In my letter to the ORCSD Board and Administration today, I proposed the District not eliminate the Oyster River High School Theater Arts teaching position, a position that truly supports the academic and intellectual enrichment of ORCSD students, and consider alternate budgetary action. Here are my suggestions:
* Freeze salary increases for District administrators with salaries over $80,000 for the 2009 -2010 school year
* Implement a temporary salary decrease (3% - 5%) for our Superintendent for the 2009-2010 school year; the salary will still be in line with peers from Dresden and Portsmouth school districts
* Consolidate and eliminate administrative positions where possible (e.g. examine the need for an assistant principal at the Middle School)
* Do not allow District employees to expense meals; brown bag time!
* Set up a task force to re-negotiate contracts and agreements for favorable pricing with suppliers
* Consolidate bus routes to eliminate transportation costs; students may have to walk a little farther to catch the bus
* Turn the heat down in our buildings to save energy costs
* Go paperless whenever possible
Some of these suggestions may seem radical or controversial. However, in the private sector, businesses go out of business without radical actions.
Preserving our precious teaching resources is paramount in these tough times. I hope our District has the courage and sensibility to seek alternate cost cutting initiatives.
Finally, I ask, what do we value?
My heart sunk when I heard about the proposed elimination of the drama theater at the high school. Drama, music, and art are always the first to go in tough economic times.
ReplyDeleteI strongly oppose cutting the teacher and the program. I expect with the high taxes we pay to at least have a drama program. There are many other ways to cut costs- many are outlined in Ms. Turnbull's letter. The school board should think creatively, without snuffing out students' creativity.
Katie,
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree with you more. The part that stings MORE than the fact that Laura Rogers would have the huevos to actually propose cutting a program which has obviously made so much of a difference in kids' educations is the fact that the very next item discussed was a $25,000 dollar budget INCREASE for K-12 professional development. As the slideshow on the ORCSD website front page proves, ORHS has tested higher on every single standardized tests than the average for NH, New England, and the nation. We already have a higher average GPA, higher standardized testing, etc....And the high school administration is proposing the cutting of a teacher who directly impacts students while ADDING professional development for teachers in what is already one of the best districts in the state? Poppycock.
Megan's proposals are excellent. We have plenty of fat, lazy kids (less in OR than in the nation at large, but still) that could afford to walk to the end of their road to catch the bus. Think: if one bus picks kids up at the end of their quarter mile road and then drops them off there as well, you eliminate 180 miles of driving. 2 roads per route, 2 routes (high school/middle school and elementary school) and that's 720 miles saved...These things add up fast. How about asking teachers to use projectors for tests and have students write answers on their own paper or on scrap paper?
When making cuts, there are luxuries, comforts, and necessities. Teachers who directly impact kids are necessities. Getting picked up at the top of your driveway is a comfort. Having professional development ADDED in a recession while the rest of the budget shrinks is a luxury that we can't afford.
Brett Chamberlin
ORHS Class of 09
Brett,
ReplyDeleteYou bring up some fairly good points but there are a few things to remember.
It is not wise to bash your principal. it is even worse to bash the school board for something they yet have no involvement in. Professional Development is somewhat expected and required.
maybe you should just wait until the budget is presented to the school board to make changes to it
A few questions...
ReplyDeleteWhat drove the Administration to make the cuts that were presented at the last School Board meeting? How did the Administration come up with the proposed cuts when the Board has yet to see a complete, proposed 2009 - 2010 Budget?
What are the agreed upon criteria for making budget cuts? Was it low class enrollment? Teacher salary level or performance? Staff seniority?
Are candidates for budget elimination measured against District priorities? If so, what are these priorities?
What measures are being taken to reduce the budget in terms of basic belt tightening? Again, I view teacher elimination as an unacceptable option.
Answers to these questions would be very helpful.
I think I can answer at least some of those questions, Megan.
ReplyDeleteThe school board passed a referendum stating that the budget could not grow by more than 3%. Because of increases in pay grade, inflation, and naturally increasing overhead costs etc., the budget has to grow. Setting a cap on this growth means that, after factoring in the natural, inevitable growth, the rest of the budget actually has to be cut. So while the actual budget hasn't been drafted, the proposals made by the administration were the areas that they identified that cuts could be made.
To segue into the second question, cutting 800,000$ (that's the number I got from Laura Rogers) district wide is so substantial that the only way to achieve it is by cutting some salary positions. In the case of the drama position, the cut was proposed because her class average has been below the board-set standard of 10 students (although there were errors in the program of study making it seem that her class was less available than it really was). In other areas where class size is not an issue, seniority dictated who would be cut: for example, the science teacher who will be reduced to .8 will be determined by seniority.
As far as belt tightening, I'm not really sure. My discussion with Laura Rogers did center around teacher elimination. All that I do know is that in the high school, the library, sports, and fine arts/shop are all being cut by 15%. That will probably mean things like less supplies, books, etc.
Thanks for the input, Brett.
ReplyDeleteWe need to see the break down of the 3% increase. What does it comprise? I still feel there are more questions about the budget that need to be closely examined BEFORE even considering staff reductions.
Economically, we are experiencing deflation (i.e. more supply than willing buyers / consumers). For example, right now, oil costs are down, but credit and spending is tight and unemployment is rising. So, where is this 3% increase coming from? Yes, we need to honor collective-bargaining agreements. However, do we need to give administrators salary increases? In this economic recession, most folks don't get raises, that's for sure!
Additionally, it was made clear at the last Board meeting that the Board, as a whole, has not seen a complete budget (i.e. how much will be spent on supplies, facility costs, overhead staff /administration, teachers' salaries, healthcare costs, capital improvements, etc.).
In other words, the Board (and the Public) have yet to see the full break down of the budget. This is critical.
We are seeing a piecemeal view of the budget process (when we watch Board meetings). I would love to understand the criteria and budget components.
Any additional insights (especially from Board members or Administrators) would be greatly appreciated!
Someone should take a look at the benefits the teachers are receiving in comparison to the public sector. I think you all would be surprised by the benefits and costs to the district.
ReplyDeletePS They could also cut pie from the budget!