The Toledo Board of Education voted this morning (Thursday - 12/20) to place a renewal levy on the ballot. The levy will be a 6.5 mill renewal for a five year term (although we understand that there was discussion about a continuing term) that was last renewed in 2003.
Essentially the levy will generate about $16 million in revenue and will have an effective millage of about 4 mills. Renewal levies can only replace revenue and the voted millage must be adjusted based upon the millage necessary on the current valuations (there was a revaluation in 2006).
The timing of this levy is peculiar as contracts are going to expire March 31, 2008. It appears that teachers voted to re-open negotiations and the Board also wants negotiations to happen.
So during possible contentious negotiations where major financial and operational issue will be negotiated, the Board opts for a renewal where they have just about 60 days to "sell" the levy to Toledo residents.
Does the district have the resources and knowledge to negotiate a contract and also pass a levy? Are they prepared to handle both of these major events at the same time?
Of course there are many more questions that could and should be asked!
Voting No, simple as that.
who didn't see this coming?
Isn't this levy going to be swallowed up entirely by the "deferred raise" MOU?
If so, I see it as our duty to write letters and post signs to advertise that fact.
the teachers have not had a raise in 6 years! Meanwhile, inflation continues, gas prices and food prices (which are not factored in to inflation figures) have skyrocketed, and,here's the kicker, teachers have been forced to pick up more of their medical costs!
What's wrong with this picture?
...you guys do know the difference between a renewal levy and a new levy right? This has nothing to do with the teacher's salary. According to the post, this is not a new tax, and the mou would be paid by a new levy, not a renewal. And, gee what a shocker, when has any entity ever not put a renewal levy back up?
...since you asked...
Children Services Board did reduce one of their levies once...2001 perhaps?
But yes, this renewal means they're going to collect the exact same amount under the 'new' levy as they do the 'old' one...which means many people will conclude that they're already paying it so they will vote yes...
But remember - this levy expires this year - which means they collect this $15.8 million THROUGH 2008.
This levy was originally passed for 3 years in November 2000. The levy was defeated in an August 2003 renewal, but passed in November 2003 for a five year term with collections beginning 1/1/04 running through 12/31/2008. If the tax is to continue to be levied in 2009 and beyond, it must pass by the November 2008 general election.
TPS has a fiscal year beginning July 1st running through June 30th. So if the levy is not passed, the 08-09 budget will have to be reduced by about $8 million (1/2 year) and then the 09-10 budget would require another $8 million reduction
The Board could adopt a ½ year temporary appropriation for July – December 2008 and then pass a final budget resolution at a later date for the remainder of the year. However, this presents problems because you don’t really want to be laying off teachers in mid-year unless necessary. This would interrupt the teacher-student continuity that is critical to learning.
In response to an earlier question, this money would not invoke any clause in the retroactive payment MOU. In fact, after March 31, 2006 any new levy would not invoke automatic payment.
From the MOU:
4. This money will be paid at the time the Board determines it can financially make payment. If additional funding is received from a new locally voted levy or other voter ballot initiatives before March 31, 2006, the 1.48% shall be paid.
5. However if after April I, 2006 the payment has not been made, a mutually agreed person or panel will review the financial condition of the district and recommend, or not recommend, payment. In the event payment is not recommended, the obligation to pay will continue. The recommendation will be advisory only and will not supercede the Board's legal obligation under ORC 5705.412.
You can read the MOU here – http://tpsinfo.com/documents/Retroactive_payments.pdf
Link to ORC 5705.412 – http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/5705.412
This statute basically says that the district can not enter into any agreement if they can not guarantee the funds will be available over the life of the agreement. It requires the Board President, Superintendent and Treasurer to sign a certificate/affidavit affirming that the district has the money to meet the obligations. I’m sure all of you understand why this statute was enacted.
The TFT has asked that a panel be put in place to determine if the district can make the payment. We understand that both the TFT and TPS administration have named one individual each to a panel for the purpose of reviewing the district’s finances – per #5 above. Any payment determined and paid would require a "412 Certificate" per ORC 5705.412.
Has student enrollment gone down since this levy was orignally enacted in Nov 2003?
Has student performance gone down since the levy was oringally enacted in Nov 2003?
If the answer is YES to both questions, then there should be some serious debate on justifying renewing this levy at its current terms.
When we were kids in school... and let's face it, we all were... people supported our education. People paid taxes so that we could get our education. Why would I stand in the way of that now? If the schools don't get my money, then someone else down the line will. For example, my taxes paid for Seagate Center, which is a wholesale flop that I was against in the first place. At least voting yes on the TPS school levy would do some good with my money.
Here's a question:
Doesn't the govt take and spend much more on the public schools today than they did 20 or 30 years ago?
When is it enough? Does the increased spending provide for better education and smarter kids?
Doesn't EVERYTHING cost MORE now than it did 20 or 30 years ago? Haven't you made any improvements to the home you live in? Or is it EXACTLY the same as it was 20-30 years ago? Do you still drive the same car? Or did you spend money to get a newer, safer, more cost-efficient model? Do you make the same amount of money now as you did 20-30 years ago? Do you really expect schools to operate on the same budget they did 20-30 years ago?
According to an ABC News piece:
"If money were the solution, the problem would already be solved ... We've doubled per pupil spending, adjusting for inflation, over the last 30 years, and yet schools aren't better."
National graduation rates and achievement scores are flat, while spending on education has increased more than 100 percent since 1971. More money hasn't helped American kids.
My end note: They don't need more money; they need to spend their money much, much more wisely. I don't care it this levy asks for additional funds or is just a renewal. I send my child to a private grad school for $2300/ yr. How much does it cost to send a kid to TPS? $11,000/ yr? You could send a boy to St. Johns for that. Where would you send your child? St Johns or any public high school?
Until the public schools learn how to run lean-n-mean and trim some of their bureaucratic fat, they deserve no additional funds. I'm not an anti-union guy, but the hold the teachers' unions have on public school plays a large and dangerous role in this.
This is my last comment on it. I won't change your opinion and you definitely won't change mine. Good luck and, for their sake, I hope you don't have any kids in TPS.
Much of the increase in educational spending since 1971 has gone to special education. With the smaller class sizes and added educational resources this has driven up educational spending.
In TPS, the largest academic department is Special Education. I have heard (so don't take this as the absolute truth) that over 1/4 of all students in the system are in some type of special education course. Kinda scary. That $11,000 per student spending connected to TPS is skewed by the special education students. If believe if you take the special ed. students out of the mix, the average student in TPS receives about 6-7 grand a piece.
While St. John's is an okay school, they do NOT want most of the kids in TPS. They keep their "high" academic standards by eliminating the unwanted. SJJ also has some pretty messy incidents on their campus (like any school). They keep things quiet there because their school administration does not have to answer to a board of education.
Just remember Postal:
1. There are plenty of success stories from any school.
2. Don't put too much belief in any media outlet that allows it reports to get beat up by pro-wrestlers (See John Stossel).
Let me ask you. Has the smaller class sizes improved public education? If that's a "resource" that has driven up the spending, what real benefit has been generated (outside of having additional teachers and, I'm assuming, administrators)? It it's true academic achievement has been flat, where is the bang for the buck?
To answer your first question: Yes and No. Yes- Special education has allowed many students to receive the added instruction and resources they need to complete school. No- Many regular education class rooms still have 25-30 students. Are students lost along the way? Yes. Is it the school's fault? Maybe, but the same can be said when kids fail out of private schools.
Second question: The resources I was discussing were educational supplements (Computers, special education programs, etc). The real benefit is to the few students in special education, and that is if they are willing to accept it. It is true that special education has led to an expansion of teaching positions and administrators. This is due to federal and state mandates on public educational systems. It is illegal to not provide these resources and teachers to these students if they qualify. Everyone knows school districts hate law suits. Hence, that's why school districts hire administrators to oversee these programs.
Third question: American attitude to education has not changed over the past 30 years. So why should achievement change? Does this mean academic achievement at private schools have remained flat? Why don't we ever see studies on that? Hmm...
PS - I thought you weren't going to comment on this subject anymore:)
...of the money spent per pupil is dedicated to salaries.
According to this website (http://www.eiaonline.com/districts/Ohio.pdf), $9,010 of the $10,190 in per pupil spending in the 2004-05 school year was for 'compensation.' That's 88.4% of the per pupil spending. So, s.weso, you may be correct about the majority of increases going to special ed, but by far the greatest portion of per pupil spending is for compensation of the various TPS employees.
This is not unexpected in the terms of the educational system, but the 88.4% is a higher percentage that our surrounding school districts and higher than most of our comparable central-city school systems...
But don't forget this compensation goes to paras, speech therapists, etc. that are not classroom teachers. Don't forget also the surrounding districts don't have an as large number or percentage of special education students as TPS, so I would think their compensation numbers are much lower since they have lower need for specialized teachers, paras, etc.
I do find it interesting that you would use a website that is run by a for-profit entity that makes it openly known that it is a harsh critic of teachers unions. A very neutral source indeed.
of the entire district. Keep in mind that special education classes can only hold a max of 12 students with a para for most.
the source of the information doesn't change the information. My post had nothing to do with teacher's unions but with the straight numbers that the majority of per-pupil spending goes to compensation - which I presume means for teachers, administrators and other staff. What I didn't know was if the compensation included benefits (health insurance, prescriptions, retirements, etc.)
Whether or not the for-profit entity is pro or anti teacher's unions, are the numbers incorrect?
BTW - I agree about the added costs of specialists for specialized government-mandated services.
if the numbers are correct, but if the gentleman's motivation is to make money then he will tell you whatever you want to hear. That means he can "spin" the numbers anyway you wish. Don't politicians and pundits do this all the time?
Here's an idea that may or may not defend your position though. For the majority of the surrounding districts they rely heavily on school bus service. With the cost of fuel and maintenance going up, could this mean their percentage of compensation for staff per student goes down? I don't know.
PS - Maggie when are you going to run for Board of Education?
good and valid point about the school bus service - but what impact would district-paid bus drivers have on that versus TPS which contracts for bus service with TARTA? questions upon questions...
NOPE! not gonna run for school board...but thanks anyway!
I don't think it has much to do with bus drivers.
The major impact to local school district that rely heavily on school bus service is the price of fuel. If it continues to increase then the district has to transfer funds to that area. It is quite possible that fuel prices may go down. Maintenance may also lead to further transfer of funds. I not sure but I think there are only a few companies that make school buses and they MAY charge an arm and a leg (cliche alert) for parts.
If you have a contract it may be at a flat rate. It could be a certain amount of money per student (I'm not sure if this is true for TPS and TARTA). If fuel prices continue to rise, the district will not incure any further costs until the contract is renegotiated.
I couldn't think of any other questions to keep this discussion going, but if you have any feel free to ask. I'll give an answer, but it may not be correct:)
NIce. You even worked a John Stossel comment into the thread (I bet he wish he had his shovel for that one!). Double-point bonus...
... which probably means you have more social graces than I.
The problem is that once drenched in tax money and thus the good ol' entitlement mentality, public schools went into a progressive paroxysm of (now, orgiastic) irresponsibility. They spent, got more money, and then proceeded to spend MORE. This sort of thing can really build up to a large value. There can be no doubting this conclusion, since we see the same cause/effect in individuals, families, organizations, corporations and governments. The end result is as you see it:
1. A core of teachers who are far more concerned about their salaries, benefits, and maximum retirement formulae;
2. A large army of administrators, who largely serve no educational function whatsoever;
3. A large fraction of dispossessed, yet dependent children, upon which the prior two classes feed like vampires or ticks;
4. And finally, too many parents who have washed their hands (in blood, natch!) of the entire affair.
By shoveling money into the previous system, we ignorant or irresponsible taxpayers effectively CREATED this kind of system. We CREATED administrators that get paid over $90K/yr to do nothing worthwhile whatsoever. We CREATED teachers that know more about their retirement formula than the math they fail to teach to the children. We CREATED masses of children who can't read, write or do arithmetic enough to save their lives (and considering the number who resort to the military after high school, that's literal). We CREATED parents who think that once taxed, their responsibility ends.
We created all that, since we refused to admit that our fellow Humans are deceitful and lazy motherfuckers who will screw anyone when given half a chance. Maybe it's the continuing Flower Child stupidity, where we ignore the bad in everyone just to concentrate on the good. I really don't know, but it DOES involve willful ignorance. We're responsible, since we populate the ranks of politicians. We can still control them ... if courage is not as dead as the media and anecdotes suggest.
I don't have anything to say GZ. The subject says it all.
Oh and I do think you have social graces, but you just wish put them away when you're online. (So guess did have something to say.)
... is too big to save. That you've just given up, and reject all analysis as "being too angry" -- or whatever sense you attempted to convey -- is not germane to the discussion.
That you're not able to address my points, means that you cede the argument to me by default. I win, and I'll take your acquiescence, however ignobly it was offered. But my victory was only to be expected, since you resorted to ad hominem immediately, which anyone can see. When the message can't be denied, shooting the messenger becomes a very popular sport.
I have never meet a teacher that spent 4 years of their life and monies to educate themselves, so they can educate the youth and they were out to make it rich.................That is a stupid comment............ Administrators were first teachers and worked their way up the chain, just as John Foley has.
Where did I say or even intimate that teachers were out to "make it rich"? Please find the text of my statements that support your own conclusion. Hint: You can't, since such text doesn't exist.
Please google "straw man argument". You're only seeing what you want to see, probably because what I said was CORRECT and that reveals a truth that's too difficult for you to face.
Aaaaand the truth is STILL that the teachers are far more concerned with their salaries, benefits and retirements than in providing even a minimum education in this challenging environment.
Aaaaand don't even begin to insult our collective or my singular intelligence, by ever even HINTING that the likes of John Foley "worked" his way up anywhere except the butthole of his boss. His system is based upon politics and unionized rules, not merit and not results. That you make it sound like he rolled up his sleeves and made the district better, is a real howler.
In short, we could fire 90% of those fleshbags and no noticeable change would at least take place in the school system ... except for each one fired, another $100K would be saved. I'm more than old enough to see that kind of bloat in an organization. Education is not accomplished by some fop sitting his office calculating his accumulated sick days for cashing them in to support his Christmas shopping plans. Education is accomplished by TEACHERS using EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS. Administrators just get in the way of all that.
THAT IS WHY the administration of each school is BEST left in the hands of the same teachers, who must still teach, and in the minority of their duties, they can administrate their school system. Why do we put teachers through so much schooling and licensing, yet we're DON'T entrust them to administrate themselves? It just doesn't compute! What DOES compute is the entitlement mentality is working overtime in the district, dragging down all operations just to give a fairly unproductive set of people an easy slide into retirement.
P.S. "Privatization". Learn to love that word, since you're going to be hearing it a lot more often as public schools continue to collapse into a singularity of selfish concerns.
Smartex said: "Do you really expect schools to operate on the same budget they did 20-30 years ago?"
No, I expect them to make do with LESS, after adjustment for inflation.
Steve Forbes wrote a great article about the absurdity of adding technology to health care, which results in INCREASED costs. Technology is a cost SAVER ... so why is your cat scan ever more expensive? Why hasn't adding technology decreased the cost of education? In fact, as school systems got larger, why ALSO didn't they obtain economies of scale?
The answer is that the school systems are fucked. They are filled with "entitlementarians", which explains all the unionization in them. They are monopolistic and elitist. So, economies were left at the door.
Since the administrators, teachers and support personnel are OUR EMPLOYEES, we should demand that they economize, using technology and scale. Although gone too far in the modern age, the corporations are models of economy. So the Big Stick of privatization must be grasped. What else are we taxpayers to do? Just keep paying administrators to shuffle paper? ... and teachers to fail to educate? ... and children to get used to the pre-prisons our schools have become?
1. What school and what classroom has 25-30 students in a class?
2. Special educational students command much more money to educate than a regular education student. So the $11,400 per regular ed student is increased for each special education student.
To Guestzero:
You come off as a pretentious individual. I believe this is due to the tone of your posts. You use "grand" phrases like "feeding like vampires and ticks" and my favorite "singularity of selfish concern." While this might sound good in your head, I believe that you "lose" a lot of people. By any chance are you one of those people that pick a word out a dictionary a day and try to use in a sentence? It's okay to be an angry person. Just don't be an angry pompous person.
Oh and privatization has a long way to go before it replaces traditional public education institutions.
To purnhrt:
1) The best examples are at middle schools like DeVeaux and Byrnedale. Many of their core classes (math, science, social studies, language arts, etc.) are over 25 students. But most schools have some classes that have large numbers.
2) Many special ed. students command well over $20,000. This is probably due to the small class sizes and additional personal. I do believe this is dependent also on what category of special ed. a student is in and what is required through the student's IEP.
Personal observations about GZ aside, this statement hits the bullseye:
"Oh and privatization has a long way to go before it replaces traditional public education institutions".
I think it will regardless of the whatever issues there may be.
If the schools seemed to be getting better then I might not have a problem with handing them another levy but seriously they need to start doing better with what they have. I've read over and over about with the money public schools are getting per student they should have more then though to take care of business.
So I love when folks wax nostalgic about the success of education in the past, and how today's educational system is not up-to-snuff with the days of yore.
According to longitudinal data from the NAEP (Nation's Report Card), one of the only assessments to be able to track long-term trends in student achievement and performance, American students aged 9, 13, and 17 are mostly outperforming students from 1971 in select areas of math and reading, and the percentage of students taking higher classes in mathematics has increased.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2005463
The 4-year graduation rate of high school students was around 74% in 2006, as opposed to 77% in 1971, although the dropout rate declined by almost 5%.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d06/
Numbers of students in college and achieving bachelor's degrees is also way up, for example, amongst other indicators of higher educational achievement.
Our schools are doing exactly what they are set up to do, and doing it at least as well as they used to. Problem is, schools are set-up for a world that largely doesn't exist anymore. It's embarrassing ~ I sat down with my parents and asked for them to describe their school days from some 60 years ago. Their description is almost spot-on to what I remember growing up, including how the classroom itself was set-up. How sad is that? It's hard to think of another area of life that has changed so little. When you pour resources on a problem that is framed a certain way, you are only going to get incremental, and not transformative, changes. You may become better at it, or you may achieve efficiencies, but that's all. And it seems that transformative change is what's needed to allow students better chances to succeed in the world we live in today.
And GZ, you are on a doozy of a rant. And damn I want to disagree with you vehemently, but there is a lot of core truth in what you say (although I disagree with your attributions of motivation). Which also makes me sad. Teachers go through licensing to learn to teach, not to run an educational system. It doesn't mean that they can't learn the processes, but they are fundamentally different requirements. For the same reason you most often have industries with management tracks that are different than rank and file.
So are schools failing - yes and no?!?! Can I say that schools are failing by succeeding at what they did well 50 years ago? Boy, and how do you make a school system stop what they're doing and change?
I think GZ is pretty much on with his argument to, but it his ranting that turns me off.
A serious question is: Do Toledoans want major transformation in their public education system? I think many are quite happy with the way the system is set up. Others want major change, but they can't agree on what change. So for right now TPS is kind of stuck.