Posts
The superintendent's recommended budget changes remained largely intact last night through several attempts by members of the school board to reinstate various positions on his list. The only two changes approved were the implementation of Full-Day Kindergarten to three of the four under-enrolled elementary schools (Aldie, Middleburg, Lincoln and Hillsboro). The School Board did not determine which of the three schools would benefit from the program. The Superintendent asked the School Board not to create the program because we do not have a path forward to Full-Day Kindergarten in all schools, primarily because of space limitations.
The second change was in support of our classified employees, who will receive two more paid holidays than last year, for a total of six. The original plan called for four additional days to be implemented but on the whole the Board felt limited by this year's budget restrictions.
While some of the funds for the changes come from a small reduction in the number of interactive whiteboards to be purchased, the Board did not respond to my strong push to remove the whiteboards from the budget and so next year each Middle School will be fully outfitted with them, as the High Schools were this year.
Over the course of the evening additional cuts came to light as members attempted to cut purchases that, as it turned out, were already cut by the Assistant Superintendents to meet their 5.8% reduction commitments. For example, when I looked for funds for speech therapists by cutting the new PFHS scoreboard and new expiring security stickers, we were informed that they had already been cut over the course of the past week. I think that parents, teachers and other school staff will discover many small cuts like these, primarily once school opens again in the fall.
I commend the LCPS headquarters staff, who worked very hard all through the budget season and balanced this budget by keeping the impact out of the classroom as best they could. They do an excellent job throughout the year.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Final Budget Votes, FY09
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 Comments:
John, were you against the whiteboards in Jr HS or am I misreading?
I think having interactive whiteboards in Middle Schools is a good idea that does not have the support of the community. Because they do not have the community's support, I voted against them. The other members of the School Board feel that the whiteboards do have community support, and voted for them.
Is it possible to list the "new initiatives" that LCPS had proposed in its original budget in November that have been eliminated due to insufficient funds from the County and State? I think it is very important for the public to know what they will not be getting.
Seems to me that funding full-day kindergarten county-wide should get preference over any new technology, no matter how useful.
The New Initiatives were listed on page 13 of the School Board's adopted budget executive summary. Total FTEs: 28. Total cost: $1,996,328.
Provide additional secretarial assitance in the largest elementary schools beginning in January 2009. (cut)
Expand the full day Kindergarten program to the only four additional elementary schools in the county with current underenrollment (now 3 schools).
Provide itinerant custodial staff to cover absences and peak work loads. (cut)
Provide a living wage for all custodians by moving them from a classified level 5 to level 6. (altered)
Career and technical education allotments. (cut)
John, that's less than 2 million.
I'm referring to what the full funding of the budget would have covered.
Sorry, I understood you to mean the "New Initiatives" part of our budget, which was indeed less than $2M. You can find complete budget information on the LCPS website (see the "FY09 Budget Information" link in the right sidebar) and throughout this blog (click the "Budget" category in the issues list on the right sidebar.
So the doom and gloom predictions of the School Board members - the horrendous impact that the budget cuts would have on our children's education if they came to pass - did not come true. What a shocker! Once again, the Board members used the usual scare tactics to stir up parental support via the PTAs and PTOs, and yet when push came to shove, the cuts that were approved have little to no impact on our children's education.
Michele, the sky did not, in fact, fall. Chicken Little was wrong.
We have yet to see the real impact this reduction in the budget will cause. The new teacher positions that were cut (and those that move on to better money in Fairfax..with a lower tax rate as was mentioned) will affect your children down the road more so than right this instant. Yes, teachers will still do the best job they can...that is why we are professionals, which may be a surprise to some.
In my experience, cutting teaching positions means loading/overloading classes with more bodies. This is fine for some, but in a class of 30-34 (mixed ESL, LD, ADHD, SPED, 504, Advanced, Repeat Students, ED) students with varying range...I tend to teach to the middle level. The advanced are bored, and potential management problems, the low levels are lost, and without an assistant/team teacher, there is little class time to help them. Also, because certain students require special attention every minute..this takes away from quality time I could offer the "good, quiet" kids that can benefit from a little more personal attention.
At least I have the Promethean boards to better engage all levels of students. This tool, and other tech tools, are what is going to best prepare our students for the global society. The education they learn is background foundation..the skills (social, metacognition, team-work, and technological) are what is going to propel them to succeed in any environment.
Anonymous...let's just hope one of your kids isn't in one of these larger classes...because then you would just have something else to complain about.
Teacher, I'm curious what you think about the notion of people that have children pay a higher rate ($1.21) and those without children a lower rate ($1.14).
Anyone else?
Although I'm not the anonymous teacher, Edmund, I would like to respond to your suggestion. A group of people who come together for their mutual benefit is a society, a country, a civilization. We must all contribute equally or else we start pitting one need against another. I don't have a public library anywhere near me, but I'm willing to pay taxes to support them. I've never needed aid (food, clothing, etc.)from a government entity, but I certainly want to pay for those services for those who do. I'm not much of an outdoorsy person and have never been to a park in Loudoun County, but I want to have parks. My husband and I are retired (from another state) but I want the children in Loudoun County to have a good education. Maybe my husband and I will have grandchildren some day. Maybe you will, or maybe you have relatives here or in other states who will have children. There are a great many county services I've never used and never plan to use, but my fellow citizens do. We are not part of this great country just to look out for ourselves, we are privileged to be able to help others and, who knows, maybe when we are old, they'll still be willing to look out for us!
Well, the notion that we all contribute equally to society would be great in practice. As you know it doesn't happen.
Please don't take my suggestion as saying that some should pay nothing and some should pay all. Rather some pay more and some less. This has already been proposed with "material fees" for parents to pay in SB discussions.
Someone paying the lower rate (who are without school age children) is still paying 70 percent to LCPS and contributing to the education of those that will make up our future. Just not as much as those who demand more from the system.
Edmund, the post after yours sums it up perfectly. We all (society)owe it to the next generation to provide the best opportunity for their success....and ultimately our generation. I understand the frustration some may feel by having to pay taxes for schools, and yet they have no children in the school. But, again as a society we need to help this generation, and our society (I think more so than previous ones, due to the global competition for jobs).
So, Edmund, when those children grow up and become contributing members to society, should they look upon you and say, "You only contributed to a portion of my education. Therefore, I can/will only contribute a portion of my taxes to the transportation dept. that clears the street of snow in front of your house or the police officer that patrols your neighborhood. After all you turned your back on me when I needed your help the most." Are you saying this should be a society in which we only give as good as we get?
Edmund's split tax rate is silly, are we going to have gov't trackers to see who is tell the truth? You created a whole new bureacracy.
As for the snarky teacher, buck up. With a poor outlook you may end up accentuating the negative. Teachers have been teaching to the middle for hundreds of years, what's new? I feel sorry for the teacher's that have to deal with difficult parents because Johnny is "truly brilliant" or "needs additional help" but please know that I advocate parental involvement in every step of their education. Simply put, I don't expect the schools to do it all. You'd be lucky to have me as a parent even if there were (which there probably will NOT be) 30 kids in a class. You see, I am on your side, I just don't think you realize it.
There are plenty of hard jobs out there, some much more dangerous and difficult for the exact same starting salary ALL YEAR LONG. Hopefully you became a teacher because of your passion for teaching, as most civil servants do. You contribute to the society you touted in response to edmund, some payment is not monetary.
As as far as teacher's moving to FFX County, I doubt it. The starting pay difference is minimal. If they want spend the money to move or add on an additional 30 minutes to their commute each way (if they live west like most loco employees do) -they will add commuter $$ and time to their day. We all have to make these decisions every day, teachers are no different. If you are talking about attracting new teachers, cheaper housing from Loco on west is a plus for us, living in FFX County is still more expensive.
We'll see how far the sky has fallen next year, I suspect it will still be suspended in the sky.
Yikes.
I'm getting a lot of emotional responses here and would rather look a the proposal dispassionately.
I'll work from the bottom up:
I don't think a whole new bureaucracy would need to be created. The mechanisms for reporting children would be no more difficult than the current business tax method.
Jaelyn, there was a $100 "supply fee" being discussed (I don't know if there are supply fees currently in place). This fee seems more regressive than distributing the fee over the population with children. How do you feel about the supply fee?
I need to think about your snow removal scenario some more, but at first blush this seems to be happening right now. There are elderly people that do not get the services that children (students) get currently. Our society has decided to invest much more in the people of the future than it does in the people of the past. As we see our country age, this may change.
The reciprocal nature of your snow scenario (you pay this to me so I own this to you) I think may fall into the Red Herring category. But I will think about it some more.
Teacher, I want to discuss the merits, the pluses and minuses of the proposal. I agree we owe the next generation the best opportunity to succeed. But you would agree that there are other considerations and real choices that need to be made in the present day society. Your position can't be that all our investment goes to education can it?
So it comes to where and how to draw lines. That's where the rubber meets the road here and where we need to be talking with our hearts AND our minds.
John --
I think you were right in voting against the whiteboards at this time.
Though I think these would be a great asset in any classroom, I don't think current circumstances warrant being early adapters of this technology accross the entire system.
Prediction: In three years, this technology will be far more capable and cost half of what it does now.
No need to rush.
Paul Gilmore
Edmunds proposal is intriguing. The negative replies are interesting. But I wonder if those who are so strongly opposed to the idea of differing property tax rates make the same argument about differing income tax rates?
I suspect not, which is unfortunate because they are right. We are all part of a society based on freedom and justice. We must contribute equally or it becomes a continual us against them battle, with the politicians playing off both sides in order to maintain their positions of power.
I say no to Edmunds question, and assert that we must extend the equal application of taxes and fees (which are just a form of tax) to everyone.
m. prell,
Which is more fair in this instance in your view:
A regressive tax?
A progressive tax?
A proportional tax?
Edmund,
The question of fairness is always interesting. It so often depends on perspective and philosophy, and in this case the base assumptions.
To me, a fixed tax is the most fair. Everyone pays the same amount. I see this as a per person tax, so a family of four would pay more than a family of two.
You may want to call this a regressive tax. But I find that term to be primarily a matter of politics and spin. The "regressivity" generally depends on what you choose for comparison. A fixed tax may be deemed regressive when compared to income. But not regressive if compared to government services consumed.
But a fixed tax is likely not something that could be implemented now. It is too different to sell politically.
Given that boundary condition, I would argue that proportional is the most fair. Everyone should pay the same percentage of whatever base measure is being used. Nobody feels unfairly singled out. Those higher on the income or property value scale pay more in absolute terms, which some people seem to require when judging fairness.
"Everyone should pay the same percentage of whatever base measure is being used."
So I think we are somewhat on the same page here, we just disagree on the base measure. I think a blending of property and use would be more fair that just using the base measure of property.
What is the downside to that blending?
Post a Comment