It is herein proposed that a commission of Town citizens be created for the purpose of carrying out an independent review of Woodstock’s education budget.
This commission, composed of three to five Woodstock citizens, should be authorized by the Board of Education (BOE) to carry out their mission independently of the BOE with the exception of the BOE’s cooperation with the commission in exchanging information and providing clarifications as needed by the commission.
Nominations for appointment to this commission should be posted publicly on the internet and in local newspapers as these nominations should be known by the Town citizenry. It should be stipulated that nominees to the commission (1) should have no prior role with the BOE or the Academy including candidacy for election to the BOE or the Board of Trustees of the Academy, (2) should never have run for Town office or appointment to any Town committee, (3) should have some form of higher education combined with sustained experience in a profession, and (4) no commission nominee should have a child entering or coming through the Woodstock school system in the fiscal year 2006-2007 or thereafter. The commission members can be chosen by the BOE or after the BOE selects appropriate nominees, but only if there are many nominees, the final commission members might be elected by the Woodstock electorate based solely on the nominee’s published credentials.
The mandate of this commission should be as follows: (1) To complete a line-by-line review of the proposed BOE budget for the 2006-2007 school year; (2) provide an independent review of reasonable needs of the school system based upon review for the proposed budget; and (3) provide a review of the events that led to a proposed budget that currently exceeds the allowable budget presented by the Board of Finance by about $660,000. To complete its mission, this commission will compile a written report that will be published in a timely fashion on the internet and in local newspapers.There is no set time line for completion of this review. It’s not expected that this review could be completed before the 2006-2007 budget is established.
This proposal is open for discussion and/or re-wording.
In Response. Thank you for picking up on my suggestion that the Town of Woodstock visit each line item in the budget. However, what needs to accompany this breakdown is a thorough discussion of what expenditures really impact on learning in the classroom. For example, a well thought out discussion about class size and the role of teachers aides needs to be had. Isn’t a well paid professional competent teacher able to fully instruct a classroom with 25 children it it? Without an aide there. Do we have too much Administrative overhead for such a small school system? Why do we have one of the only self funded health plans in the State if it is so wonderful? Why do we continue to provide a local bus system when we could outsource it to Laidlaw, or someone else? Is the Academy providing the Town with a reasonable cost and quality High School Education? There are many more questions to be posed but good luck having a real discussion about them. There are too many jobs at stake and too much politcal capital lost if you reform the school system. Plus, the union will not let you reform the system. But I’m glad you proposed an independent commission, I hope their predetermined agenda is not to only justify more spending on an average school system with run away costs.
Thank you, Mr. Wetzel, for your advice. Actually, the idea of having an independent review of the BOE budget has been proposed by others at this site over the last few months. Certainly, the quality of education and teaching should be foremost in any commission’s mind as it examines all budgetary items. However, the commission’s role will NOT BE to evaluate teachers’ or school staff performance which is the job of the Principals and the Superintendant.
The key in getting started is in the public process of selecting qualified, unbiased citizens who can carry out an objective review of the budget, explain the details, and explain how the proposed budget came to where it stands today. It is hoped that the BOE will seize the opportunity to select such an unbiased commission and expedite this process. In selecting objective commission members, the BOE should bend over backwards to avoid any hinden agenda and even the appearance of a hidden agenda. This is why only a select group of nominees is proposed according to the criteria listed above (as well as other selection citeria that might need to be added) before the commission is actually formed .
Dear Author: Do you have any ideas on how we can get the BOE or the Administration to talk about these issues? You realize they are the basis for an expensive school system where the annual costs are spiraling out of control. Woodstock is just like many towns in the country. Public Education is pricing itself out of existence. By the way, I didn’t say anything about performance just how many children should be in class and about the aides.
Without having a clear and sound understanding of the basis for the budget, which would be the objective work-product of the commission, there is no point in talking to anyone about this. This is the problem that most citizens (pro or con) have – they have no reasonable understanding of how and why the proposed budget was developed. On-the-other-hand, I assume that the BOE and the leadership of the Administration have a thorough understanding of the budget. I would like to have the benefit of an independent commission’s respected unravelling and explanation of the budget proposal, in addition to its views on the efficacy of the proposed budget. In other words, I want an independent, educated and intelligent opinion on the budget proposal, and I believe that the BOE and citizenry would benefit greatly from this, as well. Perhaps the commission can translate the budget and explain it to the public – warts and all.
This budget is just like the budgets put out every year and only the numbers have changed. The Board of Education creates part of this problem and it has nothing to do with how much things cost. I guess because the board members and the superintendent and the people who work on this budget for months and months see it so much that they get used to how it looks and what it means. I’m not a rocket scientist and I’m not an ignoramus but I think I should be able to look at the budget and figure things out. Now I know that all the accounts numbers and the minutiae are really important to those people that actually have to keep track of every paper clip and every penny, but the pile of papers that the board puts out is nothing more than an exercise in frustration for the regular taxpayer who is being asked to believe $14 million is reasonable.
I wish somebody could tell the board so they would understand how much it would help them in the eyes of the public to publish a budget that is ‘understandable’ because that is one of the sources for the constant drone of complainers about all the hidden charges. I guess I want to know how much dinner costs. How much is the appetizer, the salad, the entree, the dessert and the beverage? If it doesn’t make sense to me, I’ll ask about it and then you can whip out the accounting form the will tell me exactly how much each ingredient of the whole thing is down to the last crouton.
I think it is time for the board to come to grips with fact that there is a certain amount of salesmanship to or education of the public that goes along with floating the budget. If they don’t care enough to get out and bring an easy to understand document then they are a big part of the problem even if the budget they have put out is very reasonable. Nobody hands an elementary school kid a copy of War and Peace.
This for Verumi who commented under another the article entitled “The BOE and Town Budget Quagmire” asking where the quotes of Woodstock school budget rankings in various categories of expenditures were found. Try looking at the Woodstock BOE (recent) Budget handout on page 51 for example. You will find 2004-2005 numbers for various expenditures including salaries, benefits, instructional supplies etc. compared by school district. Woodstock is relatively low in most categories.
Dear Citizen Cain: Just some information to consider. When you look at the state rankings there are facts you need to consider. First, the numbers Woodstock reports are for the K-8 program only, the Academy costs are not part of them. These K-8 numbers are then compared against schools which reflect their high school costs. High school educations costs usually from 20 to 25% more than K-8. Therefore, Woodstock rankings are not fair nor accurate. Secondly, the Town has chosen to spend money on buildings and buses. These costs are not reflected in the State rankings. You can spend money on the classroom or in the classroom. Woodstock has chosen to spend alot of money on things that have nothing to do with the children learning anything. These decisions have been made and will continue to be made and no one asks any questions. There is a big budget battle coming up and you can continue to believe the false statistics this school system puts out or you can do your homework and see where the waste is. The school system will threaten the parents with the loss of teachers, sports, spice, etc. This is the only hardball tactic left to them. They will also falsely accuse the Academy of being the problem, when in fact the K-8 has never been properly held accountable. Why don’t the citizens of Woodstock finally start holding this school system acccountable?
Mr. Wetzel, maybe you should be the one to do some research. I would suggest that you check with the state’s site for rankings by community. http://www.state.ct.us/sde/dgm/report1/cpse2005/contents.htm – The 2004-2005 Connecticut Public School Expenditures
In this report you can find ‘apples to apples’ (one of your phrases) comparison of the 47 school districts that are K-8 only. To save you some time I’ll give you a quick look at some things so you can decide for yourself if our spending is ‘on’ the classroom or ‘in’ the classroom.
Instructional Programs – Expenditures for instruction in regular education (including vocational agriculture), special education, culturally disadvantaged pupils and free summer school. Please note that the expenditures reported for students tuitioned out of district are excluded for both per pupil and the percentage of total reports.
Woodstock ranks 45 out of 47 at $5,641 per student.
($6,775 per student is the average in this group.)
Pupil & Instructional Support Services – Expenditures for personnel services such as teaching assistants, curriculum consultants, in-service training specialists, medical doctors, therapists, audiologists, neurologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, guidance counselors, etc. Expenses for improvement of instructional services and educational media services are also included.
Woodstock ranks 22 out of 47 at $799 per student.
($826 per student is the average in this group.)
School Based Administration – Expenditures for activities concerned with the administrative responsibility of directing and managing the operation of a school, such as the principal’s office.
Woodstock ranks 45 out of 47 at $299 per student.
($573 per student is the average in this group.)
General Administration – Expenditures for activities of the board and the superintendent’s office and the fiscal activities of the school district, including the school business office.
Woodstock ranks 41 out of 47 at $387 per student.
($567 per student is the average in this group.)
Plant Services – Expenditures for activities concerned with keeping the physical plant open, comfortable and safe for use; keeping the grounds, buildings and equipment in effective working condition for plant operations; and maintenance of buildings, grounds, equipment, utilities and heat. This function includes salaries and benefits associated with plant services.
Woodstock ranks 45 out of 47 at $728 per student.
($981 per student is the average in this group.)
Buildings and Debt Service – Expenditures pertaining to debt service, capital, land and buildings, including redemption of principal payments, interest expenses on long- and short-term loans, and housing authority obligations. The expenditures in this function are supported (in part) by state grant payments. School construction expenditures often fluctuate dramatically from year to year. While we have continued to include an amount per pupil for this item, we have removed it from the “percentage of the total function summary” to avoid year-to-year distortions in the distribution.
Woodstock ranks 18 out of 47 at $1,124 per student.
($1,101 per student is the average in this group.)
Special Education Transportation – Expenditures for public special education students transported to public and nonpublic schools, in town or out of town, on special education vehicles. This does not include special education students riding with regular education students.
Woodstock ranks 26 out of 47 at $7,780 per student.
($5,695 per student is the average in this group.)
Regular Education Transportation – Expenditures for public regular education students transported to in-town or designated out-of-town public schools, approved out-of-town inter-district magnet schools, nearest out-of-town vocational agriculture center(s), and in-town or out-of-town technical high schools.
Woodstock ranks 43 out of 47 at $334 per student.
($498 per student is the average in this group.)
Total Transportation per Student – Expenditures included above under special and regular education transportation. Excludes non-reimbursable transportation (e.g., field trips), regional district transportation assessment, and excess vocational agriculture costs for transporting beyond the nearest center.
Woodstock ranks 43 out of 47 at $422 per student.
($645 per student is the average in this group.)
There are several other expenditure summaries that may give you further enlightenment. In the mean time please spare us vapid chant of inaccuracies.
I’d like to submit a few corrections to Ernie Wetzel’s recent article.
He needs to update his files, stop running old tapes, and be more careful about what he is saying in regards to the school budget crisis and my child’s future.
The teacher’s aides were let go two years ago- the only “aide” that may remain in the classroom, is assigned- by law- to one or more special needs children. In addition- teachers ARE ALREADY managing classes of 25. My child is in one of those classes in the elementary school.
I am starting to think that this whole budget thing is not about the budget at all, but about bruised egos, human need and about lining ones own pocket, otherwise, the “watchdogs” would be taking a good look at the whole budget – government spending included. I dont understand how they can crucify town officials and board members but expect that these same individuals are capable of coming up with a sensible and frugal government budget. “Transparency” needs to be across the board.
This is truly a hopeless conversation. Your aides did not disapppear. They are now under Special Ed. You again cite categories of underspending. Please look at the big picture of total monies spent. The money is being spent. Don’t you even want to find out where? To the citizens of Woodstock, lots of luck with these people.
Here’s a novel idea. Perhaps the all the non ‘special ed’ teacher aides were let go a couple of years ago (as one of the commenters said) and the aides that remain are (as you have said) currently under the Special Ed program. There are many instances in life when two differing views can both be truthful. Two people sitting on opposite sides of a table will invariably describe the same room differently. Are we to believe that because the descriptions differ that one of the describers is lying or perpetrating a fraud?
You are right on another point. This is a hopeless conversation because you seem to be completely disinterested in actually considering new information or another explanation of the dated information you have. Too bad.
Mr. Wetzel, With respect, how do you respond to fact finder who clearly outlines where the money is being spent (or not spent)?
I do not dispute the numbers presented. They show what they are in those categories. What everyone is not looking at is the overall rating and the total amount spent. By looking at singular numbers the impression is we are not spending enough money because we are so low in those categories. What we need to look at is the total amount spent. Where has Woodstock decided to spend its Education dollars over the last 10 years? We spend alot on Education and alot of it is on things that do not directly impact on the learning in the classroom. The Board of Ed has had a free pass with its budget over the last 6 years because of politics and a booming economy. The K-8 program is not where we are growing in terms of numbers of students. It is at the Academy. Yet the growth in K-8 spending has gone unchecked. They attack the Academy budgets because they are desperate for money. They attack Prop 46 for the same reason. Yet we can’t get anyone to objectively review their budgets.
[...] The suggestion of forming and charging an independent group or commission to step outside of the present, annual toil, and struggle with the municipal budgetary crisis, to consider the myriad competing issues, sources of present problems, and possible solutions bears much merit. It would be worth the effort of requesting the Board of Selectman or Board of Education to enlist volunteers to undertake this mission. [...]
[...] You may recall that the Café asked for a special commission to scrutinize and review the education budget in an article entitled “To the Board of Education.� My thought was that an honest, independent review of the education budget would help to support the education budget if it was conducted in a professional, objective manner. Nevertheless, if this commission decided that the education budget could not be supported, so be it. But, the BOE has not yet responded to this suggestion. Instead, a week later Shirley Rapose reported in the Villager that she had received an anonymous suggestion to install an ‘independent commission’ to review Woodstock’s budgetary process and the legitimacy of the budget. Ms. Rapose now has delegated this idea, like a hot potato, to the truly incompetent Ms. Wholean (whose reportedly sitting on a hot seat) who would like all interested to give her a call. I’m wondering who Ms. Wholean will chose for such an advisory board. How will she determine if these people are “open-minded�, comfortable with numbers�, “hard workers�, and “good listeners�? Possibly with a ouija stick. [...]
[...] It’s interesting that the Café article proposing an “independent commissionâ€? entitled “To the Board of Educationâ€? was published on March 21st. Shortly afterwards, on the 24th of March this was published at the Café in a “Villager Renewsâ€? article from comments by Ms. Rapose (Chairman of the BOF) and Ms. Wholean in the Woodstock Villager published that same day – “Ms. Rapose, chairwoman of the Woodstock Board of Finance, announced plans to appoint a “blue-ribbon panelâ€? of Town citizens to look at the Town’s budgetary issues. Ms. Rapose gave credit to an anonymous individual for this suggestion. It was stated by the Villager that Ms. Wholean is also in favor of forming this panel to look at Town spending. But Ms. Rapose said that ‘every fiscal faction…should be represented’ on this panel. Since about 75% of the Town budget is for education, it is the hope of WoodstockCTCafe that Ms. Rapose will consider assembling a group of clear thinking, open-minded citizens with backgrounds that indicate a respect for education but who also don’t automatically equate ‘quality’ with the amount of money spent.â€? [...]
[...] The suggestion of forming and charging an independent group or commission to step outside of the present, annual toil, and struggle with the municipal budgetary crisis, to consider the myriad competing issues, sources of present problems, and possible solutions bears much merit. It would be worth the effort of requesting the Board of Selectman or Board of Education to enlist volunteers to undertake this mission. [...]