Baffle Me With Bureaucrat

Well the curtailment plan has been unveiled. But first I want to talk about the open enrollment report that was distributed. It seems the administration wants to convince us that open enrollment is a good thing.

An airplane analogy was used. Here’s how it goes: An airplane has 100 seats filled at $600 a pop, and is readying for take off. At the last minute, they sell 20 more seats at $300 each. The rationale is that the flight attendants, pilots, air traffic control, etc are all there and being paid anyway (fixed costs) therefore is there really any harm in selling the last minute seats at a lower cost? It’s going to fly regardless. The answer is no, if you only have one plane.

But generally companies have a fleet. Let’s say they have 6 jumbo jets, 2 Cessna’s and 1 stealth bomber. Each of these planes has been flying for 30 years with 20% of their last minute tickets selling for ½ price. A stewardess does some math and realizes that by filling each plane with full price customers, one whole plane could be grounded. Eliminating 1/9 of the fixed costs (fuel, pilot stewards and stewardesses, baggage handlers, etc.). The stewardess does a cost benefit analysis on sending the grounded plane full of ½ price seats and realizes it would be foolish to do so. She also notes that there is ½ of one plane still unsold. Profit wise it is now best to sell those seats at ½ price. But what about the customers that paid full price? Maybe the airline could reconfigure the seating and give all the full price payers a little more room each and eliminate ½ price tickets. She then recommended that the airline sell the grounded plane to the airport it is located at for use as a community center. Not everyone can afford the dues at the Frequent Flyer Club, so the airport may be interested in the community center plane. The stakeholders marveled at the genius of this stewardess. Stock in the airline reached an all time high and the economy was saved.

For those of you that are confused, Planes are buildings, full price payers are CFCSD children, ½ price tickets are open enrollees, Fixed costs are teachers, support staff, utilities…
And yes the grounded plane is a closed building. No, this wont really help the US economy. But it might help us avoid state takeover.

Here is what nobody wants me to say out loud. IF we would stop accepting open enrollment, Silver Lake Elementary could not sustain itself. It would be reduced to 1 classroom per grade. What’s more is each of these class rooms would easily fit into Lincoln elementary. No matter how you try to baffle with your complicated forms and misleading math, it comes down to the fact that open enrollment costs the tax payers of Cuyahoga Falls. Or to word it another way, not accepting open enrollment would save the tax payers a substantial amount of money.

Let me show you another way it costs us. According to the complicated State form provided to me, an open enrolled child brings $5,614 with them. Last year we spent anywhere from $6,716 to $9,085 per pupil to educate that same child. That difference is our local dollars being spent on kids from other cities. Another thing eliminating open enrollment would do is reduce class size in many buildings. This is the beginning of a very public campaign for equity for CF children and fiscal responsibility for our taxpayers.

My thoughts on the curtailment plan are in the works…Stay Tuned! Meanwhile, check out the Falls News for thier coverage.

Just the Facts Ma'am

This weeks issue of the Falls News was a good one. I’m going to start with the letters to the editor. I swore I heard the dueling banjo song in the background as I read them. This was the best one.

Then there was Shame, shame, who’s to blame? That was the title of an administrative presentation in Columbus in 2007, wasn’t it? But who’s to blame for what? The letter writer wants you to focus on buildings closing first and foremost. Keep in mind grade level configuration was something she supported her first two years in office. The academic benefits would make a profound impact on a majority of children in our district. It would also level the playing field between various “neighborhood schools” in class size and spending inequities. This is where the focus should be. It seems the board president is willing to accept a simple “it wont work” rather than look at research based evidence that says it will.

There are several problems with the superintendents “three page report”. First, there is no data to back what the administration is saying. In my opinion this is because the facts that I presented cannot be refuted on paper. Secondly, it is filled with misleading numbers and misinformation, There was NOT a “preference for neighborhood schools” according to the survey the district paid for. In fact 71% thought we either should reconfigure or take a look at reconfiguration. Only 30% thought we should keep doing like we’ve done since the 1800’s.

As for “socialization issues”, well a majority of Summit County school districts are grade-level configured. I wonder how screwed up all those kids are? The ones in Hudson seem out of control with all their drop outs and low test scores. Oddly enough the “issues” seem to be in the neighborhood school buildings. There are only three districts in Summit County that have neighborhood schools- Akron, Barberton and Cuyahoga Falls. Those three are in the bottom 6 performers in all of Summit County. In reality Hudson, which is configured almost exactly as I suggested for CF, is number 1 in performance.

I have been told several times that 8-10 busses will be needed. I have shown on paper in black and white (actually in color) that 4 busses are needed using numbers directly from district employees. I’ve asked how they have come up with 8-10 busses. As Ms. Peabody always said, just the answer will not suffice; I need to see your work. Because when this number was originally thrown out there, I was in the room. I happened like this: Um, it looks like we’d need 8 or 10 more busses to bus that many more kids.

As I’ve shown on paper many times, it may look or seem like a lot of things, but research and data frequently show otherwise.

And one outright falsehood is that we "would lose an estimated $2,621,104 in state and local revenue by canceling and closing open enrollment." We would lose no local money by eliminating open enrollment. Open enrolled children do not bring local dollars with them. The truth is, the actual dollar amount CF would lose by eliminating open enrollment is about a half million dollars. On top of that, what he doesn’t want to tell you is this: We spend $212,000 per year of our local dollars on out of district children in one building alone. The state money these kids bring only covers 2/3’s of the cost to educate them. The tax payers of CF support six additional classrooms in this building due to open enrollment. This what the board president should have complained about a lack of coverage on. Why won’t the Falls News report on these atrocities against the taxpayers of Cuyahoga Falls? This district spends less on its own kids than it does on an open enrolled child from Akron. That’s news the community should know.

The last article explains why there is no data to back the assertions that my proposal is “unrealistic”. There is only so much time in the day. While working on this funding plan, the superintendent suggested that the board reuse envelopes to save the district money.

Who is being unrealistic?