|
Post by alexsaitta on Jun 22, 2015 21:05:10 GMT -5
Passing A Budget: I had a call about three weeks ago, and the person was just so sure the school board wasn’t going to be able to pass a budget. I asked, why do you think that? With more than $3 million in new revenue coming in, the disagreements were going to be slight with a majority of the board. Having gone through 10 budget processes, I felt relatively confident this would be an easy budget comparied to let’s say 2011 when we were facing a $2.75 million deficit. That proved to be the case with the final budget passing 5 to 1.
The first and second budget versions weren’t bad and I might have voted for the second with a couple of changes. The final budget presented and approved has some grave issues so I voted against it.
Why I Voted “No”: Reason 1. In order to save classroom teaching positions and balance the budget, in 2011 and 2012 the board froze teacher pay. With the building program now behind us and no longer sucking up new revenue, we made it a priority to make up those pay raises over time.
The second version of the budget gave teachers their regular pay raise and one extra pay raise. The third or final budget gave teachers their regular pay raise plus two extra pay raises.
While giving teachers three annual pay raises next year is admireable, it was a bit wreckless financially. That third pay raise costs $1.0 more a year, and is funded with savings. That is, this budget funds a recurring expense of $1.0 million with one-time money. That’s a financial no-no in most everyone’s book. The administration said it will cut another 12 to 18 classroom teachers to plug that long-term deficit.
I would have done this more prudently. For this budget I would have given the regular teacher pay raise, plus one extra raise – solving half the problem now. Then when the extra TIF revenue comes in in 2017, I would have looked to fund that second extra pay raise with that recurring revenue – solving the other half of the problem then. That is the fiscally sound way to pay for a recurring expense.
Continued Below
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Jun 22, 2015 21:05:33 GMT -5
Continued from above
Why I Vote “No”: Reasons 2 Like I mentioned above, from 2010 to 2013 the board did all it could to protect, restore and add classroom teaching positions, driving down class sizes. This budget, sadly, continues the unwinding of that trend.
In the last year or so about 30 plus classroom teaching positions were eliminated due to switching those teachers to instructional coaches or absorbing graduation coaches, ignite teachers and reading interventionists into the overall teacher FTE allocations.
This final verson of the budget eliminates 25 more classroom teaching positions next year. Like I said above, the year after that they’ll cut another 12 to 18 teaching positions to plug that $1.0 million deficit. I do not see it as good public policy to eliminate teaching positions, put more children in the classroom and use the savings to give extra pay raises.
Doing the math, that’s about 70 classroom teaching positions that have been eliminated.
In Sum: One, because of good budget management going back a few years, we have started each budget process in surplus or at least with a balanced budget. The budget passed tonight turns that on its head and we are now facing a deficit (of $1.0 million) going into 2016-17 for the first time in years.
Two, about 70 classroom teaching positions are being eliminated from 2014 to 2016. How is that going to help academic performance?
Three, instead of growing savings this year for a rainy day, this budget spends $1.2 million in savings. In good times you don’t splurge savings on new spending. In good times, you build savings, so when a recession hits and revenue drops, you have plenty of savings to cushion the blow.
If the board just took a more prudent approach of one extra pay raise this year, and the other one when the TIF money comes in, much of this long-term financial harm would have been avoided.
|
|
|
Post by conservative on Jun 23, 2015 8:34:18 GMT -5
The emergency this year is teacher raises, the next planned crisis will be more teachers. Raising taxes for increased pay proved too hard a sale. Faced with a future, planned teacher "shortage" the slope is hoped not as steep. Liberals get what they demand eventually. They never give up on the incremental growth and expense of Government. The economic and societal opportunity cost is not well understood or valued and many Conservatives seem to have given up the fight. Not you though, Alex.
|
|
|
Post by weewillie on Jun 23, 2015 12:35:52 GMT -5
Alex, How has the decrease in teacher's affected the teacher/student ratio?
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Jun 23, 2015 21:17:19 GMT -5
The stated ratio is 21.5 and still is, but the actually ratio is rising a bit. It is simple math. If the number of students is about the same, but the number of classroom teachers is falling, the ratio rises.
The philosophy of the board of 2010 and I believe the Pew Administration was to put as many teachers on the ground as you can working directly with students. In 2009, 30 teachers were cut. In 2010 to 2013 we restored all those teachers, fully staffed 4K, added a ton of reading interventionists or teachers who work directly with students who are behind in reading, we added Ignite Classes of only 12 students behind in reading requiring the hiring of more classroom teachers, etc. We increased the number of classroom teachers three years in a row.
This new administration and starting in 2014 the board started moving in the other direction. They believe in shifting the resources to supporting the teacher. Hiring instructional coaches to better train the teachers so they become more effective teachers. Paying teachers more, to attract better teachers, and funding it mostly by eliminating the number of classroom teachers. Reading interventionists who worked directly with students are being replaced with reading coaches who work directly with teachers on training them to better teach reading.
It is an age-old argument direct instruction vs. teacher support. I’m in the former group stressing more direct student instruction and another reason why I voted against this budget. You are in the latter group. Got that.
Most administrators actually fall in the latter group. They want support. They want staff. They believe that best helps overall academic results. Time will tell which is the best approach.
|
|
|
Post by strangerintown on Nov 15, 2015 7:28:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by geraldgarrett on Nov 15, 2015 14:03:20 GMT -5
The Board is probably just impressed with the nice new rubberstamps and inkpads he gave them as an early Christmas present.
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Nov 16, 2015 7:56:40 GMT -5
Actually, they don't give the board gifts, but that was funny, though. It is not the most rigorous evaluation process I've been involved in, agreed.
That article got passed me. I’ll post it on the home page.
To answer your question, it is both. Each board member is given questions and answers them, results are averaged and then the board and Superintendent discuss them. In a few weeks we’ll work with the Superintendent to set goals for the next year.
I rated him as meeting expectations. His strength is he is well traveled in the school district, very likable, has strong relationships with principals and teachers, and has a good understanding of the administrative side of the job.
I’d like to see more of the administration’s energy put into academics as opposed to let’s say buildings which was naturally the focus from 2007 to 2013. They still want to do more building projects. Also, this was the first budget proposed and passed that spent more than its revenue coming in years and years. That’s a step in the wrong direction and a bad habit to fall into (that’s why I voted against the budget).
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Nov 24, 2015 9:48:26 GMT -5
www.greenvilleonline.com/story/news/2015/11/23/edwards-assumes-chairmanship-pickens-county-school-board-after-deadlock/76290940/There are four basic principles when it comes to picking a chairman. If the board follows them, the transition from the old to new leadership will be smeamless. First, the board leadership (Chairman and Vice Chairman) must recognize they are responsible for making sure there is a smooth transition from the old leadership to the new one. Why? They control the situation because of the leadership positions they hold and the authority they are given. Second, the chairman serves a 1 year term and is limited to two terms. When the Chairman hits his term limit, he must willfully step aside and work to help select his/ her successor. That is, the Chairman must respect the 2 year term limit, not try to change it to 3 years or get around it in some way. I was the chairman in 2011 and 2012. At the end of my term limit, I stepped aside and threw my support to Judy Edwards in 2013. She was elected and served as Chairman in 2014. Third, if the Chairman serves a year and have the a majority or 4 votes for his re-election as chairman, he should voluntarily step down and give another trustee the chance as Chairman try it and build a 4 vote majority. After the Chairman resigned in 2014, as Vice-Chairman I moved up to Chairman. I served the rest of his term and realized at re-election time I had 2 maybe 3 votes. I was short of the majority I needed for re-election. I knew it. The rest of the board knew it. As a result, I didn’t push for the job again, and before the vote threw my support to Brian Swords to give him a chance. Swords was elected in a 6 to 0 vote, and served as Chairman in 2015. Fourth, don’t serve as Vice-Chairman unless you are willing to be the Chairman if the Chairman resigns or can’t get re-elected with a majority vote. This would be like Lyndon Johnson at Parkland Hospital, Dallas saying, but I don’t want to be the President. It kinds of throws a monkey wrench in things. When the Chairman resigned in 2014, and I was Vice-Chairman. I really didn’t want the job. I’m conservative and the board had moved to the left. I wasn’t eager about becoming the Chairman, but when it fell on my lap I did the job and finished up his term as Chairman because that is one of the responsiblities of being Vice-Chairman. Brian didn’t have majority support for a second term (been there myself). As Vice Chairman Judy stepped up and took the job (bravo to her – been there too). The process was a bit bumpy but worked because these basic principles were followed.
|
|
|
Post by weewillie on Dec 13, 2015 15:16:52 GMT -5
Alex, after reading your article about AP's pay raises, it concern's me that our board member's are not aware of what's legal concerning said pay raises. Maybe I misunderstood what you wrote, but it sounds as if some of the board member's aren't clear on what's legal and what's not. Don't we have a board attorney? Shouldn't these things be discussed with the attorney if there is a question? So,are you saying that some board member's just go along with whatever the administration ask for because they aren't aware of the rules and regulations regarding pay raises?
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Dec 14, 2015 10:09:45 GMT -5
There was no legal rule or law or process requiring we give this 2nd AP pay raise mid-year or at any time.
Weee, I addressed that in the column on the home page when I wrote: Next we were led to believe [by the administration] the APs had their contracts and we were legally bound to give them the additional raise and make do it now. I had my doubts about this legal requirement... Was the district bound by contract or the law to give APs the 2nd pay raise, and to do it mid-year? We learned [later] in the work session the answer to that was “No”. We have been paying APs off the TA scale for three years. It wasn’t a legal issue before nor was it now.
Weee, we were mistakenly led to believe at the Oct meeting the board was legally bound to give the 2nd pay raise mid-year, but when we asked the personnel director and than the attorney later on they said no we weren't. Everyone was confused initially at that October, but once it went to work session and the question was directly asked, investigated, etc. it was clarified.
If the raise would have gone to committee first for a good Q&A, and then the board for action, it would have been smoother.
|
|
|
Post by alexsaitta on Feb 23, 2016 12:10:18 GMT -5
I nailed down these building cost numbers to 1 decimal last night. The annual bond payment on the construction loan is $24.5 million. The day to day cost of building operations, utilities, property insurance, day to day repairs, grounds keeping, etc. is $12.8 million a year. We have been spending an average of $5 million a year on capital items like building roofs, HVAC’s and repaving. The total is $42.3 million.
Last year we were given 6 or 7 different lists of capital maintenance needs/ wants and the contents of the list kept changing as well as the total cost from $3.6 million to as high as $8.5 million. We passed a $4.6 million plan.
Going into that plan, I remember asking and being told we had already had funded 16 projects and only 6 were underway and 10 still hadn’t been started.
If you look at the $4.6 plan we passed last year, only $2.4 million of that money has been spent so far.
This notion that we just aren’t providing a lot of money for buildings is simply untrue.
|
|