[Elwood Community Network commentary originally distributed 2/10/11]
On page A15 of [the February 10th] edition of Newsday, there is a column by Joye Brown that my wife made sure I read this morning. Ms. Brown writes an opinion column which is usually very interesting, and sometimes quite challenging, even though I seldom find myself in complete agreement with her.
But, given Governor Cuomo's current equivalent for school districts of General Sherman's scorched earth March to the Sea, across Georgia in 1864, her comments certainly merit everyone's consideration.
Today's column is titled "Further steps guv can take," and in the middle of her piece she quotes Lawrence Levy's take on Cuomo's March: "It's like the governor has put the tax cap horse before the mandate relief cart," said Lawrence Levy, dean of Hofstra University's Center for Suburban Studies.
Ms. Brown, herself, remarks rather wisely:
"As always under the current system, children will end up paying the highest price - with fewer teachers and fewer programs such as sports and the arts, which are essential to rounding out students' school years.
One way to change that equation is for Cuomo to go even farther: Offer incentives for districts to consolidate. Relieve even more state-driven mandates on school districts. And make it easier for schools to negotiate harder with teachers unions by removing obstacles that increase spending even as districts try to negotiate to pull it back."
And she is obviously not afraid to confront the big issue:
"...school districts need to rise to the challenge as well. As it is, more of them are negotiating contracts with teachers contributing co-payments to their health care costs. And some districts - and they are rare - are negotiating freezes in teacher salaries, while administrators voluntarily - again rare - are temporarily freezing their own salaries, too.
The goal should be to save money in ways that won't hurt children. And the best way to do that is by negotiating changes in existing teacher and administrator contracts."
And on the point of potential consolidation (which is opposed by many, in different districts including our own, and for numerous and sometimes contradictory reasons), she later mentions our own district in her column:
"More school districts could voluntarily combine backroom functions, or, as the Elwood School District suggested, at minimum begin talks to determine what other variations of combined school district functions would look like."
What I particularly appreciate in her above paragraph is that, unlike some reporters and some ill-informed bloggers, Ms. Brown apparently gets the logic of exploring these kinds of options (even if they should ultimately prove to be non-viable) as a sign of fiscal creativity and prudence, rather than as a sign of weakness.
In any event, the column is well worth reading, and if you no longer have the [February 10th] edition but are a Newsday subscriber, or even an Optonline customer, you can read Joye Brown's column at the following web page:
http://www.newsday.com/columnists/joye-brown/further-steps-guv-can-take-1.2676082
Monday, February 28, 2011
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Gov. Cuomo's Either Bad at Logic or Bad at Economics
In the Feb 9th edition of Newsday, starting with a front page headline that says "Cuomo to LI Schools: You've Got the Money," and going on to an article on page A3 titled "Governor: Dip into reserves," Newsday covers the message from the Governor and his staff, which basically dismisses the concerns of school districts across Long Island at the likely impact of the level of cuts to State aid proposed by Gov. Cuomo.
The central message is found in the second paragraph of the Newsday article, and continued in the fourth paragraph:
"According to data compiled by the administration and obtained by Newsday, 74 percent of school districts statewide - and about 85 percent on Long Island - could use reserve funds or unused federal stimulus money to deal with the cuts."
"Besides proposing the first overall state spending cut in 15 years, Cuomo also wants to reduce school aid $1.5 billion - an average 9 percent statewide and 11 percent on Long Island. He has suggested that, in most cases, districts have enough available money to offset his cuts without laying off teachers or eliminating programs."
Now, think about this concept as you would about the economic security of your own family.
Most families have put away some money "for a rainy day." The possible uses, in your mind, might be an emergency repair to your roof after a massive snow storm, or the collapse of your septic system, or unanticipated major repairs to your eight year old car, or massive co-pays for medical needs for a member of your family who suffers a serious accident, or the possible loss of income from your job due to problems your employer might be having from this three year old recession, and on and on and on. You know that the only certainty of life is its uncertainty, and the prudent household must be prepared for those kinds of events.
But, when you use those funds, hopefully partially and not entirely, they are gone. They cannot be magically replaced as if your bank account was a self-replenishing wishing well. Therefore, what is used today is not available next year, or the year after, until such time as your own economic situation allows you to save additional funds for that rainy day in 2013 or 2014.
For Gov. Cuomo or his staff to be playing around, by this kind of dialogue and headline-making, with concepts of using reserve funds to replace State aid cuts is, in my opinion, dangerously irresponsible. And for Newsday to prepare a chart, that indicates whether a particular school district "Has enough reserve and stimulus funds to cover proposed cut," it is similarly absurd.
In the next to last paragraph of the Newsday article, a member of the Governor's staff tries to deflect criticism of this kind of gamesmanship and extremist debating thrusts and parries:
"Noting that annual dramatic aid increases were not sustainable, Cuomo spokesman Josh Vlasto countered: "We're not saying that the schools should use all this money to offset the cuts. We're just trying to give an appropriate context."
Oh goody! Let's throw some intellectual Molotov Cocktails and see what kind of damage we can do to the credibility of school districts, and what attention we can divert from Albany.
By the way, in the chart which Newsday created, there is another bit of absurdity. They note in the preamble to the chart that "The average superintendent salary in the state if $165,577;" they then go on to show a column indicating whether the salary of each LI district's superintendent does, or does not, exceed the state average.
One of my daughters went to college in Fredonia, in Chautauqua County, about 45 miles southwest of Buffalo. I could buy a beautiful large home, on ten or more acres in the surrounding communities, for less than you or I would need to spend on a small cottage, on a postage-stamp sized property, on Long Island. And if you go over to Allegany County, which some even more impoverished areas, I'll bet you could do even better.
In other words, it is ridiculous, and even stupid, to compare salaries or costs on Long Island to an average which includes upstate or Western New York. Whether you are a retail manager, or a mechanic, or a banker, or a lawyer, or a teacher, or a school superintendent, you would not accept (and not even be able to accept) the same salary on Long Island as you would in most of New York State. We should expect Newsday to do better than either create, or pass along, that kind of column.
This is turning out to be a very sad season for intelligent dialogue.
For those of you who are either Newsday subscribers, or Optonline customers, you can read the entire Newsday story at:
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/politics/cuomo-li-schools-have-millions-in-reserve-1.2671860?p=
Jerry Hannon
The central message is found in the second paragraph of the Newsday article, and continued in the fourth paragraph:
"According to data compiled by the administration and obtained by Newsday, 74 percent of school districts statewide - and about 85 percent on Long Island - could use reserve funds or unused federal stimulus money to deal with the cuts."
"Besides proposing the first overall state spending cut in 15 years, Cuomo also wants to reduce school aid $1.5 billion - an average 9 percent statewide and 11 percent on Long Island. He has suggested that, in most cases, districts have enough available money to offset his cuts without laying off teachers or eliminating programs."
Now, think about this concept as you would about the economic security of your own family.
Most families have put away some money "for a rainy day." The possible uses, in your mind, might be an emergency repair to your roof after a massive snow storm, or the collapse of your septic system, or unanticipated major repairs to your eight year old car, or massive co-pays for medical needs for a member of your family who suffers a serious accident, or the possible loss of income from your job due to problems your employer might be having from this three year old recession, and on and on and on. You know that the only certainty of life is its uncertainty, and the prudent household must be prepared for those kinds of events.
But, when you use those funds, hopefully partially and not entirely, they are gone. They cannot be magically replaced as if your bank account was a self-replenishing wishing well. Therefore, what is used today is not available next year, or the year after, until such time as your own economic situation allows you to save additional funds for that rainy day in 2013 or 2014.
For Gov. Cuomo or his staff to be playing around, by this kind of dialogue and headline-making, with concepts of using reserve funds to replace State aid cuts is, in my opinion, dangerously irresponsible. And for Newsday to prepare a chart, that indicates whether a particular school district "Has enough reserve and stimulus funds to cover proposed cut," it is similarly absurd.
In the next to last paragraph of the Newsday article, a member of the Governor's staff tries to deflect criticism of this kind of gamesmanship and extremist debating thrusts and parries:
"Noting that annual dramatic aid increases were not sustainable, Cuomo spokesman Josh Vlasto countered: "We're not saying that the schools should use all this money to offset the cuts. We're just trying to give an appropriate context."
Oh goody! Let's throw some intellectual Molotov Cocktails and see what kind of damage we can do to the credibility of school districts, and what attention we can divert from Albany.
By the way, in the chart which Newsday created, there is another bit of absurdity. They note in the preamble to the chart that "The average superintendent salary in the state if $165,577;" they then go on to show a column indicating whether the salary of each LI district's superintendent does, or does not, exceed the state average.
One of my daughters went to college in Fredonia, in Chautauqua County, about 45 miles southwest of Buffalo. I could buy a beautiful large home, on ten or more acres in the surrounding communities, for less than you or I would need to spend on a small cottage, on a postage-stamp sized property, on Long Island. And if you go over to Allegany County, which some even more impoverished areas, I'll bet you could do even better.
In other words, it is ridiculous, and even stupid, to compare salaries or costs on Long Island to an average which includes upstate or Western New York. Whether you are a retail manager, or a mechanic, or a banker, or a lawyer, or a teacher, or a school superintendent, you would not accept (and not even be able to accept) the same salary on Long Island as you would in most of New York State. We should expect Newsday to do better than either create, or pass along, that kind of column.
This is turning out to be a very sad season for intelligent dialogue.
For those of you who are either Newsday subscribers, or Optonline customers, you can read the entire Newsday story at:
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/politics/cuomo-li-schools-have-millions-in-reserve-1.2671860?p=
Jerry Hannon
SED Commissioner Proposes Some Cost-Cutting Ideas
In the February 8th edition of Newsday, on page A6, there is a story by John Hildebrand outlining some of the ideas proposed by the State Education Department Commissioner, David Steiner, that are intended to begin the process of reducing the number of unfunded mandates for school districts. As you know, unfunded (or underfunded) mandates increase the costs for school districts but require the property taxpayers of each district to pay for such activities or services, thereby increasing the components of a district's budget which cannot be adjusted by its administration or board of education, except by increasing local taxes or decreasing other services.
Interestingly, some of Mr. Steiner's proposals are not even supported by the Board of Regents, as Mr. Hildebrand writes:
"But the Regents had reservations. For starters, members of the policy-making board nixed a proposal eliminating required middle-school courses in technology and Home and Career Skills. Steiner reports to the Regents, though he also sits on the governor's task force.
For those of you who are Optonline customers, or Newsday subscribers who missed today's paper, you can read the full story on Newsday's website.
Frankly, I am sceptical about the value of these kinds of tweaks and minor adjustments, but when combined with a lot of other adjustments to the cost structures of districts (personnel costs, transportation costs, shared services, reducing administrative overhead, etc) it may have a positive impact. One of my favorite lines was attributed (with some dispute about whether he ever said this) to the late Senator Everett Dirksen, "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money."
So, when we add up the many things that we hope will be done to reduce expenses for school districts, the cumulative effect can be powerful. But the appropriate phrase would certainly not be "A hundred here, a hundred there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." The State, and school districts, need to focus upon the major elements of cost, and not merely the convenient minor elements.
Beware the sleight of hand, and the increasing use of smoke and mirrors, which some will undoubtedly employ in an effort try to deflect attention from the really big cost factors for school districts, hoping that people will merely focus upon very minor cost elements, or sacrifice by one or two.
Shared sacrifice means just that; sacrifice by all.
Interestingly, some of Mr. Steiner's proposals are not even supported by the Board of Regents, as Mr. Hildebrand writes:
"But the Regents had reservations. For starters, members of the policy-making board nixed a proposal eliminating required middle-school courses in technology and Home and Career Skills. Steiner reports to the Regents, though he also sits on the governor's task force.
One board member, Roger Tilles of Great Neck, noted that fellow Regents want to put more emphasis, not less, on studies related to careers and technology.
"For us to take out something that we've been moving toward is just not something we want to do," said Tilles."
For those of you who are Optonline customers, or Newsday subscribers who missed today's paper, you can read the full story on Newsday's website.
Frankly, I am sceptical about the value of these kinds of tweaks and minor adjustments, but when combined with a lot of other adjustments to the cost structures of districts (personnel costs, transportation costs, shared services, reducing administrative overhead, etc) it may have a positive impact. One of my favorite lines was attributed (with some dispute about whether he ever said this) to the late Senator Everett Dirksen, "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money."
So, when we add up the many things that we hope will be done to reduce expenses for school districts, the cumulative effect can be powerful. But the appropriate phrase would certainly not be "A hundred here, a hundred there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." The State, and school districts, need to focus upon the major elements of cost, and not merely the convenient minor elements.
Beware the sleight of hand, and the increasing use of smoke and mirrors, which some will undoubtedly employ in an effort try to deflect attention from the really big cost factors for school districts, hoping that people will merely focus upon very minor cost elements, or sacrifice by one or two.
Shared sacrifice means just that; sacrifice by all.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Writer Identifies Major Factors Affecting Education Gap
At a time when most of the news related to education is focused upon the increasing lack of affordability of education, and the problems which States create with unfunded mandates and structural barriers which tie the hands of school districts, there is a very interesting Op Ed piece on page A35 of Tuesday's edition of Newsday.
For those who are Optonline customers, or for Newsday subscribers, you may read this article on the Newsday website:
http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/the-world-passed-our-students-by-1.2651319?p=
The title of the piece is different in the print edition ("We're putting our students at a disadvantage") and in the website edition ("The world passed our students by"), yet both titles are supported by the article written by Anne Michaud. She points out how other nations are increasingly giving their students an advantage over American students, and she identifies some significant differences in US approaches toward education versus those of a number of other nationalities.
In my view, her critical paragraphs are those which follow:
"By the time American students reach eighth grade, they've spent roughly 400 fewer days in school. So there's a lot of pressure on teachers to cover subjects in a shorter time, and in less depth.
For those who are Optonline customers, or for Newsday subscribers, you may read this article on the Newsday website:
http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/the-world-passed-our-students-by-1.2651319?p=
The title of the piece is different in the print edition ("We're putting our students at a disadvantage") and in the website edition ("The world passed our students by"), yet both titles are supported by the article written by Anne Michaud. She points out how other nations are increasingly giving their students an advantage over American students, and she identifies some significant differences in US approaches toward education versus those of a number of other nationalities.
In my view, her critical paragraphs are those which follow:
"By the time American students reach eighth grade, they've spent roughly 400 fewer days in school. So there's a lot of pressure on teachers to cover subjects in a shorter time, and in less depth.
Not coincidentally, perhaps, middle school is where American students begin to fall behind their global peers. By high school, among 30 developed nations, U.S. students rank 15th in reading, 21st in science, 25th in math and 24th in problem-solving.
People who study these trends, like Education Secretary Arne Duncan, believe that the United States has stood still while others have moved past us. In an October speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Duncan said, "Here in the United States, we simply flat-lined. We stagnated. We lost our way, and others literally passed us by."
So while people of my generation might say to ourselves, "We didn't know much math, and we turned out OK," we'd be missing the point. The rest of the world is changing. We need to prepare our children for a knowledge economy."
This brings us back to the Japanese concept of Kaizen, or Continuous Improvement, which I have mentioned at various times. It is one of the principal reasons that the Japanese automotive industry was able to leap-frog past the American industry in the 1980's and 90's, but that is now also being practiced in Detroit, as well as by other American industrial companies.
Stagnation in effort, and stagnation in ideas, can only "work" when others are equally lazy or non-inventive. What you and I did in school, years ago, is not sufficient for the generation(s) which follow us, and if you want to help your children and grandchildren succeed in an increasingly global marketplace of employment and opportunity, then some dramatic changes will be required.
Her complete article is worth your consideration.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Wow! Maybe Pigs Can Fly After All
I opened my copy of Newsday, while having breakfast Friday morning, and was gratified to note that the Newsday editors had changed the story headline from the incorrect and highly inflammatory "Parents protest Elwood school merger proposal," posted on newsday.com Thursday night, to "Parents pan merger idea." It appears on page A18 of the Friday print edition of Newsday.
Now, that does not mean that the story is any better, but at least the story headline now reflects what their reporter actually wrote.
The fact that twenty-two individuals, out of some 300 + (Newsday's estimate) or 400 + (my estimate) does not represent a majority, and the fact that not all of those twenty-two actually opposed the concept of a merger (should it ever be proposed), is really not reflected in the Newsday story.
I would still emphasize the points which I included in the summary and commentary which I wrote at 01:21 on Friday, shortly after I returned home from the Thursday night Board Meeting/Information Session, and which is the prior post on Elwood Illuminations.
Now, that does not mean that the story is any better, but at least the story headline now reflects what their reporter actually wrote.
The fact that twenty-two individuals, out of some 300 + (Newsday's estimate) or 400 + (my estimate) does not represent a majority, and the fact that not all of those twenty-two actually opposed the concept of a merger (should it ever be proposed), is really not reflected in the Newsday story.
I would still emphasize the points which I included in the summary and commentary which I wrote at 01:21 on Friday, shortly after I returned home from the Thursday night Board Meeting/Information Session, and which is the prior post on Elwood Illuminations.
Good Grief, Charlie Brown, Newsday Continues to Favor Fictional Headlines
Well, once again, Newsday has managed -- with an inflammatory headline that did not even reflect what was said in the article, much less reflect what was actually said at the Elwood School District's meeting on Thursday -- to mislead Newsday readers.
The article, posted on newday.com late Thursday night, was captioned: "Parents protest Elwood school merger proposal." Maybe Newsday editors will realize their mistake before the article is printed in Friday's edition. Then again, maybe pigs will be able to fly by Friday afternoon.
But, it was even more disappointing because most of the quotes which Newsday included were obtained prior to the start of the meeting, and many of the more important comments from our Superintendent were not even included in the article.
First, there never was an "Elwood school merger proposal," as the letter posted to the district website makes clear; you can link to it from the Home Page, http://www.elwood.k12.ny.us/
Second, there was a presentation of information by three professionals with varying areas of expertise related to the complexities of merging school districts; the audience was advised by the Board president that some time Friday afternoon, or Monday at the latest, their powerpoint slides (really from just two, as Counsel to the district had a purely oral presentation) should be posted on the district website. There you may study some of the incentives which New York State uses to create interest in district consolidation, as well as review some historical elements relating to the subject.
Third, the Superintendent made clear, to anyone not asleep or reading their Blackberry or focusing instead upon what they could say later to be destructive, that this issue is being studied because of the potential for damaging cuts to programs that would be caused by a proposed property tax cap that might be imposed by New York State (without simultaneous cuts in pension fund contributions or salaries or other expenses over which each school district has little or no control).
To that point, Mr. Scordo noted that if the State imposed the proposed 2% cap, it would probably mean (a) the elimination of all extracurricular activities, and (b) the elimination of our athletic program, and (c) a reduction in high school programs including fewer AP classes, and (d) an average class size of 34 in grades K through 8.
Mr. Scordo asked the audience, and all in the Elwood community, to join in a major personal lobbying effort with our Assembleymen and State Senators; this effort is beginning with our various PTA units, and will be expanded to the entire community through information which will be posted to the district website. But, if the State still goes ahead with the proposed 2% cap, then our district, and others, will be faced with finding ways to lower our costs.
When a cap was proposed during the final year of the administration of Governor Patterson, it was a higher level, 4%, and there would have been a somewhat complex series of super-majority votes which could override that cap; you may read more about that on the blog of the NY State Council of School Superintendents: http://blog.nyscoss.org/2010/09/20/tax-cap-news/ Whether or not there would be an ability to override the cap currently proposed, and whether or not such a vote would be a likely event in this or other school districts, is a matter of pure speculation at this point.
Fourth, and finally, Newday did not take account of the full spectrum of the twenty-six commenters (twenty-two original commenters, and four who accepted the Board president's invitation, and came back to the microphone after all others had been able to comment, as people were asked to limit their microphone time to three minutes).
Yes, there were many people who said why they did not want Elwood to merge -- should that ever be proposed, which it has not been -- largely for reasons of (a) liking a small school district and the friendliness that engenders, (b) loss of identity as a community, (c) perceived lack of good special ed programs in other neighboring districts, or (d) not liking one of more of the other potential (under State law) merger partners, particularly South Huntington and Northport.
But, many of the others had questions more of a clarification nature, and given that this was intended as an information session, that was a very good and logical thing to do; these questions included (a) what has been the response from other districts (one has said their BOE would discuss the question), (b) would a potential merger vote be a formal referendum (yes; moreover, it was later clarified that BOTH districts have to vote yes, individually, or it cannot happen), (c) since salaries are the biggest cost factor, when does the teachers contract expire (2013/14), (d) what would be the cost of a study of the potential for merging Elwood with "x" district (about $35,000 to $45,000), and (e) what about shared services, instead (we have explored this before, and would do what we can, but there is no special State aid associated with shared services, only with mergers).
And a few others had comments, including (a) people need to keep an open mind as no decision is being made tonight, (b) we appear fairly vulnerable to a larger potential partner, (c) merger potential has to be studied by school districts, just as it must be studied by companies, and it's not possible to tell whether it would be good or bad without doing a proper analysis, and the more colorful but succinct (d) the rain is coming so let's build an ark.
In summary, while there was significant emotional pressure against a potential merger, should it ever be proposed, it was by no means universal, and it was not even conclusively a majority of the twenty-four individuals, among the several hundred in the audience, who chose to speak Thursday night.
The audience, by the way, was about four hundred plus by my very rough count (I was sitting in the middle, on the aisle), and it included the Superintendents of the Commack, Half Hollow Hills, and Northport school districts, and the Board president of the South Huntington school district, and a Trustee of the Harborfields school district. There could have been others in attendance, but those are the ones I could see and identify.
Let's hope that we can accentuate the accurate story, both within our community and from external media sources, as we go forward.
The article, posted on newday.com late Thursday night, was captioned: "Parents protest Elwood school merger proposal." Maybe Newsday editors will realize their mistake before the article is printed in Friday's edition. Then again, maybe pigs will be able to fly by Friday afternoon.
But, it was even more disappointing because most of the quotes which Newsday included were obtained prior to the start of the meeting, and many of the more important comments from our Superintendent were not even included in the article.
First, there never was an "Elwood school merger proposal," as the letter posted to the district website makes clear; you can link to it from the Home Page, http://www.elwood.k12.ny.us/
Second, there was a presentation of information by three professionals with varying areas of expertise related to the complexities of merging school districts; the audience was advised by the Board president that some time Friday afternoon, or Monday at the latest, their powerpoint slides (really from just two, as Counsel to the district had a purely oral presentation) should be posted on the district website. There you may study some of the incentives which New York State uses to create interest in district consolidation, as well as review some historical elements relating to the subject.
Third, the Superintendent made clear, to anyone not asleep or reading their Blackberry or focusing instead upon what they could say later to be destructive, that this issue is being studied because of the potential for damaging cuts to programs that would be caused by a proposed property tax cap that might be imposed by New York State (without simultaneous cuts in pension fund contributions or salaries or other expenses over which each school district has little or no control).
To that point, Mr. Scordo noted that if the State imposed the proposed 2% cap, it would probably mean (a) the elimination of all extracurricular activities, and (b) the elimination of our athletic program, and (c) a reduction in high school programs including fewer AP classes, and (d) an average class size of 34 in grades K through 8.
Mr. Scordo asked the audience, and all in the Elwood community, to join in a major personal lobbying effort with our Assembleymen and State Senators; this effort is beginning with our various PTA units, and will be expanded to the entire community through information which will be posted to the district website. But, if the State still goes ahead with the proposed 2% cap, then our district, and others, will be faced with finding ways to lower our costs.
When a cap was proposed during the final year of the administration of Governor Patterson, it was a higher level, 4%, and there would have been a somewhat complex series of super-majority votes which could override that cap; you may read more about that on the blog of the NY State Council of School Superintendents: http://blog.nyscoss.org/2010/09/20/tax-cap-news/ Whether or not there would be an ability to override the cap currently proposed, and whether or not such a vote would be a likely event in this or other school districts, is a matter of pure speculation at this point.
Fourth, and finally, Newday did not take account of the full spectrum of the twenty-six commenters (twenty-two original commenters, and four who accepted the Board president's invitation, and came back to the microphone after all others had been able to comment, as people were asked to limit their microphone time to three minutes).
Yes, there were many people who said why they did not want Elwood to merge -- should that ever be proposed, which it has not been -- largely for reasons of (a) liking a small school district and the friendliness that engenders, (b) loss of identity as a community, (c) perceived lack of good special ed programs in other neighboring districts, or (d) not liking one of more of the other potential (under State law) merger partners, particularly South Huntington and Northport.
But, many of the others had questions more of a clarification nature, and given that this was intended as an information session, that was a very good and logical thing to do; these questions included (a) what has been the response from other districts (one has said their BOE would discuss the question), (b) would a potential merger vote be a formal referendum (yes; moreover, it was later clarified that BOTH districts have to vote yes, individually, or it cannot happen), (c) since salaries are the biggest cost factor, when does the teachers contract expire (2013/14), (d) what would be the cost of a study of the potential for merging Elwood with "x" district (about $35,000 to $45,000), and (e) what about shared services, instead (we have explored this before, and would do what we can, but there is no special State aid associated with shared services, only with mergers).
And a few others had comments, including (a) people need to keep an open mind as no decision is being made tonight, (b) we appear fairly vulnerable to a larger potential partner, (c) merger potential has to be studied by school districts, just as it must be studied by companies, and it's not possible to tell whether it would be good or bad without doing a proper analysis, and the more colorful but succinct (d) the rain is coming so let's build an ark.
In summary, while there was significant emotional pressure against a potential merger, should it ever be proposed, it was by no means universal, and it was not even conclusively a majority of the twenty-four individuals, among the several hundred in the audience, who chose to speak Thursday night.
The audience, by the way, was about four hundred plus by my very rough count (I was sitting in the middle, on the aisle), and it included the Superintendents of the Commack, Half Hollow Hills, and Northport school districts, and the Board president of the South Huntington school district, and a Trustee of the Harborfields school district. There could have been others in attendance, but those are the ones I could see and identify.
Let's hope that we can accentuate the accurate story, both within our community and from external media sources, as we go forward.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Elwood Might Provide the Spark That Ignites Improvement on LI
Every now and then we read about issues impacting school districts in our State, but more often we read about such issues on Long Island.
As noted in an Op Ed piece in Newsday on November 23rd, Dr. Marc Bernstein, Superintendent of the Valley Stream Central High School District, pointed out that there are 124 school districts out of the 700 in all of New York State.
So, that would be 124 school districts in just two out of the sixty-two counties in the State, which means that there are 576 school districts in sixty other counties in the State; if you asked for a numerical comparison (which is really far from ideal, but useful as a broad indicator) that would be a distribution of an average of 9.6 school districts for each of those other sixty counties, versus an average of 62.0 school districts for each of Nassau County and Suffolk County.
But, even if you were to adjust for single county school districts, or in the case of the City of New York a single school district for five counties, it is clear that there is a gross inefficiency in the structure of school districts in both Nassau County and Suffolk County.
While this inefficiency is usually identified as solely a cost inefficiency, it also has an impact upon curriculum diversity for students of small or medium sized districts since some districts might eliminate electives where the class size is either shrinking, or has been relatively low (contrasted with most electives) for a number of years.
After all, in an era in which school property taxes have been rapidly escalating for many years, many districts can no longer afford to cover the cost of personnel in classes with very low average sizes. But, to simply eliminate those classes would diminish the education opportunities for many students, and one way to retain the opportunity, while reducing costs, is to create a larger pool of students which could generate an economy of scale in class size.
Still, even for larger school districts, and certainly for all others, cost containment itself is an important consideration and the proliferation of school districts means that taxpayers are effectively subsidizing duplicative administrative costs, and some staff costs, that are in desperate need of reduction as other expenses keep rising.
Dr. Bernstein is not the first responsible adult to suggest that consolidation of school districts is something that will ultimately need to take place on Long Island, yet it has not happened with great frequency. State Law allows districts (as long as they are contiguous) to merge, if the voters of both (or more) districts approve such a merger.
Like many things, you need consenting parties, and to determine whether that might be possible, you need school district management and boards of education with the vision and creativity to explore such a possibility.
After all, no auto mechanic would go an replace parts on your engine to “fix” your car without first examining the computer codes from your Engine Control Module and Engine Management System.
Similarly, no attorney would offer you advice on a particular complicated issue which you might present, without first researching both New York statutes and case law on the matter.
And no financial advisor would give you a specific investment strategy without first understanding your economic circumstances and then researching the stock and bond performance data on instruments which might be suitable for you.
Study, research, investigation, and then dialogue, are the requirements for the prudent manager or technical advisor, and that includes, for matters such as potential district consolidation, superintendents of schools and their boards. Nobody would pretend that anything like this is a “slam dunk,” or a “no brainer,” as there are many related issues that would arise with consolidation.
But, to go on in life by metaphorically sticking one’s head in the sand, and ignoring potential options for each school district which could have favorable impacts on both students and taxpayers of a district, would be no more than profligate irresponsibility.
The Long Island school districts are, as a group, heading toward either massive cuts that would irreparably damage education for our children, or massive increases in costs that really can no longer be sustained (even in good economic times) and would effectively force many people from their homes.
That is why I was greatly impressed by the Elwood Superintendent of Schools, Peter Scordo, who has announced that he and the Elwood Board of Education will host a special Consolidation Workshop for the public on January 6th, in the Elwood Middle School Auditorium.
His announcement, which is available from the Home page of the Elwood School District, also indicated that the Elwood Board of Education has decided to send exploratory letters to the boards and superintendents of the contiguous school districts (Commack, Half Hollow Hills, Harborfields, Northport-East Northport, and South Huntington) “…to ascertain interest in holding joint meetings to explore the issues surrounding possible consolidation.”
Dialogue is the first step in any rational investigation, and Elwood has now sent a spark which could generate, over time, profound effects for Long Island students and taxpayers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
