Tag Archives: Peoria Public Schools

Peoria Public Schools

Guest Editorial: D150 “warehousing” minorities, poverty-stricken

103 Comments

In light of the serious issues on the District #150 Board of Education agenda this evening and the decision the board members are being asked by the Administration to make, let’s take the time to review some accurate data.  (Note:  this data is extracted from the Interactive Illinois Report Card, found at http://iirc.niu.edu/District.aspx?districtID=48072150025)

  1. District #150 Overall (2008):

    Student Demographics:            

    Black                           61.1%
    White                           30.5%
    Hispanic                       5.5%
    Asian                            2.6%
    Multiracial                    0.2%
    Native American           0.0%

    Low Income:                70%

    District Spending vs. State Average (2006-07)

                                                                District                         State

    Teacher Salaries/Benefits          48.9%                                      43.0%
    Other Instructional Costs            3.8%                                        7.1%
    Student Support                       12.8%                                      11.6%
    Admin/Operations                    24.0%                                      22.7%
    Building/Equipment                     2.4%                                        7.4%
    Debt Service                              5.6%                                        7.1%
    Other                                         2.5%                                        1.1% 

  2. Kingman Primary School (2008):

    Student Demographics:            
    Black                           57.6%
    White                           32.2%
    Hispanic                       10.2%
    Asian                              0.0%
    Multiracial                      0.0%
    Native American             0.0%

    Enrollment:                   304

    Average Class Size:                             
    Kindergarten                16.0
    Grade 1                        15.3
    Grade 2                        16.7
    Grade 3                        13.7
    Grade 4                        13.5
    Grade 5                        13.0

    Low Income:                93.1%
    Mobility:                       61.4%

    Adequate Yearly Progress: 
    The school is not making AYP.
    The school is not making AYP in Reading.
    The school is making AYP in Mathematics.
    The school was identified for School Improvement in accordance with NCLB.
    The 2008-09 the Federal Improvement Status is Choice.
    The 2008-09 State Improvement Status is Academic Early Warning Year 1.

  3. Irving Primary School (2008):

    Student Demographics:
    Black                           69.3%
    Hispanic                       22.9%
    White                             6.1%
    Asian                              1.1%
    Multiracial                      0.6%
    Native American             0.0%

    Enrollment:                   362

    Average Class Size:                             
    Kindergarten                17.0
    Grade 1                        15.6
    Grade 2                        15.6
    Grade 3                        16.2
    Grade 4                        18.3
    Grade 5                        17.7

    Low Income:                95.6%
    Mobility:                       35.1%

    Adequate Yearly Progress:
    The school is not making AYP.
    The school is not making AYP in Reading.
    The school is making AYP in Mathematics.
    The school was identified for School Improvement in accordance with NCLB.
    The 2008-09 the Federal Improvement Status is Choice.
    The 2008-09 State Improvement Status is Academic Early Warning Year 1.

  4. Garfield Primary School (2008):

    Student Demographics:
    Black                           74.9%
    White                           17.1%
    Hispanic                         7.4%
    Asian                              0.3%
    Multiracial                      0.3%
    Native American             0.0%

    Enrollment:                   299

    Average Class Size:                            
      Kindergarten                11.0
    Grade 1                        17.0
    Grade 2                        18.3
    Grade 3                        19.3
    Grade 4                        15.3

    Low Income:                94.0%
    Mobility:                       45.6%

    Adequate Yearly Progress:
    The school is not making AYP.
    The school is not making AYP in Reading.
    The school is making AYP in Mathematics.
    The school was identified for School Improvement in accordance with NCLB.
    The 2008-09 the Federal Improvement Status is Restructuring.
    The 2008-09 State Improvement Status is Academic Early Warning Year 2.

  5. Tyng Primary School (2008):

    Student Demographics:
    Black                           87.1%
    White                             9.2%
    Hispanic                         3.1%
    Asian                              0.5%
    Multiracial                      0.0%
    Native American             0.0%

    Enrollment:                   381

    Average Class Size:
    Kindergarten                16.8
    Grade 1                        19.3
    Grade 2                        14.4
    Grade 3                        19.4
    Grade 4                        13.3
    Grade 5                        19.0

    Low Income:                96.9%
    Mobility:                       59.4%

    Adequate Yearly Progress:
    The school is not making AYP.
    The school is not making AYP in Reading.
    The school is not making AYP in Mathematics.
    The school was identified for School Improvement in accordance with NCLB.
    The 2008-09 the Federal Improvement Status is Choice SES.
    The 2008-09 State Improvement Status is Academic Early Warning Year 2.

Of the four schools cited above that the Board of Education is considering closing, 93% – 97% of the student populations are low income and 68% – 94% of the student populations are minorities.  All four schools are Title I schools; the District’s past practice to determine Title I qualification is to base it on the applications received for the Free and Reduced Lunch Program.

All four schools are not making Adequate Yearly Progress and are in the State Improvement Academic Early Warning Status.  Because they are Title I schools, they have also been identified for Federal Improvement Status ranging from Choice to Restructuring.

Since the 2004-05 school year, what has this Administration and Board done?  They closed Blaine Sumner and White Middle Schools, and tonight they are proposing the closing of Kingman Primary School at the end of the 2008-09 school year and Irving Primary School at the end of the 2009-10 school year.  Garfield and Tyng Primary Schools are also being considered for closing.  They plan to build two new Community Schools (Glen Oak and Harrison), and have discussed some sort of consolidation with the Lincoln and Woodruff campuses to address the needs of the Kingman, Irving, and Lincoln students.

Behind all the passionate rhetoric, both opposing and supporting the District’s plans, one thing is clear:  all the schools targeted for closure are south of the invisible Forest Hill-War Memorial Drive boundary.

These neighborhood schools are not to be individually replaced with new facilities; rather the Administration is recommending to the Board of Education that these neighborhood schools be combined into much larger community schools.   The rationale behind this is financial.  These decisions are not based on what is in the best interest of the students’ education, as stated by Board Vice President Wolfmeyer in the Sunday, April 19th Peoria Journal Star.

A pattern is emerging.  The District has targeted the schools with the highest numbers of  low income and minority students, and schools not making AYP in both State and Federal improvement status, to close and combine.  These schools receive significant Title I funding to supplement the educational services provided the students, including funding for teachers’ salaries. 

No schools north of the Forest Hill-War Memorial Drive invisible boundary have been targeted for closure.

Whether they wish to acknowledge it or not, by their recommendations and actions, the Administration and Board of Education are creating a perception of warehousing the minority children and the children of poverty.

There is another name for this practice, segregation.

–PrairieCelt

Peoria Public Schools

Should citizens force D150 bond issue to a referendum?

95 Comments

Elaine Hopkins thinks so.

You may recall that District 150, despite having just borrowed $30 million in tax-anticipation warrants at the beginning of the year to make payroll, is already running out of money again and needs to borrow $35 million more. This time they would raise the money through working cash bonds which will be repaid via property taxes over the next several years. Here’s the rub:

If 10 percent of voters petition the district to take the sale of the cash bonds to referendum, the district would run into a wall, having to wait until November, or plead with a judge to hold a special election, [interim controller Norm] Durflinger added.

Hopkins says “some people are now looking at this petition option.” “It could be a bargaining chip to stop future school closings, or could be affirmed on its own,” or it could be a way to get District 150 “management” to “resign in shame,” she says.

My take: When I first heard about this idea (of forcing a referendum on the bonds), I have to say, it didn’t thrill me. First of all, public schooling is an essential service and should be funded. Secondly, I just finished waging an unsuccessful effort to defeat the public facilities tax referendum, and I just don’t have the energy to do that again (so soon, at least). Thirdly, I have a hard time getting over the irony of museum tax supporters like Hopkins suddenly getting all concerned about wasting tax dollars. Apparently throwing $40 million down the drain on a museum is okay, but $35 million to pay teachers is unacceptable.

However, the more I think about it, the more I think forcing a referendum may not be such a bad idea. Why? Consider:

  1. They have been eluding voter accountability long enough. When District 150 wanted to build new schools, the money for that building program should have been submitted to the public via referendum. But it wasn’t. District 150, with the help of our state legislators (including then-state representative Schock) got legislation passed allowing District 150 to access the Public Building Commission for its building program, bypassing the voters and allowing them to raise our property taxes without a referendum. Practically speaking, this also meant they didn’t have to have public buy-in on the siting and design of the new school buildings.

  2. They have passed up other potential revenue. District 150 could have supported other school districts in the county and forced a 1/4% sales tax referendum onto the April ballot that, if passed, would have helped all county school districts get money for infrastructure needs, but they didn’t. District 150 officials won’t speak on this topic for attribution, but privately say that the reason they didn’t support this was because (a) they were asked not to by museum supporters such as Caterpillar and the Peoria Area Chamber of Commerce, who you may recall sent letters to all the school districts pressuring them to keep this off the ballot so it wouldn’t jeopardize the museum tax from passing, and (b) they didn’t want a new revenue stream right before they negotiated a new teachers contract because they thought it could lead to demands for higher pay/benefits. Hey, if they’re looking for ways to avoid getting more revenue, maybe they would favor forcing the bond issuance to a referendum.

  3. More money won’t resolve the root problem: mismanagement. We’ve been through this kind of crisis once already. We’ve already closed schools so that District 150 could allegedly get their fiscal house in order. Why are we going through this again — and so soon?

    • It is not just because of revenue shortfalls. This crisis is often explained as merely a revenue problem — that everything would be hunky-dory if it hadn’t been for the recession or reductions in state aid. That would be believable except that no other school district around here is in quite the crisis as District 150. For example, Pekin’s school district actually has a surplus. While their FY08 budget does have a planned deficit built into it, it’s covered not by loans, but reserves that have been saved up over several years — most recently FY07.
    • Savings from last round of closures were squandered. In 2007, District 150 closed White and Blaine-Sumner schools. However, they didn’t sell Blaine-Sumner, but remodeled it (including adding air conditioning) and turned it into district offices for about 80 workers. They did eventually sell the White School building for $750,000, but they also acquired the former Social Security Administration building on Knoxville and spent $1.27 million to remodel it to house their “transition to success academy.” Is it really any wonder that the district was unable to put up a surplus and save for a rainy day?

    By and large, we still have the same management team in place now as was in place then. If they were unable to properly manage the last crisis, why should we have any confidence that money given them this time will be any better managed?

From what I’ve heard, the worst that could happen if a referendum is forced is that the referendum could fail, the district could become insolvent and be taken over by the state or, possibly, the city. I’m beginning to think that’s not such a bad outcome. Small changes in the makeup of the school board over the past five years doesn’t appear to be working; a complete overhaul of the administration may be necessary.

Still, my mind isn’t totally made up. If anyone can give me reasons to have confidence in the current administration and their stated plans for improvement, I’m all ears.

Peoria Park District, Peoria Public Schools

Park District looking to buy Prospect properties from School District

85 Comments

Remember back in 2006 when District 150 purchased several properties adjacent to Glen Oak Park in hopes of locating a new school there? Well, now the Peoria Park District wants to buy them, and they’re asking for some help from Congressman Schock.

Included in Schock’s appropriations requests is one for “land appraisal, platting, demolition and acquisition to provide open public access to [Glen Oak] park.” I asked for some more information on this request from the Park District, and David Wheeler kindly sent me this text from their application for Federal assistance:

Glen Oak Park is bordered on the southwest corner with 12 residences owned by the local school district. Originally purchased for the purpose of constructing a school adjacent to Glen Oak Park, their plans have changed and the 2 acres of land is now available for the purpose of adding invaluable open space and stability to a social and economically challenged east bluff neighborhood. It will provide open public access to the park from the neighborhoods to the west, open up visibility and provide a higher degree of safety in one of Illinois’ oldest and most historic 19th century parks. Glen Oak Park is well known for its ancient oak trees, looped “carriage” drives, views of the Illinois River and was designed by the renowned landscape architect, Oscar Dubois. The opportunity to purchase land for expanding open space in an older established neighborhood is a rare occurrence and the opportunity is now.

To the best of my knowledge, the school district actually owns eight properties on the southwest corner of Glen Oak Park, not twelve. I double-checked the county’s website just to see if D150 picked up any additional land there, and it doesn’t appear they have. So either this was a minor error on the application, or else the school district has recently purchased additional properties.

In any case, I have to take issue with this proposed transaction for a few reasons:

  1. It’s odd that the park district, which just finished shrinking the size of the park in order to expand the zoo, would now be concerned about expanding the size of the park. It’s also strange that they would cite the “ancient oak trees,” many of which were uprooted to make way for the zoo expansion.

  2. If this transaction goes through, it will be the second time the taxpayers have paid for these properties. The school district bought these eight properties with $877,500 of tax money (and overpaid for them at that; fair-market value of the properties in 2005 was $609,540). Now the park district wants to use $1.2 million of tax money to purchase the same properties again (and demolish the structures). How many times do we taxpayers have to buy the same land? And why does the cost keep going up each time?

  3. If the properties are sold to the Park District, they will remain off the property tax rolls. That hurts not only those who receive property tax revenue (like the School District and the Park District, just to name a couple), but everyone who pays property taxes as well. Whenever tax-paying property is taken off the tax rolls, the remaining property owners pick up the slack. The School Board should be trying to get more property on the tax rolls where it can produce annual revenue for the district.

Also, if the school district does indeed only own the eight properties they purchased in 2006, here are their locations:

You’ll notice they’re not contiguous; how long before the park district tries to acquire the remaining properties?

Peoria Public Schools

School board to hire superintendent search firm Tuesday (Updated)

161 Comments

A special meeting of the District 150 Board of Education is planned for Tuesday night. There’s only one item of public business on the agenda:

APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH HAZARD, YOUNG, ATTEA & ASSOCIATES
Proposed Action: That the Contract with Hazard, Young, Attea & Associates covering the Superintendent search and the Controller/Treasurer search be approved. Further, that the Community Superintendent Search Committee’s proposed total budget of $45,000 be approved and that the timeline for commencing the candidate search be changed to August/September, 2009.

The district’s search committee recommended the firm to the board last month. A March 25 Journal Star article reported, “Cost to hire the firm is about $21,000, not including travel costs and office fees.” Apparently travel costs and office fees are no small expense, based on the $45,000 to be budgeted for the search committee.

Current superintendent Ken Hinton plans to retire June 30, 2010.

UPDATE: I received this additional information from School Board member Jim Stowell:

The first story didn’t anticipate them doing a search for Controller/Treasurer as well. Dr. Durflinger and Dr. Butts highly recommended a search firm who might “draw out” better applicants than what applied to our posting on several sources, including all of the “free” postings offered through the state. I had suggested the same firm recommended by the supt. search committee, if they were willing to do it for a reduced fee (and possibly seize on some economies of scale or interest from a duo who might like to work together). The Board saw a list of applicants and will discuss whether to go the search route.

Peoria Public Schools

District 150 going deeper in debt

105 Comments

Things are not looking good on Wisconsin Avenue:

Despite borrowing $30 million over the past three months using tax-anticipation warrants, the school district is again facing dire straits and according to the latest financial statements will not be able to meet payroll in May, much less a significant loan payment due in June. In order to remain solvent, district officials on Monday proposed restructuring its debt by seeking $35 million in working cash bonds, a loan structured to be paid back over several years.

Translation: property taxes for District 150 are going to go up, more teachers are going to get laid off, and more schools are going to close. District 150 needs to be reorganized from top to bottom.

Peoria Public Schools

Will D150 let search firm finish its work this time?

31 Comments

From the Journal Star:

A committee appointed to begin the search for District 150’s next superintendent will recommend the School Board hire . . . Hazard, Young, Attea & Associates to find a replacement for retiring Superintendent Ken Hinton.

This is the same search firm that was hired for nearly $20,000 in 2004 to find a replacement for ousted superintendent Kay Royster. But before they could complete their work, the District 150 board decided to hire Ken Hinton, even though he wasn’t qualified for the job at the time. The Journal Star reported on Feburary 1, 2005:

Without a public vote or notice, the District 150 School Board seems to have stopped searching for a new, permanent superintendent and has given its search firm the impression that the current superintendent arrangement will be permanent.

In a Jan. 29 e-mail response to the Journal Star stated that plans to bring superintendent candidates to Peoria for interviews have been dropped.

“We have a slate of competitive candidates we were planning to present to the board on Jan. 7 or thereafter,” he wrote.

“It is our understanding that will be the permanent arrangement. We regret that other candidates were not considered,” he stated. […]

A letter of agreement between the board and the search firm says the firm will be paid $19,500 plus expenses and does not contain a cancellation clause.

Schock said the board was still “looking into Hinton’s status. We’re finishing that up right now. Then the board will have a decision to make.”

Hinton has never completed the college courses required to be certified as a superintendent in Illinois, but several board members have expressed support for him to be named permanent superintendent.

Shortly after that, the board made it official. Here’s the Journal Star’s report from February 19, 2005:

The district hired a search firm to find candidates in September, but about three months later, some board members asked Hinton to consider the position. He began exploring his options and found the accelerated course at Western Illinois University. It starts March 11.

Board president Aaron Schock said the search firm’s contract will be terminated at Tuesday’s meeting. He said the firm performed half its duties and will get about $10,000.

Schock said he doesn’t consider this wasted money.

“I think it was the responsible thing for us to do at the time … (but) things change,” he said.

If the board hires this search firm (again) on the committee’s recommendation, I hope they let them complete their work this time. That was one of the most irresponsible decisions District 150 ever made — to throw $10,000 down the drain and hire someone unqualified for the job. Let’s hope that part of history doesn’t repeat itself.

Also of interest is that the choice of Hazard, Young, Attea & Associates was controversial in 2004 because of a past superintendent placement of theirs:

In November, the relationship between the search firm and some board members soured when they learned the search firm previously placed ousted Superintendent Kay Royster in her former job at Kalamazoo, Mich.

Let’s hope that part of history doesn’t repeat itself either!

Peoria Public Schools

D150 gets A+ bond rating from S&P

4 Comments

School board members received this happy news in their inbox recently:

Mr. Hinton wanted to let you know that he just found out that once more, we were able to get an A+ rating from Standard and Poors for our bond rating. This is GREAT news!

Debbie Sullivan CPS
Superintendent’s Office
Peoria Public Schools

According to Wikipedia, Standard and Poor’s A+ rating is considered “upper medium grade” and described as a “safe investment, unless unforeseen events should occur in the economy at large or in that particular field of business.”

City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

District 150 looking to cell towers for supplemental income

26 Comments

cell_tower_ibs91District 150 has found a new way to get revenue: allow private companies to erect cell phone towers on school property.

In November 2008, the City Council approved a request for U.S. Cellular to erect a cell phone tower at Loucks Edison School (now Thomas Jefferson), 2503 N. University St. Sources tell me the the school district will receive $2000 per month from this lease arrangement, and that more cell towers are planned on other properties, including Whittier School. Putting cell towers on school and church property is common — but controversial — all over the country.

The controversy is over safety. The Federal Communications Commission has several documents regarding cell tower (or “cell site”) radiation levels, and they’ve basically determined that they are very safe. “Measurements made near typical cellular and PCS installations, especially those with tower-mounted antennas, have shown that ground-level power densities are well below limits recommended by RF/microwave safety standards,” says OET [Office of Engineering and Technology] Bulletin 56 (p. 21). Well enough below limits that such cell sites “are considered ‘categorically excluded’ from the requirement for routine environmental processing for RF exposure” by the FCC, according to “A Local Government Official’s Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety.”

Not everyone is convinced. People Against Cell Towers at Schools (PACTS) is an organization started by citizens in Tampa, Florida, that believes cell phone towers should not be placed on or near school playgrounds. They cite a litany of research, including a 2004 article from the American Academy of Pediatrics which stated children are more susceptible to extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields and recommended “additional research and the development of precautionary policies in the face of scientific uncertainty.” In fact, most of the research cited takes a similar approach. For example, the American Cancer Society is quoted as saying, “we do not have full information on health effects… in particular, not enough time has elapsed to permit epidemiological studies.” In other words, exposure to ELF magnetic fields may or may not be dangerous, and until we know for sure, we should limit exposure to children. Furthermore, in response to appeals to the FCC’s report of cell site safety, they say “government agencies have a bad track record in protecting us against long term threats. Think about some of the major oversights in health threats such as tobacco, lead paint, DDT, PCBs and asbestos.”

So far in Peoria, there appears to be little or no concern. The cell tower at the University St. school building had no public opposition. However, that might be because the request went through after the school was closed and before Thomas Jefferson school was relocated there due to the fire at their Florence Avenue facility. The forthcoming request for a cell tower at Whittier will likely be the bellwether of public reaction to the idea.

One other concern that is expressed about cell towers is that they are not exactly aesthetically pleasing. Some communities try to hide them by making them look like trees — seriously. When I was in California last year, I saw a number of cell towers disguised as palm trees. Pictures on Google show towers camouflaged as pine trees, too. Clever, eh?

Peoria Public Schools

D150 reports 123 administrators and four consultants

82 Comments

As District 150 continues to struggle with their structural deficit, calls for cuts at the administration building have started coming up again. I thought it might help the discussion to have some hard numbers with which to work. So I requested some information on administrators and consultants from District 150 and would like to share the results with you and ask for your feedback.

Consultants

According to information obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, the district employs just four consultants:

 

Consultant Per Diem Rate
Dr. Cindy Fischer $350.00
Dr. Judy Helm $500.00
Mary Ann Randle $315.83
Dr. Thom Simpson $476.44

 

As of February 23, 2009, District 150 had compensated Dr. Fischer $7,525 for 21.5 days and reimbursed her $3,161.92 in expenses. These expenses were not specified in the report. Total paid for September through November 2008 was $10,686.92.

Dr. Judy Helm, who has her own business called Best Practices, Inc., has been compensated $21,750 for 43.5 days between July 2008 and January 2009, and has been reimbursed $167.91 for expenses. Total compensation since July 2008 is $21,917.91.

Mary Ann Randle’s salary is paid for by two grants: “PAS” and “Prevention Initiative.” No further information was given regarding either grant. Since July 2008, she has been paid $17,054.95 for 54 days and has been reimbursed $1,743 in expenses. Total compensation since July 2008 is $18,797.95.

Dr. Thom Simpson, whose job is listed on the district’s website as “Strategic Planning,” has his compensation split up into a base per diem rate of $455.90 and a 4.5% ($20.54/day) contribution to his Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (non-certified state pension program). Since July 2008, he has been compensated $63,128.30 for 132.5 days, plus $2,000 for a “mentor stipend.”

That’s it for consultants. If they were to all be eliminated, it would come to $116,531.08 in cost between July 2008 and the present, which covers about 7 months. To extrapolate this out to an annual figure, it comes out to roughly $200,000.

Administration

The list of administration staff includes 123 employees at a total payroll of $9,312,462.41. This includes 35 principals, 13 assistant principals, and 7 deans.

PDF Link Read the whole report (PDF file)

I found it interesting that school principals and assistant principals are some of the highest-paid administrators in District 150. Of the 23 employees making over $100,000 per year, 16 are principals or assistant principals. Other administrators making six figures are:

  • Superintendent Ken Hinton ($202,389.98)
  • Assistant Superintendent Cheryl Sanfilip ($135,927)
  • Controller/Treasurer Guy Cahill ($130,889.98) — has since left D150, of course; this information was current as of February 23
  • Associate Superintendent Herschel Hannah ($117,183)
  • Human Resources director Tom Broderick ($110,472.24)
  • Academic Officer Mary Davis ($110,000.08)
  • Research/Testing/Assessment director Bryan Chumbley ($100,092)
  • “Teaching and Learning” director Susan Grzanich ($100,000)

As I’ve pointed out before, District 150 used to have just one superintendent, and that was when enrollment was larger. It’s hard for me to understand why we need to pay three superintendents a combined total of $455,499.98 — nearly half a million dollars! — to do the same job now that enrollment is so low we’re closing schools right and left. In fairness, this amount has gone down since Dr. Fischer left (and was subsequently rehired as a consultant); we used to have four superintendents. Still, I don’t see the need to wait for all these positions to be eliminated through attrition.

Also, in looking up Susan Grzanich’s responsibilities (I was curious what the “Teaching and Learning” program was all about), I found my way to this web page, which shows that this program has a staff of eight people, only three of whom show up on the list of administrators I received (Grzanich of course, plus Kathy Burke [$88,755.83] and Trish Guinee [$93,557.07]). The other five people are all listed as having offices in the administration building, but are apparently not considered “administration,” despite titles such as “benchmark specialist” and “instructional restructuring advisor.” It makes you wonder just how many non-administrators are employed at District 150.

I would be interested in my readers’ thoughts on this information. My overall thought is this: there is some fat that can be trimmed from the administration side of the district’s operations. I don’t mean that to sound harsh; I honestly don’t want to see anyone lose their job, especially given the current economic downturn. But the sad fact is that jobs are going to be lost. The district is already talking about closing a high school, some elementary schools, and laying off no small number of teachers.

Given that fact, it’s hard to understand why we would nevertheless need to maintain the same number of highly-paid administrators to oversee that shrinking student and teacher base. I’m sure all these jobs have value, but cost-cutting/layoffs should start in the places that have the least student impact. I would suggest that assistant/associate superintendents arguably have the absolute least student impact.