Peter McKeever kicked things off last night with a thoughtful call to the board not to cut the budget. Peter is right that the future rests on the investment we make in educating the next generation, and that cut backs can be short sighted. This is particularly true in the situation where we are not talking about a one time reduction due to the economy, but an ongoing structural deficit that will year after year erode public education. Peter called for additional public investment and taxes to restore school budgets and asked the school board to take a leadership role in strengthening public education. I would add that according to http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/index.php, WI state and local spending on primary and secondary education has declined by 7% (as a percentage of GDP) since the year 2000.
The board moved to hearing the results of the annual financial audit, and received (as usual) a clean unqualified report from the auditors. We also heard from a reports concerning the new teacher project and the January head count (up 12 students since September). The board also decided to issue preliminary notice of non-renewal to several administrators. These are due to budgetary considerations and unrelated to any job performance issues, it also does not necessarily mean we will be terminating these staff members. In a related action the board approved one year (down from the standard two year contracts) for several other administrators, in order to keep these options available for next year. Again, none of these actions are performance related.
The board then had a brief discussion concerning the Nichols property. Although no consensus was apparent, IMHO the location is a valuable piece of real estate and the best interest of the district is that it should be on the tax rolls and working for the economic development of the community.
The board then approved a recommendation from the administration concerning the 4k-8 study report. I don't have the language, but essentially the motion stated that in consideration of the costs the district not pursue separate 4k-8 programs in each community. We talked about some of the other grade configuration committee's recommendations, there was particular focus on the issue of studying combining 6th grades in GDS. The consensus from the staff seems to be there may be significant cost and educational benefits to this move. Personally, I would be reluctant to approve this without a significant show of community support as the current configuration was approved in the 2006 referendum.
The board then reviewed the board and administrator surveys of the budget cut items. The surveys were designed to solicit judgments about the impact of each proposed budget cut relative to the board goals. A copy of the board version of the survey can be found by clicking here.
The compiled survey results can be found clicking here. There are three pages: administrator averages, board averages and a comparison of rankings.
In general I found no surprises in the results, with general agreement between the board and administration on nearly all items.
I don't have access to my original answers on the survey (when I clicked the "next" key it disappeared into cyberspace) I will reproduce my answers to the best of my ability and post them here tomorrow. Its the best I can do.
Craig then presented an initial proposal from the budget reduction list totalling $1.008M dollars. I will publish that list separately also. There was some discussion about a few items on the list, such as the teacher mentor program, and some items that aren't, such as the proposal for Maywood-Winnequah consolidation.
The board and the district are faced with some stark choices, and the current proposal falls heavily on our music, related arts and encore curriculum. The Maywood-Winnequah consolidation may give us the opportunity to significantly mitigate the impact of these cuts to staff and curriculum; I believe that we owe it to the community, students and the dedicated teachers responsible for these programs to take a hard look at this option.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I have a number of concerns about the survey and the results. My first concern about the survey is that the 2009-2010 district goals were used. These cuts are for next year and these goals may or may not be the same goals that the board chooses to focus on for the 2010-2011 school year. Also, the goals focus almost solely on achievement gap, and raising test scores. And I agree that these are important and need to be addressed. However, we are looking at cuts that are going to affect not just next year, but future years as well. When you are looking at making reductions and you base it all on achievement gap and raising test scores, you have based your decisions by targeting one area. What about the advanced students and students whose test scores are at the high end? I think it would have been more appropriate to use the District Mission Statement to judge what would or wouldn't have a negative impact. The mission statement seems to be more inclusive for ALL learners.
As it relates to the results, I find it difficult to believe (or I just need to be educated on why) that some of the reduction items for consideration were truly ranked on how they would impact the district goals. Does outsourcing our night custodial really score as having a larger negative impact on student achievement and achievement gap than keeping 6th grade encore classes or 4th grade strings?
Keeping the practice bus really ranked as having a higher negative impact on student achievemnt than taking time away from related arts and as a result wasn't included for elimination?
Making reductions in clerical staff was ranked among the highest impact on student achievement and achievement gap and as a result is not being considered for reduction.
These are all important, I agree. But I am not seeing how some of the ranking of the items being considered for elimination (or not being eliminated) have a negative impact on the district goals for 2009-2010.
I think the board and administration deserve credit for linking the budget cuts to something, and the board goals at least provide a framework for thinking about budget cuts in the context of meaningful things, as opposed to those that will produce the least (or most, as the case may be) public outcry.
That the cuts are tied to 09-10 goals seems like quibbling; any close examination of those goals suggests they are not just one-year goals, but long-term ones, and thus provide some guidance for how to make these difficult decisions. And the board goals are much more specific and germane than the district's mission statement, which is motherhood and apple pie wrapped in a vanilla/oatmeal pudding of the blandest kind. Like all mission statements that try to appeal to all, it ends up saying very little. (Not that I think the board should waste time on improving it; it shouldn't -- it has more important things to do.)
Part of the reason I think some of what might be considered non-academic areas are viewed as having importance is that, to the extent you get rid of things like secretaries and bussing coordinators, a lot of that responsibility ends up in the lap of building principals. Most "stuff" in our district happens at schools, and principals by design and default end up being the ones making sure the trains run on time, so to speak. And I'm guessing those principals worry they will end up with a lot more of that detail work, instead of being educational leaders of their buildings (working to improve teacher performance, helping to coordinate curriculum improvements, coordinating test data with student performance).
I agree that the board needs to educate the public on how some of these items effect student acheivement more than others. How would keeping the human resource manager impact student learning? How does not outsourcing more of the evening custodial staff impact student achievement?
I watched the board meeting (although it was challenging, as the picture was off more than on as was the sound)and heard the words "that would take restructuring" multiple times. Those words seem to say, "that would take work". We need to address ALL possibilities to find the money needed. It is time to look at the number of students enrolled in elective courses at the high school. Numbers in the teens are a luxury we can no longer afford.
I want to know if you guys/gals behaved?
If he is doing his job the HR director will have a positive impact on the performance of every teacher in the district.
"We need to address ALL possibilities to find the money needed."
The reality is that there are certain things not directly tied to academic achievement that undoubtedly avoid the chopping block, because of community expectations of what the school district will provide.
There is no state or federal mandate that orders the district to field a football team, or put on one of the best high school musicals in the county, or have outstanding show choirs and DECA clubs. There is no mandate that classrooms need to be cleaned every day, or that the district have school pscyhologists or support staff to help out children most in need for support that may lacking at home.
MG does all of those things, in part because there is more to school than just academic achievement (although improving it ought to underlie all that the district does). The district provides -- largely because the community expects it to -- a well-rounded educational experience (and something of a structured safety net) to try to make each child's experience at our schools a positive one.
Why cannot kids clean their own classrooms daily? They do it in Japan. We do not ask our students to do anything to contribute to the immense privilege of this education. Why don't the athletes maintain the playing fields, for instance? Are there not many menial tasks that the kids could perform?
When are we going to see each individual board members survey? I would like to know who said what?
Post a Comment