Eleven District 150 schools will split $1.3 million earmarked for underprivileged students under a plan still being finalized by school officials.
Okay, remember those numbers: 11, $1.3 million.
But the plan, nearly doubling the number of schools designated as Title I, comes at a cost to 13 other schools within the district already receiving the grants.
Ah, so 13 other schools already receive Title 1 funding. If we take that number, plus the aforementioned 11 schools that will be added, we come up with 24 schools total. Got it.
Despite the district increasing the number of Title I schools from 15 to 24, it won’t receive any additional money.
Wait a minute. Now they’re saying 15 schools already receive Title I funding, but the total is still only going to be 24, which is an increase of 9. This must be a typo; I’m sure they meant to say “from 13 to 24.” Maybe the editor will catch it before the paper copy goes to press.
Essentially, it would redistribute the same $7.5 million it receives annually.
What? How did we get from $1.3 million to $7.5 million? From the article, it appears the $7.5 million is the total funding District 150 gets, and of that amount, $1.3 million is going to be going to the 11 additional schools. But how is that figured? How did they arrive at that number?
Enrollment at the 13 additional schools represents a combined 5,000 students.
I thought it was 11 additional schools. Thirteen was the number of schools “already receiving the grants,” wasn’t it? This is so confusing!
Of the little more than $7.5 million District 150 receives, $2.2 million is set aside for pre-school, $755,000 for professional development, $75,500 for parental involvement and $255,000 for administrative needs. The remaining $3.5 million goes directly to the schools.
$2.2 million, plus $755,000, plus $75,500, plus $255,000, plus $3.5 million equals $6,785,500. Where does the other “little more than” $714,500 go? That ain’t chump change, especially on an annual basis!
Not being factored in is some $4.4 million in federal stimulus money headed for Title I programs at District 150.
Good, because none of the other numbers are adding up anyway. Does anybody at 1 News Plaza have a calculator?
“Most professions promote and retain based on seniority.”
Most professions promote and retain based on performance.
there. fixed 🙂
I am curious about the turn-over in most professions. I would guess that most of them value experience and tend to keep those who are experienced and perform well. I do know that things have changed in that a person cannot expect to stay in a job for life–as it used to be. Erik, once again your idea might work for teachers if you can just figure out how their performance will be evaluated. I believe that when I started teaching tenure was granted after two years and that it’s now a four-year wait. That was a good change–certainly that gives administrators time to make a judgment about a teacher’s performance, etc. Another question: Would teacher unions still have a purpose if tenure were eliminated? If tenure were to be eliminated for teachers, would only one person–say, the principal–have total power in firing a teacher. In the business world, say at Caterpillar or State Farm Insurance, what is the process for firing an employee? How is performance evaluated–I could be wrong but I would guess there are some objective ways of evaluation. I am realizing that I know very little about these issues–it has been 55 years since I worked at Caterpillar or had any other private sector job.
“Erik, once again your idea might work for teachers if you can just figure out how their performance will be evaluated.”
Sharon, thanks.
Writing ‘if you can just figure out…” is an in, an opening, an opportunity for win-win, as Fisher, Ury and Patton would say.
I was in a meeting at the Chicago Federal Reserve a few days ago. One of the economists there commented there wasn’t anything so systematically wrong with social security and medicare that a handful of economists, sitting in a room for a few hours, couldn’t fix.
the hard part would be getting people to go along with the fix!
Now you are treading on my territory–that social security and medicare stuff! I would hope that handful of economists all would have mothers who are dependent on medicare. 🙂 I am amused at myself–in all these conversations, pretending that anything I say has any bearing whatsoever on how things will turn out–whether tenure will end or continue, etc.
Precinct:
The best teachers that I have ever seen do not have time to research and publish. They are more concerned with gaining feedback of their students’ learning and adjusting their plans to help their students’ meet objectives.
Research and writing doesn’t equal good teaching. This is very obvious at the university level also.
“Most professions promote and retain based on performance.” Ha ha! I get it.
“handful of economists, sitting in a room for a few hours,” OHHHH the irony!
Economists favor expanding competition and
market forces in education. Over two-thirds
(67.1%) agree that parents should be given
educational vouchers that can be used at government-
run or privately-run schools—Support for vouchers
is even stronger when they are to be used by
low-income parents or parents with children in
poorly-performing schools.
http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol3/iss9/art1/ by Robert Whapples
STEVE!!!!!! Right on! Let some one else write about the good teachers! The good teachers are too busy to write.
Erik: Please take no personal offense… this is meant professionally….
Ask five economists and you’ll get five different answers – six if one went to Harvard.
Edgar R. Fiedler
Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists.
John Kenneth Galbraith
I believe that economists put decimal points in their forecasts to show they have a sense of humor.
William Gilmore Simms
If all the economists in the world were laid end to end, it wouldn’t be a bad thing.
Peter Lynch
If all the economists were laid end to end, they’d never reach a conclusion.
George Bernard Shaw
Thirty years ago, many economists argued that inflation was a kind of minor inconvenience and that the cost of reducing inflation was too high a price to pay. No one would make those arguments today.
Martin Feldstein
Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while maintaining privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists.
Noam Chomsky
When better business decisions are made, economists won’t make them.
Herbert Prochnow
kcdad: Ha ha ha ha is correct! 🙂
Would those economists favoring education vouchers also favor competition as in eliminating the Federal Reserve? The Fed Res. has failed in ‘its’ stated objectives’ — just check their record over the past century. The Fed. Res. is masterful at creating their unstated objectives.
If all the economists were laid end to end, they’d never reach a conclusion.
George Bernard Shaw
Ah yes, a great quote from Mr. Fabian Socialist himself!
Let the free market really be the free market instead of all the meddling by the Fed. Res., IMF, World Bank et al by the toxic siblings of the creature from Jekyll Island.
Sorry Karrie…. an unrestrained free market ends up in monopoly… no exception.
And you base that assumption on what kcdad?
kcdad: And what do you call what we have currently? Oh, a monopoly. Or have you not noticed that Warren Buffet has his money in many markets. Here is a ‘current’ example. California real estate. Foreclosures in California have been stalled for months because the government ‘froze or held’ the foreclosure market. Wells Fargo used to send the forecloures / REO’s to all different types of real estate firms (including Coldwell Banker). Voila! Warren Buffet has a ‘new’ interest in Wells. Buffet has an ‘interest’ in Prudential California. Hum, now the Wells Fargo foreclosures are only going to Pru California. Interesting …. source: my brother who has been a real estate broker for more than 35 years in California who actively works in the foreclosure market for years …….
No sirree, no monopoly there ……….. keeps profit margins higher too!
11Bravo… reality, or History if you prefer. Are you unfamiliar with the reasons behind The Sherman anti-trust legislation?
kcdad: Hilarious — not! And so Congress passes the Federal Reserve act approximately 23 years later. From Wikipedia ….
The Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act,[1] July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. § 1–7) was the first United States Federal statute to limit cartels and monopolies. It falls under antitrust law.
The Federal Reserve —oops — a cartel!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj0JAfq4esk&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXlxBeAvsB8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fshankystechblog
Alan Grayson on the Worst Deal Since Manhattan Was Sold for $24 in Trinkets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-DOwLnQ4nk&feature=related
Very disturbing ….. and so it goes!