The following comments are by School Board Member Douglas R. Johnson and do not necessarily represent any positions of the Board nor any other Board Member.
INTRODUCTION
Before recommending any specific cuts, it would be wise to see just what requirements are mandated by both the state and the federal government. Whatever teaching staff level we have above those requirements need to be prioritized. The following deals with the procedure and some further suggestions.
STAFF LEVELS
There seems to be confusion as to where our teaching staff levels are with respect to state mandates and federal incentive programs. We need to clearly define just where we are with respect to both before we make any recommendations for change.
I believe we need to deal with the state requirements first. We have made a policy to have a ratio of 22 to 1 when the state says 25 to 1. We therefore need to specify both in our analysis.
But we seem to have other categories that are not considered in the ratio calculations, namely, resource teachers, special education teachers, teacher aides, librarians, and perhaps others.
And the breakdowns need to be done by school. For each school, list first the teachers who count in the ratio. A suggested example is as follows:
School Total Students Total Teachers Actual Ratio
example 250 students 10 teachers 25 stud/teach
Then make the analysis of how many teachers need to be added or subtracted to achieve each of the two ratios, the existing policy ratio and the state mandate ratio.
Then for each school list the state requirement for each other teaching category. A suggested example is as follows:
School Category State Requirement Actual Number
example Special Ed 10 teachers 12 teachers
Resource 5 teachers 3 teachers
Teacher Aides 5 aides 6 aides
When we have these numbers, we can then evaluate what can be done with teacher staffing.
Then we can evaluate any federal programs that require additional staff positions. These programs need to be evaluated with respect to both economics and effectiveness.
After we determine the legal minimums, we then can consider recommendations of our administration for keeping additional positions. Each such position would need to be justified as to the education of the students would improve.
POTENTIAL BUDGET CUTS
For a generalization as to the percentage cuts to various categories, let us look at the most dollar areas first:
| BUDGET CATEGORY | CURRENT IN MILLIONS | ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE | POTENTIAL CUT AMOUNT |
| Instruction | $30.6 | 5.0% | $1.58 |
| Operations | 3.5 | 10.0% | 0.35 |
| Transportation | 2.5 | 5.0% | 0.13 |
| Administration | 1.3 | 20.0% | 0.26 |
| Technology | 1.2 | 5.0% | 0.06 |
| Total | 39.1 | n/a | 2.44 |
This analysis is being done to demonstrate how we do not need to make the cuts "across the board" but to target the cuts based on reasonable factors.
The Instruction cuts of 5% are based on the concept that we probably have more staff positions than are mandated by the state. Such staffing cuts would probably be greater than 5% but the salary scale based on years of experience is an implied contract with the teachers and needs to be reinstated. The combined cuts along with the steps should generate the net of about 5%.
Operations need to be cut 10%. There are no salary contracts and no ratios to maintain.
Transportation is mandated for getting the children to and from school. The 5% cut is arbitrary but relatively modest.
Administration needs a very large cut. Twenty percent is possible and should be attempted. This can be accomplished by a combination of cutting positions and actual wages.
Technology is very important but it also must "bite the bullet". The 5% is very reasonable.
Each of these cuts are not limited by state mandates and thus become strict business decisions. Salary levels need to be judged by "replacement cost" rather than employee needs.
TEACHER COMPENSATION
When a teacher is hired, he/she is shown and given the then current salary scale which shows the salary based on years of experience. This constitutes an implied contract with the teacher. While such a "contract" would probably not hold up in court, the teacher certainly believes it should.
Last year the decision was made to skip the salary steps that are based on years of experience. I believe this was a mistake. I believe we should restore these steps both retroactive to last year and maintain the steps this next year.
I further believe we should make the steps be something each year rather than bigger steps less often. The difficulty comes in the transition from one system to the other. For this reason I do not suggest making this change this year.
If the board chooses to keep more teachers by freezing the steps, I believe a Public Hearing should be held first. This could also be done by having such an item placed as an "Information Item" on the agenda to let the public comment on the issue.
It also has been suggested to give a percentage raise in place of the steps. This makes no sense as we eventually need to go back to the steps.
CONCLUSION
The cuts of staff across the board would be a blind and thus unreasonable generalization. We must first find the baseline as defined by the state mandates and federal requirements. That is truly the first step.
No comments:
Post a Comment