--- "Carvin, Heidi" <carvinh@evansville.k12.wi.us>
wrote:
> Richard,
>
> The article in the Gazette was about possible cuts
> to be made if the
> Governor was not able to preserve education funding
> in the budget. As of
> today, that list of possible cuts is a moot point
> because the Governor
> was able to preserve a per student increase of $248
> in 05-06 and $252 in
> 06-07. Under the legislative plan, the allowable
> increase in school
> district revenue per pupil under revenue limits
> would have been $120 in
> 05-06; $100 in 06-07 and every year thereafter would
> have required about
> $190,000 in cuts to our budget for 2005-06. These
> are no longer needed.
>
> A partial veto authorizes the DOA Secretary to
> transfer $330 million
> from the General Fund to the general equalization
> aids appropriation in
> DPI. The veto, combined with a veto to provide
> additional funds to the
> school levy tax credit will "largely restore" the
> property tax relief
> initiative included in the original budget proposal.
>
> However, that being said, I would still like to
> correct the
> misconceptions created by the Gazette Article.
>
> When I read the Gazette Article, it appeared to me
> that the editor drew
> his blue line and thus several misunderstandings
> were created:
> 1) I had a 10 item list of possible cuts should the
> budget pass the
> governor's veto pen unchanged. These were only
> possibly cuts, not actual
> changes to the 2005-06 budget. It appears the
> governor has managed to
> salvage school funding so that none of these cuts
> will be necessary.
> 2) I had hoped that the governor would at least be
> able to reduce the
> cuts required if the lower per student increase
> passed by the
> legislature prevailed. 8 of the ten cuts took care
> of what I still
> thought would be an extreme dollar amount to be cut.
> Administration was
> at the top of the cut list, resulting in 2/3 of the
> cut I thought we
> might have to make. At-risk was not even mentioned
> in the first level of
> cuts. Also included in the first level of cuts were
> amounts from
> athletics, building operations and maintenance,
> district travel and
> outside workshops, stipends for work that would be
> assumed by principals
> for curriculum coordination, and summer curriculum
> projects. Again, it
> is looking like none of these cuts will be
> necessary.
>
> 3) In the extreme case, at risk was listed as
> something that would need
> to be considered for cutting a position, but even at
> that level we
> preserved the funding no matter what for at least
> one position. If it
> had come to actually needing not to fill the vacant
> position, we would
> have looked at how the needs of those students could
> have been covered
> with existing staff.
> We would never have left these student's needs
> uncovered. The middle
> school position was cut due to a vacancy not being
> filled in the last
> round of state budgeting and the impact is being
> felt at the high school
> level as these students move up. We have been trying
> for two years to
> find a way to meet these needs and do not feel we
> have been successful.
> We are actually looking for budget dollars to
> increase at-risk services.
>
> 4) Ms. Jones and I shared preliminary information
> from an assessment of
> the at-risk program begun last year. The assessment
> indicated that we
> need to make some changes in our at-risk program. We
> will continue that
> process and are considering some changes that may
> take place this fall
> and should actually result in increased staffing in
> this area.
>
> 5) At that meeting, the board accepted the
> resignation of our Curriculum
> Director, Mary Koehl. This is a critical position to
> the academic
> success of our students. Given the uncertainty of
> the state budget
> situation, and my concerns about finding and hiring
> a candidate of the
> quality we need in that position on such short
> notice, I needed to find
> a way to preserve some of the funds from her
> position while planning for
> how these responsibilities would still be completed.
> To do this, I
> supplied some offsets to eliminating the Curriculum
> Director position
> while this planning took place. The $25,000 that was
> listed as $5,000
> stipends (which I think stirred some of the reaction
> to the Gazette
> article) was a way of preserving some funds until we
> knew where we were
> with the state budget and had a chance as an
> administrative team to plan
> on how the Curriculum Coordinator duties would be
> carried out. In
> reality, the administrators are working well over 50
> hours a week during
> the school year and probably would not have been
> able to pick up
> additional assignments such as coordinating the
> state testing program,
> professional development, state and federal grant
> reports, distance
> learning consortium responsibilities as examples.
> They will have
> increased responsibility at the building level for
> staff training around
> their building goals and curriculum implementation
> in their buildings as
> part of their regular responsibilities. But this is
> a natural
> progression resulting from a number of district
> goals that have been
> unfolding over the last several years in such areas
> as Implementing 6+1
> Writing, Content area reading, Differentiation of
> Instruction, new
> middle school math and elementary reading programs
> to name a few. They
> have been eager to take on these additional
> responsibilities.
>
> Again, none of these cuts now seem necessary.
>
>
>
> Heidi Carvin
> District Administrator
>
=== message truncated ===
I think due to the state of the schools budget, and the fact that if Gov. Doyle had not worked things the way he did the Evansville school district would be facing some very big decisions.
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone should get a raise beyond the cost of living raise regardless of Gov.Doyle did or did not do. My husband has worked at the same place for the last 15yrs, and in the last several years has taken on more and more responsibility with out being compensated, because its what needs to be done for the good of the company, and to keep things running smoothly. Would he like a raise to the tune of 5000+ yes, and he deserves it. Is it good idea being money is tight, no. So things will continue as they are so the company remains in tact, people keep their jobs and their benefits. I still say they need to take on these extra responsiblities without the extra pay, because that is what is best for the district, based on their budget issues.
If you are concerned about who is getting a raise in pay these days, you should start with our state legislature, which has approved a 4% raise for itself.
ReplyDeleteI want to say that the legislators' raises are undeserved, but not because you or I or someone else is getting less of raise this year. If people are doing good work, and the organization is showing a profit, then a raise might be in order. I don't think either is the case with the state legislature.
As for working harder and getting less, as anonymous noted about her husband, maybe a change is in order. We are not without control of our lives. Please don't say that someone else is less deserving of a wage increase simply because you or someone in your family isn't getting recognized for his/her efforts.
I did not say anyone else is less deserving or not deserving of a raise. What I did say is the school district can afford to give anything but a cost living raise. They have proven they can not afford it. They have shown everyone that there is no room for extra's in their budget. Anytime you have to pray that the Gov. signs one way or the other so your own budget survives, you don't have enough money. From what I understand they ( school administrator and principals would only being doing these duties for a year until they hire someone perm, its not as though there extra duties would be perm. They don't need extra money for every little extra they do, the load is going to be divided between 4-5 people. It comes down to is the money there? No it is not. Even if people are deserving of raises people don't always get them based on budgets. You might want to read the posts more carefully next time.
ReplyDeleteI will correct myself so no one else does, I meant to say the school district can not afford to do anything more but the cost of living raise, based on there budget.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the one anony who stated the school can not afford these 5000+ raises. I think it would be very irresponsible. They preach all the time to the kids to do the right thing, well now its time for them to do the right thing and back away from these raises. I think the school board needs to keep in mind as well that more than likely you are going to have to do something with the middle school in the next 5-10 years for lack of room. Don't come asking for anymore money for the community when you continue to spend foollishly, like on raises for ' extra duties' . You thought you had a hard time getting the idea of a new h.s. to fly, in will be 10x as hard for any extras, this town just can't take any higher taxes than what it has. Spend wisely.
ReplyDeleteI have a comment for the anony who keeps posting quit complaining and attend some meetings. We as tax payers should not have to babysit our school, or our school board and anymore that is what it has to come down to you , have to watch what they are doing, just like a three year old. If I don't get called into work,( I am in Social work and I am on call even when I am suppose to be off) I will be at the school board meeting. I thought maybe it was just us on this site grumbling, but I have been hearing more and more about the number of people who are unhappy with the thought of raises of 5000. a year for the adminsistation and the others that were picked to pick up the slack. We should be able to trust our school board people and administration and staff at the school to do the right thing, and we just have not seen that lately from them. Like I said we should not have to babysit them, they should do the right thing on there own.
ReplyDeleteI want to know why other schools do so much more for their kids than what ours does? What ever happened to SUMMER School, I know what happened the school district spent to much money in other areas and with the new h.s., and guess what got cut? There are schools smaller and bigger that have summer school programs all summer long. Where are ours? I don't think that there should be any more raises other than the cost of living until you get things more back in line.
ReplyDelete