), people start making priorities, they just don't always make the rights ones. That doesn't mean the there still isn't more room in the budget for cuts. I haven't been following closely enough to say whether the current BOE has done a good job cutting fat and now we should be done or not. I'm willing to bet, however, there's still quite a lot of waste in the system and the only way we'll ever get rid of it is through a painful cut that may temporarily effect the quality of education. I'm not arguing that we go that far.
What I am arguing is that its NOT a good idea, in principal, for people in government to constantly fight for as much money as they can get their hands on. Its very refreshing to see a government entity say, "I know things are tight this year, so we'll make do with what we have." That's realizing public education is only one part of the budget, that's being transparent, responsible, open minded and seeing the big picture in my book. I totally disagree that the BOE should always advocate for more and more money for education. They lose credibility with me when they do that and I'll be more supportive of them in the future when they come and say they need more money for a bond, etc. I may actually believe them.....
I'm with you, Jenn, this is
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 08:49 — CaryCurmudgeonI'm with you, Jenn, this is effectively a cut in funding. If a tax increase was needed to support flat per-pupil spending I would gladly pay it. If the money could be found elsewhere, then a greater shame that we didn't ask for it.
Where the money can be found
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 13:38 — stan_norwalkAdded money for education can be found in the construction budget, without a tax increase, i.e. reduce the need for more schools or cut the cost of individual schools.
The problem is the governance system is broken. Paents will raise a fuss with most capital items that would save large amounts of money - but the money that is saved goes to the Commisioners general fund where it can be spent on the Taj Mahal criminal court house including new county offices or a countywide animal shelter replacing the ASPCA...shameful.
The best lead I have to reduce the cost of a school is to utilize permanent factory built schools - including brick facades and metal roofs. They look like regular site built schools. The folks in Hoke County who are using them claim major cost savings, I have passed this on to the Cty mgr and the Superintendent. Diminished staffs have not allowed a day for someone in Hayden's staff to investigate further.
System wide more YRS would help as long as the utilization rate can be increased.
Rationalize expensive athletic facilities, e.g. two tracks on a proposed MS/HS campus in Apex
Don't do dumb political things like Rolesville HS.
Get the utilization ratr up getting the utilization rate up anyway you can - see Mecklenburg's efforts to close and combine schools.
Stan, You and I have always
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 13:54 — CaryCurmudgeonStan,
You and I have always had some differences of opinion, but I have never doubted the sincerity of your desire to adequately fund our schools.
You're a smart guy, smarter than me, and I'm sure you can see that given the current political party construct, our kids are going to get screwed no matter what. The Dems drove our school funding down to something like 44th in the nation. The Reps in the legislature want to cut our school funding even further. Neither party can claim high ground in terms of funding for education.
Pretty disappointing for one of the most affluent counties in the state.
And the State is on its way to 50th in the nation
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 14:57 — stan_norwalkIts disappointing for the State as well. Because of the preponderence of state money in schools + a no new tax policy (even cutting one we now pay) that permeates the NCGA and BOC + the strength of the development lobby and the "lockers", NC is well on its way to 50th in the nation in support of K-12. While Wake is a wealthy county, its near impossible to amke up for what the NCGA (led by Stam, Stevens and Hunt) are doing to our schools.
BTW - The county hasn't seen one request for amajor corp. moving here from out of town in a year. (One or two here are planning to expand.). Sure, its the economy - but why would employers of knowledge workers want to get involved in our mess? Their most valuable asset walks in and out the door every day. Surely they want to keep them satisfied.
the NCGA (led by Stam,
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 15:15 — CaryCurmudgeonthe NCGA (led by Stam, Stevens and Hunt)
Questions because I went to try to see trends over time
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 19:13 — Dove314And couldn't find a ready source of education rankings by state. What has been the ranking position of NC for the last 15 to 20 years? What ranking are you using (i.e. can you share the source)? What measure is being ranked?
Actually, my source is
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 23:00 — CaryCurmudgeonActually, my source is Stan. He's stated several times that NC ranks 44th in per pupil funding, and that was before the cuts of the last two years. Again, the measure is funding per-pupil, not gross funding.
But
Thu, 05/05/2011 - 08:45 — Dove314But isn't a part of the argument that funding does not equate to performance? Given we are 44th in spending, where do we rank in terms of various student achievement metrics as a state? And how will dropping to 50th in spending impact student achievement?
Comparing NC academic
Thu, 05/05/2011 - 08:59 — CaryCurmudgeonComparing NC academic performance nationally is difficult, because we insist on having DPI develop our EOG testing program instead of using standardized Stanford/Iowa tests. I this was a missed opportunity to pull cost out of the NC budget this year -- we could have eliminated the DPI EOG team and as an added benefit been in a position to finally assess our academic performance against other states. SAT data can be compared, but the results in any given state can really be skewed based on their participation percentage. You can also look at graduation rates. I think Wake's are roughly in line with NC's, and NC's are behind the national average.
I don't know how dropping to 50th in spending will impact student achievement, but it sure can't help.
Only in the mind of a
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 11:49 — woodstockOnly in the mind of a liberal is this in any way whatsoever a "cut" in the budget. That kind of thinking is one reason why this country is in the mess it is in and
Republicansconservatives have been so successful in recent elections.Only in the mind of an
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 12:29 — CaryCurmudgeonOnly in the mind of an ultra-right wing conserative could this not be seen as a budget cut, but then again that is a label you happily wear on your sleeve. If you really think the recent elections were a move toward conservativism versus a move away from progressivism, you're kidding yourself. People like you on the right and chaboard on the left just cannot accept that there is a "middle" in this country, and that that is where most people are comfortable.
You are right, I don't
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 15:01 — woodstockYou are right, I don't accept that. However, calling me "ultra" conservative is hilarious and only indicates just how far into mamby pamby land this country has gone.
If the majority of the
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 19:13 — Andrew95If the majority of the country doesn't agree with the majority of your platform, that makes you "fringe", whether you're left or right wing. But I suppose you live up to your definition by describing the country as "gone into mamby pamby land".
When labels are removed,
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 19:33 — shearertwWhen labels are removed, liberal policies generally poll in the 20% approval range while real conservative policies (smaller gov't, lower taxes, free market solutions, etc) generally poll in the 60+% range. So what platform do you think woodstock supports?
FYI, we're entering in to mamby pamby land because about 50% of the US pop now gets more from the govt than they contrinbute. That's a nice voting block the liberals have purchased with other peoples money.
That's some pretty
Thu, 05/05/2011 - 15:56 — Andrew95That's some pretty interesting statistics. You take that poll yourself?
I'm with the rest of the
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 12:07 — Eric_BI'm with the rest of the folks who think that the school board should have asked the commissioners for more money, at least to keep per-pupil funding constant. Serving more students with more schools, more teachers, more support staff, etc. with the same amount of money is tantamount to a budget cut.
If you don't consider this a "cut" then you must not consider Del Burns allowing (initially at least) the 1500 teachers' temporary contracts to expire two years ago to be the same as a layoff or letting the Bush tax cuts expire to be the same thing as raising taxes, right?
This should have been discussed in the finance committee (isn't Keith Sutton the chair of that committee?) and the board should have come to an agreement with the commissioners for a per-pupil funding formula a long time ago. I'm surprised previous boards didn't push for this either.
No more committees
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 17:56 — Dove314Thought the BoE majority did away with all of the committees except the EDSATF, including the Finance committee.
A per-pupil funding foruula
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 12:29 — KeungHui (author)A per-pupil funding foruula was floated in 2003 by a task force that had been appointed by the commissioners and the school board. It didn't get much traction from commisisoners.
See my response to Bob above
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 09:55 — shearertwSee my response to Bob above but in addition...
Cuts in funding are not always a bad thing. Even when you think your under funded, there is always a little fat hanging around. Companies and governments (especially governments) need to experience some really really tight budgets once in a while to finally squeeze that last bit of fat out of the deep dark corners of the organization. Sometimes, even in education, we need to cut deep, perhaps even into the bone, and then rebuild. Getting that last bit of fat out ultimately builds a stronger organization that will be more effective with the funding they receive in the future. We (collectively) just don't have any more money. There is not a better time then right now to squeeze out the fat and prepare for a leaner, better future.
Yeah, I understand how
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 10:29 — CaryCurmudgeonYeah, I understand how Gummint spending works. I have a buddy who used to work for a large government contractor. 4Q of every year, he'd get a call from his government contact requesting X$ of consulting services, to be delivered before year-end. He'd ask the government guy what kind of services he needed, the response was "I don't know exactly, but I just know that I need them this year."
But we have gone through two straight austerity budget cycles, and this board has done an excellent job of stripping out the fat. Sure, there may be some more, but I can't believe there's much. These cycles have been a healthy exercise in removing waste. I think we are at the "rebuilding" stage now.
Here are just a few of the things we need:
1. Smaller class sizes, particularly in lower grades.
2. Enough money to supply each student with a textbook for their course.
3. Additional funding to attract high-talent resources and make additional investments in schools with higher poverty levels.
4. Adequate classroom supplies for teachers, who should not have to rely on parents or their own pockets to buy markers, paper, etc.
I could go on. If there's money being wasted elsewhere in the budget that could pay for these things, then shame on the superintendent/board for not finding it. If there is not money elsewhere, then shame on the superintendent/board for not asking for it.
I have an idea... I could
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 14:18 — shearertwI have an idea...
I could support more funding IF I knew exactly what has been cut already and I knew exactly what the more funding would go to.
If they presented a detailed report of the failed programs and worthless teachers x, y, and z that have been cut and how much money it saved and then presented a detailed plan of exactly what the addition funds would be used for (such as your 1 - 4 above) then I'd be supportive. Generally what happens is you get a bunch of fear mongering (i.e. if you don’t give us the money, we’ll have to lay off a 1000 teachers) then you give them half the money and nothing happens. You sit back and wonder, “Why weren’t 500 teachers laid off?” By the time you figure it out, the money has been spent on some wasteful uselessness (such as a new pet program you can never get rid of in the future) and the budget bar has been reset that much higher. I want details and I want a freaking contract that specifically states that the class size with be reduced by 18 for grades K-3 or something. Then I want to see the BOE be held accountable for that. If they don’t accomplish exactly what they said the money would be used for, then they don’t get it next year.
As you can see, I’m a dreamer….
Ideology and Politics Over Responsibility and Duty
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 07:30 — chaboardPlain and simple....this is the rightwing members neglecting their DUTY (I'd argue their legal responsibility in the form of a fidicuary duty) to be advocates for our children and schools in order to take some heat off their political allies on the Republican-controlled commission.
They may well personally believe that school funding should be prioritized low enough to require the reduced funding levels they just voted to ask for. Fine, but their personal views on that matter are not relevant..... because prioritizing funds at the county level IS NOT THEIR JOB!!!!! Their job is to secure as much funding as possible for the school system by being the advocates for the schools in this process. And they clearly cannot secure adequate funding if they can't be bothered to even ASK for them (much less fight them).
Total abdication of duty and responsibilty by the majority. No way around that.
There job is not to be
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 16:59 — shearertwThere job is not to be "advocates" for the school system...there job is to manage the school system, more specifically, to set the policies for the system to adhere to. Part of this job includes managing tax payer funds effectively and efficiently. It would be an abdication of duty to simply ask for as much money as you can get. To to that would totally ignore their duty and responsibility to be financially responsible with the funds provided by the tax payers for whom they were elected to represent.
But I do understand your liberal compulsion to steal as money as possible from the citizens and then figure out how to redistribute it.
Uh....
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 17:30 — Bob_Sconcehttp://www.wcpss.net/policy-files/series/policies/1005-bp.html
Look at #5.
I don't think being a
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 20:05 — shearertwI don't think being a "champion of public schools" has anything to do with asking for (advocating for) as much money as you can from the CC's or from anyone else. That's what I took chaboard comment to mean when he/she used the word "advocate" and that's specifically the "advocating for" I'm arguing against. I take champion of public schools to mean something entirely different. The problem with SO MANY government programs is that the "champions" think "championing" means "getting more money for".....How about, making it be the best it can be, or building public confidence in, or effectively managing the resources of...., etc. When you guys boil everything down to just asking for more money, it becomes incredibly distasteful and down right disgusting. I know public schools need money, but how 'bout show me you can do your best with what you have at hand before coming back for more. That's not being a champion in my book. Not by a long shot.
Champion - One who voluntarily takes an extrordinary interest in the implementation and success of a cause, policy, program, etc.
I think that can be accomplished wo asking for more money especially when the govt is broke.
Ok....
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 23:03 — Bob_SconceI was responding to your assertion that board members' jobs do not entail being advocates for the schools, not trying to attack the entirety of your argument.
I agree that just "we need more money" is hardly persuasive. But, we know exactly the effects of the budget problems -- increased class sizes, no teacher raises, fewer TA's, fewer teaching supplies. Additional funding would help with some of those issues.
Fair enough.... That post of
Thu, 05/05/2011 - 09:57 — shearertwFair enough....
That post of mine was not well written and easily loses context if not linked well to chaboard's post. Of course the BOE should be advocates for the school system, but that, in my opinion, does not necessarily always mean securing as much funding as possible.
I admitted above that I haven't been following the budget issues closely as of late. I don't doubt the current cuts are deep and we're starting to feel some pain. For me, there is a bigger issue here. I believe that governments (NC state and local governments included) have been spending too much money in general and have become addicted to spending money on unnecessary programs and are terrible and prioritizing expenditures because they haven't had to do so in many years. I'm of the opinion that our state, local and federal govt's are pretty much out of money, not due to lack of revenue but because of poor spending practices including prioritization. It’s my opinion that unfortunately, just like the crack addict, we must go through a tough withdrawal process while in this period of forced rehab. It’s unfortunate, but the education system is not immune to this and will not be able to escape without feeling some pain as well. I don’t want teachers to be laid off or kids to suffer in large classrooms, but I think its necessary to feel that pain a little now so we don’t fall into a even bigger mess later. While we feel this pain, we should be burning into our memory exactly how we got here, by spending too much money on unnecessary garbage. Now we don’t have enough money to spending on necessary stuff….that’s the consequence. I desire to avoid feeling any pain in education is well intentioned but short sighted in my opinion.
So....
Thu, 05/05/2011 - 11:20 — Bob_SconceIn general, I agree with you, although I note that it's really the Feds who are "out of money" -- they're the ones with the $23T medicare shortfall that they still have their collective heads in their collective butts about. State and local, not so much -- for them, it's just prioritizing. Necessarily, some things will have to be cut back or eliminated entirely. That forced rehab should consist on focusing on the core mission, and dropping everything else. We've decided that public education is part of that core mission -- it's even in our Constitition.
So, while I agree that there are some benefits to the current budget crisis by forcing the district to be more efficient, I suggest that those benefits have already been realized. That so-called "pain" has serious negative long-term implications on my kids. The government can feel that pain elsewhere and still learn the same lesson.
I think we're pretty much in
Thu, 05/05/2011 - 12:29 — shearertwI think we're pretty much in agreement...
I think the government should be feeling the pain elsewhere as well. However, until the voters decide to raise cane about the other, truly wasteful spending in the state budget, then we'll feel the pain in education. I guess I'm hoping that feeling the pain in education will get people mad enough to demand better prioritization by our politicians. Sometimes I think that's what it will take. I wish it weren't true but I'm afraid it is.
FYI - my kids are caught up in this too
Class size is essentially an
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 23:06 — woodstockClass size is essentially an educational non-factor unless you get up to 36 or so (negative factor)... or less than 14 (positive factor). Between those ranges however, there is virtually no academic difference.
Ahh...
Thu, 05/05/2011 - 16:28 — Bob_SconceBut, we're talking about average class size. here are two alternatives:
14, 14, 25, 25, 25, 25, 25, 25: average size = 22.25
25, 25, 25, 26, 25, 26, 26: average size = 25.43
Clearly the first option is a lot more preferable to the second, even though both are between that 14 to 36 range.
I've heard those 14-36 numbers myself, and I'm skeptical -- I suspect that they're also an average.
Well I know that when I was
Thu, 05/05/2011 - 18:19 — woodstockWell I know that when I was in school our class sizes were in the neighborhood of 30, sometimes more. The kids in those classes are now doctors and lawyers, , running businesses, holding elected office, inventing things etc. I don't ever remember it ever being an issue. Now it is. Maybe it has to do with lack of discipline these days. I was educated by nuns through 8th grade. They did not put up with any crap... and we loved them for it.
Same here
Thu, 05/05/2011 - 22:28 — Solon77Same here in my suburban homogeneous school district. We didn't have kids in 8th, 9th grade that did not know how to read or not have a basic proficiency in math. We also did not have students swearing at teachers, assaulting them or other students and generally being disruptive.
We are not in Kansas anymore Toto.
I was talking with my sister
Thu, 05/05/2011 - 22:07 — duvalI was talking with my sister about this yesterday. She said that in her childs pre-school class of less than 15 there were 3 autistic kids on very different scales of the autistic spectrum. That was not normal when we were growing up. We had very little exposure to kids with learning differences.
Back when we were in school they did not allow students with any differences into mainstream classrooms. There were Special Ed classes where all kids with any differences were channeled. That was the way that things were done back in the dark ages. :)
Mainstreaming is one very large difference in todays class rooms and those of us who are now parents.
Classrooms are very different today than in the 60's and 70's.
This is interesting because
Thu, 05/05/2011 - 23:06 — jenmanThis is interesting because I've often thought that my kids don't see kids with learning differences in their classes while I did. I have never seen a mentally handicapped (I know that's not the right term but that is what we used back in the 70s) child at my childrens' schools yet I had kids like that in my classes as an elem student. I remember a boy with Down's in my class--my kids have had no exposure. One of my sons had a child who I'm guessing had AD/HD in his class, but he was rarely there--he was usually pulled out in the separate classroom.
Show me you can do your best
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 20:27 — Solon77I know public schools need money, but how 'bout show me you can do your best with what you have at hand before coming back for more.
What exactly does this mean ? What would the district have to prove in order to get your support for resources ?
I need to see specific
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 21:06 — shearertwI need to see specific details regard the programs they've cut and programs they've kept funding and why. I need to see a justification for every program that could possibly be deemed as unnecessary and how the money has been utilized in the past. I also need great detail as to how "more" money will be spend if they get it and I want a "contract" of accountability as to how that additional expenditure will be measured as success in the end. Don't just say we need more money or teachers will be laid off. That's lame.
Specific details
Wed, 05/04/2011 - 21:50 — Solon77Have you read the 250+ page school budget ? It goes into excruciating detail - programs in and the cost, programs out and the savings....ect. My work group is 1B+ and the budget package we present consists of 25 .ppt slides. What is being ask for is the standard funding per student, which by the way is what Tata assumes form the state in developing of the budget. This is the same as would be provided to a charter school. It is common sense - more students = need more teachers + supplies and eventually more schools. By all metrics wcpss is run very lean as affirmed by Civitas.
Do you agonize when you have to change the oil in your car more frequently, tires wear out faster, brakes need to be replaced because you drive more miles - or is it intuitive to you that the maintenance of these items is in direct relation to the miles driven, not unlike increased student enrollment.
If you have any doubts about $ spent in the classroom, I suggest you spend some time in one and pay close attention to how little the taxpayer actually provides and how much the teacher and parents provide.
Parents in the classroom - do you often wonder why this is and what it really means ? Parents in the classroom is an indication that the broader community is failing to support the schools. The classroom should not depend on parent volunteers, it should be properly funded with appropriate teacher assistants or have appropriate class sizes. If this were in place, parent volunteers would not be needed.
This district could benefit from a process other districts follow and that is to present the budget to the community through a series of community meetings and to explain the nuances of how the funding can or cannot be used.