BOE should do more
The Board of Education abdicated its responsibility to the taxpayers when it voted to support the school budget without any substantive changes. It did nothing more than move one item from the operating budget to the capital budget and reduced a few numbers that are based on estimates.
The taxpayers deserve more from the Board, but never seem to get it. And it doesn’t matter if it’s a Republican or Democratic majority. No one ever seems to review the budget. If they had reviewed the budget, they would know that they could eliminate wasteful spending in a number of ways, such as:
1) CONSERVING ENERGY – The Board could open only one school in the evening for use by community groups. This could save on both the energy bill, as well as the cost to staff the buildings while they’re being used; and
2) REMOVING THE FLUFF - Line items could be removed from the budget. Some budget line items are never used, such as:
A/c 330 (Research & Development)
A/c 430 (non-contract cleaning)
A/c 590 (storage services / microfiche services)
A/c 610 (K-12 computers)
For the three most recently completed fiscal years (02/03, 03/04 & 04/05), the “research & development” budget was $7,000 each year. Yet it spent only $2,756 of the $21,000 three-year total. “Non-contract cleaning” was $15,000 each year. Yet it spent only $938 of the $45,000. “K-12 computers” was $8,000 each year, but used only $1,474 of the $24,000 total. And then there’s “storage services / microfiche services.” It’s had $5,000 in the budget each year, yet has spent a grand total of $0 (zero). Those four line items have had budgets of $35,000 annually, yet have required only $2,000 each year. This year, those four line items total $43,500. Perhaps the Board could cut another $40,000 from the budget and still cover all our costs? Or maybe we could hire another teacher?
But some may argue that cutting (the fluff out of) the budget is not the responsibility of the Board of Education. Perhaps instead, the Board should consider acting responsibly by requesting an increase for the budget. If spending money today means saving money tomorrow, shouldn’t they consider a spending increase today that will save taxpayer money in the long run? Shouldn’t they consider any option that helps focus dollars on putting teachers and textbooks in the classroom?
Back in September, during a BOE Planning Committee meeting, I suggested the BOE invest in energy efficient items. I suggested the Board request money from the Council for energy efficiency improvement projects. Even before CL&P’s 22% rate hike, oftentimes the payback on such projects was four to five years (the same holds true for your household, if you’re trying to save money at home). However, no funding request has come to the Council from the Board. The Board does not seem interested in finding ways to save money.
These are just some of the areas in which the Board could find real savings. But instead, they cut the pension plan funding – the height of irresponsibility. Haven’t the recent lessons of Ford and GM taught us anything?
There are many other savings opportunities that people have suggested to me, such as with estimates of number of teacher retirements and healthcare costs. But those are a bit more complicated to explain. My intention here is to simply show the Board of Education could, and should, being doing more with the school budget.
Tim White
Town Council, Budget Committee
TimWhite98@yahoo.com
28 comments:
I believe many residents belive the BOE is not acting with the proper fiduciary responsibility they have been entrusted with. To literally be handed a budget and not spend time in detailed review, trusting what was handed to you is not repsonsible.
Here are a few questions to ponder and ask the BOE members and the Supt.,concerning the year that was called the "Zero Budget Year." Remember the intial budget request was about 2.6 mil and trhey actually received $234,000.
1.If money was so tight and there was no fluff, what financial mangement decisions were made to savemoney and still meet all of the union contractual agreements and the medical benefits cost?
2. What was cut out to make these savings happen?
3. If money was so tight how did $367 get transferred into the medical benefits trust fund?
4. Why did the BOE not suggest to hire the 2 teachers at Dodd with the 234k received. The 234k would have hired two teachers at Dodd and funded the Dodd and freshman sports programs. That school year the demand for the 2 teachers was significantly greater than now. The Dodd student population is dropping.
Could it be that not to hire the 2 teachers and cause parents to pay for sports that was a more inflamatory decision to get parents on their side?
Finally, an elected official who questions exactly how our tax contributions are being spent!
Why do annual taxes and spending increase at DOUBLE the rate of inflation? Are we receiving twice the quality of education and services we received last year? Or are these increases so much fluff in the name of "improving education"?
Bravo, Councilman Tim White for actually scrutinizing the budget (and tax increases). Too bad the Board of Ed does no more than rubber-stamp the Superintendent's proposed budgets every year.
Disagree with Tim that the money should be spent on more teachers. Class enrollment numbers don't justify it. With the two add'l teachers requested again this year for Dodd (bringing both 7th and 8th grade to 4.5 teams or 18 teachers--currently just 8th grade has 4.5) would bring class sizes in next year's 8th grade to 21.8. With 16 teachers or 4 teams, class size would be 24--well within the acceptable range considering we currently have 27 in 6th grade at Chapman. Until the teachers feel the effects of their 4.7% pay raise (ie; lay-offs) nothing will change. We are paying mastered-prepared certified teachers to teach photography, yearbook, set design, and yes, color guard. We apparently are also paying a stipend to the color guard teacher, too, according to Mr. Florio's handout. Can you say double-dipping? Their medical benefits and time-off benefits are crippling the education system. The Teachers Retirement Fund needs to be re-evaluated along with binding arbitration. If Social Security is good enough for us, why not them? Why must the taxpayers subsidize their retirement? Time to join the real world.
I'm not advocating that we hire more teachers. I'm advocating elimination of the fluff and adoption of a budget based on actual historical trends, not budgeted historical trends. Truth is... while the Board has provided me with a copy of the budget (incl. # of teachers!), I still haven't asked the Board members yet "so how many teachers do we have?" I wonder what answer I'll get this year. And I do have more questions than that, as you can see based on this post.
Hopefully this year the meeting won't be immediately adjourned if I ask the Board members a "tough" question.
Keep in mind... I'm an accountant/auditor. Before I advocate any increases or reductions in taxes or services, I want to know the facts.
"Shouldn’t they consider any option that helps focus dollars on putting teachers and textbooks in the classroom?"
I don't know, Tim, but that quote from you sounds like you are suggesting money should be spent on more teachers and textbooks. I actually think we need fewer of each. The textbooks of today are rewritng history and we need to eliminate electives at CHS in order to reduce teaching staff in order to reduce spending. If the union won't accept reasonable wage increases, more in keeping with the private sector, and benefits more in line with the private sector, then the only logical option is to reduce staff. It is, as you well know, the largest part of the budget. Cheshire teachers average $62,000 a year, top 25 in the state (and if you eliminate Fairfield county, they are 14th in the state). 185 day work year. Keep asking the tough questions, Tim. Unfortunately, I'm not sure anyone is listening and I'm sure no one is answering. :)
Are you suggesting that the BOE consider options that minimize spending? I doubt they would. Or they would have already removed the fluff that I mentioned in my post. I doubt any R or D Board would ever consider real reductions in spending requests.
Brickwall, I will take issue with something you said. Teachers in Cheshire "average" $62,000 per year, but are you aware of how many years they need work before attaining such salary levels? Additionally, they spend on average thousands out of their own pockets for supplies and continued educational expenses for classes which they are required by law to take to maintain their certification. That comes from their own pockets as does the cost of earning a CT required Masters degree to maintain certification.
Lets be honest here, in todays economy these folks are not overpaid. Additionally you mentioned the 185 day work year. The average american works 237 days a year (according to labor department statistics). That 185 only reflects the in session time. It doesn tinlcude the time spend before or after school starts during the day for lesson planning, it doesnt include the preperation typically required 4 weeks prior to the beginning of the school year formalizing lesson plans. They work alot harder than folks give them credit for.
Befor you ask, my wife is a teacher, we have friends whgo are teachers, however that doesnt taint my view. I am as fiscally conservative as anyone. The problem isnt teacher pay and so called short work year...its in the exhorbitant benefit costs, unnecessary overabundance of classes to please every parent and child, athletics and other discretionary spending.
Yes, Aaron, I do know how many years. A teacher at Step 9 (9 years of service) makes $62,350 in Cheshire. Nine years of service is not that long. I have t-shirts older than that. Cheshire teachers are in the top 25 in CT for ave. FTE salaries. If you take out Fairfield county, they are the 11th highest paid teachers in the state. (source: CT Dept of Ed) The 185 day year DOES take into account pre-and post school day time, since school is only in session 6.5 hours (which includes a lunch break and planning time ie; free periods), not eight hours which is the norm in the private sector. So they should be putting in 1.5 hours a day on preparation.
As far as spending "thousands" on supplies, I seriously doubt that is the case in Cheshire. The district spent $591,000 on supplies in FY 05-06 which comes out to approximately $1200 per FTE teacher. And I know of at least one PTA that gives its teachers a stipend to buy supplies. Additionally, teachers get an above the line deduction on their federal tax returns for any expenditures they might make. I will give you the Masters Degree--but that is theirs to keep. Many CE credits can be earned in district as the district is required to provide a certain amount each year; some of which are during the 185 day work year so the course is free and they are being paid for their time, too, (which I don't have a problem with, I'm just pointing it out.)
I will also agree that some teachers spend much time preparing lesson plans but those are mostly newer teachers. After teaching one grade level for 5, 6, 7 years etc., which many teachers do, planning time is greatly reduced.
I will also agree that medical benefits are excessive, as are course selections. Sports, however, have been an integral part of HS for many, many years. Its cost has skyrocketed, once again, because of rising "coach" costs, also covered by the bargaining agreement. For instance, the AD gets a $9212 stipend IN ADDITION to his full-time salary. Why? Shouldn't his salary reflect the unusual hours of his position? The head football coach gets a $7832 stipend for an 11 game schedule! That's over $770 per game (which I realize includes practice but still....)His four assistants get $4698 That's nearly $400/ week for a 12 week season. Not too shabby. So it's not "sports" per se that are causing the budget to skyrocket but the rising salaries of the coaches, who, once again, are covered by the bargaining agreement.
So the problem is EXACTLY teacher pay, as salaries continue to increase at rates far exceeding the private sector.
To clarify, EACH of the four ass't football coaches gets the $4698 stipend. And because many of our coaches are teachers and because the EAC negotiates these stipends, it still comes back to the raises which far exceed those seen in the private sector.
Brickwall, I guess we can agree to disagree. I am not sure how we can classify someeone with 9 years of work experience and a masters degree responsible for educating our children as overpaid. Yes there certainly are those who dont desrve it as their performance doesnt dictate as such but the overwhelming number work hard and care about teaching our kids. In todays economy, $62,000 isnt a whole lot of money.
As for athletics I certainly support it, but is it necessary to fund every sport. growing up we funded football, girls and boys basketball, baseball, softball,track,lcarosse, swimming and hockey. I am not sure what others sports we are funding in cheshire, although skiiing seems a bit much.
I also thinkg the number of elective courses at CHS are excessive and unneccessary.
One last point, I absolutely agree with you however that the level of salary increases is unreasonable as they should certainly not outpace the 3.3.5% we are seeing in the private sector. I dont have a problem with overall pay, just how fast they are rising.....
Actually Aaron, I think we agree on more things than not. I agree that most of our teachers are dedicated and perform an invaluable service. But so do police officers, firefighters, military servicemen, Peace Corps workers, and nurses to name a few who work 48-49 weeks a year, rotating shifts, weekends, holidays, and extra hours during snowstorms. I agree that there are many professions, such as teaching, that are critical to our society. But there are more factors involved than just how hard-working one is or how important one's job is to society. Some of those factors are # hours and work conditions.
If pay were based on value to society, athletics and entertainers would be out of luck. The difference here is the source of the income (ie; taxpayers vs private) and the ability to allow the checks and balances to dictate the income level. For instance, if you think pro basketball players make too much money, you can simply not buy tickets, paraphernalia, or watch them on TV. Zero out of your pocket. If enough people felt that way, the NBA would not be able to afford their salaries nor would the athletes be able to demand them. Supply and demand. When you are a public employee with binding arbitration, the checks and balances have been artifically removed. The "employer" (ie; the taxpayer) MUST provide the service and MUST pay the arbitrated award.
As far as whether $62,000/year is overpaid or not, at what point would you say is overpaid? $90K, $120K? You must have some amount in mind.
$62,000 comes out to $335/day for a 185 day work year. Using your 237-day figure for the average American worker, that is the equivalent of nearly $80,000/year which is $34,445 more than the average salary in CT (which is $45,555 source: CNN Money). I would say most people would consider that a comfortable income. Add to that top of the line medical coverage and tenure and you've got a pretty sweet deal.
While many people might agree with you that teachers are not overpaid, I'm sure many would agree that they're not underpaid either considering the work conditions/benefits. And remember, I am only talking about work conditions here in Cheshire. Teachers in the inner city who have to deal with metal detectors, etc. have much different work conditions. But without checks and balances, there is no way to know for sure. In B'port, ave. salary is $57K, Hartford $61K, Waterbury $55K, New Haven $52K.
We also agree that perhaps the number of sports provided has grown and that the increases in wages are the main problem. If would be nice if the State would amend binding arbitration to put a cap on increases, perhaps tied into cost-of-living or some other factor. I also disagree with the practice of setting raises based on a town's ability to pay. A town with a good town manager who is fiscally conservative and has a large rainy day fund ends up being penalized. I certainly don't want to have someone sell me a car for more more than my neighbor or pay more for my groceries simply because I have foregone the Disney vacations and behemoth SUVs in order to put money in my savings for my children's college needs. Binding arbritartion needs to be fixed.
I couldn't agree more. We need to change binding arbitration, but want to clarify... binding arbitration applies to all municipal employees. However, the rules are not uniform among the various bargaining units. Police and teachers play by different rules. I say we make one simple change... take the "deadline" out of the BA rules that applies only to teachers, and they would be on the same playing field as the police and public works. Even before addressing costs, we should do this to simply be fair.
The budget process that is used by the BOE is less than sufficient. The members of the BOE that believe it is not their job to cut the budget are being fiscally irresponsible. Having the BOE fall back on the position it is the Town Council's job to cut, becasue we don't know how much money the Council will give to the BOE is a chicken way out and evading responsibility.
The two major line items with large expenditures are Salary and Benefits. Unless structual changes to the education process are made, such as reducing electives, headcount will continue to increase.
An area of potential savings is the medical benefits package. The Supt states we are a "self funded minimum premimum" group and we pay all of our medical costs, including adminstrative services, profit for Blue Cross, sales commissions and other costs. There is a large difference between "self funded minimum premimum" and actual "self funded."
With a true self funded group many of the overhead costs are not required or paid. We would pay only for administrative costs. The profit s are eliminated and the brokers commisison is now negotiated.
I take issue with the statement by the Supt that true claims experience is not known at this time an as we get closer to April we will know more. That statement by itself it true, here is the other part. Claims experience is known at the end of every month and can be easily tabulated to provide a running 12, 18, or 24 total. From this one can extract the past running 12 months of claims data. How much more accurate could one want the data?
As the insured group is over 500 employees, the renewal rate or projected increase in costs is developed on the groups claims experience, not measured against or placed with another group. We control our own destiny and medical costs based on our own medical claims experience.
Last year the Town went out for other quotes on the business, the problem is they used their medical consultant as the person to get the quotes. The medical consultant is the same guy who sells the medical insurance to the Town and the BOE. The exisiting broker was asked to get quotes from his competition and give to the Town to demonstrate the broker was giving the Town the best deal. Does anyone see anything wrong with this picture? Why would the guy currently selling his medical insurance programs tell the Town his competition would supply a lower cost? The excuse given that other carriers cannot provide the same coverage is incorrect. It is a known fact that the otrher guys can provide equal to or better coverage.
The reasons for a reluctance to change is based on strictly a financial level of comfort by management. A true, open RFP process whereby all potential medical insurance carriers can come in and publically present their proposals is required.
The other alternative is to stay with Blue Cross and change from "self funded minimum premimum" to "self funded." At a minimum the savings would be several hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.The research shows, other Towns are doing this and saving large sums of money. Under the current projram every time the State mandates new medical coverage, we have to provide it. Under the "self funded" program it is not required, the changes become a point of negotiation in the next teacher contract.
We want, we want, but nobody wants to try to save money by doing the tough work and make the tough decisions. It is easier to raise taxes and blasme the State or increased medical costs as the culprit.
brickwall said "The Teachers Retirement Fund needs to be re-evaluated along with binding arbitration. If Social Security is good enough for us, why not them?" Just to clarify the govt. rules for social security for teachers are different than they are for you and I. They are entitled to recieve far less if anything at all.
Also why is it in federal govt we have checks and balances, but locally the BOE has no oversight . I feel the council should be able to line item approve or disaprove the school budget if they feel the BOE is not acting in the best interests of the citizens of Cheshire
The annual discussion and debate about the Education Dept.'s budget is NOT about teachers, and it is NOT about teacher salaries. It is unfortunate that teachers are even dragged into this conversation.
The real problem is the lack of any fiscal oversight by the Board of Education. This leaves all of the decision-making in the hands of the Superintendent. I for one believe that the Superintendent is a well-intentioned individual, who only has the best interest of the students in mind. However, it is necessary that the BOE provides some balance to an otherwise one-sided point of view, and to represent the interests and concerns of the entire Cheshire community.
While Mr. Massey and other members of the BOE may not feel that it is their job to provide budget oversight or to question the budgetary judgement of the Superintendent, experience elsewhere contradicts that point of view. Just today, the newspaper is reporting that the Amity Regional school system is reporting a $1.1m surplus which will be returned to the town coffers. And they have an annual budget of $37m vs. Cheshire's $52m. And let's not forget Roslyn, NY last year, where the entire Board was forced to resign after having failed to provide any oversight of financial matters, resulting in the theft of millions of dollars from the town.
If I had to give a grade to the BOE for Budget 101 - I would have to give them an "F". As my son once told me, "Dad, it's really hard to get an F, you really have to do absolutely nothing."
Anonymous... I LOVE your son's quote!! Good stuff!
About Amity... I'm fairly certain that you're comparing apples to oranges. Amity is a high school only. It is comprised of Bethany, Orange & Woodbridge. However, each of those towns have their own elementary school systems. And the middle school has a different setup. So I think you're comparing 4 yrs of education ($37m) to 13+ yrs of education ($52m). I'm not absolutely certain about this, but I'm pretty sure there are significant differences b/w Amity and Cheshire. Any other bloggers have a firmer grasp on this?
As for this discussion not being about teachers, I agree. I went thru the Cheshire schools and think very highly of our teachers. (Heck... my dad was one!) But to suggest that the binding arbitration rules that govern their union contract negotiations is not part of the difficulty is, I believe, unreasonable. I firmly believe that those rules should be changed... at minimum, there should be a reform to create uniformity among municipal employee unions.
Tim, my only reason for bringing up Amity is that they were able to run under budget - to the tune of $1.1m --- presumably because of strong fiscal oversight!
Amity is a six year system, not four. Grades 7 and 8 in two middle schools, Grades 9-12 in HS. (Up until a year or two ago, it was 7-8-9 in the middle schools and 10-11-12 in the HS) Orange (pop. 13K) and Bethany (pop 5K) each have a middle school, Woodbridge (pop. 9K)has the HS, so each of the 3 towns has one school within its boundaries. (Woodbridge students attend the middle school in Bethany). Being a regional school, I believe they get a greater percentage of state reimbursement. Orange makes up approx. 50% of the population of the Amity school system, Woodbridge 30%, Bethany 20% (all approximate). All 3 towns total 27K which is close to Cheshire's total pop (which we know includes the prison--without the prison almost identical population.) Our student population in Grades 7-12 is almost identical (within 50 students) Interestingly enough, Amity has a higher per pupil spending than Cheshire, $11,451 vs $9635 (2000 state figures) but has a lower average teacher salary $54K vs $62K. Amity's staff has a length of service average only one year less than Cheshire's teachers. SAT scores are higher at Amity, with Verbal ave 557 vs Cheshire's 535 and Math at 570 vs our 550. Per capita income is higher also with Amity coming in at $39,600 and Cheshire $33,903--which is significantly less than a starting teacher here in Cheshire. So basically, they pay their teachers less (and their teachers do lunch duty, too!) and they get higher SAT scores. The higher per pupil spending must be due to technology or transportation (farther distance to travel in a regional system) or something else--maybe lower medical benefit costs--I'm not sure. So, Tim, aren't you glad you asked?
Regarding Conservative's comment regarding Soc. Security, I know it is different for teachers (and Railworkers, I believe) but the question is why? Shouldn't all workers be treated equally?
Actually, I meant to say higher medical costs. What was I thinking?
Have been thinking about why Amity per pupil expenditures are so much higher than Cheshire while their teacher salaries (which drives so much of our budget) are significantly lower. The only thing that might explain it is that the cost of HS and middle school sports are borne just by the students in grades 7-12 whereas in Cheshire, they are borne by 13 grades' worth of students. Ditto that for the cost of small enrollment AP courses, etc. Anyone else have any theories?
Brickwall: In order to compare spending per pupil from one town to another, you need to be certain of what constitutes spending. In Cheshire, capital projects such as the CHS renovation and Dodd expansion are reported under capital debt... not education. In some towns, annual debt payments our borne by department, rather than as a separate line item. Cheshire has over $10mm per year in debt payments now. If 60% of the projects were education-related, conceivably the annual spending per pupil could be $1,000-$1,500 higher than reported.
Anonymous, you make a very good point. And I cannot speak to Amity's debt burden, but I do know Cheshire's debt burden. (It's quite a sore point for me... per the CT Office of Policy & Mgt, as of Jan '05, of the 169 municipalities in the state, Cheshire was the 15th most indebted per capita. And that's too high for my taste.)
To see a more accurate picture of the debt burden related to our schools, you should "add back" two items: Capital Non-Recurring (a $500k annual expenditure, included in the town's operating budget) and, as you mentioned, the schools portion of the overall debt burden held by the town. And that number is not 60%, but (and I'm going off of memory here) about 33%. Overall, the town has about $75,000,000 in debt, including about $25,000,000 in school-related debt. Again, these numbers are off of memory... but I'm comfortable with them. If anything, the school number may be as low as $20m and the total number may be as high as $80m. So the schools probably have between 25% and 33% of the $10,400,000 annual debt payments.
Assuming it's on the high end, that would be about $3,500,000 in debt payments + $500,000 in CNR money or $4,000,000 total. If you divide that by 5200 students, you get an additional expenditure of $800/student. Yet Amity spends an additional $1800/student (per Brickwall's numbers).
Anonymous... very good point, but I still think Brickwall's point is very interesting... and still not yet fully explained. (And of course, this doesn't address if Amity includes capital expenditures in their school budget.)
I am convinced that Amity's numbers must include capital debt. Unlike any other expense for the three towns, the educational expenses are shared. I don't see how the capital expenses for the Education department could otherwise be accounted for.
I agree that, based on these numbers, Amity probably does include capital expenses.
But based on the numbers that have been included above, there's still a $1000 difference. And barring some new information coming to light... I think that Brickwall's guess (that high school has more expenses than elementary school) is probably right.
And if that general assertion is true, it raises another question in my mind: what are the sources of that additional cost?
Some sources of costs at CHS:
a/c 440 (sports rental) $50k/yr
a/c 510 (busing Wilcox, etc.) $100k/yr
(private school-St. Bridgets??) $200k/yr
a/c 590 (sports services) $60k/yr
a/c 117 (student activities) $400-500k/yr
But that's only $800-900k. And if you assume an equivalent (final six year) student population of 2300 students w/ a cost differential of $1,000, then I'm thinking that Cheshire is "absorbing" that $1,000 difference among the lower grades... say 3,000 students. So there may be a couple million dollars there being spent at the high school that is not spent at the elementary level. And if my numbers above are fairly close to accounting for all extracurricular activities, then there still would need to be other significant costs at the high school & Dodd levels.
I completely forgot that St. Bridget's ends in 8th grade. So perhaps you could eliminate both the $100k for Wilcox busing (and other vo-ag/technical schools) and the $200k for "private schools" busing. (I presume that St. Bridget's represents the lion's share of that busing number.)
I say this because if Wilcox is 4yrs for $100k and St. Bridget's is 8yrs for $200k, then it stands to reason that these numbers are consistent across the 12yrs and therefore would not skew the "spending per pupil" figure being discussed here.
So knock that $800-900k figure down to $500-600k.
Busing definitely would be part of the difference in per pupil cost, but not the $1,000+ difference.
Here's some more info re: Amity. They have 185.6 FTE teachers for what comes out to be 50% of our student population. Cheshire has 329.6. (All figures are 04-05 school year). If you simply doubled Amity's teachers, it would come out to 371.2 FTEs. Granted, class sizes between primary and secondary may play a role, etc. but it is one interesting statistic. And speaking of class sizes, Amity's class size reflect the increased number of teachers--Amity Gr 7 class size is 18.9; ours is 26.4 (again 04-05 numbers) and at the high school, Amity class size is 19.9; ours is 18.7. Amity also has 14.4 administrators (for 3 buildings) for 2500 students, we have 18.5 (for 7 buildings) for 5200. Again, interesting--it certainly appears that Amity is top-heavy in administration.
Amity has 3.2 Department Chairs; we have 5.0 (and I may be wrong but I don't think we have Dept chairs except in the secondary schools so our student population would be the same in this case.) Much of this information can be found at the State of CT Dept of Education Strategic School Profiles--www.csde.state.ct.us
Brickwall... I've tried to use the State of CT Ed website, but be careful. Consider that their numbers are based on our numbers. And for years, our BOE has not known how many teachers we have... last year was no fluke. Their "historical" numbers have changed every year for years.
As for how many teachers we have, our own 05/06 BOE budget has the "historical" number of teachers listed as 362.55 for the 04/05 year. However, teachers are often broken down into 3 categories (classroom, special ed & pupil servies). It's entirely possible that your number of 329 teachers represents one or two of these three categories. Or it may not. At this point, I'm still not sure the Board knows how many teachers they have.
A fantastic blog yours. Keep it up.
If you have a moment, please visit my athletes salaries pros site.
I send you warm regards and wish you continued success.
Post a Comment