We have made it a practice to not engage a debate or "respond" to your comments. The basic idea is that I have my point of view and try to share it in the limited space provided herein -- YOU also have an opinion and point of view which you should be able to share through comments -- without my interjection, bias, or debate. However, I would like to make an exception in this case and attempt some clarification around some budget issues -- based on "questions" that you have posed.
As to the length of the budget documents and related materials -- they are long and they are complicated! I don't really know how to make them much simpler and at the time avoid providing information that would appear to be biased or slanted by an author. There is a one-page set of FAQs for the budget on a button on the right side of the opening webpage -- that might be generally helpful. The reality is that we have $350-$400 million that we are responsible for and must provide on-going audit and state / county review documents. By volume alone, that will be long and complex. Sorry.
As to the federal "jobs" money, we appear to be receiving authority to spend it. However, there is a clear and consistent sub-story from Sacramento that we will have the final budget {whenever it is adopted} that will be shorted by a similar value. That obviously leaves us in a position that we really can't responsibly spend any of this money until we understand what Sacramento is going to do with the other half of this equation -- the state budget for 2010-11. Assuming we got that information, in my opinion we would be best served to wait and use the money for 2011-12 -- and thereby avoid further layoffs (about $8 million worth). That is not good news for those that are currently laid off -- but it could be good news for those that would be laid off in this coming spring.
What is the solution to all of this? I agree with one of the comments -- it is not likely to be found in the election of a new Governor -- from either party. Part of the problem is that there IS a real economic problem in this state -- along with a Legislative system that was less than rational before this all started. The ONLY solution I know is that we need to fundamentally change our educational system. When we are funded based on 2000-01 revenues in a world of 2010 costs/expenditures -- I see no other solution. What do you see?
I can't begin to say what the solution is to the mess we find ourself in. I have made a commitment to make this the best year I can make it. However, it is very hard to keep pushing to do your best when you know your position is considered "outdated" and the very room you work in is considered an anachronism. I hope the value of libraries and those who run them is appreciated, but I also know that retaining teachers should be our biggest priority. I trust that every solution will be given careful thought and that both the needs of our greatest resource, children, as well the needs of those who serve them, will be considered.I can't imagine being in the position to figure all of this out, and I hope we remember that as well as we push forward into truly uncharted territory.
ReplyDeleteAs a laid off veteran teacher who changed districts at the wrong time, I am very frustrated wth the lack of money in the budget. It is impacting everyone in the school district. Reading this is not very comforting to me. In regards to the federal money since it's now going to be allocated for the 2011-12 school year to prevent furhter lay-offs, should I assume that I will still be laid off next year?
ReplyDeleteAs another laid off veteran teacher who changed districts, I feel that I have been written off. Everything I have read gives the sense that we (current laid off teachers) are "dead and gone" in the eyes of the district. There is absolutely no concern with bringing us back, only with preventing future lay offs. I am glad that I am valued so much that my job is being sacraficed to potentially save someone's job in the future. I don't even know how RUSD can justify having a surplus while there are still teachers without a job. Classes are crowded, teachers and other staff are laid off, and the district is more concerned with the 2011-2012 school year. It is a great idea to plan ahead, but perhaps the problems of here and now should be resolved FIRST.
ReplyDelete"The Department of Education should be closed and its programs terminated. The main activity of the department is to provide grants to state and local governments. However, channeling taxpayer dollars through Washington and then back to the states is an inefficient way to fund local activities such as education. It would be better if the states funded their own education programs free of all the paperwork that comes with federal aid."
ReplyDeleteby Chris Edwards
Cato Institute "downsizing the federal government" May 2010
When you say "fundamentally change" the system, does that mean the same way ...(I'll leave this part out this time)
You have some good talking points but no substance behind it. What do you see as some fundamental changes that would benefit students? I would love to hear about some concrete ideas not just the same old garbage we've heard. $350-400 million is not enough money for the amount of students we have? Really?
We as Americans used to do it better with less money and less resources. Betcha we didn't have as many upper level school officials back then.
As much as it might hurt to see the reality of our current budgetary situation as a district, it is difficult to know exactly where we stand when we cannot see the bottom line amidst the 188 pages of the budget. The "it's complicated" line is reminiscent of Nancy Pelosi's comment about the health care reform bill being "to complex for the average American to understand." Please make our budget situation clear as day for those of us with average intelligence, so we can understand how it is possible to have a beginning budget of 70+ million dollars while having overcrowded and understaffed schools.
ReplyDelete