I heard about this late last night:
The School Board on Tuesday approved seeking $14 million in tax-anticipation warrants, amounting essentially to a short-term loan, and spending tax money – now some $30 million – usually reserved for next year’s operations.
“We don’t have cash on hand to pay bills in a timely fashion,” said Brock Butts, a former longtime Tremont school superintendent recently hired as District 150’s interim controller, citing “concerns” of meeting payroll next week….
“In the future, we are going to have to do one of three things,” [Interim Treasurer Norm] Durflinger said. “One, significantly cut expenditures; two, significantly increase revenues; and the most likely is the third, which is both.
Hello, higher taxes.
Uh Oh.
Maybe the Museum Group can lend Dist 150 a few million.
All my questions about District 150 finances are based on ignorance, but – Is there any explanation as to why this “surprise” $30 million debt surfaced in a relatively short time? Two months ago did anyone predict this situation? Why or why not? Have the new controller, treasurer, or budget committee explained this debt to the public as promised?
When the decision-makers begin to decide from where the cuts will come, will the top-heavy administration (and unnecessary programs, frills, etc.) make significant sacrifices or will the sacrifices come from those who work the closest with students on a day-to-day, hour by hour basis? How about the consultants–how much are they really needed?
CJ have you gotten the results of your consultant FOIA yet?
Maybe Cat can give 150 that 47 million and in return 150 can close the Wisconsin White House and turn it into a Caterpillar Visitor Center.
Today’s PJS article did attempt to explain some of the reasons for the district’s financial problems. However, in the list of possible cuts to be considered, I didn’t see any suggestion of central administrative cuts. Perhaps closing schools automatically means a cut in building administrators, but shoulldn’t there be cuts in the central administration, also?
When figures for salaries are given by the district, do we ever see a breakdown based on teacher vs administrative costs? Most of the time, I believe they are all lumped together. I think it would interesting to see the breakdown.
“…the most likely is the third, which is both (cut expenditures, increase revenues).”
translation: fewer teachers (remember the ‘soft freeze’ in effect when these new admins and accountant were hired? neither do they) and a push for higher taxes. Of course, D150 won’t need as many teachers because the kiddies will be spending so much time learning at the Amazeum.
if a big concern is meeting payroll, maybe these over-paid admins should volunteer some of their salary to help make budget. nah, probably ask the teachers union to forego contractual raises.
“Two months ago did anyone predict this situation? Why or why not? Have the new controller, treasurer, or budget committee explained this debt to the public as promised?”
I’ll try and respond, but don’t know that it qualifies as an answer.
1. The district is cash starved. The primary revenue sources, other than the property tax, is state revenues. The state is way behind in payments and the property tax doesn’t come in until early fall. The district appears to be in the same situation they were in at the end of the year when they needed to borrow for payroll.
2. I’m not sure all the issues have been reported. Our committee meets tonight, and we weren’t explicitly told there would be a ‘special meeting’ to authorize short-term bonds last week. I suspect we may be afforded a little more detail. Two things could be going on:
a. the CPPRT makes up a significant proportion of total education fund revenues. If it’s tanking completely, which to some degree sustained double-digit drops would meet that definition, then you have to size a borrowing to enable yourself to get through to some future date. Think if you got paid twice a year, and maybe one or two supplemental income sources in addition. You budget your mortgage payments and other things based on those two payments a year and try to prop up the rest with the other supplemental income. What’s happening is the other supplemental income is not coming in, as it has in the past.
b. the full scope of the district’s shortfall is not yet know. It’s well known the backup for financial data is akin to confetti so while the newly “hired” (they work on contract) controller/finance guys are worried about day to day, an assessment of the fiscal condition must also be done.
We are receiving a presentation tonight from a firm that specializes in coming into an Illinois school district, for a cost of roughly $8,000 and spending about a month on “forensic” accounting (in the sense that they can boil down a lot of financial data quickly and accurately based on audit papers), and creating a financial model of where the district is at exactly. It could be that the district may not know for another month on what financial footing it truly stands upon. We are seeking independent, outside assistance because of the state of the information available, the credibility of the group under review, and the time frame under which they can turn this around. If you look at Hinton’s time frame for decision-making, which has been available on the website for a good deal of time now, the board will get this information about the same time as it must make the primary school closure decisions.
3. Just a reminder that the budget committee is a group of finance professionals from outside of the school business model. While finance is finance, we must recognize our own limitations in being able to provide product to the district. That, and we’ve only met twice, once for introductions and the second meeting, last week, to get a clearer vision of what it is we can, and will be able to do. To that end, we’re looking at issues like communication, trust, business practices, benchmarking, and functional cost analysis (by functional, I mean building-level).
There IS a lot going on, but not all of it is coordinated, and not all of it is in tandem. At the budget committee level, we’re not necessarily working on issues of running the day to day of the district. But I think we’re trying to identify ways to influence that culture.
erik
WOW – a $30 million mortgage against next year’s revenue! A review of the District 150 budget for the FY 08-09 as adopted last September reveals on page 5 their budget was $61,891,236 for ad valor em taxes levied. Assuming that number is relatively close to what they will receive also next year for FY 09-10 then basically they are borrowing nearly one half of that in advance. Mind you that is not speeding up the recognition of revenue but is speeding up the use of the money for current year operations. What then happens is when the District receives the money in FY 09-10 they are obligated to immediately pay the banks back which reduces their cash for next year. What a vicious circle! The BOE may have gotten rid of Cahill who knows where the bodies were buried, but Hinton is more culpable as it was his responsibility to provide the oversight and leadership. It’s time for Hinton to go!
Eric Bush: Your candid input is greatly appreciated.
Thanks Sharon.
What I think we (committee) are trying to concentrate on is some of what’s mentioned above, the cycle the district is in. Since 2004 or 2005, this borrowing has occurred in some form or another; in one year it was teacher warrants (essentially a debit loan to meet payroll). The district has used short term borrowing every year for many years. This is not a sudden occurrence.
The reasons for districts (in general, a lot do) to use short term borrowing are two-fold; timing of revenue receipts and structural in-balance. In D150’s case, it is both. Yes, the state is behind on a some payments, that should not be discounted.
What everyone needs to get their arms around is the black and white fact that the district is operating in a structural deficit, year after year after year after year after year. Add 2009 and 2010 on to that and and it should then make sense WHY the size of the borrowing has increased (now $30 million), and why school closures are on the table. Everything starts with the numbers. Getting the best, most accurate, picture of the numbers facing the district is in the best interest of everyone.
Eric, I know that I’m splitting hairs–and showing my own prejudice as a retired teacher. However, when I read “teacher warrants (essentially a debit loan to meet payroll)” I would like the statement to make clear that “administrator” salaries are part of that payroll. I want the public to understand clearly that it isn’t just “teacher salaries” that are creating a deficit. I’m not picking on your statement–at all. It has always been customary to lump administrative salaries under teacher salaries–that can be misleading.
Also, I understand that deciding where to cut is not part of your assignment. Your willingness to share your thoughts and to help us “read between the lines” is most welcome.
I’m also wondering why so many teacher retirements over the last 10+ years hasn’t made a major difference in expenditures. I would think that the loss of so many veteran teachers would have made a financial difference. At least, I thought that was the purpose of offering early retirement incentives.
I know that some drastic cost-cutting measures will be necessary. I just hope that the District takes a long, hard look at the academic disadvantages of any cost-cutting measure before final decisions are made.
For instance, some years ago a cost-cutting decision was made to take away from the high schools all home economics and industrial arts classes and many other electives. I guess money was saved, but I believe money was lost because I believe the district lost student enrollment as a direct result of this major curriculur deficit. Certainly, District 150 students were big time losers.
Erik – As always, thanks for the great post.
I think an $8,000 forensic accounting expenditure sounds well spent. I understand that your Committee does not have all the knowledge and/or answers to the District’s problems but. . . your thoughtful blogs give me hope. It other members of the Committee are as committed as you and as generally knowledgeable about finance and accounting, at least there are finally individuals involved that can assess the state of things, once the dust settles. Many of us rant and rave because we simply have no confidence in the analytical and decision-making ability of some of the parties involved.
There are economic realities that some due not wish to face, primarily Administration. The District has been in a financial pickle for some time and yet continues to implement programs and make recommendations as though they are flesh with cash. Why such an expensive revamp of Manual? Why begin education at birth? And then turn around and cut primary school hours and the number of teachers. Sorry, I am just baffled by such action.
without malice: I agree with you 100%. I think the two guys brought in are great guys but all of this tells me Hinton is not capable of overseeing district operations. Period. I also heard on the radio the district may not be getting some grant money. Hmmm, could this be grant money that is supposed to be paying “consultants” salaries?
I too am curious about the FOIA about the consultants. Should be very interesting. Someone said the consultants would stay even without pay. Good, stop paying them and see how long they stay.
Erik,
When you said “We are receiving a presentation tonight from a firm that specializes in coming into an Illinois school district, for a cost of roughly $8,000 and spending about a month on “forensic” accounting (in the sense that they can boil down a lot of financial data quickly and accurately based on audit papers), and creating a financial model of where the district is at exactly. It could be that the district may not know for another month on what financial footing it truly stands upon.”
I think I have enough business acumen to understand your statement so I find it a little strange that District 150 needs to spend yet another $8K above and beyond the nearly $100K that they have already paid to Clifton Gunderson to audit their books and render an opinion. I realize the audit is a look backwards to what has already happened, but they also are looking forward to warn their client of obvious pitfalls and concerns. I believe the CG auditors have not yet cried fire in the hole, but have warned the BOE that they need to clean up their act. It might be part of why Cahill was “fired” but I just don’t follow why some outsider outfit in one month crunching the audit report for $8K will have more creditability or weight than that of the $100K auditors.
And lastly since Hinton is a great one to look for a quick fix with no in depth thought I wonder how they decided to borrow another $14 million before they hire this “forensic” firm for $8K to tell them where they “really” stand.
wm:
the auditors may not, can not, provide management decision-making. since this model is a decision-based model it’s not something the auditors can necessarily provide. what it does is allow for anyone to put in a variable, say, bump the student:teacher ratio up from 15:1 at the middle school level to, say, 22:1 and it will then spit out the impact, graphically, on the budget. It allows anyone to provide an assumption and will in turn demonstrate the result.
when dr. gorenz formed the committee, one of the things he was looking for was just this. our committee, while formed of very specialized finance people, simply felt the scope was too large for us given the time frame involved. this model allows the district to put up on a screen all the data people have been looking for. What if we did this, what if we did that? Those answers can now (or at least when the “base assumption model” is built in early April) be arrived at in moments, not days or weeks.
The “fire” has actually “been in the hole” for a number of years, at least since 2005 when the district first borrowed $16 million against future tax revenues. This is what’s known as a structural deficit. Every year since then, at some point in the year, they’ve had to go out and “re-borrow” that $16 million. This year, they reborrowed that money in January. The reason for the additional $14 loan is two-fold and both are on the revenue side.
Remember there is a difference between cash and revenue. Cash is how you execute your operations, revenue is what you collect in the course of operations. The district generally collects a lot of revenue from the state of Illinois, and uses that cash to pay its bills. At this time in years past, the state has typically made 2-3 multi-million dollar payments so the district had that cash on hand to pay its bills. This year, the district has only made one. Additionally, one major source of revenue is down something like $4 million. The difference between delayed payment and down is at least, sometime in the future, you will collect that delayed revenue. The problem with down revenue is its gone. Poof. So, what was a $16 million dollar hole carried from year to year is now a $20 million structural deficit in the operations funds.
“I wonder how they decided to borrow another $14 million”
They simply looked at their checkbook to determine how much cash they needed based on how much revenue wasn’t, or isn’t coming in.
The $8k is going to allow the board and public an ability to evaluate the cost of decisions made on everything from impact of retirements, to school openings or closures, to altering class ratio sizes. I feel comfortable stating it is a wise investment, should the board go forward with it.
The committee members were sensitive to the needs, but we only had six weeks to come up with this model had we tried to do it our selves. That’s based on the time line for the primary school closure decisions posted on the district’s website. The district has over 170 different revenue sources from local, state, and federal sources. 10-fold that on the expense side. We just felt we simply didn’t have the time to get the district, and community, what it needs in this regard in the time frame given.
sorry:
“This year, the district has only made one.” I meant, this year the state has only made one.
Additionally, this:
“It other members of the Committee are as committed as you and as generally knowledgeable about finance and accounting, at least there are finally individuals involved that can assess the state of things, once the dust settles.”
The committee members are an excellent group and I am honest when I state I am humbled to work with them. I chair the committee, but these folks are genuinely caring, intelligent, thoughtful, and demanding and I simply try and harness their energy and direct it toward the best good. Thank them, but there’s more work to do.
If your child were in a class with 30 children, how would you feel about the 22:1 ratio? I do wish the district could be honest about class sizes. If the average is 22, then, of course, that means that some classes are considerably over 22. Things would be much different if the contract read that “No class will have more than 22 students” for example.
Eric – Thank you for elaborating on the tools and analysis the District will have access to for its’ $8,000. Again, I think it sounds worth it. However, it is only going to be an effective process if the District is willing to put everything on the table.
Who determines what “variables” are entered into the model for consideration? There is a constant cry from this blog to reduce the number of administrators and/or at the very least have administration take a salary reduction. Is that a variable that will be placed in the model? What about elimination of the birth to infinity education concept, or the pecial feel good self-development program yet to come on line at Manual, or the myriad of home health facilitators employed by the District. My gosh, must all these things remain given the huge deficit?
As a parent of school-aged children, the very last variable I want placed in the model you describe is an increase in the pupil to teacher ratio. I sincerely hope that whoever is charged with selecting the variables for consideration digs a bit deeper than that.
Eric,
First of all, thank you. I appreciate your willingness to dialogue and ask/answer questions. I believe you are an asset to the committee and D150.
As a follow-up on Frustrated’s post, I too would ask that you keep in mind and question who determines the variables and what assurances, if any, there are that numbers given are an accurate reflection of D150 circumstances. I understand that you are inputting theoretical numbers with the model, but please bear with me.
One example, in re the average class size(s) reported for D150 at various levels: How have those numbers been determined and are the determiners measuring apples to apples or apples to everything else? My son’s Enriched Physics class and other high-level electives, the Life Skills and Orthopedic classes, AFJROTC classes, certain SPED classes, etc., will have lower class sizes, some mandated by state law. I believe there were 13-15 in my son’s class and I have personally observed many of the other classes cited above. A lot of them were less than 12:1. If classes such as these are included in the formulation of the D150 average they will naturally lower the ratio. The fact is the majority of classes may be well over whatever number the district uses as its average.
The point is that we (the public) don’t KNOW how these averages are arrived at. Do they include ALL classes including those with state-mandated lower numbers? If so, any current D150 average (say 22:1) would not be a valid number, so any cost projections re: current expenses would also be invalid. And since you will use those numbers for comparison with other inputs….
Sorry this is convoluted but I hope you can see where I am trying to go. And that is just one issue. I know it is not your job to say where cuts should be made, but be cautious with input numbers when implementing the model.
Thanks again for your commitment and hard work!
Erik, sorry, I just realized I spelled your name wrong in the above post. My apologies.
A model doesn’t really reflect absolutes, and it really wouldn’t be appropriate to base decisions solely on the output of a model. However, this is a tool the district sorely needs at this time in it’s life. The financial information is available, but the mental gymnastics and technical expertise and time required to put it all together and then present it is simply lacking.
Assumptions are only as good as those folks making them. In my opinion it sounds like there is a willingness to move forward on exploring assumptions with the public, but that is ultimately up to the district. Of course, and also my opinion, it is really a time when you need to bring people with you, at least as the business and educational rationale for recommendations is being explained. This will serve as another tool to do that explaining. Both the detail and the bigger picture level will be available.
Our task at the committee level was to identify or develop a model which allowed for graphical representation of the impact of policy decisions on the fiscal state of the district. We believe this does that. Board decisions still remain 1.) to actually accept the recommendation of the committee and engage the firm, and 2.) to decide at what level everyone is involved with interacting with the model.
Our second task is to work on recommendations regarding communication with the public. Larry Williams is on the committee and has been involved with school closure. The Honorable Norman Durflinger is on the committee as well with similar experience. They both made the most excellent observation relative to walking a community through the business-decision rationale AND the grief process. At our next meeting, which isn’t yet scheduled, we’ll be bringing some “best practices” forward for discussion relative to that. One would think it is as simple as being frank and laying it out on the table but there are some very human issues involved, outside the numbers, that need care and sensitivity in walking them through.
So, yeah. I think we’re all interested to see how this plays out and what the assumptions are; remember our goal is to provide the board members with an ability to explain these things in their neighborhoods in terms they need to use. The model is a tool to help craft a plan and communicate some of the issues involved. With the financial issues facing the district, a long-term and strategic vision needs to be cast. This simply helps work toward that.
Erik,
With what you just posted in mind, I hope that the district and the board will look at the most current data-driven research regarding optimum high school size (not class size) in relation to student retention and performance. Several non-scholarly articles were published in May 2008 Newsweek Magazine regarding the issue of smaller school size and success in urban schools. If you wish, I can give you links but I usually stink at links! BTW, smaller school size and learning communities seems to be where the district went in re Manual HS restructuring. If it’s good enough for MHS, why is it not good enough for the rest of the D150 HS students?
Another question: how do you determine what the ACTUAL cost savings would be by closing a high school? There was a great deal of skepticism about the numbers presented in the original cost savings plan presented earlier this year. Many of us want specifics as to how those numbers were arrived at before a decision is made. Again, please remember I am speaking only for the high school decision. I make no presumptions regarding primary/middle/preschool/ birth-through-whenever schools.
The educational rationale for going to 3 high schools of 1200-plus enrollment each(without an alternative high school to get disruptive students out of the other HS) has yet to be proven through anything the district has presented, particularly in re current research. I can cite articles/papers that go directly against the large-school idea for urban/low-income/high SPED student demographics. The proposal to close a high school if student enrollment dropped below 3900 was offered 10 years ago by an outside consultant. Current enrollment is above 3800 so the district is not too far under the 10-year-old recommendation and that does not include students at special schools.
I understand that financial concerns may preclude the above (small schools) but it is worth considering. I only speak to the high school level as that is where my experience has been.
The words “grief process” concern me!
I will echo Hot in the City and repeat what I say every chance I get. This district will go under financially and in every other way that counts, if a bona fide, viable alternative school isn’t in place to allow whichever high schools remain open to succeed.
“The words “grief process” concern me!”
In all fairness, *I* would think it should, in some ways, comfort.
Bureaucracies can be extremely in-personal. The thinking is this issue involves more than numbers and that needs to be recognized and addressed. I spoke at a teacher’s meeting after the committee meeting Wednesday night (between the county, the museum, and the school, I’m a little busy) and one of the men there spoke from the heart about restructuring a community. Involving the community, sharing the good as well as the bad with the community, growing and learning, extending grace and understanding, holding oneself and our neighbors accountable for actions in our lives; these are issues which transcend business decisions in the public sector. The notion that these issues are being wrestled with alongside the financial maze, I think, is good for everyone.
I understand these are complex, intertwined issues and as a parent I’m happy to try and help – I don’t profess to understand the latest research on education/class size/distinct learning communities so I would actually be in the way trying to understand any questions about scale/size and impact on learning. I wonder this though, and it’s not a knock on the students or teachers or the district, but three of these high schools have achievement score under 40%; maybe research-driven innovation is the answer. I simply don’t know.
Erik: Of course, achievement scores are under 40%. How can teachers teach or students learn in schools that are fraught with discipline problems–hence, the crucial need for an alternative school. I have stated earlier–a significant number of these students have serious emotional and developmental learning problems. District 150 is throwing all the wrong solutions at the problem–hence, the Manual restructuring plan which, in no way, addresses the real problems. I have a feeling that you may be one who would be totally shocked by what teachers and many students put up with day after day. No learning can take place in this environment. I taught at Manual for 36 years (7 before that at Roosevelt Jr. High). I was there for Manual’s good years–and they were truly good years. I watched the school being destroyed beginning in the late 80s and by the early 90s all was lost. The other high schools are experiencing the same problems. Closing a high school without establishing an alternative school and instituting a whole new (old) approach to discipline will not change anything–including the financial problems.
The healing process will ensue when Hinton, who is ultimately responsible for this mess, is gone, along with his consultants, and we have someone in place who knows what he/she is doing without an army of retired employees taking our hard earned tax dollars on top of their retirement benefits.
Amen.
sharon,
my wife worked at an alternative school in the elgin school district for a number of years, as well as one of their regular high schools. i understand discipline is a factor.
i’ve been in manual and have spoke with some of the kids there. last semester i was part of a group who went in and reviewed progress reports with some of the kids. this semester i’m going to be doing an economics module through jr. achievement (BTW, if you haven’t volunteered with jr. achievement yet, there is still time ). in the interest of full disclosure, my wife interviewed at manual and the time frame from interview to start was too narrow to allow us to coordinate child care so she didn’t end up working this school year.
we’re interested in what goes on there. my wife’s experience is with low income, minority students. part of me thinks teachers really need to drive that bus for achievement gains to be successful.
Erik: I am glad to know of your personal interest in Manual. I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “teachers really need to drive that bus for achievement gains to be successful.” I am 71 and enjoyed a wonderful career at Manual. I went through all the years of integration–riots and all. And I never regretted my decision in 1962 to accept a job at Roosevelt Jr. High–before integration began in Peoria. I can’t begin to tell you how much I loved that place and Manual and the young people who enriched my life–and, as adults, they continue to do so. For the most part, I taught the low income children in basic classes. I remember when teachers did indeed “drive the bus.” Also, I remember clearly when that changed. Personally, I never had any really bad years at Manual because all those good memories and experiences carried me through. Teaching certainly became more difficult and, I believe, close to impossible. I know there are still wonderful kids at Manual. A friend of mine who coaches the speech team just took her very small speech team to state finals–something that hasn’t happened at Manual in many years. Those kids are the ones who suffer because of the relatively small (yet a significant number) but disruptive group of students who destroy the learning environment. It is for both groups that I advocate an alternative school. Over the years, I did find myself drawn to some of the most disruptive of students because I do understand their needs, etc., but the regular school setting is not meeting their needs or those of the academically prepared.
I wish that you could have the opportunity to have some candid conversations with Manual’s present teachers. Since many are non-tenured (although a significant number have experience in other school districts), they probably aren’t so willing to talk to anyone close to District 150 administration. Manual will be a true test case as to whether or not a complete change in teachers will make a school successful. When Manual students continue to fail to meet NCLB standards, I fear these new teachers will be blamed. How many new teachers will have to be hired before people realize that teachers aren’t to blame? I think Manual will continue to fail because it continues to lose those students who can pull up their scores. Of course, I can be proven wrong–and in three or four years, we will know for sure. And that might be too late to find the right solutions for the problems at Manual.
About Ken Hinton–I do not agree with others that he is the source of all the problems in District 150. In my opinion, he hasn’t done such a good job of solving the problems he inherited–but he is not solely to blame for the problems. For anyone trying to read between the lines, I am not putting all the blame on Dr. Royster either. Again she didn’t solve any problems (in my opinion), but she came into a district with problems. Because the real problems are ignored, each superintendent continues to create new problems.
Also, my emotions are extremely mixed when it comes to Sharon Kherat. I have known her, liked her, and admired her accomplishments for years. I don’t think she knew what she was getting into when she accepted Manual’s principalship. Also, she inherited problems she didn’t create. I know she is working extremely hard to make Manual a success. For one thing, I think that adding a seventh and eighth grade added problems to a school already in trouble.
Sharon, Ken Hinton is ultimately responsible. He is the man in charge. He is the one that wants new schools, ( which I believe we do need- I just don’t know if the ones he is building are the ones we need,) he brought on these consultants, he purchased the homes on Prospect where Chinese people were/are living, he changed Manual and removed perfectly good teachers, he is the one that wanted shorter days – which started this ruckus to begin with, and wanted to close a high school without even talking to the principals. It is my belief they heard about it from the news. I’m sure there is more, but this is what comes to the forefront of my mind.
Since when is the person in charge not held responsible? He may not have created every problem at Dist 150, but he certainly has added to the ones that existed.
MiddleAgeWoman: Yes, I know these are all the problems Hinton created. I had the same thought today–that the shorter days started this whole ruckus. I find that amazing in that all the other problems–Manual, Chinese teachers, etc., are situations that many of us have been harping about for a long time. But we were only writing to board members and speaking at board meetings. I knew nothing about blogs before the shortened day issue surfaced. I believe blogs have made all the difference–and the group that came together over the shortened day. Those of us fighting before didn’t have an audience–the blogs have provided a network. Thank you, C.J., Pundit, Anti-Pundit, Emerge, Merle, Elaine, Diane–just the ones I know about.
I’m glad you know that perfectly good teachers were removed from Manual. Those friends of mine, I believe, are thriving in their new locations–a blessing in disguise.
Again, Hinton has made all these moves–Chinese teachers, Manual, shortened day, etc., believing they would solve District 150’s problems, but his solutions have created even more problems, which just keep compounding.
Erik: I certainly appreciated your going back to the podium to state your willingness to include representatives of labor to the table. While so many feel that teachers have too much of a vested interest to be included in talks about finances, educational decisions (such as continuation of the Wacky Wednesdays), and the choice of a superintendent, I believe that administrators with their high salaries, etc., also have a vested interest in many of the decisions made in District 150. Cynical “yes,” but don’t superintendents choose their friends for administrative and consultant positions? Maybe even choose programs based on personal relationships, pet ideas, etc. Or does everyone believe that these are objective, not subjective, decisions?
Just sharing what I sent to the board about last night’s meeting:
Thanks to Parker and Stowell for voting against next year’s calendar—awaiting further information about the effectiveness of the Primary Early Release Days.
With regard to the district’s survey of teachers, specifically, Question No. 9 (What has been your reaction to the Primary Early Release Days?) and Question No. 6 (Have you been able to use or benefit from the information you have learned during Primary Early Release days in your classroom and/or instruction?):
First of all, please note that none of the results of this survey would have been presented last night if the information had not been FOIA’d and presented during the audience participation time.
After Karen Adkins-Dutro read the teachers’ negative responses to Questions 9 and 6, Ken Hinton dismissed all the comments by saying that they were written after only one or two of these sessions. However, the FOIA’d information I received gave January 2009 dates for all of those responses—which would be after all three of 1st Semester’s Wacky Wednesdays. Essentially, I believe he was dismissing not only the comments but also the teachers who made them as irrelevant to any decision that would be made about continuing these days that take away instructional time. Frankly, after looking over the 100 pages of FOIA information that I was given with regard to Wacky Wednesdays, I think that anybody could come to the conclusion that these sessions have consisted of a hodgepodge of presentations on a plethora of different topics that varied from school to school. Furthermore, most of these presentations used the lecture method (so frowned on by critics of many high school teachers) with little opportunity for interaction among teachers or for analysis of student data—the often touted purposes of these sessions that were promised to be opportunities for collaboration and common planning. I’m not sure why the board, community, parents, etc., should believe that the opinion of one Bradley professor to be paid $1150 is more credible than the opinions of District 150 teachers who not only can read and analyze the data but more importantly can analyze the effectiveness of the presentations that they “witnessed” firsthand.
The interesting thing about these surveys, if I understand them correctly, is that they are done online…. Many teachers are afraid to voice their true opinion in case they can be traced. I do not know if this particular survey was done online or not. With so much fear and intimidation going on in this school district, would you voice your true opinion if it meant you would be out of work?
MiddleAgedWoman: You just answered a question that I had. There was a date after each response–therefore, I now believe that the teachers did respond online. I was given only 58 written responses to Question 9, but the analysis of data shows that 218 responded to the question. I haven’t figured that out yet–maybe some responded on the survey itself but not online. Perhaps I was given only the e-mail responses. The graph shows that the response was about 50-50 pro and con. Call me a skeptic, but I don’t necessarily trust their “reading” of the responses. Some of the responses were both positive and negative–for instance, they like the idea but not what actually happened or not during instruction time. I would call that a negative, but someone else might label it a positive response.