http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/8925225/ Have school systems in the past staffed to the needs of the students or to their budgets. Unlike a business where customer count and revenue i.e. sales drop a company is forced to cut back the schools customers i.e. student population has remained constant. I'm just wondering.
All state agencies, in theory, exist "for the people" since there is not supposed to be any profit. There is plenty of garbage that serve little to zero that can be cut in order to have money for schools.
One problem is that students aren't paying customers. Their parents pay their taxes (maybe), but that is only two parents who are actually paying less taxes because of their children. Two tax-paying parents with three children as deductions doesn't equal enough money to staff based on student population. I agree with Canis that the budget could be reworked to eliminate the unnecessary spending and provide for the very necessary staff. On another thread i used the example of a county (not Johnston) that allowed a school to buy ipads for the teachers while they laid off some of their staff. I am interested in seeing the outcome of the johnston counties efforts to include parents and school staff in their budget decision making.
Your math doesn't make sense. Johnston Co.'s per pupil expenditure is about $7,500. The child tax credit is only about $1,000 per child. Then you have the population of folks who do not have children in public school (grown children, no children, children in private school) who are paying taxes for public education.
Maybe they'd like to hear your ideas? School Leaders Ask Parents For Input On 2011-12 Budget Many of us remember our parents sitting around the kitchen table as they discussed ideas to solve household problems. The time they spent talking about possible “fixes” usually produced sound solutions to the issue at hand. Many times, mothers and fathers do know what is best. Therefore, Johnston County Schools hopes to capture the wisdom of parents across the school system as they sit around the table brainstorming suggestions for school budget planning. During the next few weeks, Superintendent Dr. Ed Croom, will be hosting “Kitchen Table Conversations” in each attendance area to solicit parent input regarding the tough budget decisions that face our school board members as they prepare to address funding deficits for the 2011-2012 school year. Parent leaders will sit at the table with Dr. Croom to learn about the budgeting process for North Carolina school systems, and how projected state and federal cuts will impact classrooms. After the information session, these parents will be provided with the opportunity to make suggestions on how Johnston County Schools can continue to provide quality education with fewer economic resources. Principals at each school have invited their PTA/PTO officers, Advisory Council Chairs, Band and Athletic Booster Club presidents, and School Improvement Team Chairs to participate in these conversations. Dr. Croom believes the parents of Johnston County will provide valuable insight needed to address the financial difficulties imposed by funding cuts. The superintendent and board of education members are determined that Johnston County Schools will continue to provide top quality education, regardless of economic issues. Suggestions from these parent leaders will be gathered and presented to the JCS Board of Education during their spring planning session. This parent input will provide direction for school leaders as they make decisions for the upcoming school year. http://www.wtsbradio.com/
Keep in mind im taking about staffing money not total spent per pupil on everything, but the point I am trying to make is that the students don't each pay directly for their personal education. Customers pay for the item or service they receive. If each student acted as a customer as the OP stated and paid in full only for the services and items he/she was receiving, the budget would look much different. I am not saying that students should become customers. I am just saying they aren't, which was what the original post was about. There is some work to be done on the way the money is budgeted, but lack of money is also a big part of the picture. If taxpayer funds were enough to staff as the OP wished, the understaffing situation would look very different. Changing some areas of spending isnt going to all of the sudden get us back down to average 28 kids per classroom.
So if budget cuts are made say by 10% And state standards aren't changed they must still educate to the mandated curriculum. Then they can do it on X-10% and they've been doing it on X$ because that is what they have. The money is there so lets spend it was their motto up to now?
This may be true, but evidence supports that smaller class size does. Smaller class size = more teachers = more money towards staffing. Most people think that the state mandates that there can be no more than 32 students per class, but that number is reached by dividing the number of students by the number of teachers. Anyone who has had experience actually in the school knows that this number does not dictate actual class size. I've seen 38 in a required high school course and this was before the most recent staff cut. I truly believe that teachers who are in the classroom day in and day out will have a lot of "real-world" budget advice at the upcoming meeting. Let's just hope they send the right people.
Why, in these tight budget times, did my child receive a postcard in the MAIL to apply to the Middle College program in Johnston County?? Not clear if it was sent by JCS or JCC or both, but this seems wasteful since they have him at school from 7-2:15 daily and could easily distribute this information verbally for FREE. Or, use a connect-ed call and a website blurb to tell parents about it. If every JC sophomore was mailed this postcard, how much $$ do you think that would amount to?
Because thats probably the best way to get the 'correct' information out. As most of us know - what kids hear and what they remember is not always accurate - and sometimes kids don't always pass along info at all, lol! Phone calls are not always listened to and not everyone has internet at home (to go to a website). I would imagine they sent them 'bulk' mail , which is pretty cheap for postcards - at least they did choose postcard over letters, which would've been much more expensive (paper, envelopes & postage).
I used to do a bulk mailing each month from Raleigh. It was a newsletter with 6 pages and the cost for over 800 of them came to just over $100. I would think postcards would be less. The cost is determined by the zip and distance and I suspect most of them would have been mailed in the lowest cost zone.
Cut the funding for athletics and any other extracurricular activities. If the band parents pay for band, uniforms, travel, etc...that's good enough for the rest to do so as well. Most extracurricular activities, clubs etc, operate on their own with little financial support from the schools. They depend on community support. That should be the model. Let the booster clubs raise the money ethically. That way, the free market determines whether or not there is sufficient support for a sports team. Let's put the focus back on student learning of academics.
Ethically? Really? People paying for entertainment is a feature of the free market. I can either go to a movie or go to a high school football game. As Bear Bryant once said, "When 85K people show up for one of your classes on a Saturday afternoon, then I'll recommend you get a raise too."
So you are going to say to an athlete who might be poor, or whose parents dont make enough money to send them to college/tech school/insert higher education here, that through sports might be the only chance that young man or woman might ever have of getting a higher education, that its too bad they can not play their sport this year. The community just didnt raise enough money for you to play. Lets say my son is good enough at wrestling to get a scholarship to oh...Iowa (traditional college power in wrestling) but since the community of Corinth Holders decided that wrestling was not a real sport or did not deserve their tax dollars, the high school decided not to put out a wrestling team so for my son's 11th and 12th grade year, he could not wrestle. Now Iowa is not so interested. Not to mention how this would affect the Title IX issue currently going on.
The math and statistics are not in your favor. And I'm from the generation that believes where there's a will, there's a way. As most know, I am a huge Green Bay fan. One of the Packers, Ryan Pickett attended the same high school that my son did. In the twenty year period since Ryan graduated, one -count 'em - ONE made it to the NFL -Mr Pickett. Of all those students in Zephyrhills and Dade City, FL they have one professional football player. Jim Courier is a native son, and I guarantee the school didn't pay for him to get private tennis lessons. Thousands of students have graduated, most with little fanfare or sport adulation being tossed their way. Yet, they pay taxes, work, raise their families based on the education they received. I'd wager that we have more health care providers, LEOs and first responders, military service people and veterans from those thousands that make a strong argument that the investment in the big three sports isn't as good an investment as one would think. Each parent must decide their priorities. As far as Title IX, there is no argument that boys sports are funded better than girls. They are. Easy way to fix it. Stop spending school dollars on athletic endeavors and let the sports booster clubs raise the money necessary. One finds whether or not as community will support that team quickly. As for moving your family to where the best chances are, parents of child actors and models do it all the time, probably with about the same amount of success (not much), yet the parents foot the entire bill for costumes, beauty pageants, acting coaches, dance lessons, etc. As an arts lover, I'd like to see equal funding of arts and music as compared to the jocks. Yes, as one of the condemned liberals on this board, I understand the pressures that Title One students have. Most successful minority business people, even the athletes among them wold tell you that given the odds against making the pro ranks, that children are better served with giving them a first rate academic education. Which parent can 'bank' on their kid making a team, and being successful at sport? Again, the odds favor those who are academically prepared, even for a life after sports. The jobs we need to attract, the high paying ones, require that we invest in education along the spectrum, not just k-12. Learning should be a lifelong pursuit, especially if one wishes to be competitive in the market place. Shade tree mechanics, like me, are way off base when it comes to new cars. Ongoing education is a must. IF we are to be competitive. Disclaimer: I also played high school sports. My school didn't 'pass' athletes. Students who made the grades by studying and earning their grades played. Wasn't all that long ago. Of course, we also didn't promote someone who couldn't read, just because they could run fast, throw a ball, or catch one.
Nobody is saying they will play professional sports if they get to play in high school. The odds of even playing at the lowest collegiate level are very slim. On that we agree but that isn't the point. Playing sports, as you should know since you played, builds character and exemplifies teamwork. These are skills that will far outlast some numbers on a scoreboard. I grew up playing everything imaginable up through my first year in college. The overwhelming majority of those that play sports throughout their adolescence use those character skills to become success in life. They are far less likely to get into trouble at school or get into gangs. I'm not saying sell the books in the library in order to buy new football uniforms, but there is something dangerous about suggesting the athletic budget be dissolved.
No one mentioned going pro in any sport. Only a ways to gain higher education so they may peruse a career in said sport or whatever calling they might have. As the commercial says, there are (whatever number - 20,000) student athletes in college, and almost every one of them will be going pro, in something other than sports. However once you start saying that parents have to start paying for the right for their son or daughter to play a sport - and yes Title IX comes in to play because if a school has a sport for 100 boys, then 100 girls have to play something and what happens if the community doesnt support that?
