Money, money, money. Scary. Seems all we hear about is talk of money. Mostly from the federal government, but then some flowing to the states, maybe to your local schools. The logical question to ask is whether we will receive any school money locally.
The answer is: What time is it? For it seems the possible answers change with the clock. Each hour brings new speculation about what is included, who will be the recipients, and how much.
The answer for Marietta City Schools (MCS) at the moment is we don’t know. And we don’t expect to know for some time. And we will not incorporate unknown funds in our forecasts. We do not buy lottery tickets.
Recent local news showed anticipated state revenues for many area districts over the next two-year period. Frankly, it looked like rather good news for MCS with a boost in expected revenues of over a million dollars each year.
Other districts appeared not to have fared so well. Again, we are at a loss to know just why though we can offer up a partial speculation.
The previous formula used to calculate each district’s funding from the state ran to 24 pages. All of the many factors taken into account took a total of those 24 pages to explain and compute. The new formula is, at this point, unknown to us. The 39 line items could run to 50 or 60 pages.
It is quite possible that since MCS voluntarily paid for the all day Kindergarten program the past two years that we would be given some recognition in the formula for having provided that service. Districts who have not funded it themselves but, owing to the previous formula received state funding, would not now receive yet more funding. Hence, that piece of their share would remain the same while we receive a raise.
It is also possible that since we have by far the most special education students in the area and provide extensive programming that an adjustment may be made. It is a given we cannot use any new money to pay for existing programs. Currently mandated programs already strap our budget.
It is impossible to predict what amount of funds will ultimately flow our way. Only time will tell. Here are some important things for you to know.
At the regular monthly board meeting, Treasurer David Combs reviews our current finances and notes any changes, adjustments or exceptions that have arisen since the previous month. Usually they are quite small and often predictable. Our sources and uses of funds change very little over the course of a year. That is, unless the state happens to make a significant adjustment by surprise. Which has happened.
Twice each year we are required to file a five-year “projection” of our funding and expenditures. This happens in May and October. Again, coming so closely upon each other, there are few surprises. But it’s a good time to review the future and make adjustments in our expenditures, as we have virtually no control over our receipts.
With over 83% of our spending flowing to wages, salaries and benefits and nearly all of that being directed by contract, it leaves little room find savings without cutting programs. Add to those expenses the unfunded mandates and the room for adjustment is even smaller.
Finally, as we all received our property tax bills recently, ponder this. A couple percent reduction in the number of people who pay their taxes on time can have a six figure negative impact on our cash flow for the next six months. Frightens us too.
A forum for Marietta City Schools constituents and board members. Comments, suggestions, observations and information invited.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
It's a three to two world in some places.
Ohio School Boards Association (OSBA) is an organization founded in 1955 to serve the needs of Ohio’s school board members. Headquartered in Columbus, it provides a wide range of professional services and training throughout the year.
A recent training for school board presidents produced many insights into the operations of other boards and the problems that arise when the big picture is not kept in mind.
The big picture, of course, is ‘what’s best for all students, the whole district and will serve us well ten years down the road?’ A tall order, but one which board members should keep in mind when making decisions and formulating policy.
One of those present at the training had a number of questions of the instructors. His questions were introduced by explaining that his was a three two board. That is, no matter what the issue or question, his board was always going to vote three to two.
The division of personality and vision was so distinct that he said if they were to vote on whether the sun had come up or not, the vote would be three to two. One can only imagine how difficult it is to get things done and move forward in that district.
Another member of the class had a different situation. A newly elected board member declared to the rest of the board that if they would vote to help him get rid of the superintendent and the golf coach, his vote was available for anything else they wanted. Obviously a strong agenda on this member’s part and not a positive one.
Then came the story from another board president who described a three to two split board that lost a member of the group of three to a job transfer. Four citizens applied to be appointed to fill the position.
It became apparent in the interviews that two of the applicants would side with one side of the board, and the other two applicants would side with the other side of the board.
Not being able to agree on anything, the remaining four members failed to appoint a successor to the departed member and it fell to the Probate Court Judge to make the appointment. The judge picked one of the applicants who, according to this board president, “Went to the dark side.”
After a few months of the new member working with the group of three and seeing their agenda and intent, she switched sides and the three to two split reversed itself.
Boards are made up of folks with a wide range of personalities, backgrounds and experiences. Which is a healthy and valuable resource in a school board.
Boards become non-productive, sometimes even dangerous if there are members with an agenda or purpose that does not serve the long range best interests of the community and the school system.
As I listened to these stories I found myself counting the fortunes of our Marietta City Schools board. Not only do we have a wide range of talent and experience, we are blessed to not have any private agendas being served. All are there to best serve the needs of the district.
We were further blessed when we had a vacancy last year to have eight citizens who stepped forward with great experience, background and intent to serve the district well. This apparently is not the case universally.
One board president in attendance had an even tougher story to tell. His board was always split four to one. And he was the lone voter. Perhaps two of his members will be transferred.
A recent training for school board presidents produced many insights into the operations of other boards and the problems that arise when the big picture is not kept in mind.
The big picture, of course, is ‘what’s best for all students, the whole district and will serve us well ten years down the road?’ A tall order, but one which board members should keep in mind when making decisions and formulating policy.
One of those present at the training had a number of questions of the instructors. His questions were introduced by explaining that his was a three two board. That is, no matter what the issue or question, his board was always going to vote three to two.
The division of personality and vision was so distinct that he said if they were to vote on whether the sun had come up or not, the vote would be three to two. One can only imagine how difficult it is to get things done and move forward in that district.
Another member of the class had a different situation. A newly elected board member declared to the rest of the board that if they would vote to help him get rid of the superintendent and the golf coach, his vote was available for anything else they wanted. Obviously a strong agenda on this member’s part and not a positive one.
Then came the story from another board president who described a three to two split board that lost a member of the group of three to a job transfer. Four citizens applied to be appointed to fill the position.
It became apparent in the interviews that two of the applicants would side with one side of the board, and the other two applicants would side with the other side of the board.
Not being able to agree on anything, the remaining four members failed to appoint a successor to the departed member and it fell to the Probate Court Judge to make the appointment. The judge picked one of the applicants who, according to this board president, “Went to the dark side.”
After a few months of the new member working with the group of three and seeing their agenda and intent, she switched sides and the three to two split reversed itself.
Boards are made up of folks with a wide range of personalities, backgrounds and experiences. Which is a healthy and valuable resource in a school board.
Boards become non-productive, sometimes even dangerous if there are members with an agenda or purpose that does not serve the long range best interests of the community and the school system.
As I listened to these stories I found myself counting the fortunes of our Marietta City Schools board. Not only do we have a wide range of talent and experience, we are blessed to not have any private agendas being served. All are there to best serve the needs of the district.
We were further blessed when we had a vacancy last year to have eight citizens who stepped forward with great experience, background and intent to serve the district well. This apparently is not the case universally.
One board president in attendance had an even tougher story to tell. His board was always split four to one. And he was the lone voter. Perhaps two of his members will be transferred.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Dang It, Snow Again. There Goes Spring Break.
Two hour delay. Snow day. We’re losing spring break days. Where will it end? When I was a kid they didn’t close schools until the snow was up to my knees.
We lost four days in a row last week. We’ve had several 2 hour delays and at least one 1 hour delay. A letter sent to me offers some alternatives.
One suggestion was to establish a snow route bus schedule with many fewer stops. Say, Putnam School and the Hasty Shopper to cover all of Devola. It’s up to Little Johnny to get to one of these two stops.
Which works fine for all those who can make it, but would result in unusually high absences for those who could not make it. But the writer has a solution for that.
If Little Mary lives way out, or is unable to make it to one of the appointed stops, and 80 or 90 percent of students can get to school, let’s have class. Then the administration and teachers could work with the Little Marys when they do return to get the missed work and make up important tests.
This sounds good until one ponders the teacher’s dilemma when the absent students return and now he/she must work at two or more levels depending on how many students missed what lessons and what to do with those who were in attendance and are ready to move on. Educator’s nightmare.
The writer then criticizes delays as being a dodge to avoid using one of the allotted calamity days. Here again, failing to take the bigger picture into consideration.
Those delays allow road crews to get out and work on dangerous areas. They give sun and traffic time to soften up the ice and snow and make it safer for later traffic. And they allow us to have classes without missing the total day when it is just the early travel that may have been dangerous.
Ironically, the letter arrived the day before a bus was hit head on by a truck sliding on ice and crossing the center line. Fortunately, it appears no serious injuries resulted.
On that day a one hour delay was in effect. Had it been a two hour delay, perhaps that icy patch would have been worn off or sanded and salted into oblivion. I would suggest the truck might not have been there but the driver was a student with a one hour delay. Perhaps a two hour delay would just have put the two vehicles in the same place an hour later.
The author offered that it’s a tough world out there, and we should provide some adversity and commitment training by having school every day except in the very worst of weather. He began his views by admonishing me to not “hide behind the school bus safety excuse”.
On the heels of the accident, I’m opting for safety over boldness every time. As will Superintendent, Mr. Young, who once worked in a district where they didn’t consider closings until the snow was 11 inches deep. But they had the equipment to handle it up to that point. We do not. And the crews servicing the roads locally are getting a later start and have less sand and salt owing to both budget and supply shortfalls.
The writer fails to address the liability issues created if we get more aggressive while surrounding districts remain cautious and then we have an accident. Should we not have known it was dangerous? Won’t look good in court. Come to think of it, I had shorter knees back then.
We lost four days in a row last week. We’ve had several 2 hour delays and at least one 1 hour delay. A letter sent to me offers some alternatives.
One suggestion was to establish a snow route bus schedule with many fewer stops. Say, Putnam School and the Hasty Shopper to cover all of Devola. It’s up to Little Johnny to get to one of these two stops.
Which works fine for all those who can make it, but would result in unusually high absences for those who could not make it. But the writer has a solution for that.
If Little Mary lives way out, or is unable to make it to one of the appointed stops, and 80 or 90 percent of students can get to school, let’s have class. Then the administration and teachers could work with the Little Marys when they do return to get the missed work and make up important tests.
This sounds good until one ponders the teacher’s dilemma when the absent students return and now he/she must work at two or more levels depending on how many students missed what lessons and what to do with those who were in attendance and are ready to move on. Educator’s nightmare.
The writer then criticizes delays as being a dodge to avoid using one of the allotted calamity days. Here again, failing to take the bigger picture into consideration.
Those delays allow road crews to get out and work on dangerous areas. They give sun and traffic time to soften up the ice and snow and make it safer for later traffic. And they allow us to have classes without missing the total day when it is just the early travel that may have been dangerous.
Ironically, the letter arrived the day before a bus was hit head on by a truck sliding on ice and crossing the center line. Fortunately, it appears no serious injuries resulted.
On that day a one hour delay was in effect. Had it been a two hour delay, perhaps that icy patch would have been worn off or sanded and salted into oblivion. I would suggest the truck might not have been there but the driver was a student with a one hour delay. Perhaps a two hour delay would just have put the two vehicles in the same place an hour later.
The author offered that it’s a tough world out there, and we should provide some adversity and commitment training by having school every day except in the very worst of weather. He began his views by admonishing me to not “hide behind the school bus safety excuse”.
On the heels of the accident, I’m opting for safety over boldness every time. As will Superintendent, Mr. Young, who once worked in a district where they didn’t consider closings until the snow was 11 inches deep. But they had the equipment to handle it up to that point. We do not. And the crews servicing the roads locally are getting a later start and have less sand and salt owing to both budget and supply shortfalls.
The writer fails to address the liability issues created if we get more aggressive while surrounding districts remain cautious and then we have an accident. Should we not have known it was dangerous? Won’t look good in court. Come to think of it, I had shorter knees back then.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Time for action. Done with Tinkering.
By now you have read or heard about Governor Strickland’s State of the State report. Some further information may be of interest to you as you digest and reflect on the contents of the Governor’s message.
The following is quoted directly from a memo from the Coalition of Rural and Appalachian Schools, CORAS (www.coras.org). “Ohio schools should have a freer hand awarding tenure to good teachers and firing bad ones, a report by the Ohio Grantmakers Forum, a philanthropic coalition, said Thursday in recommendations to the governor and Legislature. The forum also recommends eliminating Ohio's standardized high school graduation tests and suggests replacing them with other ways to gauge critical-thinking skills and readiness for college and work.
The report was developed by 43 people from 33 organizations interested in education issues, including the Ohio Federation of Teachers, the Ohio Education Association, the Ohio Department of Education (OEA) and the Ohio School Boards Association. The recommendations were endorsed by the forum's board, but not every organization with a participant backed all proposals, according to a news report. OEA said it found common ground with many of the proposals but backed the state's current teacher tenure and dismissal standards.”
The report itself is titled, Beyond Tinkering: Creating Real Opportunities for Today's Learners and for Generations of Ohioans to Come. You may read it at: www.ohiograntmakersforum.org. Here are the three broad recommendations. See what you think.
1. A bold plan for accelerating the pace of innovation-for restructuring the traditional, industrial model of teaching and learning and for addressing the lowest-performing schools in our state-is needed to keep pace with the demands of the 21st century.
2. Bold action is required to refine Ohio’s academic standards and restructure the state’s assessment system. The state standards need to be revised to articulate what we expect all students to know and be able to do so they are ready to compete in the increasingly global labor market, can live and thrive in a diverse society and can participate as informed members of our democracy. And we need to move to a more balanced assessment system that allows students to demonstrate their knowledge, skills and abilities in different ways, informs teaching strategies and improves learning and provides a complete picture of how schools are doing against a consistent set of expectations.
3. Bold steps are needed to ensure that we have the very best teachers and principals working in all of our classrooms and schools for the benefit of all of our students, especially minority and low-income students who traditionally have been underserved.
Three “bold” recommendations to the General Assembly, the Governor and members of the State Board of Education. All coming before the Governor’s address, but on the heels of two years of relative inaction on the education issue which was a main campaign promise.
Note, too, the title of the report and how it warns that we need to be “Beyond Tinkering.” The issue is far too important to Ohio now and in the future.
In the same memo from CORAS, the following comment: “On a related note, House Speaker Armond Budish told The Associated Press in an interview Thursday that inequalities that plague Ohio's public schools can be reduced by using multimedia technology to bring high-quality courses from wealthier school districts into the poorest ones. While not the definitive solution to the state's school-funding problem, long-distance learning programs are a cost-effective way to chip away at disparities, the Speaker said.”
Ohio’s school funding system has been unconstitutional since March 24, 1997. It’s time to do more than “chip away” at the problem. Does the Governor’s plan do that?
The following is quoted directly from a memo from the Coalition of Rural and Appalachian Schools, CORAS (www.coras.org). “Ohio schools should have a freer hand awarding tenure to good teachers and firing bad ones, a report by the Ohio Grantmakers Forum, a philanthropic coalition, said Thursday in recommendations to the governor and Legislature. The forum also recommends eliminating Ohio's standardized high school graduation tests and suggests replacing them with other ways to gauge critical-thinking skills and readiness for college and work.
The report was developed by 43 people from 33 organizations interested in education issues, including the Ohio Federation of Teachers, the Ohio Education Association, the Ohio Department of Education (OEA) and the Ohio School Boards Association. The recommendations were endorsed by the forum's board, but not every organization with a participant backed all proposals, according to a news report. OEA said it found common ground with many of the proposals but backed the state's current teacher tenure and dismissal standards.”
The report itself is titled, Beyond Tinkering: Creating Real Opportunities for Today's Learners and for Generations of Ohioans to Come. You may read it at: www.ohiograntmakersforum.org. Here are the three broad recommendations. See what you think.
1. A bold plan for accelerating the pace of innovation-for restructuring the traditional, industrial model of teaching and learning and for addressing the lowest-performing schools in our state-is needed to keep pace with the demands of the 21st century.
2. Bold action is required to refine Ohio’s academic standards and restructure the state’s assessment system. The state standards need to be revised to articulate what we expect all students to know and be able to do so they are ready to compete in the increasingly global labor market, can live and thrive in a diverse society and can participate as informed members of our democracy. And we need to move to a more balanced assessment system that allows students to demonstrate their knowledge, skills and abilities in different ways, informs teaching strategies and improves learning and provides a complete picture of how schools are doing against a consistent set of expectations.
3. Bold steps are needed to ensure that we have the very best teachers and principals working in all of our classrooms and schools for the benefit of all of our students, especially minority and low-income students who traditionally have been underserved.
Three “bold” recommendations to the General Assembly, the Governor and members of the State Board of Education. All coming before the Governor’s address, but on the heels of two years of relative inaction on the education issue which was a main campaign promise.
Note, too, the title of the report and how it warns that we need to be “Beyond Tinkering.” The issue is far too important to Ohio now and in the future.
In the same memo from CORAS, the following comment: “On a related note, House Speaker Armond Budish told The Associated Press in an interview Thursday that inequalities that plague Ohio's public schools can be reduced by using multimedia technology to bring high-quality courses from wealthier school districts into the poorest ones. While not the definitive solution to the state's school-funding problem, long-distance learning programs are a cost-effective way to chip away at disparities, the Speaker said.”
Ohio’s school funding system has been unconstitutional since March 24, 1997. It’s time to do more than “chip away” at the problem. Does the Governor’s plan do that?