The board spent a lot of time going through the list of possible cuts. Most of the administrators and many many teachers were present to hear the discussion, although I am afraid that the there was more heat than light shed. For the next step a survey of the administration and board will be made that will rate the impact of the various items vs. current goals. Hopefully this will provide us with the input we need to move on to the next step of the process.
I want to thank the large number of staff who spoke and were present at the meeting, especially those who sat through to the bitter end (which was after midnight). Your presence serves to remind me that we are not talking about "FTE's", but people with names and faces who are dedicated to educating the kids of this district. Each $55,000 (on average) we spend on anything else represents one of those dedicated people that we can't have. That's why I get angry when we dither on about "the process" when we should be taking the difficult issues head-on.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
People talk about processes to avoid those very hard decisions, and then blame the process when actually, finally, forced to make the decisions. I can hear the whining now: "The process made me do it; I could've made a better decision with a better process."
By the way, isn't "surveying" the board about budget cuts skirting state open meetings law? Surveying staff is one thing; boards conducting surveys on matters of public importance (as opposed to private, personnel matters) and public tax dollars seems a way of avoiding the very public discussion, arguments and ultimately decisions the board has to make, regardless of how controversial or difficult. At a minimum, I would hope such a survey is signed by each board member, and made public prior to any final decision by the board.
You make a good point about the survey and the open meetings law, I will ask the question. The idea of the survey is to synthesize the value judgments about the negative impact of each item. Not being a professional educator exposed to the day-to-day workings in the schools I realize that my opinion will be of relatively less value. I will be looking primarily at the judgment of the administrative teams - I asked that the data be aggregated in such a way that we can see that input separately.
BTW, I don't mean to dismiss the process. "The process" needs to be respected to the best of our abilities, on the other hand ANY process will be flawed and we need to simply take those flaws in to account and move on, rather than let it hold us up.
The thing about the survey is that a future board meeting dealing with budget cuts runs a risk of having someone (superintendent, board president) say, well, the board and administrative survey clearly favors cutting X instead of Y -- without (here's the key point) any indication of how the board alone (which has the sole authority to make these cuts) came down on the issue, and (just as importantly) which SPECIFIC board members favored those cuts, vs. other ones.
I can, quite easily, see certain members of this board saying, "I oppose cutting X, but this darn survey showed everyone else favored cutting X. So don't blame me for cutting X."
Cutting X instead of Y -- and having that debate take place publicly, in front of a crowd -- is the very essence of democracy. It risks being undermined when talk of surveys comes up.
A survey for eight people? A survey is used to draw a sample from a large group to get a sense of where the larger group is on an issue. For crying out loud, there are eight of you including the superintendent. Can you just, you know, discuss this? And if you can not, why not?
As for process, what are the criteria for the cuts? That's the process piece you need. Hopefully that is in place....
Actually the survey is primarily to collect the input of the administrative staff, not the board.
Okay, well then how many administrators are there? Why can't you have a work session with them where there is dialogue?
If the survey of administrators is designed to assign value (or something like it) to these cuts, can it be truly objective if some of those administrators jobs are among those being considered?
On the other hand it may be easier to provide an honest evaluation of the impact of a colleage's position when you can report that judgement anonymously.
There is almost no document in district records, except for student information, that is not subject to the open records law. Even the personnel files of staff are available upon request. I rather doubt that the responses given by each administrator to this survey would be protected from a records request.
They may be subject to open records, but that doesn't mean they can't be filled out anonymously. If the district doesn't track who filled out what then an open records request won't reveal it.
But there is something called a walking quorum, and school boards need to be careful about making decisions -- even in a survey -- in ways that circumvent state open records/meetings laws. Board members 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 can't independently fill out a survey, and then have the superintendent announce, we've reached a consensus to cut Item X vs. Item Y on the list of cuts. That consensus -- that decision -- has to be made in public.
Susan Fox sent word that she contacted the WASB legal counsel and received an interpretation that the survey did not constitute a meeting under the open meetings law because there is no discussion and no group decision is being made.
Good to see the board president seeking out the advice of lawyers to justify making hard decisions with reduced public scrutiny. Transparency at its best.
"According to Gerlach, each possible budget cut will be put into a survey which will be taken anonymously by every board member and the entire district administrative staff prior to the January 27 meeting. "
Honestly, this is kind of cuckoo. May I suggest that you take your remaining votes during the year by survey? Then no one would now how you feel about anything-you all just be empty vessels in spirit and soul. You can say I support one thing and then do whatever you want.
Will the surveys filled out by board members be available to the public before the Jan. 27 meeting, and will the public be able to identify which board members filled out which surveys?
If not, then this is a terrible way to start making a decision. It may or may not be legal under state law, but it really runs counter to having these things openly discussed. Why the secrecy with board surveys? Because these are hard decisions? Sorry, but people elected to the board knew they'd have to make some hard decisions.
"Will the surveys filled out by board members be available to the public before the Jan. 27 meeting, and will the public be able to identify which board members filled out which surveys?"
Might I suggest that Herald Indp. get these and publish them on their Web site?
OR Maybe Sunny (who does do a fair amount of good old fashion journalism) publish them in her column
I completely agree. Board members who like to be popular are avoiding having to publicly state what they are for or against in the budget cuts. Ridiculous. Make them each state, publicly and for the record, which cuts they favor. Yes, they will make some folks mad. Better that than constantly telling every single constituency that you are in their corner.
Say-Why is the board even getting involved in the budget cuts? I mean if the admin. makes reasonable cuts that do not violate our heritage& history-why get the board's opinion through a secret survey?
I mean let them "gore their own ox."
One way the district administrators can help solve the budget problem is to cut all athletics and other extra-curricular programs.
Think that might generate some public notice, and spur some debate?
The problem is, you'll get a wide variety -- at times resembling a gulf -- of opinions about what exactly "reasonable cuts that do not violate our heritage& history" might look like. Some might recall a little debate the district had a few years ago about where to locate the middle school.
For better or worse, it's the board that's charged with sorting this stuff out.
"For better or worse, it's the board that's charged with sorting this stuff out."
Well I agree-but there hiding behind a survey-you are right-it reminds me of the board a few years back.
The discussion about the DPI exemption so that we have fewer days of school ticks me off. Why are we always trying to teach kids less? The very first thing that should go in the budget is the sub budget. Fine to pay for illness and personal days that are in the benefit package, but any way to see how much we spend on subs so that teachers can go to meetings? Often in their own building? So silly, given the amount of half days and the fact that their day is done at 3. Why not meetings 3-5 or on the half/whole days off. I just don't get it. When my kid has a sub, the class is out of control, and nothing is learned. What if we just started with NO Subs unless you are sick. Period.
"The discussion about the DPI exemption so that we have fewer days of school ticks me off. Why are we always trying to teach kids less? The very first thing that should go in the budget is the sub budget. Fine to pay for illness and personal days that are in the benefit package, but any way to see how much we spend on subs so that teachers can go to meetings? Often in their own building? So silly, given the amount of half days and the fact that their day is done at 3. Why not meetings 3-5 or on the half/whole days off. I just don't get it. When my kid has a sub, the class is out of control, and nothing is learned. What if we just started with NO Subs unless you are sick. Period."
Come now-there has not been a day off of school for the kids since xmas break
DPI requires 180 days and 1050 hours of instruction in K-6 grades. There is no minimum time for each of the 180 days, so a half-day counts for the 180 day requirement. The teacher's contracts are also for 180 days. The DPI exemption allows us to reduce the 180 day requirement, but NOT the 1050 hours of instruction. With the exemption we turn several half days into to whole days off for the students, freeing up time for the professional development for the teachers.
According to Bill Breisch we don't reduce the number of instruction hours with the exemption. We just reduce the half days which, many will say, are not as productive as full days.
MG teacher contracts are 190 days. This allows for work days when students are not present; such as the beginning and end of the school year.
Sorry, my error. 190 days is correct.
I do appreciate all the comments on the survey. The survey questions allow the respondent to rate the impact of each cut against a list of board goals, it doesn't ask for an up/down decision and clearly ignores other factors (mostly cost) which must be part of the decision making process.
Although I don't think there is a problem (because we have a robust process and this survey is only one piece of the puzzle) I do now appreciate the sensitivity to the appearance of hiding behind it - in the future I will oppose participation of the board in similar instruments.
In the present case I will argue to have these results appropriately used and seek to have a transparent debate on each item.
Peter-Cool I look forward to reading your survey.
I agree-what better why during a elecation year about transperency and openess then to say...here is my survey loud and large.
So what do people mean when they say a school board is being "transparent" or not? From what I have seen around here over the years, the sboard is transparent when you agree with them and they are forming an evil plot to take over the world when you disagree with them. Right?
Post a Comment