Posts
I spent time on Tuesday night crawling through the suggested cuts, here's what I found:
- Class Sizes will increase across the county. The Superintendent says that this will result in mixed-grade classes at some schools.
- Two thirds of the positions cut are teachers or teaching assistants
- The cost of living increase was eliminated, cutting the requested pay increase in half
- 50% of the cuts are salary cuts and elimination of teaching positions
- 50% of new teachering positions planned for next year were cut
- The average salary of a cut position is under $50K
I already have a list of changes I want to see to this proposal. I will wait until after tonight's public input session before finalizing that list, and I will write more about those in the coming days.
10 Comments:
Cuts should start from the top down and Hatrick should by example cut his absolutely enormous salary in half. I will also add raising the tax rate will say Loudoun is closed for business and the might as well stay closer in to DC.
I really do sympathize that the schools are going to have to cut back and hopefully you all and the BOS start working on next years budget because the real estate is not going to get better but worse. Raising taxes will actually have a negative affect on business growth and more foreclosed homes and property values. So there may even be less money next year. I will post some of my ideas later this year on how to raise more money for the school district.
My first impression when reading through the proposed cuts was that this was too easy. If these are painful cuts, then the budget and administration really are bloated and out of touch.
But let's look at your comments.
1- Increasing class size. It's about time. This is a small move that improves things at the margins. It could also reduce the number of displaced kids and split families that are bused across the county due to slight "over-enrollment" at some schools. Increases in class size in the range we are talking about here in Loudoun have never been shown to reduce student performance. As for Hatrick's comments about mixed grade classes, without a full explanation it just sounds like he is trying to use fear as a screen to keep people from understanding this is no big deal.
2. Cutting teachers. Except that nobody has been cut. It is only a reduction in the number of new positions. And you need to check your math, only 23 of the 201 FTE's are cuts in teachers & assistants. You can't count the 36 FTE's for ESL because the document acknowledges they are no longer needed. The 100 FTE's for reducing class size specifically state there is no RIF. Not sure how they come up with 100 FTE's but it apparently does not actually cut anyone. That looks more like 12.5%, not 66%.
3. Cut pay increase in half. The pay increase was too big to begin with considering the revenue position the government is faced with. Teachers and district employees need to suck it up along with the rest of us. But the proposal states that everyone gets 2% STEP and an average of 3% across the scale. Sounds like a decent pay raise, especially considering that everyone keeps their job. Only in government is it assumed that employees are entitled to pay raises for COLA and each year of seniority. We need to stop this practice across the board and base pay raises on merit and measurable accomplishment. But that requires some original thinking and challenging of conventional orthodoxy. Haven't seen much of that around here.
4. 50% of cuts affect teachers and salary. Please stop playing politics with your wording. There are no cuts in salary or positions, just reductions in salary increases and fewer new hires. Maybe next year we can try for actual cuts in salaries or admin positions or both.
5. 50% of new teachering (sic) positions were cut. Without some analysis to prove these non-hires significantly and negatively affect the districts ability to conduct its core mission, then there is no problem.
6. Average cut position under $50K in salary. Thus if you were to cut higher salaried positions fewer jobs would have been eliminated. Unless that's your plan this is a meaningless point.
I also noticed that the cuts include delaying the implementation of addtional paid holidays for full year employees. Who in their right mind thinks we, the taxpayer, should be giving 12 paid holidays? Most companies give 6-8. The federal government only gives 10. This is would be laughable if it weren't such a sad indication of the overall waste in the budget.
Finally, I see one small but interesting opportunity in these cuts. Cutting $4.2M and delaying new science texts. Why don't we see if some of the high tech companies here in Loudoun might be willing to donate to a fund to buy these texts? It could lead to all kinds of opportunities for business to support the schools through donations and scholastic sponsorship.
I will be interested to see what happens. I hope the board will do a better job on oversight of this budget next year when the revenue conditions will likely be even worse.
M. Prell, your points would be valid if enrollment weren't growing by 3,270 students next year. The rest your uninformed anti-school drivel frankly makes me roll my eyes and turn my attention to the many parents who are just as concerned about the level of spending as you are but who are also concerned about school quality and have taken the time to get their facts straight.
Wow Mr. Stevens, calling Prell's response "drivel" is uncalled for. His detailed response was not only superbly researched, but properly worded and framed given the context of your posts. I am hoping M. Prell would run for your seat on the School Board, he has my vote.
Honestly, people can read through the lines. Just because there will be 3200 additional (supposed) students next year does not mean we should continue on a very dangerous path of no oversight of the school budget. For too many years the School Board and BOS have used the growth as a reason to overfund the school budget. Enough is enough, times are tough. Teachers are no exception to the fiscal crisis. Personally, I believe all will be fine once the complaining stops, and we will see that these budgetary restraints (as they are not cuts) were easy and reasonable.
You should be careful with your disdain for the "parents" and citizens of Loudoun that aren't in lock step with the PTA fembots. You stand a good chance of losing your reputation and perhaps your job.
M. Prell, Thanks for your post. I am sharing it with as many people as I can.
You chastise me for saying "drivel" and then call PTA moms "fembots"? That's some nerve. I know many PTA moms, some who agree with me on most things, some who disagree on most things, most who just take the time to raise funds and volunteer for their kids' school and don't get involved in politics. They are all champions and I will not forgive people who insult them.
The problem is that M. Prell's writing isn't researched at all, it's full of holes and after a while I sometimes just don't know where to begin to combat the inaccuracies.
1. "reduce the number of displaced kids and split families that are bused across the county due to slight 'over-enrollment' at some schools". Is there any research here? No. There is baseless rhetoric.
2. "nobody has been cut. It is only a reduction in the number of new positions." Any research? No. More kids, fewer teachers per kid. That's a cut.
3. "The proposal states that everyone gets 2% STEP and an average of 3% across the scale." This is wrong too, read it again. Average step is 3%, longevity step is 2%. You may think this is too much, and you're welcome to argue that, but my facts are right and yours are sloppy.
4. "Please stop playing politics with your wording. There are no cuts in salary or positions, just reductions in salary increases and fewer new hires." Again, these are cuts to the proposed budget, I haven't played politics with the words here, you have because you ignore the 6% annual increase in enrollment. If I was playing politics I wouldn't be so blunt as so say that you don't know what you're talking about, would I?
5. Without some analysis to prove these non-hires significantly and negatively affect the districts ability to conduct its core mission. This is my favorite one because it shows the writer's true colors. This writer doesn't care about quality of schools. He wants to see damage, he wants to see pain for its own sake. You're damn right our job is to make sure we DON'T "significantly and negatively affect the districts ability to conduct its core mission." I might also note that asking for additional analysis is asking for additional administrators.
6. Again not only shows no research, it shows no imagination. It's just a diatribe.
I will fight for paid vacation days for custodians, maintenance workers and others who work all year around to make this a great school system and before last year had NO paid vacation. This year, just four days. We'll give them eight days next year if we can find the money, and twelve days the year after that if I have anything to say about it. Everybody who thinks these folks have cushy, over-paid jobs is invited to apply for one.
Finally, and this one applies to Lee J and others as well:
"Why don't we see if some of the high tech companies here in Loudoun might be willing to donate to a fund to buy these texts?" Yes, why don't you? Everybody who thinks that PTOs, teachers, principals, administrators, School Board Members, the Loudoun Education Foundation and the business community isn't constantly scrounging for privately donated items, services and cash display that they don't have the slightest experience with how we operate. So how about this... why don't you go find somebody to donate those books? Answer: You're an armchair quarterback.
I see these same weak arguments made in comment after comment, here, on other blogs and newspaper websites. I think the problem is that it's easier to do regurgitate what you saw somebody else write on another blog than to research the facts. I think I'll find the time to make an FAQ to dispute all of the bogus junk I get tired of seeing nobody rebut.
Mr. Stevens, I am one of those moms that donates time to the classroom and PTA events, and endless money for fundraisers, so your assumption that I am some crank is absurd. The problem is my PTA is full of politics, and the same 10 people have been running the PTA for the past 5 years, just in different capacities. I do call them fembots because they take serious marching orders from some "unknown" force out there. I ASSume it is either the School Board or our elem school's administration, because the verbage of their emails and discussions is exactly like yours and some of the more open teachers. Don't tell me this isn't politics.
Frankly, it is humerous that you are complaining about input (aka regurgitation) when you set up this site for - well, input. I am tired of the regurgitation on your side of the arguement as well, so na-nanny boo-boo, that's life. It appears you are upset that people are speaking out. The comments posted in previous entries is mostly none (0), so now tht you have a couple people speaking up it is regurgitation.
Your FAQ would be welcome. Just putting the words "that's a cut" next to something does not make it so. Please expect some disagreement, after all, you set up this site for discussion (rhetorical or regurgitated), but apparently you only like discussion that includes agreement on all issues.
Lastly, I will thank you for the push for paid holidays for the custodial staff - I did not even realize the situation until a couple years afo. It is not all about teachers, there is plenty of staff that does not enjoy the rosey smiles that teachers do. I have a friend that works for FFX County as a HS Principal and he shed some light on the custodian's responsibilities that I did not realize. Again, thanks for looking out for the non-glamorous employees, schools do not operate without them.
Yes, you are right, you are right.
This is a place for input, and I certainly don't want to hear only from people who agree with me.
The comments section belongs to readers, not to me. Thank you for reminding me of that.
Well, I guess we need to define our terms or this will be a lesson in how semantics can shape poor decisions.
Up for discussion, the word "cut".
Thanks for hosting this blog. Mr. Stevens, I downloaded the LCPS budget proposal and quite frankly some of the metrics and rational mean nothing to me to me without a baseline look at details. Where would one go to get the position title/desription and salary information for each of the FTE administrative/overhead positions that LCPS has budgeted? I'm not talking about the teachers. Just the administrative management and support staff. When I worked for the US Seanate my salary and position were public information and published each year in the Report of the Secretary. I was hoping LCPS has a similiar document and if not why? Thank you.
Interesting. I get busy for a few days and don't check this blog and I miss out on Mr. Stevens attacking me on his comment board. No worries, though. My comments were pointed and directed at him so I am not surprised. And he consistently disparages those on this board who disagree with him. I am still incensed with his manipulation of the PTA's in his attempt to push his agenda. Maybe that anger spilled over into my comments a bit. It seems that other parents out there could relate to that, though.
I thank the commenters here who appreciated my comments. Edmund's simple statement/question about the definition of the word "cut" was wonderful. Hopefully Mr. Stevens will understand the point when made this simply.
I doubt that anyone will read these comments at this point since this post is several days old. I will dispense with defending my original comments except on one.
Class size and the forced bussing of children and splitting of families. It seems Mr. Stevens is ignorant of the district's policies here.
I moved into Loudoun county last August. As such I feel I have a fresh perspective on most things. But specifically on the issue of over-enrollment and forced bussing.
I came within a week of having my children bussed across town because 1st grade at my ES was over-enrolled by 3 children total. This is out of 5 classes. Rather than allow three classes to have one extra student, I was required to have my son bussed to a different school. Now I also had a daughter in third grade. It was not automatic that she would accompany her brother. But I was told I could have her bussed along with her brother if I requested.
But if enrollment at our original school dropped, my son would be moved back at mid-year. I could ask to stay at the new school all year, but beyond that would be required to move my son back to the original school. But if I moved my daughter with my son, and while away 3rd grade filled up, then I was out of luck and she would go on the waiting list to return. I also was not given a choice of the school to which my children would be bussed. But it is obvious that the policy does not account for the connections children make within a school, to friends and teachers. All that mattered was not going over the dictated number for class size.
Having just moved into the neighborhood, it was difficult explaining to my children why they could not go to school with their new friends. The result was I had crying children even before the first day of school.
This was not some admin assistant at the school explaining this policy to me and getting it confused. This is what I confirmed when speaking to the asst. superintendent in charge of the policy.
Luckily, there were last minute changes in enrollment and I was not forced to have my kids bussed across the county.
Perhaps this is too esoteric a part of the impact of the class size policy for Mr. Stevens to be aware of. But it seems I struck a nerve and he decided it was easier to attack me as uninformed than actually look into the issue.
I won't claim to have researched the entire budget. But I read the changes and justifications listed by Dr. Hatrick on the website. It was not hard to see that Mr. Stevens was distorting the impacts of the cuts through selective wording so I called him on it. But attempting to use semantics to spin the issue is what I expect from politicians. I just hoped for better.
Post a Comment