First, I believe that taxpayer funding of the Academy is money well-spent and not at an inappropriate level. Let me stipulate that every dollar that goes to the Academy is well spent. Likewise, every dollar that goes to the pK-8 system is also well spent.
I believe that the Board of Trustees wants accurate information about the Academy disseminated to its constituency. But I found the ad published in the Shopper’s Guide on page 11 of the October 3rd issue inaccurate and misleading. In the lower half of this ad under “Economic Snapshot - Relative Cost Comparison” figures are given for spending per pupil and tuition rate for the Academy, Woodstock pK-8 school system, and 10 other eastern CT school systems. The message that the Academy wished to convey was that the Academy’s tuition rate was only $9425 for the 2005 year, the lowest of all 12 institutions listed. This ad is giving the costs for 2004-05 for comparison purposes. The tuition rate of $9425 is correct if one looks at the Academy budget for the “tuition rate,” but all of the other ‘tuition rates’ are wrong because they are inflated by debt service costs that are not found in education budgets of any town.
What is tuition anyway? Tuition is the cost for instruction and the administration that goes along with instruction. If you look at college costs, tuition is always separated from room & board because it pertains only to the cost of instruction. Bond debt service is not even a part of the education budget because the facilities are owned by the town not the school system, and bond debt service has nothing to do with instruction which teaches students. If a town built a school but had no instruction, no learning would occur, so the measure of instructional costs is a measure of the potential teaching and subsequent learning. If the Academy had not added debt service costs to the eleven towns listed in their ad, then per pupil spending in Brooklyn ($8933) and Woodstock pK-8 ($8360) would be well below total per pupil spending at the Academy ($9425 + SPED funding from the BOEs). Because debt service costs in each town have no direct bearing on spending levels for instruction, the state also separates out these costs.
If one were to take the entire 2004-05 education budget for Woodstock ($12,801,860) and divide this number by the total number of Woodstock pK-12 students that year (1421), one would find that if the entire K-12 school system were one, then the average cost per pupil would be $9008 – a very modest number by state standards. So if the WA tuition was $9425 for that year, the average cost per pK-8 pupil would have to be less than $9008 (doesn’t this make sense?). If one then adds the funding of WA for Special Ed and transportation that comes from the WBOE, the Academy cost per pupil would rise over $10,000 and if one subtracts the amount going to the Academy from the pK-8 system, cost per pK-8 pupil would be in the low $8000′s. So the Shoppers Guide ad that puts WA’s tuition in a favorable light in comparison to the pK-8 is simply incorrect whether it be for 2004-05… or this year.
But why perform these calculations for 2005 when they can be done for 2007-08 using the approved Board of Education budget and the Academy’s current tuition rate?
The Woodstock pK-12 per pupil education costs are as follows:
Woodstock Academy cost per pupil (approx. 472 pupils):
$9,998 (tuition) without SPED & transportation (ref. 1) AND $12,120 with SPED & transportation
Woodstock Public Schools pK-8 cost per pupil (924 pupils):
$7,734 (tuition) without SPED & transportation AND $10,046 with SPED & transportation
To determine the per pupil costs of the pK-8 system based on instructional costs, student and staff support, and administration, we start with the total education budget of $15,003,565 (ref.2) and remove all the high school related costs of $5,720,685 (ref.3; which includes WA’s share of SPED and transportation). This leaves us with a balance of $9,282,880. From this we must remove $1,595,095 (pK-8 special education), and $541,648 (transportation - exclusive of the SPED/transportation costs that go to the Academy; ref.4) costs because none of these are included in the Academy per pupil tuition. This leaves us with a figure of $7,146,137. This figure is then divided by 924 (ref.5) which results in a per pupil cost of $7,734 for regular education in the PK-8 systems.
This is not about whether the Academy receives too much money for the high school students. I feel that the Academy is not overpaid. The problem for Woodstock that has been frequently debated at the Cafe is that any increase in spending at the Academy comes directly out of the pK-8 grade budget.
References:
1. Pg 38 - Woodstock Academy Tuition from the BOE 07/08 budget
2. Pg 5 - Overview BOE 07/08 budget
3. Pg 5 - Totals by Department 07/08 budget
4. Pg 5 - Totals by Department 07/08 budget
5. Pg 35 - Combine school populations 474 and 450 (924)
John Leavitt
Approved by John Leavitt, Candidate for Board of Education of Woodstock, CT. This statement will be treated as an in-kind contribution for purposes of meeting requirements of Connecticut campaign finance laws. This article is paid for by John and Becki Leavitt, 515 Route 197, Woodstock, CT 06281 as administrators of www.woodstockctcafe.com.
John, the State Department of Education calculates the Net Current Expenditures per Pupil (NCEP) every year and these figures for all the schools, except the endowed academies, can be found on their website. The figures that were published in the Shopper’s Guide were inflated as you pointed out and misleading, which it appears, was the Academy’s intention. Isn’t it interesting that the Academy got very upset and accused the BOE of trying to interfere with the governance of their institution but seems to have no problem interfering with the possible governance of the Brooklyn school system?
John,
Kudos to you. This is the best and MOST ACCURATE summation of the per pupil cost I have seen in 12 years. I applaud your efforts and appreciate the fact that you have been painstakingly UNBIASED in your comments about what the Academy provides the community.
The bottom line in all discussions on the subject is your last paragraph. No matter how you slice the pie…the Academy gets their cut first and Pre-K to 8 gets the rest. Even if Ms. Wholean doesn’t think so.
John:
While I’ll have to think about what you’ve written a bit more to fully understand your assertion, I do share your concern about PK-8 expenditures versus WA expenditures. It’s an issue that all taxpayers should be interested in, and that taxpayers should take the time to fully understand. There are some people in town who seem to wholly support WA while accusing the Public School System of wasteful spending.
One source of ammunition, at least based on what I’m aware of, is the BOE’s actions with respect to the legality of Prop. 46. *IF* I can believe what I’ve read, the BOE has incurred a fair amount of legal fees and spent a fair amount of time trying to see what they can do to avoid cuts due to budget constraints imposed by Prop. 46. While I may share their concerns, I’m not sure that that is the BOE’s function.
As far as financial responsibilities, the BOE constructs a budget. The Board of Finance can request that the BOE make cuts, and the voters can approve/disapprove the overall town budget. This is over simplification, but I imagine that you know how the budget process is supposed to work.
Members of the BOE can express their concern about Prop. 46, and as a collective group, they could issue a statement expressing such a position. As individual taxpayers, they can even put together a petition bringing Prop. 46 up for voter consideration and/or make their opinions heard in other manners.
I’m not sure it is the BOE’s right/responsibility to spend tax dollars to consult with lawyers to try to circumvent a town ordinance. The ordinance may or may not be appropriate, and could even be struck down if it were brought before the Appellate or Supreme Court in CT. But it is not in the BOE’s realm of authority to change it.
I make these statements with the realization that I could be wrong about my facts, so I’d look forward to hearing clarifications if I’m mis-informed.
I just find it offensive that the Academy is using our tax dollars in a public relations effort to deliberately distort the facts in an effort to interfere with the political process. Don’t the several lawyers on the Trustees know this puts their nonprofit status at significant risk?
Not only do they create the false impression that their costs are lower than several area high schools, they have compounded this offense with a cheap shot at the Woodstock Public K-8 system, suggesting it is more expensive than the Academy!
What would the Connecticut Commissioner of Education or the Connecticut Attorney General make of this?
I wonder what the same agencies would think of CPS. Everyone knows how well they cross all of their “i’s” and dot all of their “t’s”
Romeo, With all due respect, I find it disheartening that as a BOE member you have only just now been informed of the “best and most accurate” summation of per pupil spending. As a BOE member, wouldn’t you have wanted this information years ago? Shouldn’t this information been compiled and included in the Education budget annually? The WA budget and per pupil spending trends are.
Tax, I think Romeo has always understood the situation. I think he was just happy to hear this articulated by someone else.
Does bond debt service consitute a part of the Academy tuition?
I don’t know. The publicly available 2007-08 WA budget was not itemized. To my knowledge the Academy has never disclosed how they calculate their tuition. The 2006-07 WA approved budget lists $89,494 as interest paid for the “building project” and $229,235 in Principal for the “building project” totalling $318,729 for that year … approximately $282 per student. The year before that the 2005-06 WA approved budget lists $269,825 as Interest paid for the “building project” and $741,265 in Principal for the “building project” totalling $1,011,090 for that year… approximately $895 per student. And the year before that and the year before that, these costs were even higher. So between 2005-06 and 2006-07 debt service appears to have dropped by 69% but the ‘tuition’ did not drop…it increased. In private schools, building projects are usually funded by fundraising campaigns, bequests, and endowment interest … not by tuition which is by definition is based upon “instructional” costs.
Geezer,
Shouldn’t the “best and most articulate” summation of per pupil spending be coming from Dr. Baran and the BOE? John’s summation was the “best and most articulate” Romeo has seen in twelve years? Twelve years??? Romeo, what have you been doing on the BOE all this time? Didn’t you ever have the desire to figure this out and express it in the budget with clarity and justification? Didn’t it ever occur to you that this information is important and the public should have access to this? Why is the education budget so detailed on the Academy’s per pupil spending trends (pg.39 of education budget) and not on the K-8? Why are the numbers John gives us different than the numbers the BOE gives us (WA $10,277 per pupil on pg.39 and, oops, goodness gracious, I can’t seem to find the K-8 per pupil spending … guess the BOE doesn’t think the taxpayer needs to know) and are both different than what the Academy claims and all different than what the coalition has posted on their website? Tsk, tsk, what is the poor taxpayer to do? Let’s face it, the Education budget is sloppily done and very unclear… and Romeo has more or less confirmed this. Is this what we have come to expect from our legally succinct and intentionally articulate BOE ? Hmmm, why is that? Very disingenuous don’t you think? Why does the onus of providing responsible and honest information fall on the Academy but not on the BOE as well. I smell a double standard.
A taxpayer, thank God you nailed that one on the head. This BOE is so uninformed it is scarey. They are mind numbed robots who jump at everything Dr.Baran and Lindsey Paul tell them. Morons come to mind.
Taxpayer, I interpreted Romeo’s comment as a sense or expression of relief that someone from the general public, other than the Board, actually understands what is happening. I read this blog every day, and have followed your comments since the beginning. I think you are experiencing one of your mood swings or a hormonal imbalance at this time, and are just trying to stir-it-up-good.
* The below examples are per pupil expenditures (w/out transportation, debt service/construction costs, SPED) for 2004-2005 http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?a=2680&Q=320640 :
Killingly (grades 9-12) – $10,032 per pupil expenditure
Plainfield (grades 9-12) – $10,540 per pupil expenditure
Putnam (grades 9-12) – $10,896 per pupil expenditure
Thompson (grades 9-12) – $9,833 per pupil expenditure
* WA tuition for 2004-2005 (w/out transp, constr, SPED) was $9,082.
Also, your calculations are inaccurate. Wonder why Mr. Blackmar didn’t realize that???
Richard, I hope you are right.
I will take Reality Check’s numbers on face value, because I do not have the time or the resources to determine their accuracy. If they are correct, I will reiterate what I posted to this site in August, I guess we do get a descent bang for our buck at WA. What people have to understand is, secondary education with its much more varied programs, prepares students for various paths in life. Primary education’s purpose to to prepare students for secondary education. Students at that primary school age have yet to make their decisions on where their career path will take them. Programs are thus less varied at the primary level. Primary education thus is more focused, with less varity and amount of programs, the cost should be less per pupil, so reasoniing goes. What some people do not understand is that we have a gem in the Academy, albeit it is a balancing act. Having been a WA Board of Trustee member for 17 years, we are responsive to the needs of our sending towns, yet we strive for excellance. Just imagine how much more WA could offer with a 10 or 11K per pupil cost (exclusive of the bond, SPED, etc) instead of what we charge. Yet the WA Board of Trustees understands reality also. We have to stay withiin budetary limits. I do remember some years back that WA held the cost fixed for at least 1 if not 2 years because the town needed the money and asked us please to do so. If this does not show good faith on the Academy, I don’t know what does. Some people desired (and have attempted to do) was to have the town take over the Academy by State of Connecticut fiat. This did not happen last February. What I ask is, is the underlining perpetually festering issue, between the town and the Academy an issue of dollars or an issue of control? Does the Board of Education (as currently constituted) believe that they could run a High School for less dollars than they current expend on Academy tuition? Again, using Reality Check’s number, Woodstock educates its high school school students for at least $751 less than our neighboring towns. Taking politics out of the goverance (because of appointed not elected goverance) allows the Academy flexability to juggle both, student’s needs and the town’s budget. As Al Pechio said in ” A SCENT OF A WOMAN”, ” embrace it ( WA ) it going to make your proud somday “.
Roman, Just so you don’t forget I will quote myself “I believe that taxpayer funding of the Academy is money well-spent and not at an inappropriate level. Let me stipulate that every dollar that goes to the Academy is well spent. Likewise, every dollar that goes to the pK-8 system is also well spent.” The K-8 is the foundation for the success of the Academy. So I want to see a solution to the funding squeeze in the K-8. This will only benefit the Academy as these students take on their secondary education. I wrote the article entitled “My Son’s Vallydictorian Speech from da First Graduating Class of Woodstock High in 2010″ in April 2006 ( see http://www.woodstockctcafe.com/2006/04/14/my-son%e2%80%99s-valleydictorian-speech-from-da-first-graduating-class-of-woodstock-high-2010/ ) to mock the idea of building a new high school in Woodstock. I guess that satire could now applies to Brooklyn. Why doesn’t the Academy work out a deal with Scotland, Hampton, and Chaplin?
Mr. Wajer,
Having yet to experience the education at the Academy, I will take your word (along with the general perception) that WA does indeed provide many enriching programs at their institution. Your point that high school prepares one for a career path and K-8 pepares one for high school is correct. It’s your next premise that I have trouble with. I do not agree that K-8 must always cost less than high school per student. It should be a goal for both systems to keep the per student cost as low as possible. However, you do have to take into consideration that many regular ed students (since my understanding is that this discussion is excluding SPED students) in K-8 are in need of extra help in core areas such as reading, math, spelling in order to pass a mainstream curriculum. If this extra teaching, tutoring, etc. is not provided, then students will arrive at high school quite unprepared for a rigorous college prep curriculum and unable to take full advantage of any enrichment programs. The point is that these two educational systems (K-8 & WA) should realize that they are not mutually exclusive of one another and should not be battling over money every year. WA should not want K-8 to have to skimp because in a few years, WA will be receiving a less educated student body and less educated future alumni to provide endowments. K-8 should want WA’s budget to be appropriate and balanced also, so that the graduates of K-8 have a quality institution and education awaiting them in their future.
K-8 and WA both have a major impact on the future of many children who will be raising their own families here and running the town as elected officials in the next generation. Give our future moms, business leaders, and elected officials the education they need to make this town the best that it can be. Both systems should be on the same side of this issue. Stop fighting and work together.
This is very petty so accept my apologies. This certainly isn’t meant to take away from Mr. Wajer’s great contributions, but for someone who was on the Board of Trustees of a superb academic institution for 17 years, I am a bit taken back with his spelling and grammar deficiencies.
Wackity Rant
Wackity Rant
Wackity Rant
Reality Check,
I simply do not agree with you and/or Mr. Wajer …(see Newcomer’s new article. Admin)
Jeff –
The Woodstock Board of Education has a dual role under the law as both a local board and an agent of the state. Board members have an affirmative legal obligation under state law to advocate for these students. That includes, if they believe the system is underfunded, investigation of the legality of the interpretation or administration of Prop 46, which is legally inferior to state law.
Why does everyone have a problem with this but not with the First Selectman or Board of Finance spending money to investigate the legal particulars of Prop 46?
[...] Admin wrote a fantastic post today on “Comparision of Per-Student Costs Between the pK-8 and Academy”Here’s ONLY a quick extractApproved by John Leavitt, Candidate for Board of Education of Woodstock, CT. This statement will be treated as an in-kind contribution for purposes of meeting requirements of Connecticut campaign finance laws. … [...]
Wackity Rant. This comment has been placed on the “Wackity Rants” page to the right. Admin
In her/his Wackity Rant to Hawkeye, Reality Check says “Local and Regional Boards of Education are charged (among other things) with “implementing the educational interests of the state”. This is a correct statement. Then, Reality Check says “The “agents of the state” is reserved for agents of the State Board of Education … THEY are the agents of the state.” If by that statement, Reality Check is saying that the local BOE does not have responsibility for implementing the educational interests of the state, and that only the State Board of Education has that responsibility, then he/she is incorrect.
Reality Check should check out Conn. General Statutes 10-220 which describes the basic charge of the local Board of Education “to maintain good public elementary and secondary schools, implement the educational interests of the state as defined in 10-4a (which RC incorrectly concluded was the limit of BOE responsibility) and provide such other educational activities as in its judgment will best serve the interest of the school district …”. Also check out the 1975 Connecticut Supreme Court case of Cheney v. Strasburger (cite 168 Conn. 135) which held that BOE has a dual status serving as town officers for some purposes, and serving as agents of the state implementing the educational interests of the state for other purposes. Reality Check’s opinion is inconsistent with that case law.
I don’t undertand all the confusion behind these numbers – isn’t there a uniform operating cost number the K-8 and Academy can agree on? Isn’t the trick here to report their operating costs on a uniform basis? How else would one adjust for all the different categories, special expenses and capital and debt service? I don’t think it helps that the Academy appears to advertise misleading numbers.
And I still haven’t heard anyone explain why they believe K-8 wastes money when they are bottom tier in the state with above average test scores.
And I do not understand how the Academy continually expands programs, staff and facilities, buys land and develops new athletic fields, without passing these costs on to the sending towns. Does Joe Campbell have magical powers?
To editorcreditor: Spelling has never been my forte. Thank God for spell check ( when available ) . As for my grammer, I have no one to fault but myself.
Roman, The Cafe is not concerned with mis-spellings. It’s the thought behind the words that is important. Admin
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
Quid,
Mea culpa… The “case lawâ€? citation that you provided does indicate that ‘‘a town board of education is an agent of the state when carrying out the educational interests of the stateâ€?. Thank you for the reference. As I only had the state statutes to reference and unfamiliar (not an atty) with all of the relevant case law/precedents, this was helpful and relevant to the discussion.
‘‘a town board of education is an agent of the state when carrying out the educational interests of the state . . . the members of a board of education are still officers of the town.’’ (Citations omitted.) Cheney v. Strasburger, 168 Conn. 135, 141, 357 A.2d 905 (1975).
I never stated that local BOEs “do not have responsibility for implementing the educational interests of the state, and that only the State Board of Education has that responsibility”. Nor did I “incorrectly conclude that was the limit of BOE responsibilityâ€?. If you will check my post, you will see that I said “Local and Regional Boards of Education are charged (among other things) with implementing the educational interests of the stateâ€?.
The State Board of Education and the legislature determine/identify what constitutes as “the educational interests of the state� (10-4a) not local/regional BOEs.
I find that the relevant statutes indicate that local/regional BOEs are granted the authority to “implement the educational interests of the state� and “provide such other educational activities as in its judgment will best serve the interest of the school district�.
There appears to be nothing in any of the relevant statutes (including your reference to 10-220) which grants authority to local/regional BOEs to pursue that which is over/above the “educational interests� and to implement such “educational activities� when such implementation would prove beyond the means of the local/regional BOE. The statutory language “provide such other educational activities as in its judgment…� pertains to programs, services, etc as determined for implementation within said BOE’s school district or in another school district. I do not find any provisions (statutes) granting a local/regional BOE authority to pursue additional appropriations for its school district when the minimum expenditure requirement has been met and beyond that which is supported by the town-approved educational spending/budget UNLESS authorized to do so by the town/BOF (budget making authority)/electorate and/or possible intervention of the State Board of Education.
The State Board of Education could determine that a local/regional BOE has failed or was unable to “implement the educational interests of the state� and take appropriate action. However, this legal remedy “for failure or inability of the board of education of such local or regional school district to implement the educational interests of the state� (10-4b) provides that a “resident� and/or the State Board of Education are given the ability to file a “complaint� for failure/inability…
I believe that this remedy was discussed during the meeting Mrs. Paul attended w/ the SDE (last year?) when the BOE was contending that the town of Woodstock was not adequately funding education. (Which many believe resulted in the birth of “The Breen Proposal�). I would also note that it was determined during that meeting that the town of Woodstock was adequately funding education in accordance with the “minimum expenditure requirements� (10-262j) and that no action was warranted by the SDE.
I believe my original point remains true and that is per the “law”, local/regional Boards of Education are charged with (among other things) “implementing the educational interests of the state”.
AND
If these duties are being fulfilled, local/regional Boards of Education are not given special legal authority to pursue that which is outside the scope of their responsibilities (i.e., investigate legal and/or legislative “loopholes� in order to obtain “greater funding� beyond that which is required by statute/law/SDE and/or funding that is not authorized by the town/BOF (budget making authority)/electorate and/or the State Board of Education.
Local/regional BOEs are not given special legal authority to legally challenge and/or abolish town ordinances when they are able to fulfill or “implement the educational interests of the state�. Or are you suggesting that they are? If you are, why would the local/regional Boards of Education (please provide another great reference) be granted authority that even the State Board of Education does not possess? If you could provide any references that specifically state that local/regional BOEs are granted such authority, I would welcome the information as such would undoubtedly affect my perception/interpretation.
Again, (to clarify) if local/regional Boards of Education have fulfilled their duties/responsibilities in “implementing the educational interests of the state” (said “educational interests” have been met) and have “provided such other educational activities as in its judgment will best serve the interest of the school districtâ€? WITHIN the limits their authorized funding will allow, by what statute/case law/SDE directive are they granted the authority to pursue interests beyond the scope of these responsibilities?
Therefore, it is my opinion, that the ballyhoo (“agents of the state�) and actions of this BOE are indicative of a BOE that is vainglorious, autocratic, and self-entitled.
Reality Check,
I did read your post in response to Hawkeye and saw your following statement:
“Local and Regional Boards of Education are charged (among other things) with “implementing the educational interests of the stateâ€?. The “agents of the stateâ€? is reserved for the agents of the State Board of Education…THEY are the “agents of the stateâ€?. ”
I then wrote: “If by that statement, Reality Check is saying that the local BOE does not have responsibility for implementing the educational interests of the state, and that only the State Board of Education has that responsibility, then he/she is incorrect.”
I guess you are now saying that you never stated what I read in your statement. (By the way, who did you mean when you wrote “THEY”?) But, I did attribute my understanding of what you wrote conditionally by beginning with the word “if”. So, can we now assume that you believe that a local Board of Education does serve as dual agents of the local government as well as the state government consistent with the law of Connecticut? It would seem from your last post here that is a safe assumption.
I believe that you have mistaken the “minimum educational expenditure” as the maximum legislative authority for spending that is vested in a local board of education when it acts to meet its legal obligation. I think the correct view is that the MER is a floor, not a ceiling. I find no support for the view that a local spending limitation, such as Proposition 46, can be imposed upon an agent of the state, when that agent seeks to fulfill is obligation to the state. A fair reading of 10-220 would suggest that the artificial limitation on spending imposed by a local ordinance (Prop 46 in Woodstock) upon a BOE is not referenced in that statute which requires the BOE, as you have noted, to “implement the educational interests of the stateâ€? and “provide such other educational activities as in its judgment will best serve the interest of the school districtâ€?.
I have no difficulty with a BOE taking any course of action that has not been specifically prohibited by law when undertaking to “implement the educational interests of the state� and “provide such other educational activities as in its judgment will best serve the interest of the school district�. I find that the history of our nation is full of instances where those who found local laws to be oppressive, lawfully challenged such local laws by appealling to a higher authority for relief. In many cases, such oppressive local laws were overturned, ultimately for the greater good of the community, state and nation. One such example that comes to mind is local segregation laws which deprived certain American citizens of educational opportunity based upon color of skin.
Faced with the artifical restrictions imposed by Prop 46, our local BOE certainly could legally have sought relief from those restrictions in its attempts to fulfill its obligations under state law. Under Sec. 10-220 of Conn. General Statutes one finds, in addition to the obligations that Reality Check has noted above, that the law says: “(a) Each local or regional board of education shall …. give all the children of the school district as nearly equal advantages as may be practicable; shall provide an appropriate learning environment for its students which includes (1) adequate instructional books, supplies, materials, equipment, staffing, facilities and technology, (2) equitable allocation of resources among its schools, (3) proper maintenance of facilities, and (4) a safe school setting;….”
Has the BOE fulfilled its legal obligation when it permits one segment of its education system (pre-K to Grade 8 ) to be used as the means by which the entire education budget can come within the artificial budget limitation imposed by Prop 46, when another segment of its education system (Grade 9 to 12) is not required to comply with Prop 46? How does the BOE square such action with its obligation to give all the children of the school district as nearly equal advantages as may be practicable? How does the BOE see that it is providing (1) adequate instructional books, supplies, materials, equipment, staffing, facilities and technology, (2) equitable allocation of resources among its schools, (3) proper maintenance of facilities when it allows a system to be perpetuated that gives to the pre-K to 8 students “what’s left-over”?
Regarding the Wackity Rants, as to 10-4b, aren’t the members of the BOE residents of the town?
Reality Check, you are sheer noise pollution. Too much verbiage and use of scattered thoughts in efforts to manipulate, confuse and ultimately paralyze your opponent. Most people will give up, give out, or give in- just as you want. Others, like the Administrator- will send you to “wackity rants!” hahahahha
Quid,
Ummm…
I was clear… You can make of it what you will.
As for the rest:
The Woodstock School District IS fulfilling its “agent of the state” role and IS fulfilling its requirement to “implement the educational interests of the stateâ€?. If the Woodstock School District was not able/capable of doing so, THEN validity would be given to the “equitable allocation” argument. Not happening.
There is no “legislative legal authority” providing local/regional BOEs the authority to seek additional funding (beyond that which is approved by the legally authorized budget making authority) when the same local/regional BOE is able/capable and IS fulfilling its obligation to “implement the educational interests of the stateâ€?. There is no “legislative legal authority” providing local/regional BOEs with the authority to seek additional funding to “provide such other educational activities as in its judgment will best serve the interest of the school districtâ€?.
Perhaps the Legislature needs to amend the language of the statutes so that local/regional BOEs can not “abuse” the laws with “broad interpretationsâ€? and/or misinterpretations in order to fit their agendas? It would seem that this BOE (and you) interprets the statute as reading: “local/regional BOE’s may determine in its best judgment that another educational activity will best serve the interest of its school district and they are authorized to pursue it irrespective of and/or beyond their funding capabilities”. Because that is exactly what the BOE is proposing as are you. (i.e., BOE wants something so as “agents of the state” they should be able to get it)
MER – “maximum legislative authority for spending that is vested in a local board of education”
Nope…never said that. (Talk about twisting words)
MER is a standard which must be met. It IS being met in Woodstock.
MER is the standard that would provide for “relief” if it were determined that MER was not being met. It IS being met in Woodstock.
Equitable allocation…operative words are “as is practicable”.
All of the old political rhetoric and propaganda (your multiple references to Prop 46) are just that…political rhetoric and propaganda.
It simply boils down to the BOE saying “we could have more…if we didn’t have to give it to WA”. This doesn’t mean that the BOE actually NEEDS more. It doesn’t mean that the BOE could not make better/different choices to find that they already have more. It is the simple answer, though.
There is no abuse from WA. Their tuition/fees are more than fair.
What a shame that the BOE can not realize that their “rob Peter to pay Paul” mentality is detrimental to our schools and our community.
WA provides an opportunity for our high school students that most public high school students don’t have access to…period.
Whether you or your compatriots realize (or agree) is irrelevant. The secondary education/experience IS different and does not have the same needs as K-8 (secondary is far more comprehensive). That is the last stop before these kids go on to adulthood (workforce or college). There is a lot more that is needed at the secondary level to prepare them for that…educationally and emotionally. The entire “experience” whether it is academic or extracurricular is an essential component of secondary education.
Even with Prop 46, K-8 has received its share of the pot. Unfortunately, for the BOE, they actually have to do the work to see that it is utilized as it should be and as well as it can be. But, hey, why should they do that when they can just get “more”.
_________________
JA,
I don’t honestly know the answer to that. I would, however, imagine that their roles (public officials) can not be ignored. I don’t imagine that they can “play” the resident card to achieve their “official” objectives.
Also, I have not seen the BOE members operate in that way (as residents). Their actions have been “as a board”.
Any participation on the part of any of the individual members, as is suspected, has been conducted “behind the scenes” or “under the radar”. I’ve yet to come across a situation that such “behind the scenes” maneuvering would be considered appropriate or acceptable of public officials.
_________________
Chuckles,
YAWN…
[...] A previous article published at the Cafe in October compares the per pupil costs between the K-8 students and the Academy students citing references. [...]
[...] number reportedly enrolled at the Academy for 2007-08, e.g. 472 students not 495 students. See the October article which states as [...]