This represents the number of candidates for Town Meeting in Precinct 6, my precinct in town. With voters able to vote for eight candidates, this is apparently the most hotly-contested precinct in Amherst this year (ballots for other precincts are also available on-line--check them out so you know what to expect when you hit the polls). At the urging of a number of other Town Meeting members (among them, Amherst blogger Clare Bertrand of Precinct 8), I threw my name into the hat. So if you live in Precinct 6, I would appreciate your vote. I am running on a platform of transparency and long-term strategic planning. Although I have never before served on Town Meeting, my experience on the Facilitation of Community Choices Committee makes me a very well-informed member of our community and my experience with data will be another asset I bring to the table.
Please also remember that we have three candidates for School Committee running for two slots! These are key positions in town--our School Committee is in charge of managing the majority of the budget in town--so please take some time to check out their positions and their web sites:
--Steven Rivkin (whom I know from the Fort River community and for his work with the Amherst Committee for Excellence)
--Irv Rhodes (who served with me on the FCCC)
--Megan Rosa (whom I don't know but whose web site has a lot of information about her)
There is a candidates' forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters next Wednesday night, March 18th at the middle school auditorium. Come meet the candidates or watch on ACTV. And most importantly, don't forget to vote on Tuesday, March 31st!
Friday, March 13, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Numbers for Jennifer
In my previous post, I mentioned the Bridges Program in the middle school. In the comments section, Jennifer wondered how many students were in the two alternative high schools in town and how much it costs to run each program. She is not the first person to ask me this, or a related question, so I thought I would do a separate blog entry to address these programs.
The data to address this come from the Amherst-Pelham Regional School District Budget Planning Information FY10 document. The information is found on the table on page 28 which I have done my best to reproduce here since it provides a lot of detailed data.
To answer Jennifer's specific question, there are currently 29 students at the South Amherst campus (with 5 or 6 FTE--reading of that column is not clear) and 17 students in the East Street Alternative School (5 or 2 FTE).
This document, however, does not provide information on what it costs to run these programs, aside from a reporting of FTE (which you might be able to multiple by $54,000 which is the number used to represent the average teacher salary in the current budget documents). I don't know how much it costs to bus these kids to these schools, how much it costs to heat and light these buildings, or if there are any other associated costs.
Jennifer wonders if our district could consolidate these two schools and/or move these students to the main high school building. I don't know the answer to that but given our severe economic crisis where students on our main campus are being required to sign up for two study halls, I certainly hope someone is looking at these numbers.
When my oldest was at Fort River, the East Street Annex was used for elementary classrooms. There are (or were) four available. If you take an average class size of 20, it would seem that the capacity of the East Street Annex would be well above the 17 currently located in the building. In fact, rather than spend the money to move the portable classrooms to Crocker Farm in the event that Marks Meadow Elementary is closed, I have suggested that the Elementary District look into once again utilizing these four classrooms to expand the number of children who could be educated at Fort River, potentially saving money for that district.
Of course, in attempting to answer Jennifer's question, I have undoubtedly raised a lot more. I hope our School Committee members and school administrators have the answers.
The data to address this come from the Amherst-Pelham Regional School District Budget Planning Information FY10 document. The information is found on the table on page 28 which I have done my best to reproduce here since it provides a lot of detailed data.
To answer Jennifer's specific question, there are currently 29 students at the South Amherst campus (with 5 or 6 FTE--reading of that column is not clear) and 17 students in the East Street Alternative School (5 or 2 FTE).
This document, however, does not provide information on what it costs to run these programs, aside from a reporting of FTE (which you might be able to multiple by $54,000 which is the number used to represent the average teacher salary in the current budget documents). I don't know how much it costs to bus these kids to these schools, how much it costs to heat and light these buildings, or if there are any other associated costs.
Jennifer wonders if our district could consolidate these two schools and/or move these students to the main high school building. I don't know the answer to that but given our severe economic crisis where students on our main campus are being required to sign up for two study halls, I certainly hope someone is looking at these numbers.
When my oldest was at Fort River, the East Street Annex was used for elementary classrooms. There are (or were) four available. If you take an average class size of 20, it would seem that the capacity of the East Street Annex would be well above the 17 currently located in the building. In fact, rather than spend the money to move the portable classrooms to Crocker Farm in the event that Marks Meadow Elementary is closed, I have suggested that the Elementary District look into once again utilizing these four classrooms to expand the number of children who could be educated at Fort River, potentially saving money for that district.
Of course, in attempting to answer Jennifer's question, I have undoubtedly raised a lot more. I hope our School Committee members and school administrators have the answers.
Nine
When I asked, at the Regional School Committee last night, for an explanation of the Bridges program and how many new students they were expecting into the program next year, this is what I was told. There were nine students entering Bridges next year. I asked if this meant that there would now be 17 kids in the program or if any of the currently-enrolled 8 were going on to the high school. They didn't know. So, even if we think that none of them are leaving (an unrealistic assumption, in my mind, especially since this year's 8th grade is substantially larger than either this year's 6th or 7th grades), we would then have 5 FTE serving 17 kids.
Maria Geryk did provide a description of Bridges. Basically, is it a "therapeutic program" where kids may be separate from the classroom but may also be taking regular classes. By her description of therapeutic, it seems to be a program where any need of these kids is met by a trained professional. Autism specialists, specialists in anxiety, special ed teachers, etc. I'm sure it is a complicated program.
When I challenged the need to spend an extra $128,000 next year for this program (at most, nine more students) when we were in a serious budget crisis and talking about decimating world languages and cutting a team for the rising 8th graders (a move that brought Principal Cresto to tears talking about it), I was essentially told by Superintendent Geryk that "it isn't a numbers game and you can't think of it as a certain number of FTEs for a certain number of students" and by Elaine Brighty that "there are kids with IEPs so we can't touch it." Basically, "STOP ASKING."
Again, I will repeat...I have nothing against Bridges. I have nothing against these kids, nor do I doubt that they may have special needs. What I do have a problem with is listening to the School Committee and the school administrators repeatedly saying that part of the rationale for cutting Russian and German is "low enrollment" but not seeing them apply that same logic to programs like Bridges. If they are going to apply that logic (which, I will admit, is sound logic in these economic times), they should at least be willing to consider those same standards for special education programs.
As Catherine Sanderson has repeatedly stated in her blog, in reference to the proposed closing/keeping open of Marks Meadow, "by choosing to keep Marks Meadow open, you are also choosing to decimate/eliminate the instrumental music program for all elementary schools." I would argue that the same thing is happening here. In all honesty, our school administrators and School Commitee should stand up and admit to the parents of all middle school students, "we are decimating the world language program in the middle school and cutting into the core academics by eliminating one team in part so we can add services for the 17 [or whatever the actual number is] students in the Bridges Program." Because, in choosing to fund one thing, you are choosing not to fund another.
Maria Geryk did provide a description of Bridges. Basically, is it a "therapeutic program" where kids may be separate from the classroom but may also be taking regular classes. By her description of therapeutic, it seems to be a program where any need of these kids is met by a trained professional. Autism specialists, specialists in anxiety, special ed teachers, etc. I'm sure it is a complicated program.
When I challenged the need to spend an extra $128,000 next year for this program (at most, nine more students) when we were in a serious budget crisis and talking about decimating world languages and cutting a team for the rising 8th graders (a move that brought Principal Cresto to tears talking about it), I was essentially told by Superintendent Geryk that "it isn't a numbers game and you can't think of it as a certain number of FTEs for a certain number of students" and by Elaine Brighty that "there are kids with IEPs so we can't touch it." Basically, "STOP ASKING."
Again, I will repeat...I have nothing against Bridges. I have nothing against these kids, nor do I doubt that they may have special needs. What I do have a problem with is listening to the School Committee and the school administrators repeatedly saying that part of the rationale for cutting Russian and German is "low enrollment" but not seeing them apply that same logic to programs like Bridges. If they are going to apply that logic (which, I will admit, is sound logic in these economic times), they should at least be willing to consider those same standards for special education programs.
As Catherine Sanderson has repeatedly stated in her blog, in reference to the proposed closing/keeping open of Marks Meadow, "by choosing to keep Marks Meadow open, you are also choosing to decimate/eliminate the instrumental music program for all elementary schools." I would argue that the same thing is happening here. In all honesty, our school administrators and School Commitee should stand up and admit to the parents of all middle school students, "we are decimating the world language program in the middle school and cutting into the core academics by eliminating one team in part so we can add services for the 17 [or whatever the actual number is] students in the Bridges Program." Because, in choosing to fund one thing, you are choosing not to fund another.
Monday, March 9, 2009
$128,000
Proposed amount to be added to the Regional District budget in FY10 for the Bridges Program in the middle school. This would go for 2 "professionals" (from the salary level I assume these would be teachers?) and one paraprofessional. So we would be adding $128,000 for this compared to eliminating $118,800 (2.20 FTE) for world languages. Available to ALL seventh graders, presumably also students in Bridges.
What, I asked myself, is the Bridges Program and how many students does it serve? I was able to answer the second part of the question through the Amherst Regional School District Budget Planning Information document. According to page 28, there were 8 students enrolled in Bridges this year. Yes, 8. At this point, according to the same data table, there are 2.0 FTE dedicated to this program. Resulting in a staff:student ratio of 4:1. Pretty good! So by adding an additional 3.0 FTE to Bridges next year, it would bring the total FTE to 5.0. This represents an increase of 250% for this program. So unless the district is also anticipating a 250% growth in Bridges students (which would mean there would be 20 students enrolled in FY10), this represents a significant increase in resources for a very small group of students.
As to what, exactly, the Bridges Program is, I still have no definitive answer. It is listed under "specialized programs" in the planning document and was listed under "special programs" in the recent presentation given by Principal Cresto to incoming seventh grade parents at the middle school. Nothing further. I do remember someone at the February 24th School Committee meeting asking why so much money was being put into Bridges but the only answer that was given (by then-Superintendent Vivian) was that if we didn't add these resources to Bridges, the parents of these students may well tuition their children out to other districts (a topic I will post about soon because it has yielded some very interesting information).
So, I am left with facing the possibility of my rising seventh grader (and almost 300 others like him) being unable to take a language next year while the 8 students currently enrolled in Bridges get an increase of 250% to their teaching/professional staff next year. I have nothing against these students or this program (how could I when I really know nothing about it?!), but in these hard times, hard choices must be made and I hope the School Committee is looking at these same numbers and also wondering, "is this money being best spent toward the education of the students in our care?"
What, I asked myself, is the Bridges Program and how many students does it serve? I was able to answer the second part of the question through the Amherst Regional School District Budget Planning Information document. According to page 28, there were 8 students enrolled in Bridges this year. Yes, 8. At this point, according to the same data table, there are 2.0 FTE dedicated to this program. Resulting in a staff:student ratio of 4:1. Pretty good! So by adding an additional 3.0 FTE to Bridges next year, it would bring the total FTE to 5.0. This represents an increase of 250% for this program. So unless the district is also anticipating a 250% growth in Bridges students (which would mean there would be 20 students enrolled in FY10), this represents a significant increase in resources for a very small group of students.
As to what, exactly, the Bridges Program is, I still have no definitive answer. It is listed under "specialized programs" in the planning document and was listed under "special programs" in the recent presentation given by Principal Cresto to incoming seventh grade parents at the middle school. Nothing further. I do remember someone at the February 24th School Committee meeting asking why so much money was being put into Bridges but the only answer that was given (by then-Superintendent Vivian) was that if we didn't add these resources to Bridges, the parents of these students may well tuition their children out to other districts (a topic I will post about soon because it has yielded some very interesting information).
So, I am left with facing the possibility of my rising seventh grader (and almost 300 others like him) being unable to take a language next year while the 8 students currently enrolled in Bridges get an increase of 250% to their teaching/professional staff next year. I have nothing against these students or this program (how could I when I really know nothing about it?!), but in these hard times, hard choices must be made and I hope the School Committee is looking at these same numbers and also wondering, "is this money being best spent toward the education of the students in our care?"
Saturday, March 7, 2009
None
This is the number of other area middle/high schools on the trimester system. Belchertown, Frontier Regional, Granby, Hadley, Hatfield, Northampton, Pioneer Regional, and South Hadley. All on the semester system while Amherst Regional is on the trimester system.
In this week's Bulletin, Cynthia Gensheimer makes an eloquent case for the return of the semester system to Amherst. I agree. The article makes all the points I would make (and more), but I did want to point out some numbers supporting her argument.
As I mentioned above, none of our local middle/high schools are also on the trimester system. Cynthia points out that if any of our students were to transfer, they would be out of sync with semester-based schools. Thus, our students are likely to be out of sync with ALL of our local schools at this point; schools to which they are likely to transfer.
Perhaps Amherst Regional knows something the other districts do not. Perhaps the trimester system is BETTER. To test that theory, I looked at what most would argue are the best school systems in Massachusetts--Brookline, Cambridge, Framingham, Longmeadow, and Newton. Are they on the trimester system? Nope. They, too, use semesters. I did find a few systems in MA that use trimesters--North Andover, Littleton, Quincy, Springfield Renaissance School, the Swift River Academy Therapeutic Boarding School--but not many.
Another point made in the article is that our children are not being prepared for the semester-based college experience by using trimesters. I decided to look into that and see how many colleges and universities did use the trimester system. As you can see, the list is short and comprised mostly of state universities (not in New England) although a few of the top schools--Dartmouth and Stanford among them--do use a trimester system. TIME magazine has a good summary article about the use (or lack thereof) of the trimester system at the post-secondary level. In addition, one of the bonuses of living in a college town is, in theory, the access to college-level courses by our advanced high school students. But since none of the five colleges in our immediate area are on a trimester system, I wonder how our high schools students could fit a college course into their trimester-bound year.
In 2006-2007, Amherst did "study" the trimester system but the results were inconclusive. "So, the upshot of the two years worth of work is this: the committee was not successful in building consensus, which was the decision-making standard stipulated from the beginning of the process, around its recommendation. For now, then, the trimester schedule is the default and will remain in effect." Which, apparently, means that our middle and high schools are operating in default mode. Reassuring.
In this week's Bulletin, Cynthia Gensheimer makes an eloquent case for the return of the semester system to Amherst. I agree. The article makes all the points I would make (and more), but I did want to point out some numbers supporting her argument.
As I mentioned above, none of our local middle/high schools are also on the trimester system. Cynthia points out that if any of our students were to transfer, they would be out of sync with semester-based schools. Thus, our students are likely to be out of sync with ALL of our local schools at this point; schools to which they are likely to transfer.
Perhaps Amherst Regional knows something the other districts do not. Perhaps the trimester system is BETTER. To test that theory, I looked at what most would argue are the best school systems in Massachusetts--Brookline, Cambridge, Framingham, Longmeadow, and Newton. Are they on the trimester system? Nope. They, too, use semesters. I did find a few systems in MA that use trimesters--North Andover, Littleton, Quincy, Springfield Renaissance School, the Swift River Academy Therapeutic Boarding School--but not many.
Another point made in the article is that our children are not being prepared for the semester-based college experience by using trimesters. I decided to look into that and see how many colleges and universities did use the trimester system. As you can see, the list is short and comprised mostly of state universities (not in New England) although a few of the top schools--Dartmouth and Stanford among them--do use a trimester system. TIME magazine has a good summary article about the use (or lack thereof) of the trimester system at the post-secondary level. In addition, one of the bonuses of living in a college town is, in theory, the access to college-level courses by our advanced high school students. But since none of the five colleges in our immediate area are on a trimester system, I wonder how our high schools students could fit a college course into their trimester-bound year.
In 2006-2007, Amherst did "study" the trimester system but the results were inconclusive. "So, the upshot of the two years worth of work is this: the committee was not successful in building consensus, which was the decision-making standard stipulated from the beginning of the process, around its recommendation. For now, then, the trimester schedule is the default and will remain in effect." Which, apparently, means that our middle and high schools are operating in default mode. Reassuring.
Friday, March 6, 2009
34.6%
That is the proportion of revenues for the Amherst-Pelham Regional School District that comes from state funding. A commenter on my previous post wondered where the money for the schools comes from and I thought that was a good question. My previous post was on the Amherst Elementary District but I could not find information on the sources of revenue for that district (but will email Rob Detweiler) but do have that information for the Regional District.
This pie chart comes from my work on the Facilitation of Community Choices Committee and illustrates the sources of revenue for the Regional District for FY09 (the year we are currently in). As you can see, the majority of funding for this district (56.9%) comes from assessments from the four towns. The town of Amherst contributes about 44% of the total Regional budget (FY09).
After assessments from the four towns, state aid is the next big slice--34.6%. This leaves only 8.5% of revenue from other sources.
While I don't have the figures for the Elementary District, I do know that there are no revenue streams at that level for choice (since we don't take choice students), we don't have any E & D funds, and I am almost certain that the only transportation reimbursements from the state go to regional districts. Otherwise, I would imagine that the picture for Amherst looks similar to that for the Regional District.
For FY10, state aid is expected to remain flat, suggesting that in order to maintain the same level of services, a larger proportion of funding would have to come from the towns. Meanwhile, Amherst, at least, has asked our schools (as well as the other budget managers in town) to keep their budget projections lower in FY10--2.0% growth for the Amherst District and 3.5% growth for the Regional District. Which does not translate to level services. Hence, the cuts which are currently receiving heated debate at the School Committee meetings (which you can watch on-demand through ACTV).
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Impact of Proposed Cuts
First, some context. According to the District Profile for the Amherst elementary school district, 18.7% of students in the district are classified as Special Education. This means 81.3% are Regular Education students. According numbers produced by Rob Detweiler, the able number-cruncher for ARPS, Regular Ed made up 38.4% of the district's FY00 budget yet only 27.8% of our current (FY09) budget. Meanwhile, Special Ed made up 20.3% of the FY00 budget and 21.5% of the FY09 budget. Clearly, the priorities of the district have shifted over these past nine years.
What happens under the currently-debated (FY10) budget? Let's take a look. For those who might want to check my numbers (and please, feel free), I am working with the "Amherst Public Schools Preliminary FY10 Budget Draft, January 13, 2009" and "FY10 Components Update, March 2, 2009."
Before any additions or cuts, the total budget is $21,933, 594. Regular Ed accounts for $6,126,528, Special Ed accounts for $4,810,719, and I have called the rest "other." This is comprised of health benefits (which, one could argue, should be put into the two above categories but I do not have those breakdowns), other insurance/benefits, utilities, transportation, and a host of other things needed to run a school system. Proportionally, before additions and cuts, Regular Ed accounts for 27.9% of the budget and Special Ed accounts for 21.9% of the budget.
I then took all the additions and cuts (from all three tiers) and classified them as to whether they would come from the Regular Ed, the Special Ed, or the Other budget. When I was in doubt (as in "supplies/materials/travel"), I put it in Other. This is what happens, proportionally, to those three budget areas under the currently-proposed additions and cuts:
--Regular Ed budget shrinks from $6,126,528 to $5,779,928 (Additions and Tier 1) to $5,445,128 (Tier 2) to $5,047,475 (Tier 3).
--Special Ed budget decreases from $4,810,719 to $4,720,740 (receiving only additions and cuts under Tier 1)
--Regular Ed goes from 27.9% of the budget down to 27.3% to 26.4% to only 25.2% of the budget. For 81.3% of our children!
--Special Ed goes from 21.9% to 22.3% to 22.9% to 23.5% of the budget.
In my opinion, this represents a shift in priorities for our school system that cannot be sustained if we want to maintain our expectations of a high-quality district focused on excellence for all students. I realize there are state mandates for Special Ed funding and invite any members of our administrative team and/or School Committee to break down for us what proportion of our Special Ed funds are currently required by state/federal law. If it is 100%, there is nothing we can do about it and we need to continue to provide the best education possible to the 81.3% of our children who rely on an increasingly shrinking pot of funds. If it is less than 100%, I urge our administrators and School Commitee members to look closely at the relative level of funding for Regular and Special Ed and to look particularly hard at the impact of the currently-proposed cuts on Regular Education.
What happens under the currently-debated (FY10) budget? Let's take a look. For those who might want to check my numbers (and please, feel free), I am working with the "Amherst Public Schools Preliminary FY10 Budget Draft, January 13, 2009" and "FY10 Components Update, March 2, 2009."
Before any additions or cuts, the total budget is $21,933, 594. Regular Ed accounts for $6,126,528, Special Ed accounts for $4,810,719, and I have called the rest "other." This is comprised of health benefits (which, one could argue, should be put into the two above categories but I do not have those breakdowns), other insurance/benefits, utilities, transportation, and a host of other things needed to run a school system. Proportionally, before additions and cuts, Regular Ed accounts for 27.9% of the budget and Special Ed accounts for 21.9% of the budget.
I then took all the additions and cuts (from all three tiers) and classified them as to whether they would come from the Regular Ed, the Special Ed, or the Other budget. When I was in doubt (as in "supplies/materials/travel"), I put it in Other. This is what happens, proportionally, to those three budget areas under the currently-proposed additions and cuts:
--Regular Ed budget shrinks from $6,126,528 to $5,779,928 (Additions and Tier 1) to $5,445,128 (Tier 2) to $5,047,475 (Tier 3).
--Special Ed budget decreases from $4,810,719 to $4,720,740 (receiving only additions and cuts under Tier 1)
--Regular Ed goes from 27.9% of the budget down to 27.3% to 26.4% to only 25.2% of the budget. For 81.3% of our children!
--Special Ed goes from 21.9% to 22.3% to 22.9% to 23.5% of the budget.
In my opinion, this represents a shift in priorities for our school system that cannot be sustained if we want to maintain our expectations of a high-quality district focused on excellence for all students. I realize there are state mandates for Special Ed funding and invite any members of our administrative team and/or School Committee to break down for us what proportion of our Special Ed funds are currently required by state/federal law. If it is 100%, there is nothing we can do about it and we need to continue to provide the best education possible to the 81.3% of our children who rely on an increasingly shrinking pot of funds. If it is less than 100%, I urge our administrators and School Commitee members to look closely at the relative level of funding for Regular and Special Ed and to look particularly hard at the impact of the currently-proposed cuts on Regular Education.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)