BFA SCHOOL BUDGET REVOTE INFORMATION

[lena6]

Understand?

[cvallett]

For those who are interested, this report was produced in January 2014  for the Vt. Association of Realtors by economists Art Woolf and Richard Heaps. 
http://www.vermontrealtors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Report-on-Vermont-Education-Funding-System-01272014c.pdf

Even if you read only the Executive Summary, it gives an explanation of why Vermont spending on education has increased so much in the last 15 years.  I think it makes for very interesting reading and may help us all understand a little better what is happening in the education funding landscape in Vermont.

[Thor]

So while there has been a steady decrease in the total number of students enrolled in VT schools over the last 15 years (study was through 2012), (a decrease of nearly 16%) there has been an increase in staffing (teachers and aides) through the same time frame (an increase of just over 17%). Would seem to me that is one discrepancy we should look at.

As of 2012, VT spent more per pupil than any other state with the exception of New York. And with this, VT kids are doing no better on average than any other kids in any other state. Not much to show for that level of spending.

Might be time to rethink how many teachers we actually need. But that is a touchy subject and would lead to difficult decisions. And is the leadership willing to address them?

At some point, things become fiscally unsustainable. Government doesn't really care about making their books balance, they just demand more from us in the form of taxes. Leadership is the responsibility to make the tough decisions. With that said, cutting from the kids before you cut from the adults is weakness.

Thanks cvallett for the read. Very interesting.

[nhibbard]

I just read the summary and it's interesting. I guess you'd have to take that and then something paid by a teachers organization and somewhere in the middle is probably a fair assessment. Vermont does have a very low population overall to maintain the infrastructure costs. I guess the best assessment is to find what the base staffing needed for no students and then find out the incrementals.

But overall you can't just keep paying more and more to staff. It's not sustainable sadly. And anytime you compare salaries in one area to another, you'll probably find someone is underpaid. I'm interested in how much give and take the contract negotiations had before agreed to.

If anything needs to get cut, lets get rid of the iPads first. If kids need access to technology, create a lab with enough hardware and have the kids visit that to get the exposure. Don't buy iPad's for entire grades. They'll have the lab time to learn to use them and spend more time on the theory behind them, how to use a keyboard, how to spell without spell check, how to write a paper without looking for everything on Wikipedia. Learn how to do something and then learn how to do it more efficiently. Yes, using something everyday helps, but using it with no understanding of the background processes doesn't mean much. Using an iPad to access RazKids or other sites is meaningless since you can do the same thing for a third of the price on Amazon Kindles.

[kevin]

The report seems to focus only on student-teacher ratio and how it has affected spending.  I found it interesting that the report stated that "teacher salaries do not contribute to Vermont’s
high spending level. Rather, if Vermont’s teacher salaries were at national levels, our total spending and per pupil spending would be even higher than they actually are."  It then states later "the student-teacher ratio in Vermont, which is the lowest in the country and is ultimately the cause of Vermont’s high education spending."  My take from that would be to leave salaries alone and cut positions.  I wish the report would have included more information on other areas of school budgets.  It seems that the scope of this report was very narrow.

[tfence]

After reading that, I also agree that the salaries are alright and we need to eliminate teachers and aids. I did read in this forum somewhere we do have power to do that at this point. It sound like the board does not have any meeting until the re-vote. So we have to vote this down to have them work on this option. Companies have to downsize staff when the work load goes down. So schools have to downsize when work load goes down (AKA Students).

[kpplus2]

I believe that administration needs to be cut not go right after student  activities. What I mean is we have Franklin supervisory east, west etc. with superintendents making 6 figures. It's time to consolidate the administration piece. I also feel that all of our opinions on this forum go nowhere. Lets vote and explain your position please get involved. It's sad that this forum gets more hits then people that voted. We need to send the message and also help in the decision making process that's what real change is about.  Soap box complete.

[rod anode]

kp2 ? do I know you....spot on with your ideas

[kpplus2]

Rod  I'm not sure I know you , however I value your opinion and you make me laugh my a&$ off.  You and I think a lot alike and I wish we had more like us haha.

[trussell]

One Rod is enough for any community

[rod anode]

spare the rod spoil the child

[lena6]

Trevor, did i hear you were a new Daddy?  Keep the baby away from Rod.  Gosh only knows the stories he would tell about you.  But still got to love him.  Lol. 

[rod anode]

2 rods don't make a right

[rod anode]

walk softly and carry a big rod

[Watchman]

I say there is money to trim when you have an assistant principal being paid to be an administrator but they are not available after 2:30 because they are also being paid to coach sports. Then you add on an administrator to attend afternoon meetings that the first administrator can't go to because coaching is their priority. This doesn't seem like a prudent use of tax payers' money? How many tax payers get paid to leave their job to get another job while they are supposed to be working at the first job?