Last spring at this time your school board chose to invest over a quarter million dollars to implement All Day Kindergarten. We knew our financial situation then and knew that if the levies were not replaced we would be in deeper financial difficulty.
The board made the decision before the levy vote to avoid the impression of coercion. We believed the choice was correct whatever the outcome of the election.
The following comments were excerpted from recent discussions about how All Day K is working in your district.
Scott Kratche-Washington Principal. It was interesting at the beginning of the year because we were dealing with both first graders and the new all-day kindergartners learning how to do lunch, recess, etc. Next year though the kindergartners will already have those experiences and we will only be teaching the new kindergartners.
Courtenay Halliday-We don't have to continually rush to get things done. We are able to a lot more writing. I feel like students are mastering concepts rather than just being introduced to them. Never have to worry about being able to have reading and math every day.
Kellie Tekavec-We have more center time so students are much better at working independently. I felt like I could take the time at the beginning of the year to introduce all the centers and teach the students how to use the centers; therefore, they are learning more at the centers. Students have much better reading skills due to the extra time.
Nancy Foote-Parents are really enthused about student progress. One parent was emotional in talking about how much her student knew already in kindergarten and was able to read.
Tessa Hill-The extra time gives me more time to address behavior problems, come up with a plan and have the entire day to consistently deal with the problems.
Joe Finley-Putnam Principal. Teachers have adapted well to the change. I am seeing evidence of a lot more writing.
Michelle Gebczyk-I enjoy having a teaching partner with whom I can share ideas. Also feel I really know each student and where they are. Now only have to know 20-25 students rather than 40-50 students.
Pat Stephan-I feel I not only know the students better but also the parents. I'm able to display student projects since I only have one class. The kids have ownership of the room since they are not sharing everything with another class. Management of the room is much easier since I don't have to take everything down in the middle of the day and start over in the afternoon.
Cheryl Cook-Harmar Principal. Teachers know their students much better since they now have half the students.
Donna Kern-Students are able to work independently and they are excited about reading and writing.
Susan Hale-I enjoy having 2 new teaching partners to share ideas. Lunch count and lunchroom functions have been an interesting dilemma but through change things are working well now. I am giving my students a practice touchpad for them to take home during the summer to learn how to enter their student number for the lunchroom.
Robin Haught-I am amazed at how well students are responding to Project Read phonics instruction and are learning to read. I see students using Project Read finger spelling to decode new words.
Jessie Abrecht-I see writing as an area where I am able to spend more time and see students writing significantly more than they were able to write in a half-day.
Teachers predict first grade teachers will see a significant improvement in the mastery of material taught in kindergarten. All day kindergarten has been a great experience for those involved.
All Day Kindergarten is not an unfunded mandate. One might look at it as an unfunded necessity. Time will reveal its value.
A forum for Marietta City Schools constituents and board members. Comments, suggestions, observations and information invited.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
Mandatory Reporting
When you are up to your belt buckle in alligators it is difficult to remind yourself that the original objective was to drain the swamp. Problems tend to take our focus off the objective.
Just such a situation exists with your schools thanks to the bureaucracy of education. The objective of educating students takes a back seat to other issues deemed more important.
Your Ohio Department of Education (ODE) added to the Code of Conduct for Ohio Educators. Who could object to defining behavior of professional educators? You decide.
The following three scenarios were sent by email to the board and others by Superintendent Dr. Doug Baker prior to adoption. The regulations have since been adopted. The scenarios may very well apply under the new code.
Scenario #1
Students are dismissed at 2:30 p.m. A teacher works an extra 2 hours to prepare for the next day's lessons. At 4:30 p.m. he enters his car in the faculty parking lot and begins to drive off school grounds. Prior to actually exiting school grounds, the teacher lights a cigarette. This teacher must be reported to the superintendent who then must report this teacher to the ODE Department of Professionalism and Ethics for using tobacco on school grounds. If the principal fails to report to the superintendent, the principal may lose his license for up to one year. If the superintendent fails to report to the ODE, the superintendent may lose his license for up to 1 year.
Scenario #2
Three elementary school teachers each have high school age sons on the football team. It's Friday and an away football game is scheduled. The three elementary teachers make plans to travel to the game together. On the way to the game, the teachers stop to have dinner. Two of the three teachers have a glass of wine with their meal. The teachers attend the game and return home without incident. The two teachers who drank a glass of wine must now be reported for being on school grounds at a student activity after having consumed alcohol. The teacher who did not drink may also be in trouble for not reporting the incident to the principal. It does not matter that these teachers came to the event as "parents" and had no supervisory duties. If a teacher is on any school grounds anywhere, the rules outlined in this document concerning drugs, alcohol and tobacco apply.
Scenario #3
A parent notices the two teachers above having a glass of wine at dinner, then going to the game. The parent also notices the principal eating, but not drinking at the same eatery. The parent notifies ODE of the event. The principal may be in jeopardy of losing his license for up to one year because he knew of or should have known of the situation but failed to report it promptly. The superintendent may also be in hot water if it can be determined he had knowledge of the event or should have had knowledge of the event, even though it had never been directed to him as a complaint or issue. For example, if the superintendent was walking to the concession stand at the football game and overheard two parents speaking of seeing teachers drink prior to coming to the game--the superintendent should have investigated the issue.
It would seem ODE has chosen to define both private and public behavior of educators and make us all reporting entities, tattlers. Our professional educators deserve better.
Just such a situation exists with your schools thanks to the bureaucracy of education. The objective of educating students takes a back seat to other issues deemed more important.
Your Ohio Department of Education (ODE) added to the Code of Conduct for Ohio Educators. Who could object to defining behavior of professional educators? You decide.
The following three scenarios were sent by email to the board and others by Superintendent Dr. Doug Baker prior to adoption. The regulations have since been adopted. The scenarios may very well apply under the new code.
Scenario #1
Students are dismissed at 2:30 p.m. A teacher works an extra 2 hours to prepare for the next day's lessons. At 4:30 p.m. he enters his car in the faculty parking lot and begins to drive off school grounds. Prior to actually exiting school grounds, the teacher lights a cigarette. This teacher must be reported to the superintendent who then must report this teacher to the ODE Department of Professionalism and Ethics for using tobacco on school grounds. If the principal fails to report to the superintendent, the principal may lose his license for up to one year. If the superintendent fails to report to the ODE, the superintendent may lose his license for up to 1 year.
Scenario #2
Three elementary school teachers each have high school age sons on the football team. It's Friday and an away football game is scheduled. The three elementary teachers make plans to travel to the game together. On the way to the game, the teachers stop to have dinner. Two of the three teachers have a glass of wine with their meal. The teachers attend the game and return home without incident. The two teachers who drank a glass of wine must now be reported for being on school grounds at a student activity after having consumed alcohol. The teacher who did not drink may also be in trouble for not reporting the incident to the principal. It does not matter that these teachers came to the event as "parents" and had no supervisory duties. If a teacher is on any school grounds anywhere, the rules outlined in this document concerning drugs, alcohol and tobacco apply.
Scenario #3
A parent notices the two teachers above having a glass of wine at dinner, then going to the game. The parent also notices the principal eating, but not drinking at the same eatery. The parent notifies ODE of the event. The principal may be in jeopardy of losing his license for up to one year because he knew of or should have known of the situation but failed to report it promptly. The superintendent may also be in hot water if it can be determined he had knowledge of the event or should have had knowledge of the event, even though it had never been directed to him as a complaint or issue. For example, if the superintendent was walking to the concession stand at the football game and overheard two parents speaking of seeing teachers drink prior to coming to the game--the superintendent should have investigated the issue.
It would seem ODE has chosen to define both private and public behavior of educators and make us all reporting entities, tattlers. Our professional educators deserve better.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Permanent Improvement
Permanent Improvement. Has a nice ring to it. Sort of gives a feeling of confidence, security, longevity. But as it turns out, it’s not really very sexy.
A “permanent improvement” with school levy money is defined as anything with an expected life span of 5 years or more. It can include major repairs to buildings and grounds. It can cover such things as books and computers. And buses and salt spreaders.
When you, the voters of Marietta City Schools District voted to continue sending permanent improvement monies to the district last spring you sent a clear message to continue to invest the funds wisely in maintaining your buildings and grounds. You are interested in the long term health of the district.
Your message has been heard and heeded. Your money will be invested as wisely as the information available permits. But not as quickly as perhaps expected.
One of the higher cost projects explained to the voters in meetings was replacing windows in several of the buildings.
We’re talking big bucks here. Hundreds of thousands of dollars at each building for such a project. But there are things to consider before committing such large amounts of capital. Taxpayer funds.
Our district has suffered a loss of students over the past ten years that amounts to nearly one thousand. We are down from our highest enrollment by nearly 50%. The logical question is, how much space do we need five or ten years from now if the trend continues? What do we look like in 15 or 20 years?
The questions are complicated by the various ages and sizes of the buildings. The issue is further complicated by the consideration of possibly having state funding help to construct a new building.
Let us leave the new building question for a future discussion. Suffice to say that we are many years away from a new building and we are far down the list of funding assistance. Even if we could afford and would be willing to pay our share. We must focus on the realities of our present and immediate future.
Washington School is the building most in need of window replacement. The estimates received are in the range of $300,000. A considerable investment. And maybe not a good one.
The information available from various sources tells us the return on the investment of new window replacement is in the neighborhood of 27 years. That is, your investment will pay for itself in energy savings over a 27 year period.
Given our declining enrollment, who can say that Washington School will still be in use in 27 years? No one knows for sure. It’s a tough call. Yet the condition of the windows calls out for action.
There is a bright light. Some out of the box thinking has lead to investigating using local businesses and craftsmen to rebuild the existing windows. Restore their integrity and maintain their design as near original as possible rather than imposing new windows on the old structure.
Here’s the best part. Estimates received to date indicate that project may be possible for something under $50,000. Nearly a quarter million dollars savings. Money that can be used for other repairs, books, computers and other permanent improvement needs.
Far from a done deal there are still some considerations, but it looks like your money may be better invested for the long term than originally planned. A case of making do with what you have becoming a savings in the long run. A happy turn of events.
This and other articles and comments may be read at: http://mariettacityschoolboard.blogspot.com.
A “permanent improvement” with school levy money is defined as anything with an expected life span of 5 years or more. It can include major repairs to buildings and grounds. It can cover such things as books and computers. And buses and salt spreaders.
When you, the voters of Marietta City Schools District voted to continue sending permanent improvement monies to the district last spring you sent a clear message to continue to invest the funds wisely in maintaining your buildings and grounds. You are interested in the long term health of the district.
Your message has been heard and heeded. Your money will be invested as wisely as the information available permits. But not as quickly as perhaps expected.
One of the higher cost projects explained to the voters in meetings was replacing windows in several of the buildings.
We’re talking big bucks here. Hundreds of thousands of dollars at each building for such a project. But there are things to consider before committing such large amounts of capital. Taxpayer funds.
Our district has suffered a loss of students over the past ten years that amounts to nearly one thousand. We are down from our highest enrollment by nearly 50%. The logical question is, how much space do we need five or ten years from now if the trend continues? What do we look like in 15 or 20 years?
The questions are complicated by the various ages and sizes of the buildings. The issue is further complicated by the consideration of possibly having state funding help to construct a new building.
Let us leave the new building question for a future discussion. Suffice to say that we are many years away from a new building and we are far down the list of funding assistance. Even if we could afford and would be willing to pay our share. We must focus on the realities of our present and immediate future.
Washington School is the building most in need of window replacement. The estimates received are in the range of $300,000. A considerable investment. And maybe not a good one.
The information available from various sources tells us the return on the investment of new window replacement is in the neighborhood of 27 years. That is, your investment will pay for itself in energy savings over a 27 year period.
Given our declining enrollment, who can say that Washington School will still be in use in 27 years? No one knows for sure. It’s a tough call. Yet the condition of the windows calls out for action.
There is a bright light. Some out of the box thinking has lead to investigating using local businesses and craftsmen to rebuild the existing windows. Restore their integrity and maintain their design as near original as possible rather than imposing new windows on the old structure.
Here’s the best part. Estimates received to date indicate that project may be possible for something under $50,000. Nearly a quarter million dollars savings. Money that can be used for other repairs, books, computers and other permanent improvement needs.
Far from a done deal there are still some considerations, but it looks like your money may be better invested for the long term than originally planned. A case of making do with what you have becoming a savings in the long run. A happy turn of events.
This and other articles and comments may be read at: http://mariettacityschoolboard.blogspot.com.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
More Numbers - Service Business
The 2007-2008 budget for Marietta City Schools is $21,754,776. Not a small number. Quite a sizeable business in fact.
But what kind of business is it? We don’t manufacture anything. Unless one wants to consider graduates products. So we are not a manufacturer. We don’t sell anything. Unless you count the many fundraising projects which are not the main focus or our mission. So we are not a retail business.
We don’t grow anything, so we are not agricultural. And we don’t mine, drill, dig or blast anything that could be considered natural resource development. Though the minds and bodies of the students are certainly resources. And they are being developed.
Not unlike many other arms of government, we are a service business. As such, our main expense is personnel. Salaries, wages and benefits. What it costs to provide the service of education.
When dollars become scarce one looks to reduce the cost of operations. Save money to protect the ongoing viability of the business. This can include such things as you may already have done in your homes. Turn down the heat in winter. Turn out the lights when not needed. Limit driving. Buy on sale. Buy in bulk.
Schools have some other overhead costs that might be adjusted. Sports programs. Busing. Extra-curricular activities of all sorts that are beyond the confines of a strict definition of education.
But wait. For some, sports are the only thing that keep them motivated to attend school and keep the grades up. That’s their focus, their drive. So one must be careful about trimming costs there.
Then the busing issue arises. How much must we provide? How little can we provide? Good questions. And they must be viewed with safety in mind.
Another area where savings are sought is maintenance. Postponing fixing roofs, sidewalks, parking lots, buildings in general. But this one often proves a false savings. The money not spent one year tends to multiply in coming years as the sins of maintenance deferral tend to be cumulative and inflate with time.
So, back to wages and benefits, that number in this year’s budget is $18,073,624. Or 83% of total expenditures. In other words, we could eliminate every other expense in the budget and save only 17 cents on the dollar. The price of being in a service business is the employees to provide the service. In our case, 83 cents of every dollar we spend is personnel related.
It behooves us then to deploy those employees as efficiently and effectively as possible. The number of students per class. The number of maintenance staff per building. Administrators, bus drivers, etc. All needed to provide continuing operations.
Union contracts cover teaching and support staff. Individual contracts cover administrators. Any changes made must follow the rules of the operating contracts. Much like private business but with the added complexity of multiple areas of certification and seniority. A seemingly simple response to curriculum changes can result in a ripple affecting many employees who may appear unrelated to the original change. It’s a complex though well defined system.
Marietta City Schools are blessed with highly qualified personnel in all areas. Many have been with the system for a number of years. Some will stay with the system longer than originally anticipated owing to changes in retirement benefits at the state level.
This thing called education is all about service. And the customers being served are the students, the taxpayers and society at large. It’s a tall order with ever changing needs and demands. Highly individualized, highly specialized and tightly regulated. Not for the faint of heart.
But what kind of business is it? We don’t manufacture anything. Unless one wants to consider graduates products. So we are not a manufacturer. We don’t sell anything. Unless you count the many fundraising projects which are not the main focus or our mission. So we are not a retail business.
We don’t grow anything, so we are not agricultural. And we don’t mine, drill, dig or blast anything that could be considered natural resource development. Though the minds and bodies of the students are certainly resources. And they are being developed.
Not unlike many other arms of government, we are a service business. As such, our main expense is personnel. Salaries, wages and benefits. What it costs to provide the service of education.
When dollars become scarce one looks to reduce the cost of operations. Save money to protect the ongoing viability of the business. This can include such things as you may already have done in your homes. Turn down the heat in winter. Turn out the lights when not needed. Limit driving. Buy on sale. Buy in bulk.
Schools have some other overhead costs that might be adjusted. Sports programs. Busing. Extra-curricular activities of all sorts that are beyond the confines of a strict definition of education.
But wait. For some, sports are the only thing that keep them motivated to attend school and keep the grades up. That’s their focus, their drive. So one must be careful about trimming costs there.
Then the busing issue arises. How much must we provide? How little can we provide? Good questions. And they must be viewed with safety in mind.
Another area where savings are sought is maintenance. Postponing fixing roofs, sidewalks, parking lots, buildings in general. But this one often proves a false savings. The money not spent one year tends to multiply in coming years as the sins of maintenance deferral tend to be cumulative and inflate with time.
So, back to wages and benefits, that number in this year’s budget is $18,073,624. Or 83% of total expenditures. In other words, we could eliminate every other expense in the budget and save only 17 cents on the dollar. The price of being in a service business is the employees to provide the service. In our case, 83 cents of every dollar we spend is personnel related.
It behooves us then to deploy those employees as efficiently and effectively as possible. The number of students per class. The number of maintenance staff per building. Administrators, bus drivers, etc. All needed to provide continuing operations.
Union contracts cover teaching and support staff. Individual contracts cover administrators. Any changes made must follow the rules of the operating contracts. Much like private business but with the added complexity of multiple areas of certification and seniority. A seemingly simple response to curriculum changes can result in a ripple affecting many employees who may appear unrelated to the original change. It’s a complex though well defined system.
Marietta City Schools are blessed with highly qualified personnel in all areas. Many have been with the system for a number of years. Some will stay with the system longer than originally anticipated owing to changes in retirement benefits at the state level.
This thing called education is all about service. And the customers being served are the students, the taxpayers and society at large. It’s a tall order with ever changing needs and demands. Highly individualized, highly specialized and tightly regulated. Not for the faint of heart.