In her response to this, Supr. Carvin said that "Losing a few students here or there would help us......."
Click on the audioblogger for her exact remarks.
Parents listening were a little shocked to hear this. It was unclear which categories it would be best to be in: special ed, gt, half day, 4k, ELL, regular or etc.
In her enrollment remarks, Supr. Carvin said that enrollment was up about 100 students, but because of the mix of students, the revenue was really not going to fulfill the needs that had been generated by the mix of students. She specifically cited the social studies area, where despite adding staff, there were still more students than desired.
As an Observer, thinking of having another child, it is unclear which type of child would be most fitting and fiscally appropriate to have to best fit into the current financial scheme of things. It seems that if one did not get the right category, one would automatically be home schooled or virtual schooled.
I would like to do the right thing. Have the best child to fit into the best category. I am just unclear what category is truly fiscally properly funded. Maybe you can tell me.
You make the call. Listen in to the audioblogger and decide.
It is a difficult thing to feel financial pressures. It is the job of the School Board to consider ALL options in trying to maximize spending power. They should not be criticized too strongly for investigating any idea. Quite frankly they would be remiss if they did not acknowledge the impact in revenues full day K and 4K would have.
ReplyDeleteWhere the concern can be generated, in my opinion, is that they seem to dismiss the requests of the community. I think it has been demonstrated that there is community support for keeping the kindergarten program with a half-day option. To say otherwise is simply ignoring the facts. Kindergarten is not compulsory and surely 4K will not be either, so some parents will choose not to send their kids into this school district until a later time. This "collateral damage" of loss to the school appears to be thought acceptable by Ms. Carvin because it does not impair the schools ability to increase revenues through the children who will take the place. The idea of one step back, but two steps forward I suppose.
It is my observation from reading the minutes and newspaper reports and the blogs, that somewhere the focus of the school board and perhaps Ms. Carvin has changed. It would be my expectation that these good people are there to determine how to best serve the educational needs of the community, and yet they now seem to be focusing on how the community can best serve their financial needs. Seeing children as sources of revenue rather than educational products.
I think they have it exactly backwards.