Up or down?
"Let's see if we have this right. Enrollment in Cheshire schools is projected to be 1.1 percent lower (down 57 students from 5,158) next year. Yet to educate fewer children, the schools will need $3 million more? And that $3 million includes money for eight new teaching positions, again to teach fewer children?" (WRA editorial)
Interesting question.
Tim White
Town Council, Budget Committee
22 comments:
Excellent editorial. It really hits the nail on the head and is worth showing the letter in your blog.
Trend to spend
Friday, January 12, 2007
Copyright © 2007 Republican-American
Let's see if we have this right Enrollment in Cheshire schools is projected to be 1.1 percent lower (down 57 students from 5,158) next year. Yet to educate fewer children, the schools will need $3 million more? And that $3 million includes money for eight new teaching positions, again to teach fewer children?
Superintendent Greg Florio says four of the teachers would address enrollment spikes at Darcey and Dodd Middle schools. Heaven forbid, however, that teachers in grades where enrollment is falling might be redeployed.
Veteran government watchers know this is all a game. School officials annually shoot for the moon, but are willing to accept less because less is always more than the year before. Even when enrollment is dropping.
And when Cheshire school officials finally reduce their proposed budget increase from 5.6 percent to something more reasonable, they will be sure to claim they have "cut the budget" and "reduced staffing" in hopes that taxpayers won't notice spending actually is up and the payroll is bloated further.
They will deny it, of course, but they and their counterparts in every town, city, borough and regional school district in Connecticut play the game in hopes of catching taxpayers napping and getting everything on their wish list.
Over the years, Cheshire taxpayers have been quite unsparing when it comes to funding education. We trust, however, that when this budget comes up for a vote, they won't be generous to a fault.
Great editorial! I think it should go in the Herald also!
Enrollment is down by 57 students and spending is up by $3 million. Let's do the math: $3 million divided by 57 is $52,000 per student NOT being educated in Cheshire this year.
The eduocracy justifies this by playing shell games, but they won't reallocate their present resources as an alternative to taxing and spending increases.
The lunatics are running the asylum, and hardly anyone questions it. After all, it's "for the children". Isn't that always the discussion stopper?
I dare anyone to make a post that has the same level of critique on the town side of the budget---go ahead I dare ya go ahead come on you can do it there ya go!
RE: critiquing the town side of the budget...
But the non-school side of the budget gets debated and critiqued all the time: in Council, in the papers, around town. Council members' votes on spending items often become campaign issues. Sometimes spending items even get directly put to vote by the taxpayers.
There is more accountibility and transparency in non-school spending than there is in school spending. The BOE is not as responsible to the taxpayers as the town Council is. Parallel to this, the Supt of schools is far less accountible to either the Council or the voters than the town manager is.
These are largely results of BOE budget line items being insulated from Council authority. The Council just votes a lump-sum
to the BOE every year, and the Supt is free to play endless shell games with the money. Look at the grief Tim White took when he tried to nail down an exact number of school staff a couple years ago.
One way to make BOE, the Supt, and the school budget more accountible and transparent is to separate the town budget from the school budget and give BOE direct taxing authority. Then we'll see real public scrutiny of school spending; proponents of increased spending will actually have to justify it.
I'd strongly support making the BOE its own taxing authority... thereby linking taxes to services.
Short of that, if we did a charter revision, I'd support adding text that would allow us to bifurcate the town and school budgets at referendum.
Like I said no critique of town side and it must be bc you dont like school spending and that is it
anon 8:59 Are you paying attention at all? Re-read anon 8:30.
To say that someone "doesn't like school spending and that is that" is absolutely ridiculous. Thankfully there are a few, mind you only a few, from the public that pay attention line by line on the budget and are aware of what's requested vs what's been spent etc.And hopefully this year the boe as a whole (not just a couple of them) will voice their opinions and really analyze the budget rather than just sending it to the TC for them to assign a bottom line number.
It sounds like maybe you are one of those that have "blinders" on and would agree to any amount requested in a budget.
anon 8:59 I love school spending! I think they should continue to request more in nearly all accounts even if they didn't expend prior years budgeted amounts. Heck let them have the 7.5 new teachers even though enrollment is dropping overall. And lets continue giving away 85k per year to those school staff that don't want the medical benefits-like med. benes don't already cost enough. Makes sense, huh. And if some department has new, unused materials, let's just give them away for personal use by school staff. Too bad people assume all is well with any budget request and they don't want to bother with any budget review.
Anon 859 is right. Those who question school spending are against Education.
Spending an extra $3 million for 57 fewer students is good for the Children. The Superintendent says so. Who are taxpayers to question the professional judgements of career Educrats?! They know what's best for the Children.
Everything the Educrats want should always be funded. Each year they come out with new innovations (more $$$$$$). For example, the Children must have Smartboards. "Studies show" that the Children are bored with traditional listening, reading, note-taking and studying methods. They must be entertained, don't you know. This costs $$$$$$. And next year it will even cost more $$$$$$.
We should gladly pay the extra $3 million for 57 fewer students. Or else you're against Education and against the Children.
Angry white men
Angry white men
We are angry and white
We have no clue
We stick like glue
We are angry and we are angry and we are very angry
Notice he only ever comes back with his "angry white men" cant. Lacking in ability to discourse with facts and reason, he resorts to emoting (with a hint of "racism" thrown in).
anon 8:57 You're exactly right. The guy's a fcknuig ioidt.
hey anon 8:59...how about you give me your checkbook and let me handle your budget/expenses...don't ask any questions...just keep depositing money so I can pay for all the things that I think are important...trust me, I know what I'm doing. :)
Anger and anger
Frustrtion
Falling Down
Ignorance
Intolerance
Opression
We are the men of America time has passed
anon 11 am...you need spellcheck too.
No you can't have my checkbook-The Republican congress of the last 14 years has done that-they beat you to it old timer!!!
anon 5:20 I think you're mistaken. As is indicated in your other post..you obivously LOVE to spend lots of money on education, blindly, I might add. That's where all your money has gone.
Oh and anon 5:20...I'm not an old timer, nor am I one of the yuppies. I've lived in this town all my life, which I'm sure is a lot longer than you!
AGAIN, notice s/he only comes back with his/her "angry white men" cant. Lacking in ability to discourse with facts and reason, s/he resorts to emoting (with a hint of racialism thrown in).
Sorry to rock the boat
Your story does not float
You are trying to build a moat
But your angry white man act is a real joke
Our hair is gray
Our thoughts are dizzy
We drive a tin lizzy
and our anger has got us in a tizzy
We are the united association of angry white men
Post a Comment