The prior anonymous poster referred to State averages and recommendations when deciding the number of administrators needed. The comment then asserts that the additional administrators have not improved the discipline at the high school. Continuing, the poster insinuates that the monies spent on administration come from direct instruction. If all of these were true, there might be a chance of calling the decision to keep the same number of administrators irresponsible.

I believe the real case to be quite different.

When we talk about State averages and recommendations, and particularly the EPS formula, a historical perspective is necessary. The concept of using an EPS formula came from the legislature, just like the consolidation rules, to have a way to control the amount of money that would be available to the schools. The state is on the hook to pay, or try to pay, an increasing portion of the education costs. In order to keep this in check they defined an “Essential” amount that they would control. Talking to the people who came up with the first numbers, you will find out that the numbers are essentially a “curve fit” that came up with the same total cost as the districts spent the year it was instituted. There are all sorts of regional factors and growth factors, enough to make the whole thing a mystery, and yet somehow still wear the mantle of “essential” and “accurate”. I don’t agree it is or can be.

The administrators are not just there as disciplinarians, even though they need to wear that hat occasionally. Administrators provide organization and communication. They have created professional communities for teachers to increase consistency of instruction and more efficient planning and preparation. The administrators have found the reductions that have allowed this budget to be less than last year. Administrators are attempting to integrate the various functions performed by the many different people at the school into a more efficient, accessible whole. Administrators work to keep new initiatives focused on the real problems. Many of the best ideas brought forward and implemented were championed by the building administrators.

The final point, identifying the monies spent on administration as somehow coming from direct instruction, misses the real issues faced when preparing a budget. If the assertion were true, then it would also have to be true that the total budget is somehow a fixed amount. This year the budget is much smaller than in the past, and yet the core instruction has been preserved for the most part. Other new items have been approved by the board because they reflect the changing demands placed on the district. When needs arise in the district, the administration has worked with the board to find a way to meet the needs. This is as it should be.

My final contention; this budget has the correct mix of funding for the year coming up.

If you wish to vote against the budget, exercise your right. If you wish to publish your opinion, exercise your right. If you want to gain another perspective or have your understanding prevail show up, exercise another of your rights, and engage in the public debate.

Administration at the high school is above the state average and above the state recommendations.
Technically, there are four administrators (and 4 administrative support staff) in the front office of the high school. Once upon a time, when the numbers were more than they are now, the Athletic Director filled in when needed.
There has been little improvement in terms of discipline at the high school according to students, parents, and staff members since the addition of a second Assistant Principal.
Cutting direct instruction and keeping the administrative positions in the district as they are is truly irresponsible. I have never voted down a budget before, but I will if administration is kept as is.
April 27, 2009 8:45 PM

I think allocating funds for a resource officer would be worthwhile and beneficial. The high school can make do with two guidance counselors, as the numbers are on the decline. It seems as if the cuts we make directly impact the kids. Let’s start trimming from the administration. The high school has 3 administrators, with numbers decreasing, let’s eliminate one. That would save the resource officer and some of the Language Programming, etc. Unless I am uninformed, administration at the high school is above the state average.
April 27, 2009 3:13 PM

I would like to thank everyone in the school budget process for their efforts and their consideration of the input given by the members of the community. It is a daunting task to weigh the needs of our children against the financial challenges of the times and determine the ideal balance. Your efforts are sincerely appreciated.

In attending the budget workshops I have learned a lot about both the community and the process. I have voiced my concerns but not as eloquently or thoroughly as I would have preferred. At this time I would like to thank those who have realized the importance of the performing arts to this community and the student population, and are willing to revisit it in relation to the coming budget. Music is a learning tool, a universal language, and gives many of our students a way to make their unique voice heard in their school community. Thank you.

I feel it is also important to ask you to reconsider your support of both the Resource Officer position and guidance staffing cut. Safety, especially in our current times, is paramount for our children. Prevention is what every parent wants, not just a response after something has happened at our schools. Having that law enforcement presence at the middle and high schools is a deterrent to some who might consider illegal or harmful acts, and a comfort to children and parents. As pointed out by a committee member, by having that officer we are also minimizing response time when minutes can count.

I believe the guidance position should also be retained in order to adequately deal with the issues of adolescence, course selections, college preparation and all the other challenges that surface during the freshman through senior high school years, we need more than two staff members at the high school. How long would a student need to wait to meet with their guidance counselor if they are one of 290? During the enrollment period for the next year’s classes, how many students would really be able to sit down and discuss options and college strategies with their counselor when they were one of 290? And in a time of crisis at the school, addressing the needs of 290 students per guidance counselor would be an overwhelming task.

I would rather see these positions kept and seek help through the community with things like the equipment purchases. Parents have businesses and talents that in times like this could be recruited. Maybe there’s a parent out here that could help with the use of the equipment to change the light bulbs, or donate other goods and services in order to offset the costs. Appeal to our local businesses for support. It not only helps the schools, but it promotes community spirit as well. These are times for creative thinking to meet the needs of our children and our community. We are all willing to pay a bit more if it truly means our children will benefit with a well-rounded education in a safe environment.

Thank you for your time, and the opportunity to voice my concerns and thoughts.
April 27, 2009 2:13 PM

These ideas and input about the budget and the impact on taxes are very important. Please share this blog opportunity with other members of the community so we can hear from as many people as possible in order to continue to move forward and reduce cuts which impact the quality of programs.
April 27, 2009 10:58 AM

Is the administration more interested in having second graders learn Spanish once a week for 30 minutes or having high schoolers learn a language before going to college? Why would we cut a half position when the enrollment figures show a strong interest in foreign language? Will the one tenth of one percent savings in the budget really affect our taxes that much?

If you want to review the foreign language program, I suggest looking at the middle school where two full time teachers are teaching students, who after two years of Spanish, still must enroll in Spanish I at the high school. Last year, the time kids had for the spanish program was cut by almost onethird. I think you could get rid of the required 30 minutes daily of silent reading (which is in addition to 80 minutes daily of language arts – so almost two full hours of english a day!) and substitute daily foreign language – the kids might actually learn enough to move onto Spanish II – some meaningful instruction.
April 27, 2009 7:24 AM

I still have some serious concerns regarding the foreign language program at the high school. Based on enrollment numbers provided by Mr. Penna, 177 students have asked for first year language classes, 90 of whom have requested Latin. Since 40 to 45 students would not be able to fit into a Latin class, those remaining students would need to be divided up among the other 5 sections of either French or Spanish I creating class sizes of 28 or 29 per class. How can we cut back on a foreign language teacher “due to lack of enrollment” when we may have class sizes of nearly 30 kids in a class. No other class in the high school has anywhere near that number (except chorus which is supposed to be large).
We have committed to increasing our foreign language offerings at the younger grades but are cutting back at the high school or asking students to be in much larger classes than in any other subject. Perhaps the cut should be only .3 rather than .5 at the high school to accomodate the kids who want to learn.
The School Board had asked a committee to propose new graduation requirements, one of which was to require at least two years of foreign language. Those recommendations were postponed due to the state wanting to impose its own recommendations. If we truly believe that a good education for students in a global economy includes foreign language, and we have the numbers of students who are interested, we should revisit the cut in the foreign language position (especially since most colleges require some foreign language and we are trying to increase the number of students who go on to college).

We have a great elementary program. Before we make a final decision about cutting 2 out of the 3 kindergarten ed tech positions I hope we are looking at the number of kids and per teacher. I feel as long as we do not have anymore children enter at Russell things might be able to squeak by with only 1 K Ed Tech but if there are any more new kindergarten enroll we will need to look at the numbers and rethink the decision. As long as the board is willing to do that I am comfortable with the decision.

As a parent I am willing to pay a little more to make sure my children have the best possible educational experience as they can. School can be hard enough on everyone. Let’s make sure our teachers have the support they need. I think we need to get back to basics more instruction in class and less testing for results. If our teachers cannot teach because they are testing our children will not be able to learn.