The Observation Deck

Gary Rice wrote:There are a significant number of types of disabilities, by the way, beyond specific learning disabilities. Many of these students require multiple services.

Those numbers have DECLINED. If the number of students has declined and the number of teachers have declined why have costs increased?

Poor Bill - doesn't know about the cost of living. Heat and water, insurance costs. Have yours gone up Bill?

I do enjoy your outrage my man.

Tim, Bill, Gary, et al. –

I appreciate the back and forth and the different takes on the numbers I provided yesterday. This is exactly what I was hoping for.

Here’s another quick side by side comparison of per pupil expenditures of 03-04 v. 08-09. (I wish there was a more reader friendly way to display tables in this forum.)

Keep in mind, according to two inflation calculators I found, what cost $9,817 in 2004 costs $11,057.91 in 2009. I hope someone would check this as well.

Per pupil expenditure 2003-2004 - $9,817 (multiplied by 6,505 students is ($63,859,585).
Administration - $819 (8.3% of total)
Building Operations - $1,582 (16.1% of total)
Staff Support - $181 (1.8% of total)
Pupil Support - $1,243 (12.7% of total)
Instructional Expenditures - $5,992 (61% of total)

Per pupil expenditure 2008-2009 - $12,714 (multiplied by 5,605 students is $71.261,970).
Administration - $924 (7.3% of total)
Building Operations - $2,014 (15.8% of total)
Staff Support - $223 (1.8% of total)
Pupil Support - $1,674 (13.2% of total)
Instructional Expenditures - $7,879 (62% of total)

Lakewood spent $2,897 more per child in 08-09 than in 03-04. Eighty percent of this, or $2,318, is due to an increase in Instructional Expenditures ($1,887) and Pupil Support ($431).

Remember, the Lakewood school district received a rating of “Continuous Improvement” at the end of the 2003-2004 school year. Last year’s rating was “Excellent.”

(By the way, all the numbers I am harvesting and displaying come from http://ilrc.ode.state.oh.us/Schools/Default.asp)

Charlie Page wrote:

Tim Liston wrote:Why is this money needed?

This site will give you information on why the levy needs to pass.
http://www.LakewoodsChildren.com

Site is paid for by Citizens for Lakewood's Children, a ballot issue PAC dedicated to support of the City of Lakewood schools operating levy and bond issues. There is also a link if you wish to donate to help get the message out to vote yes on issue 6.

The site says that Lakewood Schools cut $9 million from spending during the last five years. However, the State of Ohio says the district increased spending by $9 million. How can this be?

If your boss told you to cut your $65 million budget by $9 million and you returned with a budget of $74 million what would his reaction be? How would you explain that a $9 million increase is really a $9 million decrease?

I'm reminded of the story of the employee who went into the office of the boss and asked for a 20% raise. When the boss told him he was only getting a 15% raise the employee left in a huff exclaiming, "The bastard cut my salary 5%".

Is it true that no raises will be given for the next three years?

Yours is an interesting point, Bill.

In this talk about numbers, we must not lose track that Lakewood's schools and students earned a rating of "Excellent" for 2008-09 performance versus "Continuous Improvement" in 2003-04. We, as a community, need to decide the value of education in our city and how much we are willing to invest to keep high achieving, "Excellent" schools.

However, numbers matter and the ones I provided in previous posts are from the Ohio Department of Education and reflect on our district six years ago - not five. I, myself, simply multiplied per pupil expenditure by the number of students. This sounded logical to me.

I am trying to see what Lakewood's school budget was for FY 04, FY 05 and FY 06. According to our district's Web site, (http://lakewoodcityschools.org/docs/5ye ... v%2009.pdf) Lakewood schools' total expenditures for FY 07, FY 08 and FY 09 were:

FY 07 - $66,316,782
FY 08 - $69,390,112
FY 09 - $69,349,553

We need the FY 04, FY 05 and FY 06 total expenditures to see whether the $9million cut claim is accurate.

At any rate, there seems to be a discrepancy between the $71.3 million number I put forward (per pupil expenditure times the number of students) and the $69.3 million total expenditure for 2008-09 number on the District's Web site.

Again, I will keep looking for the total expenditures for FY's 04, 05 and 06.

The District is predicting the following expenditures for the next five years.

FY 10 - $69.9 million
FY 11 - $74.2 million
FY 12 - $76.6 million
FY 13 - $79.6 million
FY 14 - $82.8 million

Is this operating levy going to generate the additional $36.6 million needed for the next five years? (Remember, we spent $69.3 million last year so there's a $600,000 gap next year, a $4.9 million gap in FY 11, a $7.3 million gap in FY 12, a $10.3 million gap in FY 13 and a $13.5 million gap in FY 14. Add up all the gaps and you get $36.6 million.)

Is this operating levy going to generate the additional $36.6 million needed for the next five years?

No. According to the presentation that I have seen several times even with the Levy we will not make up the shortfall. I asked this question at a BOE meeting after Dr. Madak's presentation and the BOE will have to come back to the voters with another levy in 3 years. They are asking for 6.9 mill. although they really need over 12. The District believes that asking for the higher amount all at once would put the levy at risk.

I am supporting the levy.

Kristine Pagsuyoin wrote:

Is this operating levy going to generate the additional $36.6 million needed for the next five years?

No. According to the presentation that I have seen several times even with the Levy we will not make up the shortfall. I asked this question at a BOE meeting after Dr. Madak's presentation and the BOE will have to come back to the voters with another levy in 3 years. They are asking for 6.9 mill. although they really need over 12. The District believes that asking for the higher amount all at once would put the levy at risk.

I don't understand.

We have:

Fewer students
Fewer students with special needs
Fewer teachers
Fewer school buildings
Fewer maintenance expenditures

And according to levy supporters

$9 million in budget cuts plus $5 million in new budget cuts and yet

We need $12 MILLION PER YEAR in new taxes? What is driving the increase in expenditures?

What is this money to be used for? It is a simple question.

Thanks for that information, Kristine. This was most helpful.

Bill, I come at this assuming that having a “Continuous Improvement” district costs less than having an “Excellent” district.

I am for supporting a levy that helps maintain the District’s “Excellent” rating. However, I would like to know what programs, practices and expenditures the District feels it’s put in place over the last few years that moved us from “Continuous Improvement,” through “Effective” to “Excellent.”

The fault does not rest entirely on the School Board since they are in the most part just an extension of the Superintendent’s office. Equally sharing the responsibility for performance are the principals and the teachers who are only there because it’s a job. There are excellent teachers and then there are teachers that need a union.

We can even place some of responsibility for poor results on the state government that is forced by the federal government to require the schools to teach to a test. Once again, it proves that federal government and intelligence is an oxymoron. However, this requirement forced on us due to the poor performance of school districts that were graduating kids out high school that could not read.

I can recall when the superintendent was the best of the principles in a district and a principle was the best of the teachers. The management understood the difficulties and challenges that teachers experience every day because they lived it.

Your right about state rating of excellence right up to the level of the Lakewood High school that has a ranking of 406 out of 811. Results like that will certainly help the graduation classes in an even more competitive world. If you’re going to try to cover up the manure pile with rose be sure it doesn’t stink.

Give me reasons why you need the money and how you’re going to fix the problems rather than the marketing BS your trying to sell. We don’t need demographic or other concocted excuses, what we need is results and you don’t have a solution to fix the problem, get out.

The school board had better reconsider building new schools because property taxes will continue to plummet due the real estate market and if you continue to raise property taxes for whatever the reason, property values will continue to fall. Lakewood needs to attract new families; however, these families don’t necessary need Lakewood.

If you look at this:

http://fyf.oecn.k12.oh.us/genForecast.asp?IRN=44198&Format=HTML

and you interpret “schools will have to cut $2 million“ to mean that the levy will raise about $2 million dollars a year, there can only be one conclusion….

“It’s for the teachers.” Every penny of it. And then some.

Why didn’t Shawn or Charlie answer Bill’s question about the so-called wage freeze? Why hasn’t either one posted since Bill asked? Why are school salaries going up $3.5 million in one year, over 5%, in the face of an alleged wage freeze? And declining enrollment?

And why is Lakewood tolerating a $51 million dollar school funding deficit by 2014 and not shouting from the rooftop?

Absolutely astounding….

Let's try and put all of this into perspective.

First, there were those who cried for more accountability in schools...

...wanting districts to demonstrate tangible progress....

...so, the feds brought in the NCLB law, and mandated strict testing procedures, along with penalties for schools that were not improving.

A strict, objective nationwide accountability system was initiated for schools and districts that included evaluations through testing, graduation rates, and attendance.

For a while, Lakewood struggled, and for a variety of very good reasons. We had many students for whom English was a second language, and many more who required special education services. These students often faced additional hurdles in passing some of those tests.

We competed with other districts that had more money, and oftentimes more affluent demographics...

Yet, Lakewood was still able to achieve that coveted "excellent" rating in our last evaluation.

Now, as to district expenses? Yes, salaries and benefits are indeed the lion's share of a district's payouts...

...but in Lakewood, I believe that you are indeed getting what you pay for.

In order to further reduce expenses, Lakewood did, however, initiate a buy-out program in order to reduce the number of higher paid staff members, and help to bring in more new teachers at lower salaries.

By the way, a school superintendent is an employee of the school board.

Regarding special education services? As a retired special education teacher, I can tell you that it's not only the number of students in the mix that determines expenses, but also, the types of services that a district is required by law to provide for individual students.

Remember too, as you crunch the numbers, that Lakewood also provides quite a number, and variety of, services to parochial students as well.

As for unions? I would simply think that, at some point in their careers, just about every public employee would appreciate their being represented by a professional association looking out for their rights. Whether that would be with teaching, police, fire, or other services, issues can arise where having the help of an association is greatly appreciated.

As for asking for incremental amounts in a levy? I believe that action helps both the taxpayer and the district, as there's a greater chance of levy passage, and the financial burdens can then be spread over more time.

There IS a wage freeze currently with Lakewood school employees. Period.

Between that and the buy-out, I truly believe that the Lakewood Schools and their various labor organizations have forged a responsible set of actions for the future.

Finally, I do not believe that we have a problem to fix here. Instead, we have an excellent district to maintain.

Back to the banjo.

Why didn’t Shawn or Charlie answer Bill’s question about the so-called wage freeze?

I did not respond to Bill's question because it tends to go nowhere. But I'll respond now because I AM a firm believer in public accountability. So, here it is.

I will begin by stating that I am a Lakewood resident and LHS teacher in his seventh year. Here is what I make, as posted on Lakewoodbuzz.com

WHEELER , SEAN P $45,592

According to the standard pay ladder in use throughout the country, I make this amount because I have been teaching for seven years and I have a Bachelor's degree. The pay ladder for teachers is dependent upon two things. The first variable is based on the number of years that I have been teaching. The second variable is based on the education level that I have attained. This can be plotted on an x and y axis in which x = years experience, and y = education level. For every gain in either category, a teacher's pay is increased. Therefore, in my situation, x = 7 and y = the minimum level of a Bachelor's degree. As a starting teacher x = 0 and I made $36,00 a year as a starting teacher (as a teacher at Brookside HS in Sheffield). As I've increased my level of experience, my pay has increased. Since I have not been able to put aside the time to get a Master's degree (having young kids), I have not moved on the y axis since I started my career. When I have the time, and can afford to get my Master's degree, I will eventually move along the y axis as well. This system rewards experience and increased education.

Is this the best system on which to base teacher pay? That is debatable. It may be surprising to hear that I tend more towards looking at teacher effectiveness as a yardstick for teacher pay. This puts me at odds with the current pay system, but it is the one under which most teachers in this nation operate. In any case, I feel that the pay I receive is commensurate with the value of my experience. As the years have passed, I think that I have become a more valuable asset. Was I undervalued at $36k? Probably not. I was new and finding my way. Will I be overvalued in ten years? I hope not. I hope that I can continue to develop within my profession in a manner that increases my value within the district.

So when I say that the new levy includes NO PAY INCREASES, I mean that there will be no increase to the current pay scale. A teacher with seven years of experience and a Bachelor's degree will still make $45, 592 for the term of the union agreement. A pay raise would be to increase the amount that a teacher with 7 years experience and a Bachelor's degree makes over the term of the agreement, which is NOT the case. Of course, Bill and others would argue that next year, when I move on the x-axis to the 8-year mark, that I am receiving a pay raise. But this is shading the argument to avoid a distinction between a pay raise at any x/y conjunction (which this levy proposal does not do) and a pay raise along either axis (which is standard throughout the country).

The current levy does not toss out the pay ladder system. I am aware of a few districts (I think Denver is one), that have switched the pay system to what is called "merit pay" by which teachers are payed based on a combination of education, experience, and student test scores. While I am for some version of merit pay, using only test scores to measure teacher effectiveness tends to encourage "teaching to the test", which I am wholeheartedly against. A value-added model, which focusses a bit more closely on student progress within a given year, seems to me a better model for a "merit pay system". Should we fundamentally change the way teachers are payed? Maybe. Does the levy proposal have anything to do with that debate? Not at all.

When Bill raises the question of ANY pay raises, he wants to shift away from an apples-to-apples comparison in which we look at the current pay chart and compare it to what it will look like at the time when the union wage freeze agreement expires. The two charts will look exactly the same.

Sorry for the long-winded explanation. As an employee of the district, I am a strong believer in the work we are doing. I also appreciate my role as a public servant and the accountability inherent in that trust. I hope that this post has helped to clarify any question as to how much money I make and stand to make in the future. I also hope that our community will come to a clear understanding that the current levy proposal is not connected to any wage increase or fiscal mismanagement, but is rather based upon a need created by an unconstitutional state funding system reliant on property taxes.

Give me reasons why you need the money and how you’re going to fix the problems rather than the marketing BS your trying to sell.

Here is one way in which Lakewood High School is looking to improve student achievement and skill acquisition. It is not a specially funded program and adds $0 to the operating budget. So in this case, it is not a response to why we need the money other than that the teachers are working for pay and that three of the four teachers involved in the program are facing being layed-off. It is a teacher-led initiative that currently involves 9th grade students. The program was presented at this year's E-tech Ohio Conference and was well received by educators and administrators from across the state.

This might not be the appropriate thread for this post, but Mr. Baker requested information about one of the many things that our excellent staff and students are doing to meet the challenges that are confronting our district. Any close look at our high school would show similar efforts towards student success at numerous levels and in various forms.

Please log-in as a guest and spend some time looking at one slice of what we are doing with our 9th grade cohort. https://moodle.lakewoodcityschools.org/moodle/course/view.php?id=94

Tim Liston wrote:Why didn’t Shawn or Charlie answer Bill’s question about the so-called wage freeze? Why hasn’t either one posted since Bill asked? Why are school salaries going up $3.5 million in one year, over 5%, in the face of an alleged wage freeze? And declining enrollment?

I didn't realize that question was directed at me. It's been reported all over that there will be a freeze in base pay as Sean described. I didn't feel the need to respond to something that was as widely reported. Also, I don't know the details of the contract as I'm neither a teacher nor part of the administration. Yes, I'm the treasurer for Citizens for Lakewood's Children which is a ballot issue PAC and separate from the schools. However, this doesn't get me any more information that what's publicly available.

Bill and Tim, since the two of you insist that teachers make too much, here's a question for you: How much should teachers make?

Charlie, I never said that teacher salaries are much out of line, at least not for good teachers. And most teachers do a fine job. I do think that teachers should join the rest of us and forego raises for now. That’s just what you do in a recession, and when revenue stays flat, like it or not. And especially since teachers say that’s what they’re doing. When the Lakewood children web site says “teachers … agreed to a pay freeze”, well, that’s just a lie Charlie. That statement is clearly intended to deceive.

Where teacher compensation has gotten way out of hand is with the pensions. One big reason this has happened is that teachers granted themselves a series of ad hoc pension “enhancements” in the 80’s and 90’s when their pension plan was fully funded, and those enhancements are still in place today even though the plan is worse than broke.

Mind you I have no problem with whatever pension arrangement the teachers grant themselves and fund themselves. I admittedly have a hissy fit when teachers promise themselves pensions that they cannot possibly fund, then as will inevitably happen, insist on taxpayer bailouts.

Private sector employees are not even legally allowed to put as much money into a 401k as needs to be set aside each year to fund a teacher’s pension. We’re only allowed to set aside $16,500 a year Charlie. I’ve done the math and will present it one of these days. It takes more than that to fund a teacher’s pension, especially one who retires after 30 years and collects 75% of his/her final salary for another 30 years (on average) with a COLA on top. How is it even remotely fair that I cannot legally set aside the same amount of money for my retirement as is set aside for a teacher’s retirement?

Finally, please, take a look at this (clicky) and tell me how this is not a train wreck?

I’m off to Indy now….