In today's edition of the NY Times, on page 16 (and available online http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/nyregion/to-save-jobs-union-approves-big-concessions-in-deal-with-cuomo.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=thomas%20kaplan&st=cse) there is a most interesting article regarding a 55,000 member union, the Public Employees Federation, which has come to agreement with New York State on a number of cost-saving measures in order for them to protect the jobs of members.
Imagine that; they understand that government now has a limited amount of money available for pay and benefits, and can either pay the full freight, the whole kahuna, the max package, to a smaller number of workers, or they can pay a reduced amount to a larger number of workers.
Gee, I wish that Elwood's teachers union had appreciated that concept; we could have avoided most of the layoffs of younger teachers that our district was forced to let go, after Elwood Teachers Alliance declined to give a no-future-benefit tie-in concession to our Board of Education and District.
As stated in the article, the Public Employees Federation "...agreed to forgo across-the-board raises for three years, accept furlough days for the first time and increase the amount members contribute toward their health insurance coverage."
The article went on to state that “This was a difficult agreement to reach, but with our members’ jobs in peril and the state’s fiscal hardship, we’ve stepped up and made the necessary sacrifices,” Mr. Brynien [note: Kenneth Brynien is the union president] said in a statement. “The agreement will preserve our members’ jobs and careers while bringing long-term fiscal stability to the state.”
The article is certainly worth reading.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
New Item in District Headlines Offers Analysis and Directio
[Originally transmitted to Elwood Community Network on 7/9]
In checking the website of the Elwood School District, this afternoon, I noticed that the latest posting is that of the statement made at last Tuesday's BOE meeting.
For your convenience I have pasted the item below, but you can also access it from the "Headlines" section of the Home Page, STATEMENT FROM THE BOARD OF EDUCATION PRESENTED AT THE REORGANIZATION MEETING JULY 5TH, 2011.
I find myself in particular agreement with the following part, in the fourth paragraph, of that statement:
"Unfortunately, as many of you know, local boards of education do not have much say in the majority of their budget expenditures. Laws that foster entitlements, Last In First Out legislation over merit, one-sided bargaining rules, and the growth of state legislated mandated expenses, in combination with the reduction of state aid, are crippling our ability to provide the full breadth of education that all children deserve."
Of course, if I had been asked to write a statement for the Board, I would have added a sentence to their second paragraph, to very specifically address the missing elephant from the room of those staff members who really cared. But, I tend to be more candid than most people, and less solicitous of those who understand much more about taking than giving.
The Board's statement goes on to address the fiscal challenges which the Board, and the District, and the students, residents and taxpayers, and many staff members, all faced head-on in April and May of this year, and begins steps in an effort to address the problems which all school districts face in New York.
It is certainly worth your review, and consideration.
Jerry Hannon
............................................
STATEMENT FROM THE BOARD OF EDUCATION PRESENTED AT THE REORGANIZATION MEETING JULY 5TH, 2011
Dear Community Members,
The Board of Education is very happy that the budget passed, and we thank you all for the support.
We, personally, and as a Board, want to thank those members of our staff who responded to the Board of Education’s request to follow the lead of our Superintendent and Central Office Administrators to cut increases or freeze compensation in the upcoming year - a sincere thank you to all.
The Board of Education put forward this budget, although we did so with great concern. The Board recognizes that 7.98% increases are not sustainable.
Unfortunately, as many of you know, local boards of education do not have much say in the majority of their budget expenditures. Laws that foster entitlements, Last In First Out legislation over merit, one-sided bargaining rules, and the growth of state legislated mandated expenses, in combination with the reduction of state aid, are crippling our ability to provide the full breadth of education that all children deserve. This is something that must change. We will not and cannot wait until December or January to see the cards we have been dealt by Albany and hope that we can deliver a reasonably low percentage [tax levy] increase next year.
We need to pressure Albany and our local legislators that represent us in Albany now to legislate structural changes that will improve education, not diminish it, while helping us lower expenses and find revenues from sources outside of the tax base. We must rise up as a community and demand progressive thinking and action in NY State that is long overdue. Moreover, we must keep that pressure applied until we accomplish our goals.
Please join us in letting our local representatives from Albany know how we feel. We are in the process of organizing an interested group that will work parallel to official BOE efforts for those who wish to make the voice of Elwood heard. This organization will be formed and operated outside of our Board of Education umbrella, although Board members, as well as former Board members, will be engaged as personal volunteers in this movement.
Nikki Crowley and Melissa Maher will be gathering names, phone numbers, and email addresses after the meeting from anyone who would like to join this organized effort.
In May 2011, a proud Elwood community stood up and displayed a tremendous commitment to the education of children with a generosity that defines our character. Simply put, we took care of our children; however, we did not take care of our problems. The Board of Education, together with the support of our community, is willing and ready to fight the fight against those who threaten our mission; that is our children’s opportunity to have a competitive, well-rounded education.
We must take action and tell Albany how we feel and more importantly, tell them what we need. We will not stand by… We do not want to raise taxes while diminishing education. Please join the effort.
Thank you,
Joseph Fusaro, President
Members of Elwood Union Free School District’s Board of Education
In checking the website of the Elwood School District, this afternoon, I noticed that the latest posting is that of the statement made at last Tuesday's BOE meeting.
For your convenience I have pasted the item below, but you can also access it from the "Headlines" section of the Home Page, STATEMENT FROM THE BOARD OF EDUCATION PRESENTED AT THE REORGANIZATION MEETING JULY 5TH, 2011.
I find myself in particular agreement with the following part, in the fourth paragraph, of that statement:
"Unfortunately, as many of you know, local boards of education do not have much say in the majority of their budget expenditures. Laws that foster entitlements, Last In First Out legislation over merit, one-sided bargaining rules, and the growth of state legislated mandated expenses, in combination with the reduction of state aid, are crippling our ability to provide the full breadth of education that all children deserve."
Of course, if I had been asked to write a statement for the Board, I would have added a sentence to their second paragraph, to very specifically address the missing elephant from the room of those staff members who really cared. But, I tend to be more candid than most people, and less solicitous of those who understand much more about taking than giving.
The Board's statement goes on to address the fiscal challenges which the Board, and the District, and the students, residents and taxpayers, and many staff members, all faced head-on in April and May of this year, and begins steps in an effort to address the problems which all school districts face in New York.
It is certainly worth your review, and consideration.
Jerry Hannon
............................................
STATEMENT FROM THE BOARD OF EDUCATION PRESENTED AT THE REORGANIZATION MEETING JULY 5TH, 2011
Dear Community Members,
The Board of Education is very happy that the budget passed, and we thank you all for the support.
We, personally, and as a Board, want to thank those members of our staff who responded to the Board of Education’s request to follow the lead of our Superintendent and Central Office Administrators to cut increases or freeze compensation in the upcoming year - a sincere thank you to all.
The Board of Education put forward this budget, although we did so with great concern. The Board recognizes that 7.98% increases are not sustainable.
Unfortunately, as many of you know, local boards of education do not have much say in the majority of their budget expenditures. Laws that foster entitlements, Last In First Out legislation over merit, one-sided bargaining rules, and the growth of state legislated mandated expenses, in combination with the reduction of state aid, are crippling our ability to provide the full breadth of education that all children deserve. This is something that must change. We will not and cannot wait until December or January to see the cards we have been dealt by Albany and hope that we can deliver a reasonably low percentage [tax levy] increase next year.
We need to pressure Albany and our local legislators that represent us in Albany now to legislate structural changes that will improve education, not diminish it, while helping us lower expenses and find revenues from sources outside of the tax base. We must rise up as a community and demand progressive thinking and action in NY State that is long overdue. Moreover, we must keep that pressure applied until we accomplish our goals.
Please join us in letting our local representatives from Albany know how we feel. We are in the process of organizing an interested group that will work parallel to official BOE efforts for those who wish to make the voice of Elwood heard. This organization will be formed and operated outside of our Board of Education umbrella, although Board members, as well as former Board members, will be engaged as personal volunteers in this movement.
Nikki Crowley and Melissa Maher will be gathering names, phone numbers, and email addresses after the meeting from anyone who would like to join this organized effort.
In May 2011, a proud Elwood community stood up and displayed a tremendous commitment to the education of children with a generosity that defines our character. Simply put, we took care of our children; however, we did not take care of our problems. The Board of Education, together with the support of our community, is willing and ready to fight the fight against those who threaten our mission; that is our children’s opportunity to have a competitive, well-rounded education.
We must take action and tell Albany how we feel and more importantly, tell them what we need. We will not stand by… We do not want to raise taxes while diminishing education. Please join the effort.
Thank you,
Joseph Fusaro, President
Members of Elwood Union Free School District’s Board of Education
Sunday, July 3, 2011
What Matters Most? The Students, or....
Sometime between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning (entries on the District's website are not time-dated, and I do not check it daily), the Elwood School District posted a very important notice.
Those of you who followed the activities of this year's extraordinarily difficult budget-setting process know how hard the Board worked to creatively find ways to retain as much educational content as possible, even while being forced by economic circumstances to cut back the Kindergarten program from Full-Day to Half-Day.
But, you may also remember the dialogue, chiefly among former Ass't Sup't for Human Resources Ron Friedman, and Superintendent Peter Scordo, and Trustee Dan Ciccone, regarding the possibility of teachers union impediments to the Board's creative proposals.
In other words, for the proposals to succeed it would require the consent -- or at least the non-objection -- of the teachers union, which also means that they would have to put the interests of the kindergarten students, and their parents, and the welfare of the District and its residents, ahead of their own parochial interests.
Interestingly, though I'm not sure whether it is from a sense of realizing the irony or instead a more disturbing observation of the possible cynicism, you may also recall that when Full Day Kindergarten was being pushed, very hard, from a Harley perspective, former Principal Virginia Cancroft invited a number of her teachers, on various occasions, to address the Board and the community. Several of those teachers expressed a view that a Full Day Kindergarten program was important for those children who might otherwise lag a bit behind their peers, and that having additional time and an opportunity for extra learning could be essential.
However, with the teachers union's recent rejection of any "no-strings-attached" creative use of teaching assistants, to educationally supplement the necessitated reduction to a Half Day Program, one would have to question whether the original rationale was actually more important for the students, or more important for the teachers union and their members.
The memo, in its depressing candor, is provided, below, in its entirety, for your convenient reference.
As is made clear in the referenced letter from attorney John Gross, which one can obtain by clicking the link through the website announcement, in order to achieve this creative modification, the District would instead have to negotiate a separate agreement with our teachers union, Elwood Teachers Alliance, and I would roughly translate that as "give the union something else" in order for the kids to get a break.
So much for the role of creativity and caring about the children.
.................................................
[Notice posted on the District website]
Sometime between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning (entries on the District's website are not time-dated, and I do not check it daily), the Elwood School District posted a very important notice.
Those of you who followed the activities of this year's extraordinarily difficult budget-setting process know how hard the Board worked to creatively find ways to retain as much educational content as possible, even while being forced by economic circumstances to cut back the Kindergarten program from Full-Day to Half-Day.
But, you may also remember the dialogue, chiefly among former Ass't Sup't for Human Resources Ron Friedman, and Superintendent Peter Scordo, and Trustee Dan Ciccone, regarding the possibility of teachers union impediments to the Board's creative proposals.
In other words, for the proposals to succeed it would require the consent -- or at least the non-objection -- of the teachers union, which also means that they would have to put the interests of the kindergarten students, and their parents, and the welfare of the District and its residents, ahead of their own parochial interests.
Interestingly, though I'm not sure whether it is from a sense of realizing the irony or instead a more disturbing observation of the possible cynicism, you may also recall that when Full Day Kindergarten was being pushed, very hard, from a Harley perspective, former Principal Virginia Cancroft invited a number of her teachers, on various occasions, to address the Board and the community. Several of those teachers expressed a view that a Full Day Kindergarten program was important for those children who might otherwise lag a bit behind their peers, and that having additional time and an opportunity for extra learning could be essential.
However, with the teachers union's recent rejection of any "no-strings-attached" creative use of teaching assistants, to educationally supplement the necessitated reduction to a Half Day Program, one would have to question whether the original rationale was actually more important for the students, or more important for the teachers union and their members.
The memo, in its depressing candor, is provided, below, in its entirety, for your convenient reference.
As is made clear in the referenced letter from attorney John Gross, which one can obtain by clicking the link through the website announcement, in order to achieve this creative modification, the District would instead have to negotiate a separate agreement with our teachers union, Elwood Teachers Alliance, and I would roughly translate that as "give the union something else" in order for the kids to get a break.
So much for the role of creativity and caring about the children.
.................................................
[Notice posted on the District website]
Kindergarten Update
As many community members are aware, the 2011-12 budget approved by voters in mid-May calls for a reduction in the district’s kindergarten program from the current full-day program to a half-day session.
An innovative and cost-effective solution was sought by the Board of Education that would minimize this partial loss of program by moving forward with a supplemental half-day “Kinder-skills” session that utilized teaching assistants instead of teachers. The teaching assistants would appropriately be supervised by a teacher as well as building and central administration.
Unfortunately, this program met opposition from the Elwood Teachers’ Alliance, and after extensive investigation and consultation with legal counsel, we have been advised that this option is not possible because it would be formally challenged as an improper work practice under the existing collective bargaining agreement (you can read the attorney memo here). Furthermore, based on precedent, it is likely that defending this challenge would be costly and, ultimately, unsuccessful.
We are disappointed by the loss of our full-day kindergarten program, but acknowledge that difficult choices must be made under the financial circumstances that exist. We will continue to explore creative ways of implementing important programs for our students and hope that the entire school community will embrace new endeavors in the future.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
State Actions Followed By Individual Teacher Reactions
[Originally transmitted 6/28 on Elwood Community Network]
In [the June 28th edition of] Newsday, on page A5, there is an article titled "Battle Over Regents," which discusses the reaction, by high school principals across Long Island, to the State's decision to eliminate January Regents exams as one of it's cost-cutting measures.
For those of you who are Newsday subscribers away from home, or who are Optonline customers, you can read the story on Newsday's website at:
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/education/70-hs-principals-slam-regents-over-tests-1.2989598
This article does a good job of pointing out the negative spillover effects of the State's action on the January Regents, as well as some others which are also mentioned.
After this action was announced by the State about a month ago, we had a practical example in Elwood of what can happen when some individual teachers care more about students than they care about inflating their paychecks or their pension or other benefits.
At our June 15th Board of Education meeting, one interesting agenda item dealt with one of the most encouraging local human relations topics, combined with professional responsibility and fiscal responsibility, that I have witnessed in Elwood during the past ten years. It apparently all began with internal discussions pertaining to the State’s elimination of the January Regents examinations.
Now, just to be clear, that State action is not a positive element either in terms of human relations or professional or fiscal responsibility; the State, in recent years, hasn’t seemed to care very much for either of these aspects, and they seem to like laying down a smoke screen (think of movies showing Naval convoys during the Second World War) and trying to cast blame on local officials for failures (and worse) that were actually generated by the Governor, and Legislature, and their SED creation.
No, the positive aspect which demonstrates encouraging steps toward human caring, and combining that with professional and fiscal responsibility, came as a result of that negative action by the State Board of Regents.
Several Math teachers at Glenn recognized that the elimination of the January Math Regents exam would place some students, who failed the June exam (and the quick turnaround August make-up Regents exam), at risk of not being able to graduate on time.
Therefore, it was announced at the BOE meeting that three of the Math teachers in the Elwood School District volunteered to provide tutoring, and other support during the school day, to at-risk Math students; this would be done at no cost to the District (and naturally at no cost to those students or their parents) so that the students have a better chance of passing the Math Regents, which is one of the requirements for graduation.
These three noble teachers, Christina Kerensky-DeSimone, Eileen Kelly-Gorman, and Michael Prykuta, were recognized at the Board Meeting for their actions, and it demonstrates to me that there are indeed some very special -- and deeply caring --teachers in our District.
Whatever differences that we parents and residents might perceive, between the Elwood District Administration/BOE and the teachers union as a group, we have to keep in mind that there are still a number of teachers, and not just these three, who do indeed care enough to put the children first.
I have learned, over the past few days, that all of the students at risk did pass the June math Regents exam, which suggests that the generous and responsible offer by those three teachers will not be necessary; but the positive unselfish action by these teachers should be kept in mind by all of us, and hopefully by other staff members as well.
In [the June 28th edition of] Newsday, on page A5, there is an article titled "Battle Over Regents," which discusses the reaction, by high school principals across Long Island, to the State's decision to eliminate January Regents exams as one of it's cost-cutting measures.
For those of you who are Newsday subscribers away from home, or who are Optonline customers, you can read the story on Newsday's website at:
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/education/70-hs-principals-slam-regents-over-tests-1.2989598
This article does a good job of pointing out the negative spillover effects of the State's action on the January Regents, as well as some others which are also mentioned.
After this action was announced by the State about a month ago, we had a practical example in Elwood of what can happen when some individual teachers care more about students than they care about inflating their paychecks or their pension or other benefits.
At our June 15th Board of Education meeting, one interesting agenda item dealt with one of the most encouraging local human relations topics, combined with professional responsibility and fiscal responsibility, that I have witnessed in Elwood during the past ten years. It apparently all began with internal discussions pertaining to the State’s elimination of the January Regents examinations.
Now, just to be clear, that State action is not a positive element either in terms of human relations or professional or fiscal responsibility; the State, in recent years, hasn’t seemed to care very much for either of these aspects, and they seem to like laying down a smoke screen (think of movies showing Naval convoys during the Second World War) and trying to cast blame on local officials for failures (and worse) that were actually generated by the Governor, and Legislature, and their SED creation.
No, the positive aspect which demonstrates encouraging steps toward human caring, and combining that with professional and fiscal responsibility, came as a result of that negative action by the State Board of Regents.
Several Math teachers at Glenn recognized that the elimination of the January Math Regents exam would place some students, who failed the June exam (and the quick turnaround August make-up Regents exam), at risk of not being able to graduate on time.
Therefore, it was announced at the BOE meeting that three of the Math teachers in the Elwood School District volunteered to provide tutoring, and other support during the school day, to at-risk Math students; this would be done at no cost to the District (and naturally at no cost to those students or their parents) so that the students have a better chance of passing the Math Regents, which is one of the requirements for graduation.
These three noble teachers, Christina Kerensky-DeSimone, Eileen Kelly-Gorman, and Michael Prykuta, were recognized at the Board Meeting for their actions, and it demonstrates to me that there are indeed some very special -- and deeply caring --teachers in our District.
Whatever differences that we parents and residents might perceive, between the Elwood District Administration/BOE and the teachers union as a group, we have to keep in mind that there are still a number of teachers, and not just these three, who do indeed care enough to put the children first.
I have learned, over the past few days, that all of the students at risk did pass the June math Regents exam, which suggests that the generous and responsible offer by those three teachers will not be necessary; but the positive unselfish action by these teachers should be kept in mind by all of us, and hopefully by other staff members as well.
Friday, June 17, 2011
NY Times Article Offers Greater Insight About SED Measures
[Originally transmitted, on Elwood Community Network, 6/17]
In yesterday's NY Times, on page A23 (and presently available on nytimes.com), there was a very helpful article which provided greater perspective for the data which Newsday published yesterday, and which I highlighted in yesterday's commentary titled "SED Survey Shows Elwood Did Very Well With Class of 2010".
The Times pointed out why one particular category, in which Elwood happened to have the Second Best results among all eight school districts in the Town of Huntington -- just two percentage points behind leader Cold Spring Harbor -- is so important from a college preparedness perspective.
Sharon Otterman of The Times wrote:
"For many years, officials at the City University of New York and at community colleges across the state have raised questions about why so many students from public high schools seem to lack basic skills when they arrive on campuses, requiring extensive remediation. But Tuesday was the first time the state attempted to say how many seniors at each school were prepared to move on.
In yesterday's NY Times, on page A23 (and presently available on nytimes.com), there was a very helpful article which provided greater perspective for the data which Newsday published yesterday, and which I highlighted in yesterday's commentary titled "SED Survey Shows Elwood Did Very Well With Class of 2010".
The Times pointed out why one particular category, in which Elwood happened to have the Second Best results among all eight school districts in the Town of Huntington -- just two percentage points behind leader Cold Spring Harbor -- is so important from a college preparedness perspective.
Sharon Otterman of The Times wrote:
"For many years, officials at the City University of New York and at community colleges across the state have raised questions about why so many students from public high schools seem to lack basic skills when they arrive on campuses, requiring extensive remediation. But Tuesday was the first time the state attempted to say how many seniors at each school were prepared to move on.
“This is talking about useful truths,” said Merryl H. Tisch, the chancellor of the Board of Regents. “We are all aware that this is very challenging, and that the tenacity of the achievement gap is undeniable. But the only way to correct the problem is to find something that allows you to state clearly where you are, and that’s what this is.”
The college-ready statistics, which the state formally called “aspirational performance measures,” were released alongside general graduation rates, which have been on the rise for about a decade and continued to inch up last year in the city and state."
Ms. Otterman went on to say:
"The formula for college readiness comes from an analysis of data from city community colleges, which found that scoring a 75 on the English Regents exam and an 80 on the math Regents roughly predicted that students would get at least a C in college-level courses in the same subjects. Scores below that meant students often had to take remedial classes before they could do college-level work."
Therefore, with Elwood's 2010 graduating students at Glenn scoring 80 percent on that indicator, they were better prepared than ONLY Cold Spring Harbor (82), among all districts in Suffolk County, and when you add in the Nassau County districts, Elwood was exceeded only by Jericho (87), Garden City (83), Cold Spring Harbor (82), Plainview-Old Bethpage (82), and they were equaled only by Manhasset (80).
Now, take a look at those very few districts, in all of Nassau and Suffolk, carefully.
Every one of them has a long-standing reputation of excellence.
Several of them represent districts of great average family wealth and little in the way of individual family need.
But, there we are; little Elwood, getting the most bang for our economic bucks, and trying to do better and better.
What greater case could be made for demonstrating our focus upon the goals of Kaizen, or Continuous Improvement?
Does that mean that we have achieved educational Nirvana? Hardly; we have other improvements to make, and you can never, never, rest on your laurels, because we have entered a global marketplace, and the students of so many countries continue to do better than the students of the USA.
But, this is part of a process, and we have to rejoice in such great improvements, even while acknowledging that we have further to go. And, as a measure of comparison with our peers in New York, we are certainly improving, and we are certainly doing extremely well among all ninety-eight districts, with high schools, in Nassau and Suffolk counties.
Once again, Wow!
Thursday, June 16, 2011
SED Survey Shows Elwood Did Very Well With Class of 2010
Wow!
Every now and then, you see something that really makes you smile.
In today's edition of Newsday, on page A25, you will find the Nassau and Suffolk County results of the State Education Department's survey of high school seniors in the Class of 2010. I am only going to reproduce the results for the eight school districts in the Town of Huntington, but you will find that Elwood's results in comparison to all districts in both counties are just as impressive.
Anticipating that my AOL formatting may not transfer well for those of you using Optonline or some other ISP's, I will describe the five columns of data, after the name of each district, as follows:
A % of seniors graduating from high school
B % earning Regents diploma with Advanced Designation
C % achieving 80 or better on Regents Math exam, and 75 or better on Regents English exam
D % going on to two year colleges
E % going on to four-year colleges
Now for the Town of Huntington school district results. In an effort to make the over-all results even easier to appreciate, I have color-coded the positions (highest is best for A, B, C, and E, and lowest is best for D) as follows:
First Place, in Red; Second Place in Blue; Third Place in Green.
District___________A____B___C___ D___E
Cold Spring Harbor___98___77__ 82___2___95
Commack _________97___79___72___21__77
Elwood___________98___74___80___14__82
Half Hollow Hills____95___70___71____15__81
Harborfields _______98___72___77____19__77
Huntington________77____41___46___29__57
Northport/E Npt____93____56___65___24__68
South Huntington___ 90____43___51___31__59
With regard to these results, I would make the following observations:
1. Cold Spring Harbor is, by far, the most wealthy district in terms of household income, and also has one of the lowest property tax rates due to the very high value of individual home properties. They regularly have one of the highest average costs, per student, of educating the children in their district. Parents in that district, in general, can afford the finest tutors for their children -- if they should desire them -- and they can also afford private college tuition, at more prestigious, as well as average, as well as any other category of four year colleges. I would expect them to do as well as they obviously have done.
2. Elwood is now, and has always been, a district of average wealth -- pockets of affluence and pockets of great need and most in the middle -- in which most of the children do not benefit from the kind of family financial ability as do most of those in Cold Spring Harbor. Elwood does not have the same kind of average property values, nor do we have much in the way of commercial property values (as does Half Hollow Hills, or Northport, or even Huntington or South Huntington, which all have either large retail sectors or commercial or industrial sectors); accordingly, Elwood has had to make do, to the best of our creative abilities, with less.
But look at those results!
For many years, Elwood was a good district, a fine district, but it became myopically complacent and, as other districts advanced, we began to coast along. The vision, such as it was, became what I have called a "good enough" approach, with a resistance to change by some teaching staff, and even some Elwood-centric administrators.
Yet a regeneration was begun in this district in 2005, under a new Superintendent, Bill Swart, who had significant experience in many other districts on and off Long Island, and this regeneration reached its peak, two years ago, when Peter Scordo was brought in, by our prudent and prescient Board of Education, as our current Superintendent. Peter Scordo has been willing, and able, to go several steps further than Bill Swart, who seemed to occasionally cave in to staff resistance.
This SED summary is not the be-all and end-all justification for everything that we do, but it is a very powerful positive indicator, and we should express our gratitude to Peter Scordo, and Assistant Superintendent Maryann Llewellyn, and Glenn Principal Vincent Mulieri, and his teachers and other staff, and to the young men and women of Glenn who have accepted the challenge to do better, and indeed did.
Congratulations!
Every now and then, you see something that really makes you smile.
In today's edition of Newsday, on page A25, you will find the Nassau and Suffolk County results of the State Education Department's survey of high school seniors in the Class of 2010. I am only going to reproduce the results for the eight school districts in the Town of Huntington, but you will find that Elwood's results in comparison to all districts in both counties are just as impressive.
Anticipating that my AOL formatting may not transfer well for those of you using Optonline or some other ISP's, I will describe the five columns of data, after the name of each district, as follows:
A % of seniors graduating from high school
B % earning Regents diploma with Advanced Designation
C % achieving 80 or better on Regents Math exam, and 75 or better on Regents English exam
D % going on to two year colleges
E % going on to four-year colleges
Now for the Town of Huntington school district results. In an effort to make the over-all results even easier to appreciate, I have color-coded the positions (highest is best for A, B, C, and E, and lowest is best for D) as follows:
First Place, in Red; Second Place in Blue; Third Place in Green.
District___________A____B___C___ D___E
Cold Spring Harbor___98___77__ 82___2___95
Commack _________97___79___72___21__77
Elwood___________98___74___80___14__82
Half Hollow Hills____95___70___71____15__81
Harborfields _______98___72___77____19__77
Huntington________77____41___46___29__57
Northport/E Npt____93____56___65___24__68
South Huntington___ 90____43___51___31__59
With regard to these results, I would make the following observations:
1. Cold Spring Harbor is, by far, the most wealthy district in terms of household income, and also has one of the lowest property tax rates due to the very high value of individual home properties. They regularly have one of the highest average costs, per student, of educating the children in their district. Parents in that district, in general, can afford the finest tutors for their children -- if they should desire them -- and they can also afford private college tuition, at more prestigious, as well as average, as well as any other category of four year colleges. I would expect them to do as well as they obviously have done.
2. Elwood is now, and has always been, a district of average wealth -- pockets of affluence and pockets of great need and most in the middle -- in which most of the children do not benefit from the kind of family financial ability as do most of those in Cold Spring Harbor. Elwood does not have the same kind of average property values, nor do we have much in the way of commercial property values (as does Half Hollow Hills, or Northport, or even Huntington or South Huntington, which all have either large retail sectors or commercial or industrial sectors); accordingly, Elwood has had to make do, to the best of our creative abilities, with less.
But look at those results!
For many years, Elwood was a good district, a fine district, but it became myopically complacent and, as other districts advanced, we began to coast along. The vision, such as it was, became what I have called a "good enough" approach, with a resistance to change by some teaching staff, and even some Elwood-centric administrators.
Yet a regeneration was begun in this district in 2005, under a new Superintendent, Bill Swart, who had significant experience in many other districts on and off Long Island, and this regeneration reached its peak, two years ago, when Peter Scordo was brought in, by our prudent and prescient Board of Education, as our current Superintendent. Peter Scordo has been willing, and able, to go several steps further than Bill Swart, who seemed to occasionally cave in to staff resistance.
This SED summary is not the be-all and end-all justification for everything that we do, but it is a very powerful positive indicator, and we should express our gratitude to Peter Scordo, and Assistant Superintendent Maryann Llewellyn, and Glenn Principal Vincent Mulieri, and his teachers and other staff, and to the young men and women of Glenn who have accepted the challenge to do better, and indeed did.
Congratulations!
Friday, May 20, 2011
Analysis and Commentary - Budget Vote and BOE Election
[originally transmitted on Elwood Community Network, 5/20]
Now that I have had a chance to locate my records for previous Votes and Elections, it is possible to place this past Tuesday into greater perspective.
I was only able to find data as far back as 2003; in 2002, the first year I kept records, the budget did pass, and, in an election which followed the resignation of one trustee, two seats were contested and one was uncontested. That was also the only time that I ran for the BOE, unsuccessfully, so I do remember the broad results.
Budget Votes:
Year Yes No Total Votes
2011 1,779 (61.2%) 1,129 (38.8%) 2,908
2010 (#2) 1,970 (66.7%) 985 (33.3%) 2,955
2010 (#1) 1,088 (46.9%) 1,204 (53.1%) 2,322
2009 1,068 (69.9%) 460 (30.1%) 1,528
2008 1,160 (63.8%) 659 (36.2%) 1,819
2007 878 (61.8%) 543 (38.2%) 1,421
2006 1,561 (63.1%) 911 (36.9%) 2,472
2005 1,186 (52.4%) 1,079 (47.6%) 2,265
2004 1,217 (51.5%) 1,146 (48,5%) 2,363
2003 1,209 (56.7%) 924 (43.3%) 2,133
BOE Elections:
Year Candidates Votes
2011 A-Bill Gutekunst 1,382 (53.0%)
A-James Tomeo 1,227 (47.0%)
Total Votes 2,609
B-Mike LaMena 1,375 (55.3%)
B-Jack Schwartz 1,113 (44.7%)
Total Votes 2,488
2010 Uncontested Election
2009 Uncontested Election
2008 A-Mike Kaszubski 967 (80.9%)
A-Jennifer (?) Ilovsky 195 [write-in] (16.3%)
A-James Tomeo 33 [write-in] (2.8%)
Total Votes 1,195
B-Patty Matos 1,024 (59.4%)
B-Alex Resnick 612 (35.5%)
B-James Tomeo 84 [write-in] (4.9%)
B-Jennifer Ilovsky 3 [write-in] (0.2%)
Total Votes 1,723
2007 Uncontested Election
2006 A-Joe Fusaro 1,398 (56.4%)
A-Michael Williams 1,079 (43.6%)
Total Votes 2,477
B-Dan Cicone 1,405 (56.9%)
B-Cheryl Gabrielli 1,064 (43.1%)
Total Votes 2,469
2005 Uncontested Election
2004 A-Julie Badlato 1,249 (53.0%)
A-Bill Cameron 1,106 (47.0%)
Total Votes 2,355
2003 A-Joe Fusaro 1,169 (57.4%)
A-Brian Madden 868 (42.6%)
Total Votes 2,037
B-Dan Ciccone 1,042 (53.5%)
B-John Santomauro 904 (46.5%)
Total Votes 1,946
Derivative Commentary:
School Budget
The first thing you should note is that the 2011 total of 2,908 in the School Budget Vote was the second-highest over the past nine years, with only the second 2010 vote (the June re-vote after the original Proposed Budget was rejected in May) higher at 2,955.
But that also means that this was the highest original May vote total on record, which is absolutely amazing, particularly on such a dreary wet day.
I’m not sure what we can make of vote margins over these nine years, as the Budget Increase and the Tax Levy Increase fluctuated considerably over this time, since our District and BOE have historically not tried to pull the wool over the eyes of its residents, as have many districts on Long Island.
Elwood has not secretly over-taxed its residents in one year in order to “magically” pull money out of a hat in another year; therefore, the budget and tax numbers have reflected more candid economics, and they have demonstrated more respect for the integrity of taxpayers.
Of course, in some years, it has been a blessing, and in other years it has been a real burden, particularly when the State gives us the shaft while costs soar into the stratosphere.
But the Total Votes count is certainly real, and the heavy involvement of the past few years has been a testimony to the people of this community.
BOE Election
This is where the size and shape of the budget have generally mattered much less, although it was one of the factors in 2004, and might have been a factor in 2003.
Looking back over the years, and saving 2011 for last, I would note that 2008 was a contested election, but the effective contest was really just with one seat, as Mike Kaszubski did not have an opponent who bothered to submit Nominating Petitions, and his only opposition were write-in candidates.
Patty Matos did have an active opponent on the ballot, but the support for that opponent was primarily in a relatively small, though quite vocal, single focus group of core supporters. Naturally the “usual” antagonists of the District and the current Board (in the sense of Casablanca, where Claude Rains, standing with Humphrey Bogart, instructs his next in command to round up the “usual” group) did tag along, and tried some last minute machinations, but the results made it clear how ineffective that was. The “usual” antagonists learned from that in 2011.
The previous contested campaign was in 2006, and that was the dirtiest and nastiest election that I can remember in my eleven years since taking early retirement gave me time to get involved. A smear campaign really began at a few BOE meetings (I’ve kept my notes from those meetings, and even obtained under FOIL an official transcript of the BOE dialogue on the worst night), and some campaigners, or campaign workers, tried to impugn the integrity of one of the successful candidates with the same male bovine manure.
Captain Louis Renault would not have been surprised by the suspects.
In 2004, we had a contested election in which a trustee with superior intellectual skills, but abysmal inter-personal skills (he would even tick off his friends), lost an election partially for reasons of sometimes being insensitively arrogant, and partially for being on the BOE at a challenging time, but also -- and given the margin, and the timing, I believe primarily -- because a former trustee, who had been rejected by the voters after only a one year term on the BOE, issued a letter that arrived on the Saturday before the Tuesday election, making a number of distorted and mathematically inaccurate statements that seemed designed to confuse and frighten voters, and then asked people to support the incumbent’s opponent.
And finally, in 2003 we had what now seems like the cleanest election in memory, yet it was a hotly contested election that was at least based upon honest intellectual disagreements between candidates. I don’t recall any dirty tricks, or maligning of the personal integrity of the candidates, and it would be nice if we could return to a time when distortions were not the primary tool of opponents, and when appeals were to intellect rather than to emotion or popularity contests, and when all candidates focused upon what was good for the students and the taxpayers of the community.
In 2011 we had way too much in the way of personal popularity appeals, including the soliciting of some voters who seemed to know nothing about the issues, or of the problems of school districts on Long Island or in New York State in general, and who were not even told the whole truth, by some candidates, about the nature and economic reality of theoretical concessions by a union.
Greed will no longer do.
Selflessness is desperately needed, and selfishness must be rejected.
Personal resentment by some former employees, and a focus upon union interests by other former employees, do not belong in BOE elections, and some electioneering activities were, quite simply, unseemly.
Our problems, and the problems of other school districts, are by no means over, and it would be helpful for the good of the students and for the good of the community and for the good of the taxpayers, and, yes, for the good of the younger generation of teachers and other staff, if everyone would convert their energy and efforts into a positive approach that recognizes that we are indeed, all of us, in this together.
Shared sacrifice, by all parties, is desperately needed.
Finally, we need a cathartic effect in Albany, so that the unfunded mandates, and the absurd pension system, and the strangling and constricting restrictions on personnel management, are finally corrected.
But, it must start here with us, now, and we can no longer afford the effects of the negativity of the usual antagonists and their allies.
Let’s make 2011/12 a much better year for Elwood.
Now that I have had a chance to locate my records for previous Votes and Elections, it is possible to place this past Tuesday into greater perspective.
I was only able to find data as far back as 2003; in 2002, the first year I kept records, the budget did pass, and, in an election which followed the resignation of one trustee, two seats were contested and one was uncontested. That was also the only time that I ran for the BOE, unsuccessfully, so I do remember the broad results.
Budget Votes:
Year Yes No Total Votes
2011 1,779 (61.2%) 1,129 (38.8%) 2,908
2010 (#2) 1,970 (66.7%) 985 (33.3%) 2,955
2010 (#1) 1,088 (46.9%) 1,204 (53.1%) 2,322
2009 1,068 (69.9%) 460 (30.1%) 1,528
2008 1,160 (63.8%) 659 (36.2%) 1,819
2007 878 (61.8%) 543 (38.2%) 1,421
2006 1,561 (63.1%) 911 (36.9%) 2,472
2005 1,186 (52.4%) 1,079 (47.6%) 2,265
2004 1,217 (51.5%) 1,146 (48,5%) 2,363
2003 1,209 (56.7%) 924 (43.3%) 2,133
BOE Elections:
Year Candidates Votes
2011 A-Bill Gutekunst 1,382 (53.0%)
A-James Tomeo 1,227 (47.0%)
Total Votes 2,609
B-Mike LaMena 1,375 (55.3%)
B-Jack Schwartz 1,113 (44.7%)
Total Votes 2,488
2010 Uncontested Election
2009 Uncontested Election
2008 A-Mike Kaszubski 967 (80.9%)
A-Jennifer (?) Ilovsky 195 [write-in] (16.3%)
A-James Tomeo 33 [write-in] (2.8%)
Total Votes 1,195
B-Patty Matos 1,024 (59.4%)
B-Alex Resnick 612 (35.5%)
B-James Tomeo 84 [write-in] (4.9%)
B-Jennifer Ilovsky 3 [write-in] (0.2%)
Total Votes 1,723
2007 Uncontested Election
2006 A-Joe Fusaro 1,398 (56.4%)
A-Michael Williams 1,079 (43.6%)
Total Votes 2,477
B-Dan Cicone 1,405 (56.9%)
B-Cheryl Gabrielli 1,064 (43.1%)
Total Votes 2,469
2005 Uncontested Election
2004 A-Julie Badlato 1,249 (53.0%)
A-Bill Cameron 1,106 (47.0%)
Total Votes 2,355
2003 A-Joe Fusaro 1,169 (57.4%)
A-Brian Madden 868 (42.6%)
Total Votes 2,037
B-Dan Ciccone 1,042 (53.5%)
B-John Santomauro 904 (46.5%)
Total Votes 1,946
Derivative Commentary:
School Budget
The first thing you should note is that the 2011 total of 2,908 in the School Budget Vote was the second-highest over the past nine years, with only the second 2010 vote (the June re-vote after the original Proposed Budget was rejected in May) higher at 2,955.
But that also means that this was the highest original May vote total on record, which is absolutely amazing, particularly on such a dreary wet day.
I’m not sure what we can make of vote margins over these nine years, as the Budget Increase and the Tax Levy Increase fluctuated considerably over this time, since our District and BOE have historically not tried to pull the wool over the eyes of its residents, as have many districts on Long Island.
Elwood has not secretly over-taxed its residents in one year in order to “magically” pull money out of a hat in another year; therefore, the budget and tax numbers have reflected more candid economics, and they have demonstrated more respect for the integrity of taxpayers.
Of course, in some years, it has been a blessing, and in other years it has been a real burden, particularly when the State gives us the shaft while costs soar into the stratosphere.
But the Total Votes count is certainly real, and the heavy involvement of the past few years has been a testimony to the people of this community.
BOE Election
This is where the size and shape of the budget have generally mattered much less, although it was one of the factors in 2004, and might have been a factor in 2003.
Looking back over the years, and saving 2011 for last, I would note that 2008 was a contested election, but the effective contest was really just with one seat, as Mike Kaszubski did not have an opponent who bothered to submit Nominating Petitions, and his only opposition were write-in candidates.
Patty Matos did have an active opponent on the ballot, but the support for that opponent was primarily in a relatively small, though quite vocal, single focus group of core supporters. Naturally the “usual” antagonists of the District and the current Board (in the sense of Casablanca, where Claude Rains, standing with Humphrey Bogart, instructs his next in command to round up the “usual” group) did tag along, and tried some last minute machinations, but the results made it clear how ineffective that was. The “usual” antagonists learned from that in 2011.
The previous contested campaign was in 2006, and that was the dirtiest and nastiest election that I can remember in my eleven years since taking early retirement gave me time to get involved. A smear campaign really began at a few BOE meetings (I’ve kept my notes from those meetings, and even obtained under FOIL an official transcript of the BOE dialogue on the worst night), and some campaigners, or campaign workers, tried to impugn the integrity of one of the successful candidates with the same male bovine manure.
Captain Louis Renault would not have been surprised by the suspects.
In 2004, we had a contested election in which a trustee with superior intellectual skills, but abysmal inter-personal skills (he would even tick off his friends), lost an election partially for reasons of sometimes being insensitively arrogant, and partially for being on the BOE at a challenging time, but also -- and given the margin, and the timing, I believe primarily -- because a former trustee, who had been rejected by the voters after only a one year term on the BOE, issued a letter that arrived on the Saturday before the Tuesday election, making a number of distorted and mathematically inaccurate statements that seemed designed to confuse and frighten voters, and then asked people to support the incumbent’s opponent.
And finally, in 2003 we had what now seems like the cleanest election in memory, yet it was a hotly contested election that was at least based upon honest intellectual disagreements between candidates. I don’t recall any dirty tricks, or maligning of the personal integrity of the candidates, and it would be nice if we could return to a time when distortions were not the primary tool of opponents, and when appeals were to intellect rather than to emotion or popularity contests, and when all candidates focused upon what was good for the students and the taxpayers of the community.
In 2011 we had way too much in the way of personal popularity appeals, including the soliciting of some voters who seemed to know nothing about the issues, or of the problems of school districts on Long Island or in New York State in general, and who were not even told the whole truth, by some candidates, about the nature and economic reality of theoretical concessions by a union.
Greed will no longer do.
Selflessness is desperately needed, and selfishness must be rejected.
Personal resentment by some former employees, and a focus upon union interests by other former employees, do not belong in BOE elections, and some electioneering activities were, quite simply, unseemly.
Our problems, and the problems of other school districts, are by no means over, and it would be helpful for the good of the students and for the good of the community and for the good of the taxpayers, and, yes, for the good of the younger generation of teachers and other staff, if everyone would convert their energy and efforts into a positive approach that recognizes that we are indeed, all of us, in this together.
Shared sacrifice, by all parties, is desperately needed.
Finally, we need a cathartic effect in Albany, so that the unfunded mandates, and the absurd pension system, and the strangling and constricting restrictions on personnel management, are finally corrected.
But, it must start here with us, now, and we can no longer afford the effects of the negativity of the usual antagonists and their allies.
Let’s make 2011/12 a much better year for Elwood.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
