School funding-Liars-Lars Larson

[Straydog]

I have made a concious effort to shut up in order make life easier on all concerned.
However, I must share the letter I sent Senator Atkinson and ask those concerned with the future of education in our state to weigh in with their elected officials:

------------------------------------------------

Dear Senator Atkinson,

I happened to turn on the Lars Larson radio talk show while out and about this afternoon and am very concerned with your comments in regards to school funding and liars.

While I am writing this letter as an individual and constituent, please understand that my questions and concerns come from a base of experience that includes involved parent of school aged children for approximately seventeen years, school site council member for over two years, Three Rivers School District Budget member for two years and soon to be Three Rivers School District Board member.

In the course of your conversation with Mr. Larson, he quoted a source as saying that our schools in Oregon are underfunded. He went on to say that the source he was quoting, in his opinion, had resorted to lying by stating that schools are underfunded He asked you if it wasn't correct that those that say schools are underfunded are liars and you indicated that yes, you believed that to be the case.

Mr. Atkinson, "liar" is a very powerful name to call someone and one that I do not take lightly. As an individual that has participated in the unpleasant volunteer work of deciding how to trim 12% from a budget that has been declining for over a decade, I am feeling very distressed in knowing that according to the opinion you put forth on a radio station that is broadcast all over our state, I have been lied to and am a liar as well. And I am but one of thousands of volunteers across our state that, evidently, has been lying to their constituents!

I am now calling on you to please set me straight, relieve me of this label of "liar" and the burden it brings with it.

Since our schools are not underfunded according to you and Lars Larson, please explain to me why we haven't enough money in our TRSD budget to maintain the level of services we provided in the last biennium. Remember, this is a budget that has been reduced many times over the last decade or more. I have spent many an hour pouring over this budget looking for the nest egg being hidden, the money being misappropriated or, as you said you believe, the "lie". I simply cannot find it.

While I know you are busy, a quick response would be most appreciated as I soon will have to sit before many good people in our school district and experience the pain and suffering they will share as they lose their jobs and have their lives severely disrupted due to what I have been told and have seen in our budget to be too little money to continue to employ them. It would be very comforting and make a difficult job a little less so if I were to be able to tell them the truth about why they are losing their jobs rather than have to perpetuate what you reduce to a lie that we do not have enough funding.

When I have to explain to my fourth grader (and her mother!) why they will have to be up at 5:30 AM next year to catch a bus on an earlier schedule as a cost saving measure, why she will have a crowded class room, why her school has no air conditioning or why the middle school in our area will have no extra curricular activities funded, I want to be sure I am telling my little girl the truth rather than a lie.

Again, please, show me where the money is going, why I am wrong to believe schools are underfunded and why I have become a liar according to my State Senator.

Sincerely,

Straydog :smile:

[ 06-12-2003, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[roadsend]

Good job, Straydog.
Let us know if he responds.
Although Lars, through no fault of his own, is right on many issues, he often speaks of which he knows naught. He is paid to be a radio entertainer and fits in well with other folks in the entertainment industry.

[Thumper]

Straydog:

Lars Larson was just stating what he considers to be the facts (the combined school board's own budget information). Those financial data are simple, quantitative ways to measure and compare where Oregon's school budgets stand. His opinion, based on checking out the facts, is that Oregon school total funds budget per student are, at more than $10,000 per student per year, well above the average for all states in the U.S.A. That appears to be a generally accepted number, though that is never discussed among those asking for more money.

Note that your own letter to Senator Atkinson has not a single quantitative element. No facts to back up your position that schools are underfunded. You might consider sending the good senator another one where you buttress your plea for more money with the monetary facts.

[skein]

Ah, c'mon, guys, Lars spins everything so as to make him appear smart and knowledgeable and all the others to apprear as buffoons. He's a perfect example of someone who has never done anything "real" in his life, but wants to tell the whole world how it should be done.

He's a man with no legs trying to teach people how to run.

Let's write him in at the next election. I for one will enjoy watching him fall all over his tongue.

Skein

[PBR Streetgang]

I love it. School budget declining 12%. Should that not be we are only getting 8% increase from last year instead of the 20% that was forecast. Oh, and how about PERS? What is it, 40% of your total budget now and going up?

I'm sorry, but you take on a business in this state and you'll get an idea of how ridiculous state government really is. The state and the schools really live in a fantasy land.

Portland spends almost $11,000 per student while a private school is doing it for 1/2 that amount or less. There is no school funding crisis, only a spending crisis.

As for Lars Larson, I feel that he is a light in the State of Oregon. Without him there would be no opposing view, only a onesided press.

Tim

[El Shaddai]

Straydog- I can appreciate your passion, however I am curious exactly which budget you have reviewed....this budget has more money that the last one and the cost to educate per student is comparatively high?

Please help me to understand..........

[Straydog]

Originally posted by El Shaddai:
Straydog- I can appreciate your passion, however I am curious exactly which budget you have reviewed....this budget has more money that the last one and the cost to educate per student is comparatively high?

Please help me to understand..........

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">This is the Three Rivers School District budget proposed for the year 2003/2004.

TRSD budget info.

[Thumper]

Straydog --- In looking at the totals only, and assuming that you spent the total without shortening the school year this past year, your district is projecting an needed increase of 8.65% ($3,549,827/$41,026,414) just to continue the current level of services. 8.65% is a whopping increase for a district in a state with a crumbling economy. No wonder you are having problems. I think that is the issue that we outsiders don't understand.

How many students are in the district?

[ 06-13-2003, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: Thumper ]

[Straydog]

Thumper,

Click on the link to the Three Rivers School Dist. Once on site, there is a link to budget information.


(edit.......... we are playing "cyber tag"! )

[ 06-13-2003, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[happybrew]

Straydog: your statements about the numbers are misleading. If you look at the revenue, everything is going up except the local formula revenue (down roughly a million) and beginning fund balance which is the carryover from last year (down roughly 2 million) The services are budgeted for an increase of roughly 3.5 million over the previous year. If you look at the new revenue coming in, and leave out the old money you already have, you are getting more money. If you look at the expenditures over last year, the district would like to spend 3.5 million more than last year. It's a cash flow problem. It's not that you're getting less money.

happybrew

[Straydog]

Happybrew,

So your solution would be for us to reneg on the contracted agreements we made with the teachers in the last negotiations?

This would open us up to huge liablilty costs when the lawsuits start coming in.

If one nets out the actual cost of doing business, we are down in revenue.

There are roughly 6,000 kids in the district.

[ 06-13-2003, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Straydog]

Originally posted by Thumper:
Straydog --- In looking at the totals only, and assuming that you spent the total without shortening the school year this past year, your district is projecting an needed increase of 8.65% ($3,549,827/$41,026,414) just to continue the current level of services. 8.65% is a whopping increase for a district in a state with a crumbling economy. No wonder you are having problems. I think that is the issue that we outsiders don't understand.

How many students are in the district?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Thumper,

There are negotiated contractual items that must be met or we are in violation of our contract and the law.

Raises that were negotiated in (perhaps they shouldn't have been but that is beside the point at this time), rising costs of insurance, PERS costs and fuel and energy cost increases.

Again, once netted out, we are short of money. As I asked Senator Atkinson, where is it to come from?

[Thumper]

Originally posted by Straydog:
There are roughly 6,000 kids in the district.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well, that works out to $6,837 per student, and that is about 40% lower than the "total funds budget" for Oregon statewide (more than $10,000 per student). Either you are the most efficient school district in America OR there is another $20-24,000,000 that is not disclosed in this budget information.

Which is the case???

[Straydog]

That is the question I am asking............ show me the money.

I can say we are very efficient. We must be as we have cut for about 16 of the last twenty years. On the web page is a breakdown of the cuts we have taken in just the last 6 years.

I think you may be beginning to see my point. I keep hearing how we have more money than mny states for school funding. I can not agree or disagree with that. I can only say, "show me the money".

I don't feel that is too much to ask and if a State Senator is compelled to go on the radio and call us liars, I don't feel it too much to ask that same Senator to back his assertions with the facts.

So far I have not heard back from him.

[Lured In]

Straydog....In looking over some of the other numbers, a few things leap out at me. Over the last 3 years 6 million in cuts have been made. The site states that approximately 81% of the budget is for 'staff'. But in the last 3 years, 40+ teaching positions have been cut, 27+ general staff (custodians, librarians, nurses, etc) have been cut. But only 2.5 administrators? Doesn't that seem a little odd? Those numbers look like better than an entire elementary school or middle school (40 teacher with 25 studens per class is 1000 students.) You would think there would be a higher number of adminstrative position cuts than 2.5 FTE.

[Thumper]

The fundamental problem that Straydog and his district has is that Oregon's unemployment continues to go up, up, up --- it is now 2.1% higher than the national average, worst in the nation (!) and still climbing --- while his district's "same services" budget would go up 8.65% in one year. That is just nuts. It is inconsistent with economic reality.

The first thing to do is for the voters to can the whole school board and the senior administrators of the district.

After that, it is time to develop a zero-base budget and get on with life. In the private sector we have to do such things all the time to survive.

[Straydog]

Lured in,

Extra Duty pay is overtime paid to teachers and administrators for coaching, forensics, security at after school events and those sort of things. Unfortunately, it is generally principals, vice principals and councilors and they come at high costs. Realize too that indeed, some very cherry contracts were negotiated back when times were better. We have negotiations for certified opening up next year and it will not be fun.

As for your comment concerning the loss of certified and classfied as opposed to administrators, the short answer is yes, it would seem the numbers would be more balance.

However, about 6 or 8 years ago there was a big upheaval in this district when it became public that the Superintendant at that time was grossly over staffed and spending money like a drunken sailor and high class travel, partying and other extravaganzas in the name of training. After a long expensive court battle the district paid a healthy settlement to get rid of the Superintendant and a lot of administrators. So, the bottom line is, we are eliminating administrators from a pool that was pretty slim already. Also, we have made a concious effort to protect the elementary teachers over the years in an effort to keep classes as small as possibl. Unfortunately, that is an option that is no longer viable so they are takiing a bigger hit than the other levels.

As a point of perspective, the historical general funds reductions from 1999 thru 03 are, in percentages, as follows:

Licensed staff = 15.6%
Classified staff = 12.7
Administrative = 9.0

So yes, administrative is taking a smaller hit but they have been hit harder in the past as well.

[Straydog]

Originally posted by Thumper:
The fundamental problem that Straydog and his district has is that Oregon's unemployment continues to go up, up, up --- it is now 2.1% higher than the national average, worst in the nation (!) and still climbing --- while his district's "same services" budget would go up 8.65% in one year. That is just nuts. It is inconsistent with economic reality.

The first thing to do is for the voters to can the whole school board and the senior administrators of the district.

After that, it is time to develop a zero-base budget and get on with life. In the private sector we have to do such things all the time to survive.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Thumper,

You illustrate very clearly why it is so foolish to have school funding linked to the income tax. Education is just as neccessary (or more) in times of high unemployment as in good times. The fact is, education is not a business nor should it be.

Fire us all!?!? I guess that seems a little rediculous since I will not be an offical member of the board until the 30th and another board member just started last year as an appointee and ran unopposed in the last election as I did. Given so few of us have the will to step up and take the job, you may end up with no one to do it.

I get a kick out of someone living 300 miles away, seeing only a narrow view of the budget and, I am assuming, having little or no knowledge of the demographics of the district so definatley stating "fire them all!!" :grin:

You're sure entitled to your opinion but know that it points out a very narrow field of view to me. :smile:

BTW, please explain to me how firing them all is going to beneficial to the big picture since, as you point out, unemployment is the root of our problems given our reliance on the income tax. Shall we shoot ourselves in both feet at once???? :whazzup:

[ 06-13-2003, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Thumper]

Originally posted by Straydog:
education is not a business nor should it be.

Fire us all!?!? I guess that seems a little rediculous since I will not be an offical member of the board until the 30th and another board member just started last year as an appointee and ran unopposed in the last election as I did.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Actually education is indeed a business, and a mighty big one at that. It has to operate based on financial realities, just as any enterprise must. Less money to spend --- then spend less money. Simple. Really, I am not kidding.

OK, you and the other new guy get a pass. :grin: Everybody else gets canned.

[Cool Texan]

Originally posted by Thumper:
Actually education is indeed a business, and a mighty big one at that. It has to operate based on financial realities, just as any enterprise must. Less money to spend --- then spend less money. Simple. Really, I am not kidding.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica"> [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[Straydog]

Thumper,

I will agree to disagree about the education/business issue.

Dang, you are too easy!!! I was hoping you had a good plan to get me out of this!! Fire me, please, fire me!!! :grin:

[Lured In]

Originally posted by Straydog:
Lured in,

As for your comment concerning the loss of certified and classfied as opposed to administrators, the short answer is yes, it would seem the numbers would be more balance.

However, about 6 or 8 years ago there was a big upheaval in this district when it became public that the Superintendant at that time was grossly over staffed and spending money like a drunken sailor and high class travel, partying and other extravaganzas in the name of training. After a long expensive court battle the district paid a healthy settlement to get rid of the Superintendant and a lot of administrators. So, the bottom line is, we are eliminating administrators from a pool that was pretty slim already. Also, we have made a concious effort to protect the elementary teachers over the years in an effort to keep classes as small as possibl. Unfortunately, that is an option that is no longer viable so they are takiing a bigger hit than the other levels.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I find this so sad. First that there was a settlement with a district employee. More than likely the district (read community) had to pay to get rid of a bad employee. (after paying for that person to live large.) If I had to guess, this was probably the result of a union or some similar type of mandatory contract that the school had to sign.

The fact that the "cherry contracts" were entered into with apparently little or no foresight for economic downturns, only further illustrates part of the problem. I am assumming (bad idea, i know ) that these contracts do not stipulate that raises, etc are not dependent on school funding? So you end up with teachers/admins getting paid more, while kids get less.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't believe that teachers are universally well compensated. But, IMHO I can't think of a teacher I would admire for wanting more money while giving the kids less. (Not that this is the decision process, only the apparent outcome.)

I do have to agree with Thumper, though. (and for reference, that would make me an uninformed critic 270 miles away )

[Thumper]

Lured --- And what makes matters even more insulting is that we are not even residents of Oreegawn! :grin:

[happybrew]

Originally posted by Straydog:
Happybrew,

So your solution would be for us to reneg on the contracted agreements we made with the teachers in the last negotiations?

This would open us up to huge liablilty costs when the lawsuits start coming in.

If one nets out the actual cost of doing business, we are down in revenue.

There are roughly 6,000 kids in the district.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I see what the problem is Straydog. You don't know how to accurately state your case. You made a statement about declining revenues, saying ". As an individual that has participated in the unpleasant volunteer work of deciding how to trim 12% from a budget that has been declining for over a decade," and you talked about how money needed therefore to be cut from the budget. The problem is one of rising costs, not declining revenues, as it appeared in your initial post. We has no way of knowing this just from looking at the overall numbers. Thank you for pointing it out to me. So often the problem is presented as one of declining revenues, which it is not. If you present the budget shortfall as a problem of rising costs outside of your control, you'll be a lot more successful in bringing people to your side. Looking at the revenue, you're bringing in more new dollars than you brought in last year. As I stated, it's a cash flow problem, where your costs are rising faster than your revenues. So as I stated before, it's not that you're getting less money, it's that your costs are rising too fast. Present it too people in that manner, and you'll gain a lot more support. Otherwise, people will respond with what I posted, and you won't gain converts. Again, thank you for pointing it out to me. It makes your plight much more clear.

happybrew

[Straydog]

Happybrew,

"Due to rising costs, revenues are not adequate to maintain current service levels." - better? Net result, less (declined) revenue to work with....... call it what you wish. Accounting was never my favorite subject.

Luredin,

It was the Superintendant and her daughter (whom she hired as a principal) that were settled with and let go. And yes, it cost the taxpayers a lot of money. I wasn't as involved in the district as much at the time and don't recall the exact number..... over 200K as I recall.

Now, now, "uninformed" is a little stronger word than the words I used..... perhaps "limited knowledge" would be more accurate.

Just out of curiosity, I am wondering if either of you have kids in school and how much time you have spent in schools in the last ten years.

[happybrew]

We were totally and completely dissatisfied with our schools. We felt they weren't meeting out children's needs, so we homeschool them. We tried an online school this year, but by December, they still hadn't learned anything I hadn't taught them the previous year, so we pulled them out of that too. Then they finished up a whole years worth of math one grade level above where they should be in three months. We had one daughter in kindergarten this year, and she started out with a second grade reading level. She picked this up entirely on her own by watching the older boys being homeschooled. I was dumbfounded when she told me she could read, then picked up a book and started reading it to me. She got bumped to first grade when we moved in December. The principal at the new school wasn't thrilled with her being bumped by the old school, and let us know he didn't like the idea. So she just finished up with first grade, and now she's reading at a 5th grade level, and none of her work challenged her, so we'll have her homeschooling next year with the older two. Our other two children are going to skip public school altogether. Our three year old knows all of his shapes, colors, numbers, and alphabet, which he learned on his own when he figured out all by himself how to turn on the computer and put in the educational programs the other kids were using. My eleven year old will be starting algebra and geometry this year. He wouldn't have a chance to do this in public school, as they were dead set against our kids advancing past other kids their age. Our kids were bored, and stopped doing the work. Then their grades suffered, although they knew the material. My oldest's teacher tried to tell me he was ADD because he never paid attention. He never paid attention because she never said anything worth him paying attention to. He'll sit down and read for hours on end. That's not ADD. So we were quite frustrated with our schools, and voted with our feet.

happybrew

[Lured In]

I have two boys, ages 6 and 8. My 6 year old is just finishing up kindergarten at a private christian school in its first year of operation. My 8 year old is finishing up 2nd grade in our local elementary school. While I have yet to plunge into school management to the level you have, I have been trying to educate myself as much as possible.

Most of my issues with the public school system have less to do with education and more to do with what is being accomplished. I see schools providing more "services" (beyond that of what I grew up with and/or were provided by my schools) and seeminly providing no better education. Teachers have been forced into the role of playing a "yes man/woman" instead of instructing. The legal, state mandated and generally ambiguous regulations teachers are under have essentially paralyzed thier ability to instruct, lead and to an extent be creative in their approach to teaching. (This is from an outsiders perspective.)

With all of the recent 'hoo-ha' over school funding I am increasingly trying to gain a better understanding for where the money goes. Camas is one of the better school districts in Clark County (SW WA). We are finishing a brand new high school, just opened a new elementary school last year and will now have the "old" high school as extra space. (for what I have no idea.) But even amidst this, I find the focus on 'educating' our children in how to read, write and do math, morphing into tailored programs that are individually relevant. ( :shocked: ) This shift causes me great concern as they seem to be the primary focus of these new "services" that are being offered and chewing up money. That's just my currently uninformed opionion.

FYI...Clark County is a fully owned subsidiary of the State of Oregon for all practical purposes. Better than half of the middle income wage earners in Clark County are employed in OR. This county feels the impact of Oregon's economy as strong as any. (I myself and currently unemployed as the result of a OR company closing down.)

[ 06-13-2003, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Lured In ]

[Straydog]

Happybrew,

It is great you are able to teach your children as effectively as you do. It would sure be nice if all families would or could make that happen.
Homeschooling is a classis example of the benefits of one on one instruction. It is also a classic example of what simply spending time with your kids reading, writing, drawing, fishing, doing most anything with them, can do for them as far as learning goes.

My youngest is doing very well and was just chosen for the TAG program. My older daughter (soph in college) was a TAG student as well. I am not very impressed with the program so far but maybe we can improve it in the next few years.

So far my daughter has not become bored but she is given a lot of latitude in terms of her reading choices and it seems she is still being challenged and pushed to challenge herself and I am happy with that. She excells at math and reading and like yours, will read for hours given the opportunity.

[Straydog]

Lured in,

Yes, the more you get into it the more eye opening education you get, believe me. Good for you for learning and being interested. If more parents would take an active role in their schools would all be better off.

We are surely asking our schools to do more and more all the time. Unfortunately, it seems we are expecting the schools to pick up a lot of the slack that results from irresponsible uninvolved parents and or disfunctional parents.

[Thumper]

Straydog --- I am an old coot with fully grown children. However, my lady/fiance is a Portland elementary school teacher in a really terrible neighborhood. I suspect that she would feel your pain. And my granddaughter attends a small, very fine christion school here in Vancouver with a total budget per pupil of $5,200 annually, about half of your budget.

My business is helping other enterprises, large and small, to operate efficiently and within their means; hence my interest in the plight of the schools in Oregon.

[Straydog]

Thumper,

Well, I am older than many parents of 9 year olds at 49.

My oldest daughter is 20 although I am not her bio dad. She was 9 when her mother and I married. I raised two step kids for about 10 years in my first marriage.

I am sure your wife could indeed understand our concerns and then some, coming from a poor metro school. We have a lot of poverty and the problems that brings in our district but it is still a relatively small, rural area and our challenges are less, at least numericaly.

[ 06-13-2003, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[PBR Streetgang]

After reading through the previous posts I am even more convinced that the schools have a spending problem. It was generally agreed on that the economy in Oregon is in the crapper. Then Straydog says he still needs more money for his school next year.

We cannot continue to fund schools for every dime they ask for. Everyone is going to have to make difficult decisions and tighten their belts. Ted Kitzengoski is well on the way to increasing taxes for all of us. This will only further the economic hole we are in. He tried to take the federal tax cut given to us by Bush, fortunately there was enough difference in the wording of the final bill that the state money grab is invalid.

State government has to be brought under control. We cannot give everyone everything. The schools are going to have to suffer like everyone else in this state. The school unions need to take a leadership role and step up with a benefits, retirement, and/or pay cut proposal.

PERS needs to be declared insolvent and eliminated. (My Dad receives a monthly check from them so don't think I have no connections to this) State employees should be cut to the level that Oregon law says it can have, I think 1.5% of the total population, yes there is such a law.

Every school needs to start with the basics, readin, writin, and arithmatic. Establish their base and prioritize programs from there. When you run out of money, that's it, no more. You may not have any funding for afterschool sports or outdoor school but that's the way it has to be. That's life.

Tim

[TheRogue]

Take out the set-in-stone, mandatory costs for the next few years. You know, the $ tied up in teacher contracts; PERS, health care; mandated, unfunded government regulations, and anything else that NOTHING can be done about at this time. No doubt about it...factor in these costs that you have no control over, and there is no money left anywhere for those pesky things like books, computers, software, teacher's aides, desks, chairs, etc. Not to mention the fact that you'll have to get rid of some teachers since the cost per teacher is so high.

I don't think that there's anyone who doesn't agree the system has problems, and things like PERS and health care costs need to be addressed. But, for all the people who rant and rave there's too much money being spent already, too much "waste" in public education, well, where are your answers? Ok, we need to reform the system, no arguements there. How? How many years worth of students will we need to write off while we UNDERFUND the system as it exists today?

As always, [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] to you SD for caring and digging into the system.

Happy..good for you for caring about your child's education. I suspect your kid would have done great in any environment, the intelligent ones seem to rise to the top. I guess I'm wondering, if she's done so well homeschooling, why it would be any different having her in a public school, and spending significant amounts of time with her in the evenings, weekends, and summer?

We have a home-schooled family behind us. I'm still trying to figure out when they are doing any schoolwork, as they seem to be outside playing most of the time. They're definitely quite reclusive, and won't play with the other kids in the afternoons. Personally, I feel sad for them.

TR

[TheRogue]

And, schools and education are so important that they should remain fully funded, regardless of what the economy is doing.

[Straydog]

Originally posted by TheRogue:

I don't think that there's anyone who doesn't agree the system has problems, and things like PERS and health care costs need to be addressed. But, for all the people who rant and rave there's too much money being spent already, too much "waste" in public education, well, where are your answers? Ok, we need to reform the system, no arguements there. How? How many years worth of students will we need to write off while we UNDERFUND the system as it exists today? TR

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Very well said!

Thank you for your support.

BTW, interesting to note that while I have recieved several notes of support from his counter parts in the houe and senate, not to mention school district empolyees and parents, to date Senator Atkinson has not responded.

Not too suprising given when some of us contacted him with our concerns over Senator Star's comments for people to run not walk away from public education, Senator Atkinsons reply was, and I am seriously quoting here, "what a flap." With 'leadership' like that, it is of little wonder our state is in such a mess.

[ 06-13-2003, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Thumper]

Stray --- I think you are missing the point. The budget information that you provided is only the "general funds" (i.e., state money) component, at least that is the way the information is headed on the table that is in your data. Those numbers do not include other sources of school budget dollars such as local property taxes, other local sources and certain federal sources.

You really need to do the work necessary to identify the "all sources" or "all Funds" budget and its intricacies. Otherwise you are playing with only half a deck. Talk to your district budget guy to get the other info.

Only then can you make intelligent choices.

[Straydog]

No, not missing the point.

The monies represented in the budget you see are those that are general fund dollars and can be manipulated by the district.

Yes, there are revenues not reflected in this budget. That is because they are what are called "Special Revenue Funds" and are provided for state and federally mandated programs within the schools. Those would include Title IA funds, Title IIA, Title V, IDEA. CSD/Soastc, Newbridge, Drug & Alchohol and Food Service.

Yes, we are getting a total of almost 10,000 per pupil however, only the amounts reflected on the budget posted are the monies we have control over.

We can agrue all day about whether 10,000 per pupil, under the mandates put forth by both state and fed governments is enough or too much.

However, we can not deny the fact that to maintain the general service budget to provide the same of level of service as we had last year, we need more money in our general fund.

Unfortunately, state and federal law make it impossible to rob Peter to pay Paul in this case.

[ 06-13-2003, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Lured In]

Here are some of the 'proposed staff reduction' numbers from Straydog's link. These numbers include salary and benefits for these positions. I assume cost savings is for the biennium, so divide by two to get annual cost savings.

.4 FTE Librarian $78,700 :shocked: (that's 78K to elimate less than half of a librarian. I really picked the wrong job. Even if you figure half that number is benefits, a librarian is making(salary) on the order of $40,000 /year.)

3.85 FTE for "All Exta Duty Contracts" $551,089. (Not sure what this is, but at the FTE level that works out to a total cost of $77,000 per year per FTE. What exactly do these people do that requires a salary like that?)

Compare those numbers with these...

1.00 FTE Asst Elementary Principal $91,166. (That's rougly 45K/ per year for SALARY AND BENEFITS for an asst principal. But the 'extra duty contract FTE cost 77K per year :shocked: )

Straydog...please don't think I am coming after you on this, I am just as concerned. What really chaps my hide, is that I look at these proposed cuts and I can't believe someone ever passed these positions into the budget with salaries like this. Especially when you calculate the cost of the teachers salaries that they are proposing to cut. (Those varied between 30-40K per year including salary and benefits.) Looks to me like someone priorities are WAY out of wack.

[fisheromen]

Stray, good string.

For me, and I'm sure for others, I am so frustrated with the PPS board up here. The escalating, inescapable contractual costs you mention are a reality. The problem is, when renegotiating the teacher contract this year, the PPS board caved into the union and maintained the existing health care benefits at over $800 per month per teacher. This despite tremendous pressure from local business and others. So on the one hand we have them telling us that there's not enough money, and on the other they are making those kinds of decisions. As a voter, I am left with thinking that unless the screws are really put to these people, when are they going to stand up and do the right thing? I don't want kids to have to suffer as a result, but I know the system can't survive if costs continue to outpace inflation and population growth. So some of it is long term versus short term thinking. I figure kids can rise to the occasion for a couple of difficult years if that's what it takes to convince the school board to make some hard choices.

I guess my point is, let's learn the lesson from this situation about what these contractual costs can do and be a little smarter about them in the future. Also, will we learn this lesson without some serious pain during this crisis?

[Straydog]

Fisheromen,

Excellant point and one I sure intend to bear in mind as I move forward as a board member.

The good news is that I am a commissioned salesman and productivity is everything to my success, I have a benefit package that is certainly nothing to write home about (in other words, nothing like public employees enjoy) and my retirement (401K, profit sharing, mutual funds and stocks) have been hit very hard but I don't expect anyone to bail me out.

It is with this base of personal experience that I will be making my decisons as a voting board member.

[PBR Streetgang]

No, we should not fund education to it's fullest no matter what. That was my point in saying you have to prioritize and maintain the core curriculum FIRST.

Tim

[Get Bit]

My question would be... What do we consider the core curriculum ? I know people are going to say reading , math, writing etc. However what I view as core subjects includes music, P.E., etc. as well. Who decides ? Thats the problem that was created when ballot measure #5 passed. We took away all local control and thus are keeping individual districts from making decisions about what they want taught in their schools. I work in a district that has, as long as I can remember, always had P.E. and Music specialists in the elementary buildings. Now with our current budget shortfall we're faced with cutting these. What's up with that ? Just a thought.

Get Bit

[ 06-14-2003, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Get Bit ]

[Mr. Carp]

Be careful Skein, use the quote for the best purposes. Just Kidding!! :grin:

[Straydog]

Originally posted by Get Bit:
My question would be... What do we consider the core curriculum ? I know people are going to say reading , math, writing etc. However what I view as core subjects includes music, P.E., etc. as well. Who decides ? Thats the problem that was created when ballot measure #5 passed. We took away all local control and thus are keeping individual districts from making decisions about what they want taught in their schools. I work in a district that has, as long as I can remember, always had P.E. and Music specialists in the elementary buildings. Now with our current budget shortfall we're faced with cutting these. What's up with that ? Just a thought.

Get Bit

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">And a very good, legitimate thought at that. Measure 5, in my mind, is the biggest culprit, if one had to lable but one, and very much the foundation of why we find ourselves where we do.

For every argument that says the three R's should be enough, there is one or more as to why that is wrong. My personal belief is that we are way, way beyond that simplicity and the arts, forensics, athletics and other co curricular activities are very important in the big picture of education.

My daughter's elementary music teacher has been funded by donations and the PTA's fund raising since she started school going on four years ago.
Those that say we should have to "pay to play" may not realize we have been to a large degree already.

Many of our highschool programs are what are refered to as Club Sports and not funded from the general fund as it is now.

[ 06-15-2003, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[TheRogue]

I, too, have always felt that the so-called "extras" that so many of the 3-R's crowd whine about are just as important as the 3-R's themselves. Sports and choir take up most of my favorite memories of high school...and I finished with a GPA over 3.7. Highlights were yearly travels with our choir, visiting Ensanada, Mexico twice; Colorado Springs, and San Francisco. In sports we traveled many places, down into California, Central Oregon, etc. Now in many districts, they're contemplating $0 funding for any and all non-3-R activities?

So very sad.

TR

[The Fishing Geek]

I contend that the 3 R's crowd should not expound on what should or shouldn't be in schools until they accept that it's really one R, one W, and an A.

[fishingchef]

Administrators and their salaries need to be cut first. Their publicly funded luxury cars and trips for conferences need to be cut. Conferences can be done online now at no great expense or equipment needed.

There are fewer funds because there are less taxes coming into the coffers. We have the highest unemployment in the country. Also there are fewer taxes from businesses coming. Small and big businesses are going under all over the state.
Republicans would have us believe that lower taxes for the rich and corporations will create new jobs when it will only help to create a bigger spread between rich and poor. Soon there will be no middle class.

bush will keep lowering taxes and cutting services. Local governments will have to raise taxes though. Yet our federal deficit will still rise.