Last night the Board held a budget workshop. Here is some of what was talked about:
Our target is to reduce our budget expenses by $2 million.
Here is the current list of probable cuts:
HS Assistant Principal $105,000
Teachers (16) $800,000 (back to 06-07 pupil/teacher ratio)
Reduction in Discretionary Spending $100,000
Reduction of Unemployment costs $125,000
Increase Lunch/breakfast $ 95,000
Textbook budget reduction $100,000
Community Education $200,000
Tech Services Coordinator $ 80,000
Energy Savings $ 75,000
Privatize Administrators $ 65,000
Maintenance $ 51,000
Supplies for Individual Printers $ 15,000
Other possible cuts:
Business Office, 1 Assistant $ 51,000
Coaches- Privatize $ 5,000
Cut In-room Suspension Aid $ 30,000
Cut HS Career Resource $ 40,000
Cut 1 HS Secretary $ 50,000
Privatize Cafeteria Workers $ 74,429
Privatize Technicians $ 68,588
The Board will be voting on the budget reduction list on Monday night. Please let me know what you think. There are some exciting things on the horizon and I am looking forward to some upcoming possible changes.
Also, there will be community meetings scheduled soon by our search consultant to give you the opportunity to provide feedback about what you want in a superintendent. The Board went through this process on Monday and here are some of the things that were said:
Strong Financial Background
Good Listener
Child-Centered
Leader vs. Manager
Integrity
Results-Oriented
These are just a few of the traits we came up with. All of the traits given by the community will be put into a report and a "profile" of our ideal candidate. Please let your voice be heard!
Wendy Day
My Blog List
Places to Go
- A Student Perspective of HPS
- AFA Michigan
- Conservative Breaking News
- Dan Wholihan Republican blog- great stuff!
- Drudge Report
- Education Action Group
- Howell Public Schools
- Livingston Daily Press & Argus
- Local Conservative Commentary
- Mackinac Center
- Melanie Kurdys- School Board Reformer
- Mike Reno on Education- Rochester Board Member
- Orrin Woodward on Leadership
- Right Michigan
- Wendy Mazer- School Board Reformer
Labels
- Be on the Lookout (4)
- Blog History (1)
- Board Policy (8)
- Community Coalition (2)
- Education Action Group (2)
- Education in Michigan (19)
- Elections (6)
- FOIA (1)
- government (1)
- June 26th Meeting (4)
- MEA (16)
- MESSA (3)
- Parker (14)
- pop (1)
- Popular Culture (12)
- religion (1)
- School Board Meeting Information (31)
- School Finance (39)
- School Safety (4)
- students (3)
- Taxes (3)
- Ted Gardella (6)
Followers
Site Meter
4 comments:
What exactly is included in "discretionary spending"? Could you please a little less secretive and a little more open about what is being cut in this catergory? Also, the increase in breakfast/lunch prices? Does this include the breakfast that is set up for kids of financially strapped families? And what about those same kids for lunch? Or any other child whose family is having a rough time providing for them?
I have been left wondering why the school district is so much financial trouble in a year that they are getting a decent increase in the foundation grant. We have had years that there was no increase in the foundation grant and survived without selling the farm. Then, after reading and talking to many people the real problem clicked with me. The biggest expenditure the district has is teachers, as it should be. The biggest revenue the district has is a student. Teachers, Students, Teacher, Students. There has been much in the news about the number of students school districts have lost (except Hartland) and that seem to be the root of the problem.
It is always easy to hire new teachers as school districts grow, but the district must also realize that it must reduce the number of teachers as school district shrink. This growing and shrinking has been going on for at least the last 30 years. If you consider that Lynn Parrish announced in March that a reduction in 20 teachers was required to get back to the student teacher ratio of 2006/2007. She also said that 2006/2007 student/teacher ratio was still very favorable. Maybe this ratio is still too low. Combine this with the plan that there will be a reduction in 170 students next year, which will drive an additional reduction of 8-10 teachers, you (and the administration) have already justified a reduction of 28-30 teachers. Again this should leave you at a very good student/teacher ratio.
Now, for some reason, Rick has the total cost of a teacher at 50k. This is a ridicules number. I have been told by several people in the know that the average cost of a teacher with benefits is 78k. Now if you were to cut 28 teachers at 78k, you would have a savings of 2.18 million. Do these numbers look familiar?
Now I have talk to many about the student/teacher ratio, and all agree (even the teachers I talked to) that there are too many teachers, mostly at the middle/high school levels. All agree there should be bigger teacher cuts, even some of your fellow school board members. This is a really tough move to make, but it is absolutely necessary.
I hope you and the other school board members would challenge administration to conduct a full bottom up report, with benchmarking of other districts, to determine if the number of teachers in the district is appropriate. After this is settled, you should look at other cuts (mainly non-required k-12 programs). You do have some time as the fully approved budget is not due until the end of June. Please move slow, get all the details, and make decisions that work best for everyone (mainly the students).
Another thought about your proposed cuts. I don't think you want to privatize administrators while looking for a new Superintendent. The new Superintendent will more than likely have his/her own people in mind to filling his/her staff positions (current contracts permitting). It will be a real negative if he/she has to work with a contract company to bring in specific people. Just a thought.
How do you privatize coaches? I thought they just recieved some kind of small stipend for coaching.
I think it is pretty disappointing that there has been very little feedback on the budget. This is way more important than the 'DOS' issue which had close to 100 posts in the last month. Doesn't anyone care about this districts future??
Speedy-
Thank you for your smart, insightful comments. Please keep posting. I do listen to what you say.
Most of those privatized employees do not have long contracts. Our non-privatized central office administrators have one more year on their contract. Lynn Parrish also has one more year on her contract.
Rick may have dropped the savings from $78 to $50 because of uemployment costs. I am not sure, but that is my guess.
Post a Comment