What Will Be Cut?

            In my last post, I indicated that I believed some members of the Majority Block were using the economic difficulties we face to pursue a personal political agenda.  At our Facilities Committee meeting on February 28^th, there was a good indication, given the evidence, that is so.  At that meeting I moved to have the Board hold a public hearing to discuss the closing of the Albany school.  Please understand that does not mean I advocate doing this, but if all measures of saving money were to be discussed, then this should be included in the mix.  Laying off teachers, cutting programs, reducing maintenance, and other such savings, do not require a public hearing.  Closing a school does.  For this action to even be considered as part of next year’s budget, the hearing had to be scheduled immediately.   The motion failed when all six members of the Majority Block, including Sally Sunday’s replacement, Jerri Carrol, voted against it. 

            Let me repeat myself (as even retired teachers are prone to do).  I would probably not been in favor of closing the building.  To do so would have required moving 5^th grade to the Middle School, and the population may still be a bit too large.  Some students who had moved from one school to another last year would be forced to change schools yet again.  None of these changes are good; I simply wanted the Albany issue on the table with the rest of our program.  The fact that my motion failed is not as troubling as some of the reasons given for a “No” vote.  Most troubling was the remark made by one of the School Directors opposing my motion saying that, “Saving money isn’t everything.”  Although this Director (I am avoiding names so as not to be accused of making personal attacks) may have sincerely meant that we must also consider the impact our actions have on kids, it also indicates that saving money may not be the driving force behind many of the budget cuts the current Majority may force upon us.

            Repeating my remarks in a previous post, questioning a person’s motives can be problematic.  However, refusing to even consider the closing of the Albany school is revealing.  The preliminary budget passed by the Majority has already established a ceiling on spending without ever considering the effect that ceiling might have on the education of our children.  They have now determined that nothing compares to the harm that would be done by closing Albany.  This actions indicates to me that some members of the Board have already determined the reductions in spending they want without an open discussion of their educational impact.  I believe that some of the members have personal and political agendas, and are using our current economic difficulty to pursue those goals. 

            I am not sure what these goals might be.  I suspect that the members of the current Majority  each have different goals, but will support each other in order to reach their own ends.  Some may want to cut particular educational programs – not for objective educational reasons, but because they, “Don’t like them.”  Others may have a particular target in mind that would be hit by mass layoffs.  A few might be part of the national movement against teachers in general.  Unfortunately our kids’ welfare does not seem to be part of these agendas. 

The way the Board chooses to use the funds we will receive through the sale of Apex will be particularly revealing.  I do not yet have exact figures, but it is over one million dollars.  I also do not know how much is a “once-and­–done” windfall, and how much can go toward ongoing operating expenses.  The debate over this revenue should be instructive.  Listen carefully!  The May primary is coming up.

OOPS

Oops!  When I left the January 27^th Board meeting, I thought we had agreed on a preliminary budget.  That budget included far more spending than we would include in the final budget, but it would have given both the Board and the public an opportunity to examine the cuts we would have to make, and weigh them against the impact they might have on the education of our kids.  Unfortunately, my vote was needed to actually pass the proposed budget at the February 7^th meeting and I was absent.  Without my vote that budget failed to get the absolute majority of five votes it needed to pass.  The Board majority then reformed and imposed an arbitrary limit on the money we will spend on educating our kids without first considering the effect that limit will have.

It is always difficult to question the motives of public officials – a point Vice President Joe Biden has repeatedly made.  However, future events may reveal that at least some Board members are using the current economic situation to pursue an agenda that has more to do with personal politics than it does effective education.  Stay tuned as these events unfold.

At the February 222^nd meeting, the most heated discussion was over student/teacher ratios and the related class size.  Dividing the total number of students, 1536, by the total number of teachers, 146, indicates that there are about 10.5 students per teacher.  It would be difficult to justify spending tax payer money to support an average class size this small.  However, as individual teachers reported, their class sizes are well above that figure.  Several factors go into explaining this discrepancy.  At the risk of being accused of engaging in “fuzzy math,” here is an explanation.

Kutztown has a large number of special needs students.  The minimum number of teachers required by law to serve this population is 28.  Unlike the situation of many years ago, in which special education was conducted in self-contained classrooms, all these students now receive some, if not all of their education within a regular education setting. Special needs students occupy two teachers, their special education teacher, who provides them the extra support mandated by law, and the regular education teacher in whose class they are also assigned.  A more accurate picture of class size should only count the regular-ed teachers, all of whom have both regular and special education students in their classrooms.  Finding the ratio of students to regular-ed teachers gives us an approximate figure of 13 students per teacher.  While more realistic, it is still too small.  This would be the average class size if teachers had no preparation time.  If each teacher had just one prep period per day the average class size rises to 15.  We are getting closer.  We have not considered the “specialty” teachers (art, music, and health and wellness) or our librarians, or our nurses.  Removing these teachers from the total brings us close to the minimum reported by several teachers, 17.  The overall average is a bit higher.  I would attribute this to the time many teachers are assigned the duty of providing support to students having academic difficulties.  The class sizes reported by our teachers did not include these assignments, nor that of monitoring study halls.  The numbers given the Board are the average size of the classes in which they provide their subject area instruction.  These are certainly smaller than they were thirty-five years ago, but they are comparable to, and perhaps a bit larger than, surrounding districts.  If “No child is to be left be behind,” then a class size in the low twenties is a big as it can get. 

There are ways of raising the 10.5 students per teacher figure without impacting class size. We could:

• Reduce the number of special education teachers risking law suits and fines.
• Eliminate preparation time.   From my own experience this would reduce our teacher’s effectiveness if for no other reason than fatigue. 
• Eliminate music, art, and health and wellness.
• Eliminate academic support and leave some, if not many, children behind.

Finally, much has been made of the student/teacher ratio of 10.5 being below the state average, implying that this average is a goal we should seek.  I wonder if this is also the goal we want for our students’ achievement.  Understand that if our average achievement level is at the average for the state, then in a normal distribution of scores, half our students will be below average.  Is this really our goal?  If we truly want our students to be above average, then perhaps we need to provide them with resources that also exceed the average provided within our state.