Sorry I've been a little behind in my posting. Sometimes I have lots going on.
Tonight the board elected new officers for the coming year, Susan Fox will continue as president, and Susan Manning will continue as Treasurer.
The board also decided to reconstitute the standing committees, last year's "experiment" clearly showed the need in order to get important work done. Stay tuned for opportunities if you are interested in serving the district.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
I always thought the school board should not micro-manage the district administrators but recent reassignment of related arts has changed my mind. Please get involved. Deb Whalen bounced from Maywood, Jim Frisque from CG,high school teacher Bethke to Maywood leaving the high school without a female PE teacher 1/2 the day, could go on.
The info I got was that the district administrators recommendations were not followed by the new business administrator, who made the placement decisions.
I don't think the board should get involved in these sorts of decisions. These are management decisions made by the administration in consultation with the staff, and are based on considerations of experience and qualifications of the staff, the complexities of the schedule, and most importantly the needs of the students.
A popular and high performing staff member might have skills that would be more valuable applied somewhere else, a retirement might create a vacancy that requires a reshuffle that effects several staff members. The performance or working relationships of the staff might be a consideration.
There is no way that board members can have a sufficient grasp of the issues to make these decisions, nor, given the fact that we aren't specialists in school administration, are we qualified.
And are not some of these moves due to the budget cuts in these areas? I believe it was known that PE, music and art staff were going to be moved around. What did people think would happen? $250,00k worth of teachers are being cut to keep Maywood open. How many people knew that when they signed that petition?
Peter, I agree that micro-managing is generally bad, but there certainly appears to be a wobble in the wheels concerning the execution of staff reductions and lay offs/re-assignments. Better for the board to stop and tighten the wheels before the cart runs off the road.
I still think that the board should rethink closing Maywood (just temporarily, until enrollment increases) so we don't have to have all these other staffing cuts... the Board has revisited budgeting decisions in the past - like adding our Assistant Principal at Maywood after they had originally said that an Assistant Principal wasn't necessary... again, many didn't know about the cuts when they signed the petition to keep Maywood open... maybe we need a new petition???
Peter, it is my understanding that the only two positions directly affected by the Maywood decision were the two IMC paraprofessionals. At least that is what Susan Fox stated at the most recent school board meeting. Is this true or not?
IF there are "only two positions directly affected by the Maywood decision were the two IMC paraprofessionals" it is because of the Board's decision NOT to make the full $1 million cuts. There are some GREAT postings related to this issue on Jason's Blog, Cutch's Corner...
"$250,00k worth of teachers are being cut to keep Maywood open."
Peter, people like to say this, but could you clarify if it is true or not. One person spews this, the other spews that - what's the truth?
If it's true, that's fine, but if it's not you should try and keep things straight. It's people yelling (on both sides of this issue) that muck up by grinding their favorite ax.
Thanks.
These cuts to staff and programming COULD have been made even if consolidation occurred, but to say they definitively would have been is speculation, no one can say for sure what would have happened if the Board had not decided to delay the consolidation vote. They could have decided to skip the last $200,000 in budget cuts (as they did without the consolidation) and saved all positions and programs that were not attributed to retirement or loss of students. In fact, I like the suggestion above from a poster. Reconsider and consolidate. If we're not going to bother balancing the budget, let's do it to keep programs and staff intact.
"Directly related" cuts is a smoke screen. This is not complicated, folks. There was a list of cuts, and picking and choosing is how it works when you have a list. Because they chose not save $250,000 by closing Maywood, they had to pick other stuff on the list, like cutting art, music and PE. Would they have still cut art, music and PE if Maywood had also been closed? I highly doubt it. But next year? Yes.
Also, do not give the teacher's union a free pass here. They have chosen to not offer even a tiny concession that would save these jobs. In my eyes, they are far more guilty than the board as they have offered nothing. nada. not an inch to help out this situation. More than Maywood, that is going to cause huge problems if we go to referendum, particulary when it comes out what their incredibly generous retirement packages costs the taxpayers.
There is just one pot of money, money we don't spend on one thing is money we can spend on something else.
The board originally planned to cut $1M, with the Maywood consolidation we would have had $750K in other cuts, without $1M in other cuts.
But the board only cut a total of $800K- had we consolidated Maywood we would have only had to cut $550K and we could have reduced the rest of the cuts by $250K. So in the end the cut list could have been $250K shorter had we consolidated Maywood.
The confusion is only because we initially planned to cut $1M, had we planned to cut $800K from the start then there would be no argument that not consolidating Maywood resulted in $250K of other cuts.
What did people think? I hear the same exact folks who were all up in arms about closing Maywood are now upset about staff changes. Huh? Did they not understand that keeping 2 buildings open that are not full would result in lost staff time, and thus reshuffling of those remaining? We all knew this would happen, braced for it, and have lost a great gym teacher for Maywood and a tremendous vocal music teacher at Winnequah. And who knows what else. But if those same Save Maywood folks are mad about that, the rest of us know they can thank themselves.
Please keep the reassignment issue spearate, at least for a moment. I agree that Maywood should have been closed but I assure you these changes are not the result of that. It was a choice. The principals and/or the business director (under the direction of the super?) reassigned the vast majority of PE and music teachers, many of whom had worked 10-20 years in one building. Our programs were very successful, why the big change. The school board should get involved because this is huge change in the way this district has successfully done business in the past. And I hear it was not the administrator's choice. The business director thought he should shake things up.
This will breed mediocrity. Work hard, build programs, create relationships with kids and families and you will be rewarded by an involuntary transfer.Don't expect these people to do it again. Are classroom teachers going to be moved next year?
Peter, please ask if there are more travelling teachers with this new schedule(seems to be)and what that cost is.
If someone has been working 10-20 years in one building, its probably time for them to move on. Private companies "shake things up"- move people around to try and make better use of time, resources and personalities. If we have a great staff member at one school, maybe there is a bigger need for that person somewhere else.
Letting someone stagnate in one place is a sure way to breed mediocrity - giving people new challenges is an excellent way to get more out of them and help them advance their careers. This all sounds good to me, besides, any one will tell you our music staff needed a good shaking up.
There are a number of mediocre PE and Music teachers in this district, it sounds like the administration is finally taking this issue on and shaking things up with the staff. Maybe they will get the message.
Sorry, the stagnate ones weren't the ones targeted. Whalen, Evans, Frisque, Jensen are great and deserve better.
Building the schedule for PE, art and music is incredibly complex. You cannot cut these minutes, reduce the staffing and not expect a major shuffle in the schedule. You also cannot move an ineffective teacher to a placement that might be better or under the supervision of another principal without moving everyone else around.
If you must blame someone or something, get yourself a copy of the teacher's union contract. It is a public document. It will open your eyes. To many things.
Peter,
There is a big sucking sound where information about "what is next" on the budget should be. When will the board decide this? Certainly if you plan to go to referendum before any more budget cutting that is a decision that needs to happen very soon?
I wouldn't expect the board to do any more "formal" budget-cutting, unless they have gotten some unexpected (mainly bad) budget news since the last meeting. The board majority seems content on letting things like staff resignations/re-assignments/hirings, open enrollment numbers, and a few other odds and ends to trickle in to deal with the rest of the budget. And the board majority doesn't seem terribly worried about getting to the $1 million budget-cut figure recommended by the administration. This is a board majority that listens to administrators when it feels like it, and disregards its advice when it gets any type of political heat.
As for a referendum, boards finalize referendum language and then have to wait 45 days before holding one (per state statutes). That means for next year, working backward, the board would probably have to finalize a referendum by mid-February to hold a referendum in the spring election in April. Because of teacher contract notification deadlines, it's hard to imagine the board waiting much longer than the April spring election to know about the outcome of a referendum that would impact staffing and other costs for the 2010-11 school year. (Maybe June, but you then risk losing lots of teachers who -- not knowing the outcome of the referendum -- are likely to bail; most teacher contracts and thus staffing for the coming school year are wrapped up by June).
That means the board has to organize a referendum, decide on its amount and length, figure out what programs would be included in the referendum, and presumably hold several public hearings -- all before mid-February (and recognizing there is a window in late Dec./early Jan. when schools are closed and lots of people aren't around for the holiday). Oh, and demonstrate to the public that the board's referedum is worthy of support.
Anyone out there confindent this board, under its current, newly elected leadership, can do that?
I don't think there's any question that a referendum can be put together. The key is for the district to put together a long term plan, taking into account major issues that will need to be addressed. Here's some (but not all) big ticket issues that people will want to see addressed:
1. Maywood's future
2. If you close Maywood, what do you do with the property.
3. What, if anything, do you do with Nichols.
4. Is there a need to improve space at the CG schools. They are slightly over now, but there were some projections that there might be a slight dip in kids in CG.
5. Is the charter school concept worth pursuing - and at what cost. I think it needs to be addressed now because if you ignore it, you give people a reason to delay any decisions on Maywood. Someone can argue that 'We can't close Maywood, renovate Winnequah for K-5, if there's a chance that there will be a 6-8 charter school in the near future centered at Winnquah).
6. How will district salaries - and benefits - be controlled. I believe the amount of money spent on benefits could really get out of hand in the near future if things aren't reigned in.
Again, I'm sure there are other large issues, but you need to address teacher pay/benefits, the building situations (what to do with maywood, nichols), the charter school idea, and any overcrowding.
I actually don't think the 'educational' issues are that difficult to sell. Most people can nod (or shake their head) if you say xyz dollars are going for 4th grade music or science program ABC. In fact, if it was just these items, I think a referendum would fly through. I think that if you can address the other items in the next six months, the rest can fall into place. If you don't address the above items, and just ask for a big chunk of money to 'take care of things' - people won't bite.
I think a big hurdle is getting this board to agree on anything. They couldn't even manage the cuts they needed this year and are putting forth a deficit budget. If they don't have 7-0 or at least 6-1 on a referendum, it's dead. If people are given doubts by their elected representatives, many will vote "no" because they do not know who to believe.
So far, these 7 people are continuing their childish behaviors. 4-3 on every officer seat. I bet not one of them believes any of it is their fault. They would rather point a finger then look in a mirror. They all need to go back to kindergarten to learn how to get along with each other.
I wonder how long our superintendent will stick around and put up with this nonsense.
Matt:
Some good points. A few follow-ups:
-- Whether to include money to keep Maywood open in an operating referendum will be the War of Maywood, Round 2. Mayor K. will no doubt argue (again...) that there will be "nothing" in it for Monona residents in terms of supporting a referendum if Maywood is closed (as if the other 1,000 Monona students scattered around the district in other school buildings don't have a stake in this as well.)
-- Including Maywood in the operating referendum will increase its cost by $250,000 a year for the length of the referendum. The referendum gets cheaper by $250,000 a year if the board decides to close Maywood and not include money to keep it open. (The cost to renovate Winnequah into a pre-K-5 building is a one-time cost, paid for largely with leftover referendum dollars from the previous building referendum.)
-- The overall cost of the referendum is going to be around $1 million a year for however many years the board decides. Those figures are available; the district's financial advisors have said MG faces a roughly $1 million annual budget deficit for the next 4-5 years.
-- Winnequah and Nichols are really red-herrings in this debate. This is an operating referendum to maintain current levels of programming in all schools in the district. If you sell Maywood (a profoundly stupid idea) and/or Nichols (not sure that's a good idea, either -- see Monona Rag for some observations on the difficulties of doing that), you don't stick that money into the district's operating budget to shore up finances -- it only helps once! You can stick it into long-term building needs of the district -- things like roofs, maybe a small (2 or 3) classroom expansion at Cottage Grove School, maybe repairs to the high school track (which badly needs them).
-- The charter school is also something of a red herring. That school wouldn't be up-and-running until the fall of 2012 at the very earliest, and that's probably dependent on the charter school organizers getting money out of DPI, which isn't a given, and won't be known for awhile. (For starters, the charter school organizers need to show what the school will do that's distinctly different and unique from what's being done now in terms of educational programming. DPI isn't likely to look fondly on a request for money that's based largely around the argument of, "See, we've got this half-empty building, and we'd like to fill it up...") And why does the charter school have to be in Winnequah? I'm not sure that's the best place for it -- too easy for "mission drift" after a few years. Most solid charter schools look, feel, operate, and are located in different places and ways than regular schools.
-- Salaries and benefits will likely be brought up in the debate over the referendum. But if you think this district's teacher's union will offer up anything on those lines, you're the world's greatest optimist. Unlikely to happen, largely because it's not something the board and district are totally in control of (the board and district administrators can say: Class sizes of 30 in all grades, limited music, art and PE, no AP classes, no extra-curriculars -- that's the future if the referendum doesn't pass. But it can't say: The referendum will only include pay increases for teachers of X percent. Contract negotiations with teachers, by state law, are a two-way street with the very real possibility of third party arbitrators deciding those issues.)
The letter to the editor from Susan Fox this week is a really good example of someone who is completely missing the point. As her letter drags on and on, what she fails to comprehend is that we are not stupid. We know that the money saved from closing Maywood could have been used to save teaching positions and reduce the cuts to music, art and PE. Period. It is simple, not complicated as her tedious letter would indicate.
I agree - had the board closed Maywood the elementary arts related minutes and the reduction of music teacher would not have to have been made to reach the same level of savings. To state that those layoffs are not related to the Maywood decision is a flat out lie.
I don't think it's a lie. It's "spin." Everyone does it, but it is up to us to decide if we're going to accept it. I do not.
Peter.
Not telling you how to run your blog or anything like that, but from rudimentary understanding of Madraian-the post is not appropriate for family viewing.
Post a Comment