Since the Falls News Press is not interested in publishing data, but would rather publish dueling letters, I have taken the liberty to answer through my blog, some letters from the last few weeks’ issues. When you are done reading take a few minutes to watch my very first YouTube video. This is the first of what I hope will become a regular thing. I have been looking for a way to simplify the confusing world of education funding and the mountains of paperwork that go with it. I hope you enjoy it!
From the Falls News Press of March 22, 2009, my comments in red:
Criticizes School Board Member for Exit
I don’t even know where to start with this one. The letter writer is upset that I didn’t excuse myself or ask for a recess to use the restroom. “she could have at least asked for a recess” He should have asked me why I didn’t ask when I returned from the restroom. In the past, I did ask for a recess and it was denied. Then another member spoke up and the board president graciously allowed 5 minutes. Do you really think I’m going to put up with that? Since my requests are ignored or denied, I will leave if necessary. Which has been twice in 3 ½ years.
“She was a big supporter of the survey that the board sent out…But on this night she seemed to care less what we had to say.” The survey and community input are important to me. But the letter writer wasn’t really there to do that. He wanted to insult and criticize me as he had at previous meetings. Can’t say I’m sorry I missed it. The other speaker that night knows that I oppose gas and oil drilling at Newberry/Bolich as much as she does and will oppose it alongside her.
I do not owe him an explanation as to my restroom visits. Nor do I owe one to the board. The last time I checked, I was a big girl now and don’t need a hall pass or permission to go. As for showing respect to him, well that’s a two way street. It’s nice that all of Cuyahoga Falls now knows that I took a potty break.
I also take note that he doesn’t mention at all if he is upset that open enrollment is so costly and that gifted programming is on the chopping block in lieu of open enrollment.
From the Falls News Press of March 15, 2009, my comments in red:
Asks if Silver Lake school is 'untouchable'
“but I'll ask the question: Is Silver Lake Elementary School untouchable and is any question of its future existence dead on arrival based on the current makeup of the School Board?” Yes and yes.
“can we afford any "sacred cows?"” No. “It's understood that students transferring from other districts bring a certain amount of state funding with them. Does that influx of money offset the savings that could possibly be gained in limiting enrollment to residents of the district and scaling back the number of school buildings, with their related expenses?” No. The so called “revenue” gained from inter-district open enrollment is $1,593,373. The cost of these children is $2,538,762. “Is it not inevitable that we will be closing additional school buildings sooner rather than later?” Unfortunately it’s not inevitable. What I think you meant to say is wouldn’t it be prudent to close additional school buildings sooner rather than later. And yes, it would be. “Isn't now the time to make the hard decisions and garner the savings they could generate rather than asking an already reeling electorate to pass additional levies, which is doubtful, or cutting the services offered to our children?” Yes it would be. But that would require cutting loose the sacred cow you mention above.
From the Falls News Press of March 8, 2009, my comments in red:
Disputes School Board member's claims
“Do your homework and learn your lesson before misleading parents and property owners.” Note to self: Forward your homework to letter writer. Apparently she is only checking the homework from Silver Lake. I wonder if she picked up the gold star stickers…
In a Feb. 15 letter, ("Defends reconfiguration proposal," Page 9) the writer (me!) said that 118 children attending Silver Lake Elementary are "from other cities outside our district." I believe that statement is false. Ooops. My bad. I should have said that 118 children attending Silver Lake do not belong in Silver Lake Elementary and cost us bunches of money.
“… and have made the choice to attend this school through intra-district open enrollment. (Thanks Curt Grimes for demonstrating that other Board members do understand enrollment terminology.)” I also have problems deciphering left from right and figuring out what acronyms stand for. You have discovered my flaw. I can’t keep inter-district and intra-district open enrollment terms straight. Luckily I’m really good with math.
“Open enrollment actually brings in significant dollars from a source other than my property tax bill and I appreciate that.” They also cost a significant portion of your tax bill. Open enrollment “revenue” is $1,593,373. But the cost of educating the very same inter district open enrolled children is $2,538,762. Do you appreciate that? Still feel like thanking “the four Board members who I believe are putting all of our children first.”
“I'm fed up of proposals to close Silver Lake, Price and Preston elementary schools. I'm tired of reading letters designed to pit one neighborhood or side of town against another.” “Proposals”? Is there another board member that did his or her homework and made a proposal I’m unaware of? My proposal made efficient use of our space AND retains current academic programming. My proposal brings the district together as one CFCSD. Not the current “my side of town” attitude.
“Two members of its (Silver Lake PTA) executive board are intra-district open enrollment parents who were warmly welcomed to this school as I'm sure all open enrollment families are in other schools.” I never implied that under the current structure, PTA groups were shutting people out. Where does this come from? When almost half of your schools population is comprised of open enrollment, it would stand to reason that your PTA would reflect the same percentages. Is 25% of the “executive board” from Akron? “District parents, whether through PTOs or PTAs, volunteer their time and energy to help support the education of district children.” I realize this as well. The thing is, I don’t want to support them with my tax dollars.
“My thanks to Barb Gunter, Curt Grimes, Dave Rump, and Therese Dunphy -- the four Board members who I believe are putting all of our children first.” They have put your children first. There is no doubt about that. On the other hand, my “neighborhood” school has been put last for over 20 years. Thanks.
“The letter writer”
“Cuyahoga Falls”, River Estates. Where they call Silver Lake Elementary their neighborhood school. The school they’d like to keep regardless of the cost to the taxpayers of Cuyahoga Falls. At least this lady didn’t lie about where she lives.
End of letter comments.
Enjoy spring break. Scrabble is always a blast in the cold spring break weather.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Sunday, March 08, 2009
The Truth Hurts
I’ve got a message for the Kellie basher of the week. By that I mean the latest letter in the Falls News Press regarding my facts that some would like to remain under the rug. I have done my homework. More so than many of my comrades. While the powers that be continue to tout the money that inter district open enrollment brings in, they conveniently do not talk about what is SPENT on inter district open enrolled children. Ms. Goodrich should ask the board members that she lauds why they apparently don’t realize there is COST involved in educating these kids.
Who is trying to mislead property owners and parents? I am trying to educate them. There are ways to save money, operate efficiently and retain current programming. I want the taxpayers to be armed with knowledge when heading to the polls. I’m not trying to “pit one neighborhood or side of town against the other”.
I will make it as plain as possible.
TOTAL IN FROM OPEN ENROLLMENT: $1,843,415.71
In and used for inter district open enrolled Spec Ed -$250,042.56
Actual amount Inter District Open enrolled children bring in: $1,593,373.15
School, Number of inter district open enrolled pupils, Building cost per pupil cost, Total building cost of inter district students.
TOTAL IN FROM OPEN ENROLLMENT: $1,843,415.71
In and used for inter district open enrolled Spec Ed -$250,042.56
Actual amount Inter District Open enrolled children bring in: $1,593,373.15
School, Number of inter district open enrolled pupils, Building cost per pupil cost, Total building cost of inter district students.
Silver Lake- 53 @ $8741 PP = $463,273
Richardson- 14 @ $7278 PP = $101,892
Price- 32 @ $7228 PP = $231,296
Preston- 20 @ $8760 PP = $175,200
Lincoln- 9 @ $6716 PP = $60,444
Dewitt- 25 @ $7193 PP = $179,825
Roberts- MS 19 @ $8336 PP = $158,384
Bolich MS- 35 @ $9085 PP = $317,975
CFHS- 117 @ $7269 PP = $850,473
Total COST of inter district open enrolled children -$2,538,762.00
Actual in from inter district open enrollment: $1,593,373.15
Local tax dollars SPENT on inter district open enrolled children -$945,388.85
Yes, almost a million dollars of your property tax dollars are spent on children “from other cities outside our district”.
The above only deals with inter district open enrollment. Intra district generally cost the taxpayer as well. For example, a child that should be at Lincoln at a cost of $6716, when open enrolled at Silver Lake costs $8741. $2025 more than at his or her home school. The only time an intra district student saves us money is when they leave Silver Lake or Preston for a lower cost per pupil school. But being that Silver Lake boasts the highest inter and intra district open enrollment numbers, just like the above example the 50 intra district open enrollees COST the taxpayer quite a bit due to the abundance in a high COST building.
You may wonder about the special education deduction. $250,042.56 of the inter district money the state provides is for special education services. Services that the same inter district special education children are using and we are paying for. They actually use more than they bring in special ed, but in this case we’ll call it a wash. So just to clarify- the state pays the district this amount because the children use this amount. It is NOT revenue.
Keep in mind that the above inter district open enrolled children brought in $5614.42 each; with some funding adjustments for the special education. Same deal as special ed, sort of. The state pays the district this amount because they use this amount. But… as you see above they use more than this amount. In most cases an inter district open enrolled child brings in far less than it COSTS to educate them in any of our schools.
Richardson- 14 @ $7278 PP = $101,892
Price- 32 @ $7228 PP = $231,296
Preston- 20 @ $8760 PP = $175,200
Lincoln- 9 @ $6716 PP = $60,444
Dewitt- 25 @ $7193 PP = $179,825
Roberts- MS 19 @ $8336 PP = $158,384
Bolich MS- 35 @ $9085 PP = $317,975
CFHS- 117 @ $7269 PP = $850,473
Total COST of inter district open enrolled children -$2,538,762.00
Actual in from inter district open enrollment: $1,593,373.15
Local tax dollars SPENT on inter district open enrolled children -$945,388.85
Yes, almost a million dollars of your property tax dollars are spent on children “from other cities outside our district”.
The above only deals with inter district open enrollment. Intra district generally cost the taxpayer as well. For example, a child that should be at Lincoln at a cost of $6716, when open enrolled at Silver Lake costs $8741. $2025 more than at his or her home school. The only time an intra district student saves us money is when they leave Silver Lake or Preston for a lower cost per pupil school. But being that Silver Lake boasts the highest inter and intra district open enrollment numbers, just like the above example the 50 intra district open enrollees COST the taxpayer quite a bit due to the abundance in a high COST building.
You may wonder about the special education deduction. $250,042.56 of the inter district money the state provides is for special education services. Services that the same inter district special education children are using and we are paying for. They actually use more than they bring in special ed, but in this case we’ll call it a wash. So just to clarify- the state pays the district this amount because the children use this amount. It is NOT revenue.
Keep in mind that the above inter district open enrolled children brought in $5614.42 each; with some funding adjustments for the special education. Same deal as special ed, sort of. The state pays the district this amount because they use this amount. But… as you see above they use more than this amount. In most cases an inter district open enrolled child brings in far less than it COSTS to educate them in any of our schools.
Who is trying to mislead property owners and parents? I am trying to educate them. There are ways to save money, operate efficiently and retain current programming. I want the taxpayers to be armed with knowledge when heading to the polls. I’m not trying to “pit one neighborhood or side of town against the other”. I’m trying to show people how our money is SPENT.
Lastly, I’ve emphasized COST and SPENT because I felt they sorely needed pointed out. So I wonder if I have convinced the letter writer that I have indeed done my homework. I've done it so well that I'm hoping I get a gold star.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)