| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
John Farr
Top Member
USA
642 Posts |
 Posted - 01/17/2003 : 1:53:00 PM
|
With a 35 Billion revenue shortfall, public agencies in California are in a world of hurt. In our case, we need to cut 16 million between from next year's budget. That is 3 million more than it costs to operate a high school for a year.
We've cut the non-people items in our budget. "Stuff," such as office supplies, equipment, buses, conferences, etc. have already been cut to the bone. Now we're into staffing. We've laid off two instructors and a payroll clerk. Next year it looks like the 30+ runs needed for high school regular education students will be eliminated for a savings of $400,000. We have also begun eliminating busing to/from several smaller after school-type programs.
I was wondering if anyone else is in as serious a funding situation?
Transportation is
|
|
|
largebus
Advanced Member
USA
468 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2003 : 2:30:46 PM
|
Budget cuts have become the norm across the nation this year it looks like. Here in New York our state government is facing a multi billion dollar deficit (whatever respect I ever had for George Pataki has henceforth been buried forever). The impact on New York is severe cuts to state agencies, including the State Education Department. With less state aid coming into the school disticts we face a choice-either cut or raise property taxes. The problem with raising taxes of course is that it makes the blood boil in the veins of the public. Those community members who have no public school children can't understand this, and in these difficult times many parents are also facing employment problems. Our situation in my district hasn't hit that low yet (our annual budget is only 52 million, so 16 off would be a huge chunk). Hopefully there will be a light at the end of this tunnel-public education has a big battle to face this year.
Logan C. Geen
Future Superintendent of Schools |
 |
|
|
bosslady
Advanced Member
USA
336 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2003 : 08:37:33 AM
|
Yes, John, here in Kansas we are having the same problem. I have worked for this school district since l975. Our district used to have plenty of money. Everyone could have pretty much anything they wanted. Things started getting a little tight about 5 years ago. Of course, transportation was one of the first departments to feel the squeeze. (Isn't it always.) They stopped buying new buses every year, we have stopped picking up all the town kids, we cancelled our activity route. (This was a route that took the students home after athletic practices) We cut a couple of other routes, and made our routes longer and more kids on them.
This past year, we doubled up on our kindergarten routes, which make them very long. We have stopped taking all the "fun" trips. We only take activity trips that are essential, like sporting events. Our fleet is getting old. We have the transportation budget as much as we can. Our school is really hurting for money. The state has cut our budgets drastically.
Everyone wants a good education for their children, but nobody wants to pay higher taxes. Kansas has a high deficit right now, so I don't see things getting any better. We have a new governor this year, we'll wait and see what she is going to do.
For all you people out there who's state is comtemplating a lottery to help the state with their money problems, Let me tell you, it won't help. If you want a lottery in your state because you want to play the lottery, fine, but don't pass it because they tell you how it will help education.
We passed the lottery in our state several years ago (about 5 years) and that was when things started going bad, so the lottery hasn't helped us at all. Someone is getting rich off of it, but it isn't education or anything else that I can see. My taxes keep getting higher, but our education, roads, and other services are getting worse. Go figure!
|
|
|
|
largebus
Advanced Member
USA
468 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2003 : 09:10:07 AM
|
bosslady- Very true points on the lottery. NY has one, yet it seems that education is never on the receiving end (but why am I not surprised?) NY has suffered only a 2.5 billion shortfall but even here the results are being felt. Districts in NY must provide transportation for many students one way or another, so cuts are generally things like late buses, summer school transportation or reduced walking limits. The issues in NY is that NYS will be freezing and/or reducing state aid to districts, which means that either cuts must be made or property taxes must be made to balance expenditures and revenue. In this ugly economic environment it will be tough to see what the future holds...I keep praying that sooner or later the economy will turn itself around. Until it does, public education faces an uphill battle to get funding from politicians who don't see it's value. In my area worried school board members and Superintendents are investigating exactly how the state aid fallout will affect us. Hopefully that light at the end of the tunnel will appear soon...
Logan C. Geen
Future Superintendent of Schools |
|
|
|
JK
Top Member
USA
7307 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2003 : 09:42:23 AM
|
There is no mystery here. None. Public education is consuming state resources beyond what most can begin to comprehend, including me.
More and more special interest agendas are consuming a bigger piece of the pie while REG-ED parents are charged fees for their kids to get a free public education. REG-ED parents are noticing that private schools and home schooling are becoming more attractive with each new and imposed fee.
The onslaught of special interests that have taken over public education has resulted in taxpayers and REG-ED parents abandoning the so-called free public education wherever they can make that move.
Administrations are so top heavy in our public education system, and special interests so invasive, that the public education support structure, from the top down, can be pictured to represent an upside down triangle. There is something like one administrator for every 14 or so students in our public education system.
MetroWest Daily News (Boston area, Mass.) reported that Assistant Superintendent Audrey Seyffert said this year about eight students are in a special needs program at a cost of $368,264.
The "No Child Left Behind," agenda will likely escalate costs even more while ending whatever spending control the states and local communities now have.
There is no clear cut answer to these escalations I can find, but there is a beginning -- starting with cutting administrations (the bureaucracy) by half or more.
The fewer administrators the more control teachers and parents have to make public education work. Cutting one administrator's position can fund up to a dozen or more bus drivers or one or two teachers.
During tough times we need teachers and bus drivers more than administrators.
This is especially so when considering that superintendents and assistant superintendents these days work more on behalf of the state, the feds and special interests than on behalf of parents and teachers.
Haven't we all heard that consolidation is claimed to improve schools, makes them more efficient and the like?
Well then, why are schools paying for state representatives at the school district level? A business manager, school boards, teachers and parents can manage the schools without those posts.
A radical cost cutting measure, that could save resources, would be to consolidate school district superintendent and assistant superintendent positions. Place one superintendent for the entire state at the state Department of Education level, and perhaps a few assistant superintendent's, to visit school board meetings around the state.
A state level superintendent (or assistant) acting in the role of a consultant to school boards and communities might be more efficient and make better sense when times are tough. Perhaps even when not.
Public schools, as great as some are, are in for a radical change, much more so than what is now occurring. One way or another schools will be brought under financial control.
The obvious alternative is more of the same until public education becomes a thing of the past.
Our nation's founders expressed serious concerns about government getting involved in public education. There was considered too much opportunity for government to side-track from the kids getting a good academic education.
Perhaps, and again, they were right all along. (jk)
Edited by - jk on 01/20/2003 10:18:24 AM |
|
|
|
largebus
Advanced Member
USA
468 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2003 : 7:25:40 PM
|
JK,
After you and I had a very lively debate on the subject of administration awhile back, I read and reread your post several times before deciding to make a response. There is much I agree with in your post regarding the invasion of the government into public education. The byzantine requirements, ridiculous mandates and endless funding nightmares from the government are creating more headaches for public education than anything else. However, I still cannot accept the idea of Superintendents being a representitive of the state.
A little background-my mother is a school board member, I volunteer for MCSBA, a regional advocacy group for Superintendents and school board members of Monroe County, NY and I know many Superintendents including our own personally. I also read material from various Superintendent groups and I recently attended a conference in which all NYS Superintendents were in attendance. Being so close to all this is what instilled my own desires to be a Superintendent. That goal of mine has never left. Now, I live in an area that values it's schools and that has decent to excellent public schools. But I also live in a state that has tightened its group on education more than any other. So while I respect your opinions (after all you have been around much longer than me) I also see a great deal.
First-could you name some public school disticts that employ a ratio of 14 to 1 students to administrators? I am well aware that no district in my area has a ratio like that-ours are 150-350 students per administrator! That figure must have been derived by counting secretaries or custodians or some other group. Either that or public schools in the rest of the nation are REALLY in trouble. Our districts have always spent a very small portion of our budgets on administration. It is not by any means dominating or the majority of our budgets.
Regarding the government-I will not disagree that the government has invaded public education. All Superintendents and board members in my area know it to be true and it frustrates us to no end. Local authority has been sucked into the state board of education and the feds (btw everyone should know that the federal government imposing their will on education is unconstitutional. Sooner or later that issue should be taken to court). New York State has imposed a standards based education that does not reflect true life and is grossly unfair to students who cannot meet those needs (again a personal connection, my brother is one of those students), while imposing ridiculous mandates on districts that it won't pay for and generally acting in a distant authoritarian manner. This garbage has been creating immense pressure on local districts.
Administrators fall into this-not one Superintendent I know, not one, is a pawn of the state. On the contrary, the majority of them are working with each other and with advocacy groups to oppose the current state aid system, to oppose standards education and lobbying for new laws. While they are often "caught in the middle" Superintendents are not mere representitives of the state. In addition, I know that administration could be drastically reduced in many cases if administrators didn't have to share their normal jobs with handling paperwork and other garbage that is done for the state and benefits no one. All teachers I have spoken with agree that leadership is neccessary for their success (and interstingly, none favored the abolishment of the Superintendency). The problem is the administators I have seen are overworked maintaing paperwork for the state and struggling to handle their own jobs. Call it "rubbish" if you will, but I know it to be true. Hell, if the state backed off we could eliminate several positions and those remaining could actually work on improving education rather than writing reports no one will ever read. While I don't believe administration is as top heavy as many believe I do think some trimming could be done if the government backed off. In fact, for education to work again the government NEEDS to back off.
I am NOT an advocate for direct state control of districts. I favor putting power back where it belongs-in the hands of local communities, who can manage their own schools through elected school boards and Superintendents who are dedicated to the kids. I hear and read every day criticism of boards and Superintendents. Yet, I KNOW that most, if not all, are not politicians. They are parents or activists who sincerely want to make a difference. Thats what my Mom is. Thats what our Superintendent is. The real politicians are preventing them from doing their job. Politicians don't understand education like Superintendents or school boards or teachers or parents do. Yet, they are taking the authority away. New York is not a uniform state-ours is a state of diversity and small locally controlled districts that can form closer connections to their communities. Our philosophy has always been collaboration, not consolidation. Thats why despite numerous studies our 20 districts will not merge together. No matter what the state tries our local communities are clinging to their districts.
And 1 Superintendent per state? Every state already has one. And every one is overworked as is. I can't imagine New York being led by 1 person. Are you advocating FOR or AGAINST government control? I don't think sharing administrators between districts is a bad idea, but the need for community and partnerships is a strong one. As is local control. A superintendent once told me that the job is changing-in the future forming a community is one of the greatest challenges the job faces. And it is one that I am eager to meet. I feel that the need for a full time and properly trained individual who can see the big picture for small communties is a critical one.
In short (yeah right, that'll be the day if I ever write anything "short") while I share much of your feelings about poltiical involvement I cannot agree with turning Superintendents into scapegoats. I see too much, even as a high school junior, to believe much of the crap that is often thrown at them. I didn't pick the job of Superintendent because of the money and certainly not because it was easy or popular. I picked it to make a difference with kids and to help make education what it should be. Public education lives in difficult times. Many systems are excellent ones but are surounded by power-hungry politicians, difficult social conditions and economic inequities that have dragged them down. Nothing will improve unless we unify together.
So-while I doubt you and I will ever see eye to eye I admit that I did much consideration of your words. There is much we agree on (btw I find your proposal of making high school optional very intriguing), but much we cannot. I feel very strongly about my own side, but I recognize that our different experiences have led us here. Were the founding fathers right? You had better believe it. I hope my words have not fallen on deaf ears-what I have said is not just "rubbish" much of this I know for a fact to be true.
I will shut up for now 
Logan C. Geen
Future Superintendent of Schools |
|
|
|
JK
Top Member
USA
7307 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2003 : 1:36:11 PM
|
Dear Mr. Logan C. Green,
Future Superintendent of Schools,
or might I say:
Dear Mr. Logan C. Green,
Future Department of Education Superintendent of Schools,
Your post presents an excellent defense favoring the retention of Superintendents and assistant superintendents at the district level.
It is possible you may think my position is personal somehow or that I'm suggesting the people in these posts are bad people and ought to be thrown out.
Neither of the above is the case. My thoughts are simply that these posts are no longer needed or serve some specific purpose that can not be managed through some restructuring. School board positions and how the members are arrived at might involve some restructuring as well.
Nor am I suggesting that all administrators be fired. A business manager, transportation director, school principal and some support services certainly remain essential to the operation of a school district. These can report to the school board pretty much in the same fashion as done now and without the extra management level under discussion in this thread.
Paperwork and useless reports are separate issues that warrant their own thread. They are not the issue. Regardless, civil disobedience (I don't know any administrators that fit the martyr personality-type.) or court challenges are not out of the question concerning these separate issues.
The administrator to student ratio came from an ABC News Report -- I'm attempting to track down the source. I doubt it included janitors, but may have included secretaries and perhaps state and federal level support.
The ratio was the highest in Oregon and the lowest in some of the East Coast states. That I can recall.
Cutting the bureaucracy in half might just make the rest of the system more stable and draw more support from parents.
Whatever the outcome, winning parents support is the key. Forget the politicians -- Parents are the key to restoring public education. (jk)
|
|
|
|
largebus
Advanced Member
USA
468 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2003 : 3:23:21 PM
|
Hi JK,
Actually my dream is to be state Commissioner of Education (I don't dream small!) Seriously, parents are indeed a major key but what seriously bothers me is that students who lack strong parental support are automatically at a disadvantage. Unfortunately, all administrators I've spoken with agree that one of the greatest problems in public education is that students who have strong support already are already set up to get more-the parents do need input I agree but somebody needs to look out for those kids who haven't got stable homes or parents to look out for them. Why are poor districts in trouble so much? Simple-so many of those kids lack parental advocates. We need parental support indeed but community support is also critical and the main focus needs to be on the students above all else.
About the ratio-I take items from the media very suspiciously, since the media in this nation isn't always the most...I guess, reliable. The ratio of 14 to 1 simply makes no sense at all based on what I've seen and while I know it is totally untrue here I would be interested at seeing examples from other districts throughout the nation. Since local districts have nothing to do with state bureacracy (although I know there is a lot there I know less about it) counting state directors in those ratios really isn't logical. A fair honest assesment needs to be given (in other words, don't count non-administrators as administrators and keep your count in your system) to really see local school district administration as it is. I also know that many administrators are indeed hard workers if not overworked (true some are micromangers and some are lousy but such "bad apples" are by no means limited to administration) and that positions are not increased for no reason of it. Rather administration often needs to be jacked up to simultaneously manage the (cough) stuff for the state. I know many have got great ideas but their hands are tied so frequently. And somehow Oregon having the higher ratio doesn't shock me-they seem to have a ton of issues there,
Regarding civil disobediance-several board members and Superintendents are seriously contemplating this. For now they are lobbying and protesting vigorously but if it has no effect...drastic action be it in court or indeed some kind of direct action in resistance to the state may follow. The problem is for this to work everybody needs to participate, not just administrators. That unity is tough to achieve. It will be interesting, since the group I volunteer for is often invovled in legislative issues.
All board members I know pride themselves on NOT being politicians and the same is true for Superintendents-which is why we oppose direct mayoral control of urban districts and state control. I can say that I have the utmost respect for many Superintendents-equally as much as I respect teachers and bus drivers. Even at political levels I don't feel legislatures or governors or whomever has any real malicious intent-rather political B.S. and pure ignorance of education gets in the way. The NCLB was passed with what some would say the best of intentions (that I wonder about) but the government can make things look great on paper but will not fund them. The federal government is imposing their will on states, forcing states to handle federal work while the local districts in turn handle state paperwork. It is a vicious trickle down system. Superintendents, especially local leaders, are skilled educators or good managers who can really address local concerns, have real motivation and most importantly actually know what to do. Problem is-interference from "above".
With eliminating politics, I think humans are by nature so highly political (heck, the PTA, athletic department and even teacher department heads are proof of this) that trying to throw politics out entirely would be impossible. But we can limit it and keep it from interfering, if we try.
Whatever the future holds, I hope that no one forgets that everything is about the kids and nothing else should cloud that fact. Politicians unfortunately are ignorant of these conditions. Districts need to bring in parental input and empower teachers while following simple guidelines (not orders and standards that ignore critical facts) from the state. Parental input should be done in an equitable manner, since parents are out for their own kids and someone or some group needs to make sure that every student's needs are met-whether they have parents or not. Just because one child has a parent who votes, donates and gets involved while another child's parent does not is no excuse for giving the first child more. Equity is incredibly important here.
Finally, I continue to feel that the district level leaders are critical but I also live in a state where local is still the norm. Many other states where there are fewer districts that are more alike very well may benefit from your ideas, the problem is I highly doubt NY would (we all ready have BOCES district Superintendents who act as regional liasons between the Commissioner and local Superintendents. These middle people lead special service programs for BOCES, while acting as consultants to local boards and Superintendents and representing the Commissioner). I do feel the paperwork is if not the issue here is very strongly tied in, because it is a major factor from the state level that truly interferes with the ability of administrators to do their jobs. These people are supposed to be there to handle emergencies, support the district, form partnerships and plan for the future, but how can they do this when they are unable to focus their energy on it?
In short (and this is a little shorter ) I hope the Superintendency doesn't go. Changes might be needed but the need for community and the need for leadership will not. We teach kids about community. That is why we are proud of local districts-they offer students a real chance to engage in the community. Community and the support to raise it needs to be held by a local board and I feel at least 1 Superintendent. You may not agree, many agree with me (I'm sure many probably agree with you). I felt strongly enough to write an essay on the subject for school  , and I do feel that while the positions are changing I don't feel dismissing them would help. Do some central offices need reducing? Yes, but I do know that cuts should be made carefully . My motto is "Think about the students, and do what is best for them".
Thanks for a good reply. It's a difficult and uncertain subject in uncertain times, but as I've said...sooner or later a light will appear at the end of the tunnel. Until it does we'll just have to speculate and wonder about what color and shade the light is. I have no criticisms of you having such beliefs-we can all have our own. We agree on a great deal, and it's the details (not small ones) that we are split on. As the old saying goes-the Devil is in the details 
Logan C. Geen
Future Superintendent of Schools
Edited by - largebus on 01/22/2003 10:58:29 AM |
|
|
|
jb
Active Member
USA
25 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2003 : 5:29:17 PM
|
The problem with the education system is the one size fits all approach by politicans whose only interest is geting elected again and again.
Taxpayers are fed up. All we hear is crying and hand wringing. Very few of you are capable of running a business for profit. A small business gets in trouble and he is told to pay up or get out.
Look around you in most school districts and add up all the dollars spent every day that have nothing to do with students learning to read or write.
You better get some help in there from people that know what the hell costs are all about.
From an humble bus driver with many years of life experience.
James Boldebuck |
|
|
|
largebus
Advanced Member
USA
468 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2003 : 6:35:39 PM
|
jb-You are absolutely right with the one-size fits all is a serious problem. Politicians impose programs such as NCLB, because they sound good and make them look progressive and supportive of education. It is a shame that these same officials will not provide funding or support for these programs they demand. Regarding the spending that "doesn't help kids to read or write" I obviously feel that administration is almost always never the budget-dominating top-heavy waste that people make it out to be. Since I am the son of a board member, my own aspirations and my volunteering I am very well aware of how districts spend their budgets. Obviously, however, my experience is limited to my own districts and those in our counties.
My theory is simple-the politicians should keep their hands off and let local leaders do their job and allow the teacher empowerment and parental involvement neccessary. I don't know of any Superintendent who is bad with handling money, but they need to juggle the districts local needs and the constant barrage of nonsense thrown at us by the government. Perhaps if the government wasn't demanding programs it won't support we could plan better.
Just my own thoughts, from a student and future administrator with precious little life experience
Logan C. Geen
Future Superintendent of Schools |
|
|
|
jb
Active Member
USA
25 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2003 : 7:41:47 PM
|
Largebus, you and I are almost on the same page. Your idea on local control is one of the solutions of the "one size fits all" problem.
My comment on spending is too broad to cover in this forum. Much of the budget is controlled by special interests.
In our district for example; A middle school student with the mind of a 3 year old rides a regular large bus because her parents or their attorney have connections. An aide is required on the bus. She would not know the difference if she was on a special needs bus or a pickup truck. No one has the guts to challenge them.
In Texas, we finally have a governor and legislators that are going to challange the so called "robinhood" school finance system.All it has succeded in doing is driving taxes up made the per student cost of education go up without a coparable increase in their academic achievment.
James Boldebuck |
|
|
|
largebus
Advanced Member
USA
468 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2003 : 02:56:28 AM
|
quote:
Largebus, you and I are almost on the same page. Your idea on local control is one of the solutions of the "one size fits all" problem.
My comment on spending is too broad to cover in this forum. Much of the budget is controlled by special interests.
In our district for example; A middle school student with the mind of a 3 year old rides a regular large bus because her parents or their attorney have connections. An aide is required on the bus. She would not know the difference if she was on a special needs bus or a pickup truck. No one has the guts to challenge them.
In Texas, we finally have a governor and legislators that are going to challange the so called "robinhood" school finance system.All it has succeded in doing is driving taxes up made the per student cost of education go up without a coparable increase in their academic achievment.
James Boldebuck
That's an interesting story. I know that in our area frequently the parents of gifted and talented students can pull similar weight. One would think that parents want the best for their kids and not put them in a situation like that. To me, funding is a mixed bag. Obviously money needs to be spent in order for students to achieve, although how much is the question. I think local communities need the power to make that choice. I agree though that this "undue influence" on school districts needs to be stopped.
Isn't it ironic-some of these special interests are parents and in stories like yours they don't even do whats right for thier kid! One of the greatest flaws in public education is that those parents who have connections as you mentioned can pull so much for their kids, even at the expense of others and the education system. I can't fathom what those parents were thinking. Someone should remind some of these parents that their children are not the only ones in the school. Regardless, my vision of local control and equity is one that I feel is best for students. Under proper local guidance I feel $ could be spent where it belongs, rather than serving political needs.
Logan C. Geen
Future Superintendent of Schools
Edited by - largebus on 02/07/2003 1:35:36 PM |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Budget Cuts
