Education/School Notes

School Notes     “These School Notes have been provided by Barbara Skinner. If you would like to receive School Notes via email, please send your request to NRVTeaParty@gmail.com, and we’ll forward your request to Barbara.”             

School Notes Highlights from Barbara Skinner
3/10/13

Topics:
School Board reacts to budget proposal
Next budget meetings–Board of Supervisors
Additional meetings on FY2014 budget
Special school board capital projects meeting


School Board reacts to budget proposal

In the March 5 regular school board meeting, board members expressed appreciation for the recommendations made by Montgomery County staff which would increase the MCPS operating budget by $2.2 million to $94.8 million for FY2014 and additionally place $1.4 million into a school capital fund and $200,000 into the cafeteria fund.

Next budget meetings–Board of Supervisors
 
Monday, March 11 at 7 PM–Regular BOS meeting which includes an agenda item to establish tax rates for real estate and personal property.

Tuesday, March 26 at 6 PM–Public hearing on advertised tax rate.

Additional meetings on FY2014 budget

County officials and elected representatives will be holding Montgomery County conversations for discussions about the proposed budget. All meetings start at 7 PM.

Tuesday, March 12 at the Riner Fire Department, 4171 Riner Road, Riner

Monday, March 18 at Prices Fork Elementary, 4237 Prices Fork Road, Blacksburg

For questions about these meetings, call 540 381-6887 or email infodesk@montgomerycountyva.gov.

Special school board capital projects meeting

At this meeting on February 28, board members voted to request funding from the BOS for a feasibility study for critical projects in the Christiansburg area. (Ivers voted no, Woolsey was absent.) Projects deemed critical: 1) Combine, recapitalize and add, or replace elementary schools in Christiansburg area 2) Combine, Recapitalize and Add, or replace Christiansburg High School 3) Annual budgeting for capital maintenance projects per Cardno TEC recommendation at $2 million/year.

To see the presentation slides: CIPprojectplanning.pdf (1,744 KB)
Of note, p. 3 lists the price tag for BHS as $62 million rather than the $50 million originally proposed.

School Notes Highlights from Barbara Skinner
3/10/13

Topics:
School Board reacts to budget proposal
Next budget meetings–Board of Supervisors
Additional meetings on FY2014 budget
Special school board capital projects meeting


School Board reacts to budget proposal

In the March 5 regular school board meeting, board members expressed appreciation for the recommendations made by Montgomery County staff which would increase the MCPS operating budget by $2.2 million to $94.8 million for FY2014 and additionally place $1.4 million into a school capital fund and $200,000 into the cafeteria fund.

Next budget meetings–Board of Supervisors
 
Monday, March 11 at 7 PM–Regular BOS meeting which includes an agenda item to establish tax rates for real estate and personal property.

Tuesday, March 26 at 6 PM–Public hearing on advertised tax rate.

Additional meetings on FY2014 budget

County officials and elected representatives will be holding Montgomery County conversations for discussions about the proposed budget. All meetings start at 7 PM.

Tuesday, March 12 at the Riner Fire Department, 4171 Riner Road, Riner

Monday, March 18 at Prices Fork Elementary, 4237 Prices Fork Road, Blacksburg

For questions about these meetings, call 540 381-6887 or email infodesk@montgomerycountyva.gov.

Special school board capital projects meeting

At this meeting on February 28, board members voted to request funding from the BOS for a feasibility study for critical projects in the Christiansburg area. (Ivers voted no, Woolsey was absent.) Projects deemed critical: 1) Combine, recapitalize and add, or replace elementary schools in Christiansburg area 2) Combine, Recapitalize and Add, or replace Christiansburg High School 3) Annual budgeting for capital maintenance projects per Cardno TEC recommendation at $2 million/year.

To see the presentation slides: CIPprojectplanning.pdf (1,744 KB)
Of note, p. 3 lists the price tag for BHS as $62 million rather than the $50 million originally proposed.

 

 

 
1/22/12 Regular School Board Meeting
 
TOPICS:
View meeting video
Facilities report–hundreds of millions needed over next 20 years
Approved “needs based” budget for public hearing
Organizational structure (administration) question

 
UPCOMING SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS:
Jan 29 at 7 PM–Public hearing on FY2014 budget proposal
Feb 5 and 19 at 7:30 PM–Regular meetings
Feb 28–Special facilities meeting

 

 
View meeting video
 
Facilities report–hundreds of millions needed over next 20 years
 
Michael Osteen from Cardno TEC presented a Facility Condition Assessment; his powerpoint presentation can be viewed at http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/mcps/Board.nsf/files/942J5J4B81E6/$file/MCPS%20FCA%20Powerpoint.pdf

 
The purpose of the assessment from the MCPS website: “Cardno TEC was tasked by MCPS to conduct a facility condition assessment (FCA) and inventory for 18 schools and ancillary buildings at several of those locations, and at four additional support buildings. The purpose of the effort was to assess the condition of the buildings and to prioritize capital improvement projects, repairs and maintenance. The results of the assessment are designed to assist MCPS in managing the resources as well as developing a monetary report to be used in formulating ongoing annual maintenance budgets. The results of the assessment may support the board’s upcoming discussion on capital needs.”

 
The Cardno TEC evaluation ran from June 4 – June 20, 2012, and was conducted by 5 architects and engineers. They looked at the following components: structural, exterior closure (walls, windows, sidewalks, canopies etc.), mechanical, plumbing, and electrical. Their evaluation and assessments do not include items such as roofs, elevators, interior finishes, or alarms/security. Also their recommendations do not include standard sustainment maintenance which they estimated at $10 million/year.

 
They noted that many of our buildings date back to the 1950s, 60s, and 70s with systems and components reaching the end of their life cycles. They prioritized deficiencies beyond normal maintenance into a 5-year Maintenance Action Plan with a total price tag of $10,921,474. A breakdown by year:

 
2013 $2,229,959
2014 2,172,174
2015 3,061,370
2016 1,150,985
2017 2,306,994

 
Cardno TEC also produced a 20 Year Capital Investment Forecast with a cost of $225 million for recapitalization of facilities.

 
To view the Cardno TEC presentation, go to 1:01 in the meeting video.

 
Approved “needs based” budget for public hearing

 
The board unanimously approved Superintendent Blackburn’s budget recommendation (5-0, Bond and Ivers absent.) The budget was essentially as discussed at the 1/14 budget workshop (see previous School Notes details.) Only one small change had been made; $4500 was added for field trips. This brings the total operating budget to $96,178,314 which is a budget increase over FY2013 of $4,209,134. Increased revenue from the county which would be needed to fund this increase: $3,560,317 (5.1 cent tax increase.)

 
Organizational structure (administration) question

 
During unfinished business (at 1:51:20 point in the meeting video), Superintendent Blackburn was asked about upcoming retirements and general details on organizational structure at the MCPS central office. She said that she would be preparing more information, bu made a few brief statements. She said that she has looked at surrounding districts such as Roanoke County and Roanoke City Schools and has found our organizational structure to be comparable. She said that whereas our number of classroom teachers far exceeds state SOQ (Standards of Quality) specifications, our administrative staffing for curriculum and instruction are below SOQ specifications. Further comments from the superintendent and board members spoke of unfunded mandating of staff from the federal and state levels. Mrs. Blackburn also referred to a 2007 efficiency study which recommended adding more leadership positions with a view of expecting to save money. She said some of these recommendations have not yet been implemented.


 

 School Notes Highlights from Barbara Skinner

1/8/13 Regular School Board Meeting; 1/14/13 Special Budget Meeting
TOPICS:
To view meeting
2013 local elections
Calendar planning for 2013/14
Responding to BOS resolution funding CHS improvements
Budget Updates
Important upcoming budget dates
Also:
Board of Supervisors budget hearing 1/14/13
News Messenger to begin including education commentaries
To view 1/14/13 meeting:
2013 local elections
Jamie Bond, District D, mentioned that she will be running for reelection this fall. Incumbents from District A (Phyllis Albritton) and District C (Drema Foster) have not yet announced their intentions.
Calendar planning for 2013/14
Superintendent Blackburn recommended the delaying of next year’s start date until September 4th; this would likely have students ending on June 20th. She also recommended a widening of the community involved in calendar planning to include 5 representatives from each school strand.
Responding to BOS resolution funding CHS improvements
At their 11/14/12 meeting, the BOS unanimously approved a resolution establishing $400,000 in funding for improvements at CHS. The school board will respond with the anticipation of using the funds for feasibility studies for capital projects in the Christiansburg strand.
 
Budget Updates
Go to http://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/mcps/Board.nsf/vpublic?open to view budget documents including:
FY 2013-2014 Superintendent’s Proposed Budget Request
FY 2013-2014 Possible Budget Reduction Options
FY 2012-2013 Proposed Budget Cuts
In brief, the superintendent is proposing a FY2014 budget of $96,173,814 which is an increase of $4,204,634 over the FY2013 budget. Additional money going to the operating budget would = $3,454,634 and additional money going to capital projects (roof maintenance, 21st Century classroom improvements and 4 new school buses) would = $750,000. New budget reduction options proposed by Ms. Blackburn total $3,555,817; also see proposals for cuts from last year’s budget deliberations.
I did not attend the school board 1/14 budget meeting since it ran concurrently with a BOS meeting which included a budget public hearing; however, the Roanoke Times reported that school board Chairman Wendell Jones is predicting a $3.5 million increase which would roughly equal a 5-cent tax increase.
Important upcoming budget dates
1/22 Regular meeting; budget adoption for public hearing
1/29 Public hearing on proposed budget
2/5 Regular meeting; approve initial budget request
2/8 School board request forwarded to county administration
Board of Supervisors budget hearing 1/14/13
Only 5 speakers participated in the BOS’s budget public hearing; Jack Selcovitz and I spoke against a tax increase and 3 supported an increase. The Roanoke Times covered both the school board and BOS meetings in “Montgomery Co. officials begin school budget talks” at http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/319032
Here are the comments I presented to the BOS:
The school board is once again reporting a budget crisis and will likely ask for a funding increase which would result in a 5-cent increase in property taxes. This, of course, would come just one year after a 12-cent property tax increase.
Frankly our current budget “crisis” can be readily solved. MCPS currently spends 88% of its operating budget on employee compensation whereas the national average is roughly 80%. Further this average of 80% will likely fall for two reasons. The National Center for Education Statistics has reported that the number of students per teacher in America’s schools has decreased from 29.6 to 15.5 over the last fifty years. Unfortunately our NAEP scores (sometimes called our Nation’s Report Card) have been flat for decades. So, there has been a national awakening to the fact that reducing class sizes has not led to improved academic outcomes; unfortunately this message hasn’t sunk in locally. Additionally we’re on the cusp of huge changes in education due to digital learning. Blended learning where traditional instruction is combined with digital learning reduces the number of staff needed and also provides for differentiated learning which facilitates progress whatever the individual readiness levels of the students. We should be able to increase class sizes without harming quality. Superintendent Blackburn has stated that increasing class sizes just an average of 1 pupil per classroom would save $2.5 million.
Secondly, we can curb this “crisis” by taming bloated administration costs. Benjamin Scafidi who earned his Ph.D. in Economics from the University of VA and has done much research in education has reported that Virginia would have saved $2.1 billion dollars between FY1992 and FY2009 if administration and non-teaching staff had increased at the same rate as the student increase. In MCPS only 47% of our employee compensation pie goes to instructional staffing. How about, for example, eliminating a curriculum coordinator position and offering a couple or three teachers the opportunity to earn a significant salary increase by managing curriculum issues?
Thirdly, MCPS continues to operative an expensive inclusion model for special education students which unfortunately misses state proficiency targets by almost 20 percentage points.
We could save millions of dollars by increasing class sizes, decreasing administration, and using a better but less costly inclusion model. What could we do with some of this money we would save? We could offer higher beginning salaries to teachers to attract high quality applicants, and we could offer salary increases to teachers willing and able to accept leadership responsibilities. This is a current focus in education reform: hiring, elevating and rewarding quality teachers.
The current status quo isn’t where we want to remain. Just take a look at the most recent MCPS math SOL scores. Our scores took a dramatic dive when more rigorous tests were introduced, and VDOE has plans to make all SOL tests more rigorous; math was just the first subject tackled.
Lest you think I’m just off in right field somewhere with these comments, here is how Education Secretary Arne Duncan began an address to the American Enterprise Institute in November of 2010*:
“I am here to talk today about what has been called the New Normal. For the next several years, preschool, K-12, and postsecondary educators are likely to face the challenge of doing more with less. My message is that this challenge can, and should be, embraced as an opportunity to make dramatic improvements. I believe enormous opportunities for improving the productivity of our education system lie ahead if we are smart, innovative, and courageous in rethinking the status quo.”
In summary, our school board wants to fixate on spending though everyone in this country by now should know that our nation’s high level of spending has not led to high quality in education. Our school board needs to jettison the constant whining for money and their slavish devotion to the status quo. What we need are smarter budgets and smarter schools. Please say no to their request for more spending. We must stop feeding the status quo beast.
*See “The New Normal: Doing More with Less–Secretary Arne Duncan’s Remarks at the American Enterprise Institute”, 11/17/10. http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/new-normal-doing-more-less-secretary-arne-duncans-remarks-american-enterprise-institut
News Messenger to begin including education commentaries
Check tomorrow’s edition of the News Messenger for a commentary which I wrote on MCPS spending and quality. The NM will be printing my commentaries on education issues on a twice-monthly basis. Please spread the word; hopefully more citizens will become engaged in the essential conversations involving improving and funding our schools. For NM subscription information call 540-382-6171.

 

 
 
 

School Notes Barbara Skinner
Highlights from 12/4/12 School Board meeting
(2nd meeting scheduled for December has been canceled)

TOPICS:
Meeting video
Virtual VA
Budget study update
Budget public forum responses
Board members’ comments on budget preliminaries

Also:
Virginia Board of Education report on VA public schools

Meeting video

View this meeting on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O-ZsZZQeXY
Title: Montgomery County School Board 12-4-2012
Length: 2:00:05

Virtual VA

A short presentation was made on Virtual VA. Currently 79 MCPS students are participating in the online classes most of which are AP or other advanced courses. If interested in details, see the meeting video beginning around the 12-minute point or visit www.virtualvirginia.org.

Budget study update

Superintendent Blackburn updated the board on some efficiency studies being conducted by the administration.  Keeping the summer program at local schools rather than shifting students to a central site may result in small savings. Outsourcing was studied but has been subsequently nixed by the board. Adjustments to the sick leave bank could result in small savings. Reductions in extended year contracts (mostly awarded to Career and Technical Education teachers) if done in a tiered approach as suggested by Blackburn could potentially save $100,000 in the first year and more in subsequent years. Programs have changed since these extensions were initiated. Also, some more recently hired teachers are doing the same job as teachers who are receiving additional employment days and payment. (To see the explanation of extended year contracts and possible savings, begin viewing the meeting at 37:16.) Change in length of school year would only achieve $35,000 in savings and is not recommended.

Several additional efficiency studies will be completed by the end of January: middle and high school scheduling options, virtual academy to enhance course offerings, and possibilities for software and shared services with the county.

Budget public forum responses

Superintendent Blackburn compiled a chart of budget suggestions gathered from a public forum in November. The top 3 educational priorities expressed by the public were: buildings-small schools, salaries/teacher pay, and academic quality/programs. The top 3 cost reduction ideas were to increase taxes/revenue, institute a $50 or $100 pay to play fee and to decrease energy costs. To see the chart, click here:

Board members’ comments on budget preliminaries

Joe Ivers, District F, stated that he will not vote for cuts during this budget cycle, and he feels the Board of Supervisors will support the School Board (and presumably agree to a tax increase to cover a needs-based budget as determined by the School Board.) Phyllis Albritton, District A, and Dreama Foster, District C, seemed to be in agreement with Ivers. Penny Franklin, District B, stated that many in her district cannot afford much more in tax increases, and Jamie Bond, District D, murmured in agreement. Sarah Woolsey, District G, didn’t express an opinion at this time, and Wendell Jones, District E, wasn’t present at this meeting. To see this discussion, go to the video meeting and begin at 1:00:00.

Virginia Board of Education report on VA public schools

On 11/30/12 the VDOE website (www.doe.virginia.gov) posted a summary of the Virginia Board of Education annual report on VA public schools as required by state law . The summary began with this paragraph:

Implementing more rigorous academic standards and assessments, closing achievement gaps and raising student achievement in chronically low-performing schools are the greatest challenges facing public education in Virginia, according to the state Board of Education’s annual report to the governor and General Assembly.

Of the 4 recommendations for revising Standards of Quality highlighted in the summary, 3 were recommendations to increase mandated staffing levels. I think this is unfortunate since dramatic increases in personnel in recent decades have not resulted in increased quality of education. I don’t think the state should be requiring, for example, “one educational data coordinator for every 1,000 K-12 students.”

 

 

 
 

 

 


  
 

   
  
 

 
 
 
 

School Notes
Highlights from 11/6/12 and 11/20/12 School Board meetings
Barbara Skinner
TOPICS:
Meeting video (11/6)
Building/maximizing inclusion–grant proposal (11/6)
Budget planning–gap (11/6)
Budget comments from members (11/6)
Meeting video (11/20)
Public budget input forum (11/20)
Small capital projects/CHS maintenance resolution from BOS (11/20)
Meeting video (11/6)
Title: Montgomery County School Board 11-6-2012
Length: 1:32:09
Building/maximizing inclusion–grant proposal (11/6)
MCPS submitted a grant proposal for the amount of $399,921 for a project titled Project BUILD: Building Inclusive Academic Achievement via Peer-Mediated Embedded Instruction for Students with Significant Intellectual Disability. Funds would be provided by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES.) Description from the proposal: “MCPS will collaborate on the project by serving as the host site for professional development to build inclusive practices for serving students with significant intellectual disability.”
I have taken a look at VA State Performance Reports for special education students and have found that MCPS is providing a high level of inclusion but receiving results far below state targets. (Contact me if you would like more information on assessment information for special education students.) This proposed model of training sounds like it would lead to an extensive burden on teachers. To see the discussion, go to minutes 26:23 – 31:00 of the meeting video.
Budget planning–gap (11/6)
 
In the 10/16/12 School Board meeting, Superintendent Blackburn estimated a budget gap of $1.5 million for next year’s budget. Now she is projecting a $3,620,000 gap (about a 5-cent property tax increase.) She reached the higher figure this month due to suggesting a VRS contribution shift of 4% (to complete the state requirement) rather than the minimum of 1% per year until the required 5% is accomplished, and also by adding a salary scale adjustment resulting in a $1,625,000 cost. To see her summary of increased expenses along with proposed options for balancing the budget, see MCPS 2013-2014 Budget Prep Breakdown at:
Additional information is presented in Budget Update Information, which is also on the MCPS website at:
Budget comments from members (11/6)
After budget conversations with School Board members, Superintendent Blackburn produced a chart titled Budget Comments by Board Members. All 7 members support a compensation increase for employees. In looking at possible reductions, 5 agreed on considering a class size increase while 4 agreed on looking at 2 other possibilities: school closures or requiring employees to pay 5% of their single subscriber health insurance cost. See Blackburn’s chart at:
To view the budget planning update segment in the meeting video, begin at minute 54:42.
Public budget input forum (11/20)
Superintendent Blackburn announced that nearly 300 citizens attended the input forum held on 11/12 at CHS. There were over 60 speakers along with 130 written comments. She is working through providing a full review of input; when complete, she’ll post results on the MCPS website.
Meeting video (11/20)
 
View meeting on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh7Qg6WNsWk
Title: Montgomery County School Board 11-20-12
Length: 2:14:39
Small capital projects/CHS maintenance resolution from BOS (11/20)
The school board was dismayed that the BOS had voted to allocate $400,000 for CHS maintenance/safety issues. Chairman Jones declared that every MCPS building is safe and clean. During a facilities update, it was stated that $2.8 million has been spent recently on CHS including the redoing of main entrance sidewalks in 2009.
The school board has requested $9.75 million this year for maintenance projects; most are small and in the $60,000 – $130,000 cost range. They are also working to update a 2006 document which lists capital project priorities. Additionally, a better plan (rather than ad hoc allocations) for funding capital projects is still lacking.
The board asked Mr. King to comment on the legality of the BOS resolution which attempts to direct funds to a particular location/projects. (See this discussion beginning approximately 1 hr. and 55 minutes into the meeting.) Mr. King stated that it’s clear in the VA Constitution that school boards run schools. However, he said that he hadn’t had time to examine the BOS resolution and research to see if the BOS can set aside monies for specific purposes. He suggested that this is a political rather than a legal question. Board members seemed to generally agree and think this kerfluffle can be ironed out.
Personally, I was surprised to hear Ms. Franklin state that since CHS is around 40 years old, they need to consider possibilities of major renovations (multimillion dollar project) or even a replacement of the present building when determining maintenance spending. The high school I graduated from in Charlotte, NC, (West Meckl enburg High) was build in 1951 and is still going strong.

  

 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

 

  
 

School Notes From 8/22/12 School Board   Meeting
 
 
 
 
School Notes From 6/19/12 School Board   MeetingHighlights from Barbara   Skinner
TOPICS:
 
School Notes From 6/5/12 School Board   Meeting
 
 
 School Notes 5/24/12 

Barbara Skinner  

 TOPICS:  

FY2013 Operating Budget Adoption  

 Letter to Editor on Budget  

Teacher Evaluations  

 FY2013 Operating Budget Adoption on May 15, 2012  

 The School Board finally adopted a budget last week around 1 AM with a 4-3 vote (Franklin, Bond and Foster voting no.)  

 Summary:  

–This $91,969,180 budget is an increase of $688,377 (0.75%) over the FY2012 budget.  

10-Year History (From MCPS Website)  

Year Total Expenditures % Inc (Dec) in Budget  

 2012 $ 91,280,803 3.01%   

2011 88,616,820 -8.10%   

2010 96,424,724 -0.99%  

2009 97,385,738 8.52%  

2008 89,741,696 3.85%  

2007 86,418,348 9.30%  

2006 79,066,291 5.28%  

2005 75,099,952 9.04%  

2004 68,873,305 2.41%  

2003 67,254,887   

 –Due to a recalculation of the Local Composite Index, state funding for the budget decreased by $1,301,207.  

 –Increased VRS (VA Retirement System) contributions plus increases in health and life insurance totaled $3,423,544.  

–To help offset the above 2 items, Montgomery County contributed $3,328,198 more than in FY2012.  

–This actual budget of nearly $92 million was finally balanced with the nearly $97 million “needs based” budget recommended by the School Board in February.  

–Use this link to see the final cuts approved to balance the budget:  

http://www.mcps.org/Budget_Files/BudRedFinal.pdf  

I wrote the following Letter to the Editor of the Roanoke Times (submitted yesterday) which encapsulates some of my views on the above process:  

 Re: “Trouble ahead in Montgomery” 5/21/12: Editors writing of an “intractable $4.2 million budget gap” should be reminded that MCPS Superintendent Blackburn’s original budget did not include a $1.2 million salary step increase or $1.2 million to continue temporary positions previously funded through federal stimulus dollars. The addition of these 2 items by the School Board would have required an estimated property tax increase of 24 cents (rather than the 12-cent increase approved), an increase never seriously entertained by the Board of Supervisors.  

 Subtracting these 2 items yields a realistic budget gap of $1.8 million. Most of this gap could have been covered by following the superintendent’s initial staffing proposal which saved $1,460,000 through a reduction of 25 positions (by trimming course offerings, realignment of programs and a small increase in class size) and would have resulted in a shortfall under $350,000. The mandatory cut of Adult Education plus Blackburn’s recommendations of reducing a bonus and moving Rivendell would have accomplished a balanced budget and avoided the exhausting, community-splitting contentions which ensued.  

 Instead of cheerleading for state and local tax increases, it would seem this School Board should have followed Superintendent Blackburn’s lead in reasonable and reality budgeting.  

 Teacher Evaluations  

 Accepting federal stimulus funds mandated the following revisions to teacher evaluations: numeric assessments and the inclusion of student academic progress. VDOE is recommending that student academic progress comprise 40% of a teacher’s evaluation. VDOE has reported that last year 97% of VA teachers were identified as exemplary, so they’re hoping that an addition of a student academic progress component will lend a more objective accounting.   The board will take action on this information at their next meeting; there will likely be much debate about whether MCPS should follow the VDOE recommendation and set student academic progress at 40% of evaluations or go with lower percentages (from 10-33%) as other districts in our area have done.  

 
School Notes 5/8/12
Barbara Skinner
CORRECTION: The last issue of School Notes erroneously stated that funding for middle school activities and “Pay to Play” were included in the spending cuts adopted by the School Board for Public Hearing. These items have been listed for consideration but are not included in the cuts for Public Hearing.
REMINDER: You can view the School Board cuts for Public Hearing at http://www.mcps.org/Budget_Files/ProAdju050212.pdf. Please email your comments or attend the School Board Public Hearing on May 15, 7 PM, Government Center, 755 Roanoke Street, Christiansburg. School Board email addresses:
District A, Phyllis Albritton–palbritton@mcps.org
District B, Penny Franklin–pfranklin@mcps.org
District C, Drema Foster–drfoster@mcps.org
District D, Jamie Bond–jbond@mcps.org
District E, Wendell Jones–bwendelljones@mcps.org
District F, Joe Ivers–jtivers1@comcast.net
District G, Sarah Woolsey–Sarahwoolsey@mcps.org
A BROADER PERSPECTIVE ON SCHOOL SPENDING

Below are comments I have submitted to The Burgs section of The Roanoke Times:
Thank you for enlarging our perspective with the editorial “Montgomery County’s taxing history” (4/30/12); I think we need both a broader as well as a more historical view during our current budget discussions.
For example, on the MCPS website are two instructive charts labeled “Ten Year History of Expenditures and Revenue.” According to this data, between FY2003 and FY2012, there was an average yearly real increase in MCPS spending (adjusted for inflation) of 1.59%. In fact, several years show significant spending increases of 9.04% (FY2005), 9.30% (FY2007), and 8.52% (FY2009.) Two years in the chart show spending reductions of 0.99% (FY2010) and 8.10% (FY2011.) These changes have occurred during a slight upswing and then downswing in student population (see recent Dejong-Richter MCPS redistricting study.)
Unfortunately during the decade beginning in 2000, the US median household income fell 7%, making this the first decade-long slide in at least 50 years (see “Typical U.S. family got poorer during the past 10 years, USA Today, 9/14/11.) Focusing on the huge recession of 2007-2009, Dr. Emmanuel Saez, Professor at UC Berkeley, writes in his paper “Striking it Richer” (3/2/12) that “average real income per family declined dramatically by 17.4%” during this time frame.
So, it would appear that MCPS budgets have fared relatively well during the enormous economic declines of recent years.
But how well does spending correlate with academic achievement? According to Cato Institute reports (see Cato author Andrew J. Coulson), per pupil expenditures in the US between 1970 and 2010 grew nearly two-and-a-half times (after adjusting for inflation) while the NAEP achievement scores for our 17-year-olds remained flat. Stanford economist Eric Hanushek concurs; he has reported that numerous studies have shown that the common wisdom of improving education with more money hasn’t worked. For example, significant increases in school spending have gone into reducing class sizes (a practice still touted by MCPS), but without resulting in academic gains.
So instead of the constant hand-wringing we see concerning MCPS spending levels, I would suggest we need to focus on real education reform. With our VA NAEP (national) scores showing below 50% proficiencies; there is much work to be done. Even NAEP- top-scoring Massachusetts falls behind in international comparisons. (For details see “Your Child Left Behind,” The Atlantic, December 2010.) George P. Schultz, former Secretary of State, and Professor Eric Hanushek recently collaborated to write, “Current U.S. students-the future labor force-are no longer competitive with students across the developed world.” These authors continue that lower-skilled populations lead to a drag on GDP and a resulting erosion of standard of living. (See Education is the Key to a Healthy Economy, WSJ, 4/30/12.)
Without K-12 reform, future budget deliberations may make our current situation look like child’s play.
  

   

  

School Notes From May 1, 2012 School Board Meeting 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Barbara Skinner
TOPIC: Adopt FY2013 Budget for Public Hearing
(Planned informational presentation on a new Teacher Evaluation Handbook was delayed)
UPCOMING MEETINGS:
5/1/12………………Budget Public Hearing 7 PM followed by regular School Board Meeting and vote on FY2013 Operating Budget (check www.mcps.org/SchoolBoard/Meetings.html for agenda prior to meeting)
5/18-19/12…………School Board Retreat at Crosspointe
FY2013 Operating Budget Update
Discussions at a 4/26/12 workshop included the following possibilities: the closing for 2 years of Auburn Middle School, the moving of Rivendell students (students unable to attend regular classrooms) to Price’s Fork Elementary, and the closing of Harding or Belview with students reassigned to Price’s Fork Elementary. These items brought out hundreds to the May 1 meeting; here’s a link to the Roanoke Times article: http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/308236 Eighty one signed up for public address which wasn’t finished until 10:30, and the meeting itself apparently continued until after 1 AM (I left shortly after midnight.)
Here’s a link to the spending cuts finally recommended for public hearing: http://www.mcps.org/Budget_Files/ProAdju050212.pdf None of the three possibilities listed in the above paragraph made it into the recommendations.
Here are a few of my thoughts:
–Cutting of Governor’s School funding: I don’t have a problem with the elimination of 4 slots for summer programs (saving $7,434) because there are plenty of other summer enrichment opportunities available; however, I don’t like the elimination of 10 slots for new students entering Governor’s School (students attend Governor’s School in the morning and their regular high school in the afternoon.) (Saving $36,500) I think we should be sending the maximum number of bright and motivated students that we can to Governor’s School.
–The School Board spent hours going over and over budget numbers and some of the cuts are going to rile folks such as the reduction of funding for middle school athletics (saving $28,959) and the institution of “Pay to Play” for VHSL athletics and activities at $100 per sport/activity with $300 cap for family (saving $72,100.)
The board needed to cut $4,286,837 to balance their operating budget. I would have started with the following cuts:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
—–Adult Education moved to NRCC (as mandated; no choice here) (Budget Worksheet Line 6)………………………………………………………………………………….$ 182,838
—–Delete step increase (salary scale increase) for teachers (Line 16)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1,200,000
—–Eliminate incentive bonus for part-time employees which was instituted to forestall turnover and which is offered by no other districts in the area (Line 17)…..1,601,958
—–Require all employes to pay 5% of single health insurance premium costs (currently free to employees) (Line 21)…………………………………………………….. 419,094
—–Delete 16 positions added through job stimulus funds and filled as temporary positions (Line 25)…………………………………………………………………………….1,166,757
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Total Savings: $4,570,647
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The board agreed with my first 2 items above. Otherwise, they elected to reduce rather than eliminate incentive bonuses for part-time employees (saving $132,000), they chose to add a $100 deductible for prescription drugs rather than requiring employees to pay 5% of health care premium costs (saving $108,534), and they recommended a smaller deletion of staff positions (saving $815,178.)
Are there other opportunities for cuts other than those recommended by the School Board or in my table above?
–In the budget worksheet presented by Superintendent Blackburn at the 4/17/12 School Board meeting, there was a recommendation to cut 25 instructional positions (formally Line 24; but deleted in last worksheet) through changes in class size, realignment of programs, and reduction of course offerings including specialities. (Saving $1,460,000)
–Reset sick leave bank policy as stated prior to recent changes (saving $60,000-80,000.) Perhaps the sick leave bank should be eliminated.
–Re-examine inclusion policy for students with disabilities (our high inclusion rate is expensive and our standardized test results are disappointing.)
–Explore other possible savings as presented in report titled “Montgomery County Public Schools School Division Efficiency Review 2007.

   

School Notes From April 17, 2012 School Board Meeting  

Barbara Skinner
TOPICS:
FY2013 Budget Update
Textbook Adoption Action
Capital Projects Update
Video Request for Meetings
UPCOMING BUDGET DATES UNCHANGED
4/26/12_____Budget Work Session 7 PM
5/01/12_____Regular Meeting 7:30 PM; Agenda Item: Adopt FY2013 Budget
5/15/12_____Budget Public Hearing 7 PM
 
FY2013 Budget Update
Superintendent Blackburn has prepared potential budget cuts; cuts will be needed to prepare a balanced budget (which is required by the Board of Supervisors.) She said that the $91.2 million operating budget (which will be available if the BOS approves a property tax hike of 12 cents) will add $3 million in additional local funding for the MCPS operating budget but will not be enough to compensate for additional expenses this year due in particular to the loss of state funds and the requirement for increased contributions to the Virginia Retirement System.
To see budget worksheets, list of possible reductions etc.:
Be sure to note that the shaded items are cuts recommended by the Superintendent whereas non-shaded items are provided for consideration but are not recommended.
The total savings from the recommended cuts would be $5.4 million. Not recommended by Superintendent Blackburn and highly controversial is line #48 which proposes that either Harding Elementary or Belview Elementary be closed temporarily and students moved to Price’s Fork Elementary. These 2 elementary schools were chosen because the students from either school (populations are 220 and 260 students) could fit into the 300 vacant seats at PF Elementary. MCPS would continue to use the facility (for example, to accommodate Rivendell students), and she said that the school would be reopened when the student population increases.
Additionally, on 4/13/12 Superintendent Blackburn posted a letter on the budget which is available on the mcps website:
Please note that the Board of Supervisors will be voting on a tax rate/budget this coming Monday, April 23, at 7 PM. There will be an opportunity for public address (5 minutes/citizen). If unable to attend this meeting you can email your comments for the Board of Supervisors to Ms. Vickie Swinney, BOS Secretary, at swinneyvl@montgomerycountyva.gov.
I have spoken or emailed the Board of Supervisors several times during this budget cycle, and I’m preparing a summary of my remarks which will include the following list of suggestions to reduce spending.
–Increase class sizes (currently our classes are under state-mandated sizes)
–Re-examine inclusion rate for students with disabilities (our high inclusion rate is expensive and from standardized test results, not very effective)
–Eliminate incentive bonuses for part-time employees (saving $1,601,958 per year)
–Eliminate the purchase of new furnishings in the school administration move from Junkin St. to Building C (save $500,000)
–Reset sick leave bank policy as stated prior to recent changes (save $60,000 – $80,000/year)
–Evaluate high school course offerings and combine/eliminate courses as needed. Some courses offered at BHS: Small Animal Care, Sports Entertainment and Recreation Marketing (2 levels), and Intro to Early Childhood Education
–Reduce employee health insurance costs by charging employees a percentage of coverage (now free to employees)
–Look for other possible savings in report titled “Montgomery County Public Schools School Division Efficiency Review”
–Reuse serviceable furnishings from Auburn High School and Auburn Middle School (Unfortunately, I think they’ve already sold off furnishings from BHS at fire-sale prices.)
TEXTBOOK ADOPTION ACTION
 
Without discussion and by a 6-0 vote (Joe Ivers was absent), the board voted to accept new textbooks recommended by MCPS. Last week I spent 3 hours doing some spot checking of the proposed texts, and I sent some remarks to the School Board and Superintendent. Basically, I thought the elementary texts had been dumbed down to slavishly meet SOL requirements, and I thought the AP European history text did a poor job concerning the threat of the Ottoman Empire during that era. I didn’t have time to review the high school science selections. At the bottom of this email I’ve copied some of the remarks I sent to the board.
CAPITAL PROJECTS UPDATE
All three school building projects (AMS, AHS, BHS) are on schedule.
REQUEST FOR VIDEO OF MEETINGS
Superintendent Blackburn has investigated following the practice of the Board of Supervisors and videotaping School Board meetings so citizens can view them online. She said the expense would be $250/meeting, but MCPS technology employees who could handle the work already have full-time jobs and shouldn’t be expected to take on this task.
I think it’s important to have online video of School Board meetings available especially since school spending (for operations and debt service) makes up 70% of our county budget. Member Sarah Woolsey seemed interested in pursuing this.
Unfortunately, other board members either made no comment or were in opposition. Jamie Bond said they shouldn’t be thinking of adding anything with a cost, and she further noted that she has been telling citizens for years that if they want to know what’s going on, they need to come to the meetings. Phyllis Albritton said she was in support until Penny Franklin remarked that this would tend to benefit only one segment of the county because not everyone has internet service.
Several paragraphs from my comments to the School Board and Superintendent on the proposed textbooks: I was wary of the Five Ponds social studies books having read of numerous errors detailed in newspaper articles, but apparently new editions have corrected these problems to the point that the VDOE has included them on its approved list. Overall, I didn’t like these texts because though they had the trendy magazine presentation and loads of pictures to visually appeal, I didn’t feel they contained enough meat, and I think that even at the K-2 level many children would be bored with the dearth of information.
This lack of depth seemed to me to be particularly problematic for the 6th and 7th-grade texts. I thought the numbers of pictures went into the overkill range, and I didn’t think the publishers needed to take up valuable sidebar space at this level to define words such as “militiamen,” “tax,” “plantation,” and “agriculture.” I have used with one of my children the social studies texts currently used in the 6th and 7th grades (A History of US, Volumes 1-11), and they seem much more interesting and informative than the Five Ponds texts.
In spot checking the 2nd grade social studies book, I found on p. 10 this statement: “Our government is a democracy which means it is a government run by the people.” I don’t think it’s too early at this point to be more accurate and explain that our system of government should be termed a democratic republic or at least a representative democracy. On p.11 was a comment that in elections “the person with the most votes usually wins.” This was stated without further explanation though I think more details should follow.
I also felt the K-2 Houghton Mifflin science books were lacking in content though I thought the use of consumables for this age group was a good idea (I’m assuming they can take home unfinished work and undetached, finished work at the end of the year.) I understood that the expense for 7 years’ worth of consumables is the same as the cost of a regular text over a normal lifespan.
A curriculum coordinator told me that the Five Ponds and Houghton Mifflin series cover the basics as required by VA standards of learning and that supplements are included for differentiated learning. Apparently a student needing more depth could view additional material via a classroom computer. Personally, I think having a few “basics” textbooks per classroom is a good idea for review purposes, but I think the general textbooks should be more informative and challenging. I think there’s a real danger in letting compatibility with standards hold too much sway in curriculum choices. I think it is much better to choose rich and rigorous curriculum materials and plug any gaps with presentation or sequence concerning our standards rather than to choose materials which slavishly mesh with standards but lack depth.
In looking at A History of Western Society Since 1300 (for AP European History), I especially looked for details of contact and interaction with Islam since I’ve been reading that the soft-pedaling of Western conflicts with Islam is common in our current history texts. Having recently read Defenders of the Faith: Charles V, Suleyman the Magnificent, and the Battle for Europe, 1520-1536 by James Reston, Jr., I was amazed at the scarcity of information on the threat to Europe from the Ottoman Empire (I found 2 small sections on the subject), and, yes, I though there was a quite subdued telling of the Ottoman attacks and plans to conquer.
Here are a few quotes from p. 503 of A History of Western Society Since 1300:
“Most Christian Europeans perceived the Ottomans as the antithesis of their own values…driven by an insatiable lust for warfare and conquest…To Ottoman eyes, the world looked very different. The siege of Constantinople liberated a glorious city from its long decline under the Byzantines. Rather than being a despoiled capture, the Balkans became a haven for refugees fleeing the growing intolerance of Western Christian powers. The Ottoman Empire provided Jews, Muslims, and even some Christians safety from the Inquisition and religious war. The Ottomans came out of Central Asia as conquering warriors…”
Compare this to a recounting of the Battle of Lepanto (1571) in Great Battles: Decisive Conflicts that Have Shaped History:
 
“The last Venetian stronghold, Famagusta, fell on August 1, 1571 the Turks massacring the population and brutally murdering the Venetian commander Marcantonio Bragadino–he was flayed alive and stuffed with straw. In response to the Turkish threat, Spain, the Papacy, Venice, Genoa, and Malta had formed the Holy League on May 25, 1571 and mobilized their combined naval power for war. Only the acute threat from the east would have compelled Venice to make allies of her sworn enemies Genoa and Spain…It was a total Christian victory but one that came at a high price. The League lost 7,000 men and 12 galleys but they had freed 12,000 Christian galley slaves. Only 10,000 Turks survived the battle, losing 25,000 men and 180 galleys. It would take the Turks years to recover and Europe was safe–for now.”
Apparently A History of Western Society is a highly regarded text, but I think it’s quite problematic when a text devotes an entire chapter to “Reformations and Religious Wars 1500-1600,” but scarcely delves into the Islamic aggression and resulting battles of that same era.

   

 
 

From April 3, 2012 School Board Meeting    

Barbara Skinner
Topics: Redistricting Public Hearing and Discussion/Vote
Student Code of Conduct/ Review of Discipline Fairness
Budget (An update on the General Assembly actions concerning our budget was an agenda item for this meeting, but there was no news to report.)
Textbook Adoption
Upcoming Budget Dates: 4/17/12 Regular School Board Meeting (7:30 PM)–Agenda Item: FY2013 Operating Budget
4/26/12 Budget Work Session (7 PM)
5/1/12 Regular School Board Meeting (7:30 PM)–Agenda Item: Adopt FY2013 Budget for Public Hearing
5/15/12 Budget Public Hearing (7 PM)
REDISTRICTING PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION/VOTE After discussions at meetings on March 15 and 20, the board previously voted to advertise a modified 1B redistricting scenario for public hearing. I missed the public hearing from 7-7:30 PM, but according to the Roanoke Times report, around 70 people attended and nine spoke on the issue. From the RT piece (published 4/4/12): “Many are said to have signed or supported a letter sent to the school board, expressing concern that the redistricting would unfavorably affect Price’s Fork Elementary.” (Link to article: http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/307018)
I arrived at 7:30 for the board discussion and found the board still disagreed at this point on the scope of the redistricting exercise even though it’s almost complete. District F Member Joe Ivers rightly remarked that the board should be “ashamed of itself” for spending so much money to make attendance line changes which he could have done for $5. He continued that we need to get rid of the expense of mobile units at overcrowded schools and even out the student populations amongst county schools. On the other end of the spectrum, District B Member Penny Franklin thought the redistricting effort had correctly targeted moving new students into Price’s Fork Elementary; at an earlier meeting she and Chairman Jones had stated that they would not vote for a major upheaval of students at this time.
I’m planning to write the board and superintendent to suggest they make the new Price’s Fork Elementary School a focus (aka magnet) school with open enrollment. I’ll further suggest that they use the Core Knowledge curriculum developed by E.D. Hirsch Jr., which should appeal to parents with a more traditional, back-to-basics philosophy in education.
STUDENT CODE AND CONDUCT REVIEW/REVIEW OF DISCIPLINE FAIRNESS A committee has been working to review the MCPS conduct policy in relationship to other school divisions, identify policy strengths and potential areas for improvement, and recommend revisions and/or modifications.
District B Member Penny Franklin would like a review of subgroups to see if different ethnic groups are being treated the same for similar offenses. A complete review of this type was done in 1997 with the help of a consultant who charged around $40,000. Superintendent Blackburn said that a new review would require hand-selections and much paper and pen input. She will review the previous report and let the board know more precisely the inputs which would be required. District A Member Albritton expressed her opinion that unlike 15 years, she feels students are now being treated equitably. Ms. Franklin didn’t offer any reasons for calling for a new review except to say that a lot of effort has gone into professional development in the past, and she would like a current analysis of fairness.
TEXTBOOK ADOPTION Recommendations for new textbooks were made by MCPS Curriculum Supervisors for the following: K-2 Science, 6-8 Science, High School Core Science, K-7 Social Studies, AP European History, and CTE Business courses (see attachment for the list.) The board will vote on adopting these texts at their next meeting (4/17/12.)
Recommended textbooks can be viewed at the school board office this Thursday or Friday (April 12 or 13.) Call Brenda Wojciechowski at 381-6198 if interested.
                                                                                                                                                                         
“These School Notes have been provided by Barbara Skinner. If you would like to receive School Notes via email, please send your request to NRVTeaParty@gmail.com, and we’ll forward your request to Barbara.”

Highlights from Barbara   Skinner 

TOPICS: 

Reopening of   budget discussion–pay to play 

Update on   building projects 

Employee   Evaluation Handbook approval 

VRS   contribution rate of 1% 

Supplemental   funds for school nutrition program 

Request for   funds from Board of Supervisors 

Videotaping of   school board meetings
Reopening of budget discussion–pay to   play
After hearing much dissatisfaction from the   community, the board decided to reconsider pay to play during a special   session to be held on June 21 at 6 PM in the   County Government Center.  Pay   to play was included in the budget adopted in May as a means to raise around   $75,000 by requiring students to pay $100 (max of $300/family) to participate   on sports teams or other extracurricular activities such as debate or   forensics.  Assistant Superintendent Shannon reminded the board that they   need to have a budget in place by July 1.  

Update on building projects
BHS and AHS are on schedule and still expected to   be completed for fall of 2013.  Work on AMS will start after construction   on AHS has finished; this project will be rebid. 

Employee Evaluation Handbook   approval
Due to federal strings attached to stimulus   funding, teacher evaluations had to be changed to include a student growth   component.  Superintendent Blackburn followed the recommendation of the   VDOE and suggested that the board approve a rating system where 40% of a   teacher’s evaluation would come from the measurement of student academic   progress.  Another controversial point was the suggestion from VDOE that   the exemplary rating be limited to only 3% of teachers (last year 97% of VA   teachers received exemplary ratings.)  Instead of placing a ceiling on   exemplary ratings, Blackburn’s recommendation was to include language stating   the demanding criteria for a top rating and the anticipation that only a   limited number of teachers would qualify.  The board voted to accept the   handbook but to cut the student growth component to 30%.  Approved 5-1   (Jones, no; Woolsey, absent) 

VRS contribution rate of 1% 

Due to state mandate, the board certified the VRS   contribution rate of 1% for MCPS employees.  Current employees will have   a salary increase to compensate for the deduction, but new hires will   not.  Members Franklin and Jones suggested that the board engage in civil   disobedience and ignore the state mandate; however, the rate was approved 4-2   (Franklin and Jones, no; Woolsey, absent.) 

 Supplemental funds for school nutrition   program
Due to expenditures higher than anticipated during   the 2011/12 school year, the Board of Supervisors will be asked to allow the   use of $200,000 from the School Nutrition Fund (funds available, in reserve)   to bring the nutrition program out of the red. 

Request of funds from Board of   Supervisors
The school board chair, Wendell Jones, will submit   a letter to the BOS requesting $750,000 one-time funding from Montgomery   County to be used strictly for the following:  $250,000 for building   repair, $150,000 for technology improvement, and $350,000 for the replacement   of four school buses.  County Administrator, Craig Meadows, recommended   this one-time funding, and a majority of BOS members have indicated support   for the expenditure. 

Videotaping of school board   meetings                                                                                             I, along with some other citizens, have asked that   the school board videotape their meetings as is the practice for the Board of   Supervisors and some other local government groups.  The board   permanently tabled discussion on this request with Penny Franklin going so far   as to ask that they never have videotaping as an agenda item again.    

 Several board members were negative about   videotaping due to the expense.  However, the equipment is already   present and available for their use, and they have not explored these   facts: 

–Audio files of the meetings are already being   recorded, so this expense should be subtracted from videotaping costs.    Additionally, when I requested a copy of the audio from a meeting, I found   that the downloading process is long, and there can be a real problem with   formatting.  I received 2 copies of the audio which wouldn’t run on my   computer, and finally received an mp3 copy on the third try which did   work.  (The files are downloaded onto a DVD rather than a CD, so you   can’t play them on a regular CD player.)  All of these disks were   downloaded and mailed to me–hardly an efficient and desirable   process. 

–Superintendent Blackburn had estimated an   expense of $250/meeting to pay MCPS personnel to handle the videotaping, but   she noted that the county handles videotaping for the Town of Christiansburg   for a fee, but she doesn’t know the amount of the fee.  The board was   uninterested in pursuing this avenue. 

 It’s been really irritating to hear the school   board slough off the requests for videotaping.    They’ve suggested,   for example, that the public should attend meetings to keep up with board   news.  How many people want to stay in board meetings until around 1 AM   to keep up with budget decisions?  (Both regular school board meetings in   May ran that late.)  They further suggested that folks could read meeting   minutes; perhaps they’re unaware that the most recent meeting minutes   available online are for the October 4, 2011 meeting! 

 I think this entire discussion illustrations some   real problems with this board.  They obviously came unprepared for this   agenda item, they weren’t interested in exploring the facts, and Ms.   Franklin’s over-the-top dismissal (unchallenged by other board members) of   this request was appalling.  If you would like to hear this discussion,   you can request an audio copy of this meeting from Brenda Drake Bowdel, Public   Information Officer at 382-5138 or brendadrake@mcps.org and begin   listening at 1:50:55. 

Pay to play budget   discussion 

Policy changes including reporting of per   pupil costs 

Upcoming meetings 

  Pay to play   budget discussion
The school board will reconsider the use of pay to   play as a means of raising approximately $72,000 for the FY2013 operating   budget during a special session.  (Pay to play charges students $100 per   Virginia High School League activity with a $300 cap per family and   accommodation for free or reduced lunch students.)  Details:
Special session at 6 PM on Thursday, June 21,   2012 

Closed session (for superintendent evaluation)   following special session 

County Government Center 

755 Roanoke Street, Christiansburg 

Pay to play is the first agenda item; please note   that there will be no public address in this meeting. 

Superintendent Blackburn has recommended sticking   with the current approved budget, but if pay to play is rescinded she has   prepared two cost-saving measures:  increasing facility use fees again   (already set to increase on July 1) and/or an additional cut to staff.    She also said that the board has the choice of not filling the gap at this   time and, rather, relying on carryover money at the completion of the year to   do so. 

At least two board members favor the cutting of   two security guard positions at BMS for a savings of around $25,000.    Chairman Wendell Jones objects to this because he says it reneges on a promise   made to BMS parents when their children were moved to   Christiansburg. 

 Here’s a link to the Roanoke Times coverage of the   pay to play issue: 

http://blogs.roanoke.com/theburgs/news/2012/06/19/montgomery-county-school-board-revisits-pay-to-play-issue/ 

 The News Messenger has done a good job of covering   this issue as well as school board meetings in general.  The current   edition of the NM–June 20th issue–includes a good summation of pay to   play.  Also in this issue is an editorial which calls for the elimination   of pay to play.  Their summary:  “The school board needs to consider   other fundraising options, including the possibilities of slightly larger   class sizes and moves towards better utilization of space.  All   Montgomery County students deserve the opportunity to participate in Virginia   HIgh School League activities.”  This tracks with the  position I’ve   taken in previous School Notes editions. 

 Policy   changes including reporting of per pupil costs
The board approved 15 policy statement changes   made as a result of General Assembly legislation.  If you’re interested,   all 15 current policy statements with approved redactions are available in the   board’s packet at http://www.mcps.org/SchoolBoard_Files/2012/2012%20Packets/061912.pdf. 

Quite frankly I was surprised to see that our   current Policy 3-3.3 calls for the superintendent to “annually notify each   parent, guardian or other person having control or charge of a child enrolled   in the Montgomery County Public Schools of the estimated per pupil cost for   public education in the school division for the coming year.” 

The new policy will read as follows: 

“The division superintendent shall annually   publish the estimated per pupil cost for public education in the school   division for the coming year on the school division’s website or in hard copy   upon request.  Such notification shall be made available in a form   provided by the Virginia Department of Education and shall comply with 22.1-92   (A) of the Code of Virginia. 

 I’ll be looking into this further because as an   MCPS parent I’ve never been informed of estimated per pupil costs or seen this   information on the MCPS website.  Additionally, when checking the Code of   Virginia it appears that notification is to also be given of actual per   pupil state and local education expenditures for the previous   year. 

 Upcoming   meetings 

 The school board will not meet in July; the next   regular school board meeting will be August 7, 1012. 

School Notes From 8/7/12 School Board Meeting
Highlights from Barbara Skinner
(The board did not meet in July)
TOPICS:
School bus stop changes
High stakes testing resolution
Carryover from FY2012
Change to teachers’ evaluations
Dealing with 1st offenses concerning drug and alcohol
Green schools initiative
Special capital needs meeting
Joint meeting with Board of Supervisors
School bus stop changes
 
Nine citizens spoke during public address, and eight of them complained about new bus stops which they feel are unsafe or too far from home. These changes were made as the result of the recent cut of $50,000 from the school operating budget through eliminating 225 bus stops.
Prompted by these complaints and others, school board members questioned Superintendent Blackburn on the new bus stops. Blackburn responded by stating that Montgomery County does more than reasonable and far more than state standards require on transportation. However, she said that if parents have safety concerns, they should contact MCPS and personnel will check out the complaints.
High stakes testing resolution
The board unanimously passed a resolution which criticizes the the use of SOLs as the sole judgment of school quality. (A bit of my opinion: I personally don’t see how you get away from standardized tests if you want to make national and international comparisons. Further, our SOLs show much high achievement levels than do NAEP (national scores) for Virginia students i.e. our SOL scores show inflated achievement. We need to look into SOLs but not with the purpose of gutting standardized tests.)
Carryover from FY2012
 
Superintendent Blackburg presented a Year End Report and Use of Carryover –
Total revenue received of $94,847,019.13 exceeded expenditures and encumbrances of $94,415,963.42 by $431,055.71. The main source of the carryover funds is additional revenue and reimbursements of $405,596.13 received during the month of June that exceeded the expenditure appropriation. The balance from the approved expenditure appropriation is just $25,459.58. A request for supplemental appropriation is required to carryover these funds to FY 2012-2013.
Despite the fact that there are many competing needs for these funds the staff has recommended that a priority be given to covering the Pay to Play deficit and to provide support for the move of the primary division offices to Building C. The available funds do not fully cover the cost of the move but it would allow the move to begin and add to furnishings over time. The recommendation is for use of carryover funds as follows:
Supplemental Carryover Appropriation:
1. Pay to play not funded in FY13 budget $ 72,100.00
2. Technology and phone infrastructure for Bldg. C 100,000.00
3. Furniture and moving to Bldg. C 258,955.71
$431,055.71
Blackburn emphasized that only $25,000 of the carryover is due to unexpended budgeted funds while the rest is due to unanticipated revenue.
Connie Froggett, BHS PTO President, expressed outrage during public address that after a grueling budget cycle with numerous cuts, so much money would be allocated to new furnishings for administration.
I hope this will be reviewed carefully. By consolidating personnel in Bldg C of the Government Building, Shawsville Elementary (which currently houses 6 offices only) could be closed along with the Junkin Street building for substantial savings. However, though Mrs. Blackburn said that relatively new furniture would be reused, it appeared that thousands would be spent on new furniture. The $258,955 for new furniture and moving is indeed a high price tag as Ms. Froggett pointed out.
Change to teachers’ evaluations
 
Teacher evaluations were changed on July 1st to include a student growth component (i.e. measurement of the academic growth of students during the year.) However, in June the board (against Mrs. Blackburn’s recommendation) had set the growth component as 30% of the evaluation. As Mrs. Blackburn had predicted, the state is now mandating a student growth component of 40%; this change was passed by the board.
Note: this mandate came about as part of the process of VA receiving a waiver from the federal No Child Left Behind AYP benchmarks. To read more about the waiver, see “Virginia receives waiver for AYP”, Roanoke Times, 6/29/12, at http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/310886.
Also, teacher quality is a component of education reform receiving much attention at this time. The Gates Foundation spends around $450 million yearly on education programs, and Bill Gates has been frustrated by the lack of study concerning teacher effectiveness. Gates termed it “mind blowing” that so little research has gone into understanding and gauging effectiveness, and his foundation has launched several multimillion dollar pilot projects to do so.
Dealing with 1st offenses concerning drug and alcohol incidents
 
The board is attempting to strengthen their stance on drug and alcohol offenses, and they are looking at the possibility of holding hearings of 1st offense drug and alcohol incidents before the board. This would likely mean 27-40 hearings per year and require a special meeting each month.
Apparently there has been quite a difference in discipline for these offenses at various high schools in the past. A hope was expressed that the new principals at CHS and BHS would discipline more consistently in this area.
Green schools initiative
There was a 1st reading of a proposed policy update on the board’s Energy Management Conservation Policy. The hope is that the policy will lead to the designation of at least some schools as green schools. The update is chiefly the addition of a section on Environmentally Sustainable Practices.
One of the provisions in this section is a “requirement that all school division new construction projects and major renovation projects be constructed with as many LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) program best practices as practical.” Unfortunately, there was no discussion of potential costs or slowing of projects which using LEED might entail.
Special capital needs meeting
 
The board tentatively set Monday, September 10th, at 6PM as a special meeting time to consider capital needs.
 
Joint meeting with Board of Supervisors
The School Board and Board of Supervisors will hold a joint meeting; the School Board will be proposing the following dates for consideration by the BOS: 9/20, 9/27 or 10/9.

Highlights from Barbara   Skinner 

(I was unable to attend this meeting;   thanks to L.K. for supplying her notes.) 

 **PLEASE READ:  I think   the most important information in this email concerns SOL results.    Please let me know if you would like a copy of the News Messenger’s article   titled “Math SOL results down with more rigorous standards” or a copy of all   the Montgomery County SOL scores in pdf format. 

TOPICS: 

Opening enrollment 

1st offense for drug and alcohol   incidents 

Carryover from FY2012 

Important agenda item for next   meeting
ADDITIONAL INFO: 

2012 SOL results
Opening   enrollment
Day 5 enrollment figures were presented:    4511 elementary students (ratio of 18.41 pupils per 1 teacher) and 5119   secondary students for a total of 9630 students.
1st   offense for drug and alcohol incidents
After lengthy discussions the board asked   Superintendent Blackburn to gather more information and present a clear,   consistent plan sometime this fall.  The board had particular questions   concerning consistency of discipline among county schools and the use and   appropriateness of the zero tolerance policy for certain offenses.
Carryover from FY2012
The board voted 6-1 (Sarah Woolsey, District G,   no) to spend $431,055 in carryover monies on: 1) $72,100 to avert a   pay-to-play policy (collecting funds from students for certain after school   activities) and 2) the rest to go to a long-planned move (and consolidation)   of administrative offices into Building C of the County Government   Center.  You can see the summation from The Roanoke Times in “Board OKs   spending surplus”: 

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/313103
Prior to the vote, I emailed the following   comments to board members:
“I hope the school board will carefully consider   plans for carryover funds tonight.  It seems possible that consolidating   into Bldg C of the Government Center could save money.  Certainly keeping   Shawsville Elementary open to house 6 offices seems ridiculous, and if the   Junkin facility can eventually be sold, moving into space long alloted to the   School Board in Bldg C might make complete fiscal sense.  HOWEVER, I   agree with Connie Froggatt [BHS PTO President] that spending money on new   furnishings and equipment for administration during this point of revenue   decline should be off the table.”
Chairman Wendell Jones responded to my email and   below are excerpts from his comments:
“…Over the past nine years as a school board   member I have spent a significant amount of time at the school board office   and the building can no longer serve the division in the appropriate manner   without spending funds for significant maintenance and upgrade of existing   outdated infrastructure.
“Spend the funds on an old outdated   building?  Or spend the funds in a better long term   investment?
“…I agree with you it is ridiculous to have   services and personnel scattered about the county and we have an opportunity   to begin a path forward to become more efficient and begin a long term plan to   realize significant savings.  Not immediate but certainly long   term…”
The school board has submitted their appropriation   plan and request to the Board of Supervisors (the BOS cannot direct the school   board on how to spend funds, but they must approve appropriations requests for   the funds to be released.)  It should be noted that the Superintendent   has suggested that additional funds may be requested from the BOS at a later   date to cover additional expenses to be incurred in moving into the 2 new high   schools next year.
The BOS did not discuss the appropriation request   at their 8/27 meeting, so I don’t have information on when their vote will   take place.  Please contact the BOS if you have input. 
Important agenda item for next meeting
School board meetings are regularly scheduled on   first and third Tuesdays at the County Government Center, 755 Roanoke Street   in Christiansburg, beginning at 7:30 PM.  Below is the agenda for the   next regular meeting; I’ve underlined the item concerning student   achievement. 

September 4, 2012 

Memorandum of Understanding – Huckleberry   Trail 

Enrollment Update 

Student   Achievement/Federal Accountability Measures 

September Calendars
Chairman Wendell Jones stated in an email to me   that, “our administration has math performance as a top priority to address   this coming school year.”  If you agree with me that academic quality   issues at MCPS need to be addressed, please speak up and attend meetings if   possible.
2012 SOL   results
SOL scores were released on August 14 and included   results from the mathematics tests which were revised and strengthened to   reflect the increased rigor of new mathematics standards initiated in   2009.
Looking at high schools in Montgomery   County the Algebra I, Algebra II, and Geometry passing rates were   respectively:  BHS 53, 68, 65;  CHS 28, 55, 51;  AHS 36, 45,   62; East Mont  33, 42, 41.
I have not seen Montgomery County scores   reported in the Roanoke Times.  However, the News Messenger printed   results for our county’s high schools on 8/18/12; their chart included   comparisons to last year’s results and statewide averages.    (Subscriptions to the News Messenger are cheap and a great way to keep up on   local government issues.)
Unfortunately, articles on SOL results have failed   to report that our SOL tests are not timed (students have unlimited time in   which to complete the tests), and for high schoolers who score between 375 and   399 (passing is 400), they qualify for almost immediate retesting.    According to a VDOE release titled “2011-2012 Math SOL Results Begin   New Trend Line,”  87% of students who passed the Algebra I SOL did   so on the first attempt with 86% successful the first time in Geometry and 88%   in Algebra II.  I’ve long wondered why our SOL scores show markedly   higher proficiency rates than do the Virginia NAEP (Nation’s Report Card)   scores.  I think part of the answer is that NAEP tests are timed, and I   haven’t seen any evidence that the national tests allow for   retesting. 

 

 

 

Subj: School Notes, November 2012

  

  

 

School Notes Highlights from Barbara Skinner
2/19/13 Regular School Board Meeting

TOPICS:
Video of meeting
Middle school scheduling–proposed savings $1.2 million approved
Presentation–self-funding of health insurance
Surplus properties
Resolution from BOS for $400,000 in extra maintenance funding
Upcoming meetings

 
Video of meeting
Both BOS and SB meeting videos are available at www.montva.com.

Middle school scheduling–proposed savings $1.2 million approved
During public address 8 speakers opposed this change, and I was the only speaker in favor of Superintendent Blackburn’s recommendation to cut middle school core subject staff by approx. 20 positions for a savings of $1.2 million. The proposal passed with Bond, Ivers, Woolsey, and Jones voting yes and Albritton, Franklin and Foster voting no.

Presentation–self-funding of health insurance
The BOS asked the School Board if they would be interested in pursuing this route. A presentation on the concept and considerations was given by David Leonard of McNeary Consulting.
 
Surplus properties
7-0 vote to transfer ownership of Junkin Street building to the county on 5/1/13 and Shawsville Elementary to the county on 1/15/15. Shawsville will be used as a storage site for AMS furnishings/equipment until the new AMS facility is complete. However, the property would be listed as available for sale and could be vacated within 90 days of sale.

Resolution from BOS for $400,000 in extra maintenance funding
The School Board will again respond to the BOS resolution but this time they will specify that the entire $400,000 will be spent on maintenance projects as prioritized by the School Board. Their previous proposal to use $50,000 for a feasibility study was dropped.

Upcoming meetings
Capital Improvements Planning special session Thursday, February 28, 7 PM in BOS room.

Next regular meetings: March 5 and 19 Check www.mcps.org for agendas.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>