The Observation Deck

Will Brown wrote:
While the Lakewood schools are, in my opinion, better than most, they are not perfect, and there is certainly room for improvement, and I think the people who offer criticisms and suggestions are doing so in hopes of achieving some improvement. Those who are unflaggingly defensive about the status quo do not seem to see any need for improvement.

I read this statement four times, and it seems to me that youre saying that cutting teacher pay and spending LESS money will make Lakewood schools BETTER?
I am certainly misreading this. So please help me.

Even if I believe MORE money doesnt guarantee a better school system, Im just not understanding how LESS spending will do it.

I will say again that this whole topic is very frustrating to me because I feel as though I am speaking up for teachers and none of them post here to speak up for themselves.
I am not a teacher and I have no direct profit interest in whatever schools spend or what teachers make.
I just hate the idea that people would rather keep a few dollars in their pocket than invest in their kids.

Dee,

So that you understand.

Employees, whether of private companies, or of school districts, are generally limited as to what they can publically say about their employment conditions, either because of negotiated agreements, or through certain limitations and conditions relating to their employment.

As a former teacher, and former exec board teachers' union person, I can tell you that it would generally not be advisable for either active teachers or administrators to post public commentary regarding negotiated agreements. The place for that discussion to transpire would be at the bargaining table and only at the bargaining table.

I think you will find that to be the reason that the active education community does not post with greater frequency. I'm sure that many of them would probably like to, but that's not the way things are done.

Thank you Mr Rice

I do understand the limitations and that is one of the drawbacks of the "real names only" here. Some people who are able ito offer information and insight really cant. Not everyone is free to offer an opinion if ther real name must be attached.
I dont think it would be appropriate for teachers to lobby for more money here.
It just that there is so much misnformation and so many misconceptions out there, that somehow Lakewood is taxing and spending more than any other district, that as a parent, I find it maddening.
Yesterday I saw the ODE website that lists teacher data for everyone of the 3500 schools in Ohio. Its an Excel file so you can sort it by the salary line.
You had to get down to 298 before a Lakewood school (Grant) showed up. The lowest (Harrison) was down around 900.

You are in a unique position to be able to offer your perspective. and Im glad you are doing so.

Dee,

Thank you.

It is always gratifying to see that members of the public, and particularly parents, posting in support of schools.

Public schools have many detractors, for a variety of reasons.

You would think that to be surprising, because public education is so vital to the success of a nation.

For anyone wanting a chuckle, they might rwant to esearch some of the draconian teacher laws and rules that were in place, at the turn of the last century.

I'm sure that there are those who would like to see teachers have those kinds of restrictions placed on them again.

Teachers have won their rights to better working conditions, a living wage, fair evaluation procedures, and benefit packages through years of struggle. They know that all this will help to continue to attract quality individuals to the profession in the future, and that all of this continues to be in the best interest of the children.

Hi,
Lakewood is in a period of declining enrollment in its school system. Per Ohio DOE Lakewood's enrollment in 2000 was 7,121 and in 2007 it decreased to 5,925. That's a drop of 20% or about 2.5% per year. This should enable the Lakewood School System to operate each year on less without affecting the salaries of individual teachers. But I would think fewer teachers are required.

This in combination with the new schools should result in the operating costs for the system being less each year.

Mr Farris

Arent you the person who wants to spend hundreds of millions of money no one has to build a peninsula? And you think we spending too much money educating our kids? With all due respect, and I do want to be respectful, I am having a hard time understanding those priorities.

Does it not impress you and the anti-teacher group at all that Lakewood has gone 7 years without an operational tax increase?
Doesnt that speak to the fact that, between staff cuts, attrition, and smaller-than-average pay increases, much of what you are clamoring for is, in fact, happening?
Or do you believe that teachers should have worked without raises since 2000?
You have not paid a penny in additional school operating tax since 2002. The average teacher salary is now basically in the middle of Cuyahoga County. Have you not gotten a raise or raised your prices or rents in 7 years?
The bottom line is the bottom line. Almost no other school distrrict in Ohio has gone this long without an operating. If Lakewood is being mismanaged, millions of people in Ohio would gladly accept that kind of mismanagement,

Hi,
Ms. Martinez, I do appreciate you being respectful.

I do not know who the anti-teaching group you respectfully mentioned is since I am not 1 of them. I have great respect for teachers. I find some of them quite amazing.

I was trying to assist your argument that individual teachers should not be forced to take pay cuts. Please don’t attack me for agreeing with you. With the workload of the Lakewood School system decreasing 20% there are plenty of ways to reduce costs without impacting a teacher’s salary.

Am I impressed that in 7 years we have not had an operational tax increase? No, given the above fact that the workload has been decreasing. We have had 2 (or was it 3 – I’ve lost count) property tax increases to build the new schools, which should have also reduced operating expenses.

I have not claimed that Lakewood School District is being mismanaged.

Regarding the Peninsula: The main reason I support building the Peninsula is to bring in additional tax revenues for the Schools, the City, the Library and our County. I believe the residents of Lakewood are overburdened with taxes. I find property taxes in Lakewood bordering on outrageous. The Peninsula is a way to offer property owners in Lakewood some relief without the Schools or City or any other areas cutting expenses. The second reason I support the Peninsula is I’m sick of hearing Lakewood residents claim Lakewood is a built out community that has no options but to cannibalize itself to get new development. It isn’t. It is one of a few cities that can grow. When I hear “Grow Lakewoodâ€￾ I agree. Let’s do it! I mean really do it. How about by 26-52 acres.

[quote="Dee Martinez"][quote="Will Brown"]

While the Lakewood schools are, in my opinion, better than most, they are not perfect, and there is certainly room for improvement, and I think the people who offer criticisms and suggestions are doing so in hopes of achieving some improvement. Those who are unflaggingly defensive about the status quo do not seem to see any need for improvement.[/quote]

I read this statement four times, and it seems to me that youre saying that cutting teacher pay and spending LESS money will make Lakewood schools BETTER?
I am certainly misreading this. So please help me.

Even if I believe MORE money doesnt guarantee a better school system, Im just not understanding how LESS spending will do it.[/quote]

What you say seems to be in the statement cited is not there. I don't think I can offer any help with your problem.

As to participation in any discussion regarding the education industry, I think is it disingenuous to imply that the teachers have no voice in the matter simply because few of them choose to participate in this forum.

Through their union, they are at or near the top of special interest groups that lobby politicians and make monetary contributions (that none of us could afford), and in this country, money talks. Perhaps it is correct that individual teachers have little voice, as, at least in my experience, while they elect the union leaders, the union leaders decide what position the entity will take with respect to lobbying; they don't seem to have much interest in polling their members before deciding what to back, and they don't tolerate much in the way of dissent. If you or I asked Congressman Kucinich to dance, he would offer his regrets. If the NEA asked him to dance, he would don his tutu.

I suspect they don't bother posting here because they realize this is a powerless forum, and that even if we agreed on something, we would be in no position to effect it.

With all due respect, Mr Brown:

Teacher's unions are comprised of democratically elected leadership.

Policy formulations are worked out through that leadership, and while no one would probably agree, part and parcel, with every single position that an organization takes- by and large, I believe that it would be safe to say that association positions would generally reflect membership wishes.

I would not expect that active teachers and administrators would post on forums having to do with collective bargaining agreements. There are ethical lines here that need to be observed, having nothing whatsoever to do with the perceived "power" of a forum, or lack thereof.

That there are lobbies of all kinds in this country is a fact, and that there is power in numbers is also a fact. Teachers have as much right to present a unified voice as does any other legally constituted group in our country.

And they do.

And when you allude that teachers, as a group, may "lobby politicians or make monetary contributions" that "none of us could afford", I would suggest that whatever your own chosen profession might be, that there are probably advocacy groups in Columbus or Washington representing their interests as well.

At least, that's my opinion, and I may be wrong...but I doubt it.

Bill Call wrote:

Charlie Page wrote:

Bill Call wrote:As to Lakewood Schools: They can and should cut at least $10 million from its current operating budget.

A 10% reduction is salaries is both reasonable and responsible. Instead the school board is a budgeting a 20% increase in salaries over the next three years.

This is totally false. We've gone over Mr. Call's fuzzy math before. I, as a teacher in Lakewood Schools, WILL NOT be getting a 20% increase. Please stop with this entirely misleading representation of my salary OR show everyone the peculiar way you come up with this 20% figure.

And as for teacher representation on the deck, please be assured that several of us both post and "lurk" with consistency. My absence from these forum topics of late has nothing to do with an unwillingness to voice my opinion, but everything to do with a stronger inclination to devote my energies to the needs of my students and my family. I am a strong supporter of our schools, our leadership, our community, and this forum.

A 20% increase in three years? It is only when figures like this get tossed around that I have to step in. Show your math, Mr. Call.

You can check out the 5 year forecast here:
http://fyf.oecn.k12.oh.us/genForecast.a ... ormat=HTML

This shows Lakewood paying $44 mil in the current fiscal year to $49 mil in 2012, about 12 percent (or 3 percent a yr) A 20% increase would take it to $52 mil.
Districts cannot presume decreases in enrollment. They have to figure on enrollment being stable at current levels.
[/url]

Hi,
Ms. Martinez, you said:

"Districts cannot presume decreases in enrollment. They have to figure on enrollment being stable at current levels. "

I find this statement hard to accept. Where is this stated? If populations are increasing I know school systems are expected to react to historic treads and build more schools. So, the school system should be looking at historic treads both ways and designing their system accordingly. Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the State school system demanded a downward adjustment when we were planning to rebuild our schools due to declining enrollment.

Regardless, the fact the number of enrolled students has decreased in the past by 20% should result in reduced costs to the school system. Actual decreases in enrollment reduce actual costs of operation.

Don,

You would think that your premise about reduced costs would be obvious.

The trouble is, that in the past 10 years, schools have been hit left and right by unfunded mandates, court decisions, and the increased public funding allotments with the private and charter school movements.

There are so many buckets dipping into the public education well these days that it's hard to even see where that well is!

For these and other reasons that affect the rest of us as well (utilities etc...) public school expenses continue to spiral upwards, even as enrollment may decline.