 Messages |
Topics |
Attachments
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Watchman
16
« on: December 15, 2014, 10:59:12 AM »
I think it is wonderful news. It made me happy knowing that good acts are appreciated.....I think that IS big news.
17
« on: December 12, 2014, 01:31:25 PM »
I don't wish to say too much at this point. It appears that most taxpayers and employees of BFA/FWSU are simply not interested..... I have come to believe that some people would speak up if they have concerns....but the silence is both deafening and underwhelming....
18
« on: December 10, 2014, 01:47:31 PM »
The following are the best practices that Apple uses as criteria for the Apple Distinguished School Award. In addition someone needs to fill out an application for the award and send it to the Apple Corporation and buy many Apple products. I encourage everyone to look closely at the criteria...(it took some time to gather this information. I hope it is clear.) I wonder how many people were involved in the process?  ? 1. Visionary Leadership Shared Leadership School leaders take collective ownership of the initiative. Individual Leadership A credible and inspirational thought leader sets and articulates the vision. Community Engagement Broad community sponsorship supports the institution’s initiatives. 2. Innovative Learning and Teaching Student Learning Learning is a personal experience for every student. Instructional Practices Faculty are master learners who expertly guide their students through difficult and complex tasks. Curriculum Design Innovation and rigorous curriculum is redesigned to leverage technology 3. Ongoing Professional Learning Relevant and Timely Professional Development Faculty engage in a cycle of inquiry that promotes reflection, experimentation, and sharing. 4. Compelling Evidence of Success Quantitative Data is routinely collected and analyzed to inform progress and measure success. Qualitative Narrative, reflective, or anecdotal evidence is collected and shared. 5. Flexible Learning Environment School Design and Facilities Facilities and schedules are designed to maximize learning opportunities that technology provides. Information Technology (IT) Information Technology (IT) infrastructure supports innovation in teaching and learning.
19
« on: November 18, 2014, 09:07:21 AM »
I wish the passion and fervor in this thread would drift into a spirited discussion about the school system and the supervisory union. There seems to be a quite a few common elements......
20
« on: September 28, 2014, 06:06:27 PM »
I heard from this man's niece that he passed away a few months back. Apparently related to frostbite from his time missing and out in the cold.
21
« on: September 18, 2014, 12:21:41 PM »
I am currently accepting referrals for tutoring or advocacy in Franklin, Grand Isle, and Chittenden Counties. Please pass this information along to anyone you know who may need my services. Thanks!
22
« on: September 10, 2014, 03:19:46 PM »
Here is some information regarding the "mandate". Mr. Woodo: In the 2010 legislative session Title 16 (education law) § 261a, Duties of supervisory union board, was amended so that (  (E) reads “provide transportation or arrange for the provision of transportation, or both in any districts in which it is offered within the supervisory union.” The Agency of Education interprets “provide transportation” to mean the supervisory union operates the buses to provide transportation and “arrange for the provision of transportation” as when a supervisory union enters into a contract with a vendor to provide transportation for students in the SU. In each case it is the supervisory union that pays for the transportation. Section ( provides that “if a supervisory union determines that services would be provided more efficiently and effectively in another manner, then it may ask the commissioner (now Secretary) to grant it a waiver from this subdivision:” The relevant pieces of statute can be found at: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=16&Chapter=007&Section=00261a. In summary, while district boards decide whether the students in their districts need transportation, the transportation is provided in one way or another by the supervisory union unless the supervisory union obtains a waiver. The Agency has granted waivers to allow supervisory unions an extra year to comply if, for example, they were able to demonstrate that allowing district transportation contracts to run out in the future produced greater efficiency and effectiveness than buying out of existing contracts immediately. It would take an unusual set of circumstances for a supervisory union to justify a permanent waiver to this section of law. Thank you for your interest. Vaughn Altemus Education Finance manager From: jwoodo@aol.com [mailto:jwoodo@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:21 AM To: AOE - Info Ed Subject: Question? I have what I hope is a simple question. Is there currently a mandate to consolidate bussing/transportation at the supervisory level? Please provide information if possible. Thanks,
23
« on: September 08, 2014, 12:27:57 PM »
The closest thing I could find on this "mandate" comes from Vermont Digger.
H.883 would eliminate 282 school districts, along with their school boards, and reconstitute the school governance structure to include roughly 45 to 55 supervisory districts with a minimum of 1,000 children. (Vermont has more school districts than towns; nearly every district has its own board. The state has the highest school board member to student ratio, 1 to 56, in the country.)
Either way, they are faced with a lose-lose political situation in their home districts.
Taxpayers are in a balky frame of mind going into the 2014 election season, and as time runs out this biennium, school board consolidation plans have picked up support as lawmakers come to grips with the realization that they need to show voters they’ve made an effort to address rapidly rising statewide property tax rates.
On the other hand, lawmakers are also feeling heat from school board members who oppose the elimination of local authority over management and budget decisions. They fear that nixing some 1,440 school board positions could spell their doom when they go back to their home districts to campaign.
It’s not an unreasonable fear. School boards are a training ground for local politics, and many school board members oppose the idea of eliminating local jurisdiction over budgets and management. They say that creating a supervisory district board with members who represent different towns (similar to existing unionized high school boards) will destroy community involvement in local schools. Ultimately, critics of the plan say consolidating school districts is tantamount to closing schools.
Some Republicans say there is nothing wrong with Vermont’s small school district structure, the problem is with the statewide property tax formula.
While Smith and Shumlin back education governance reform, the Senate is less than enthusiastic about supporting the realignment of districts. Sen. Dick McCormack, D-Windsor, chair of the Senate Education Committee doesn’t see the need for restructuring because local school boards already have the option to voluntarily merge with other districts under Act 153. With the tacit support of the education committee, Sen. Tim Ashe, D/P-Chittenden, is giving over a portion of the property tax rate bill to consolidation of school district business administration at the supervisory union level.
The bottom line? The voluntary consolidation program under Act 153 has been a failure. There is no appetite to change Act 60, the education financing law this year, despite a growing realization in the Statehouse that property tax rates are going up in districts where spending has been reduced because of pressures on the Education Fund.
Taxes will continue to go up unless lawmakers take action, according to Bill Talbott, the chief financial officer of the Agency of Education.
Education spending has continued to increase over the past 15 years as the public school student population has shrunk by 20 percent from a high of just over 100,000 to about 80,000 students. Meanwhile, staffing at local schools, which represents about 80 percent of school spending, has stayed relatively constant, at around 18,400, Talbott says.
Unless districts reduce staffing levels, Talbott said budgets will automatically go up 3 percent a year to cover contractual obligations. A 1 percent reduction, he said, would be the equivalent of $11 million and would mean the elimination of 184 school positions statewide. Even small savings from restructuring, Talbott says, would be worthwhile. Transition costs for the realignment would be between $3.6 million and $5.3 million a year for a three-year period.
“The question is, does this current structure allow school boards to do that (reduce staff)?” Talbott said. “Would H.883 give them more options? It certainly looks to me like it would.”
Talbott says if small local school districts joined forces as part of larger supervisory districts, they could share teachers, administrative costs and transportation contracts, and eliminate layers of unnecessary management, ultimately saving additional money.
“If we keep doing the same thing, we’re going to get the same result,” he said.
The hammer is year over year property tax rate increases — even in many towns that have cut spending. That’s in large part because statewide rates are going up (5 cents last year, 4 cents to 7 cents this year and another 7 cents to 9 cents per $100 of assessed value next year). The rate hikes reflect average spending increases across districts statewide, the erosion of the Education Fund (The fund is used to pay for an assortment of non K-12 programs such as adult basic education, preK, dual enrollment, schooling for prisoners) and a reduction in the General Fund transfer to the Education Fund of $27 million (the transfer was “rebased” in 2011 and was not increased by inflation as statutorily required).
Taxpayers in many towns are starting to balk at the increases. This year, 35 towns rejected budgets, the highest number since 2003.
House Speaker Smith says if the Legislature doesn’t take steps now, schools will close without a plan in place. Smith is determined to “look at every possibility.”
“I believe something has to happen,” Smith said. “If you asked most Vermonters, they’d agree. The challenge is whether there is a common understanding of what needs to happen. People believe there should be fewer districts, they’re just not sure whether theirs is the one that needs to go.
“We are going to see changes over the next couple of years, the question is whether we can help manage those changes,” Smith said. “I don’t think this issue is going away. We can’t continue to have the challenge of increased spending with fewer students. The consequence is pressure on the Education Fund and property taxes.”
Pressure will continue to build on the property tax rate, he said, “until we get some changes in place.”
Still, the end of the session is nigh and the bill has a long way yet to go. It must move through both the House and the Senate in three weeks. Smith said if it’s going to move, it has to move soon, “otherwise we won’t have enough runway.”
House Appropriations is expected to vote H.883 out on Tuesday (it has been massaged by the House Education Committee in the interim, and significantly altered by House Ways and Means) and the bill will go to the floor on Thursday and Friday. That gives the Senate just two weeks to review the proposal before the estimated adjournment date.
The latest iteration of H.883
The House Education proposal has morphed since it passed 10-0-1 out of committee in late March.
The original version of H.883 gave districts flexibility with respect to voluntary mergers, gave the State Board of Education a role to play in vetting a statewide plan for consolidation, required legislative involvement, offered broad public engagement around the changes and set a deadline for implementation of the plan no later than July 2018.
House Ways and Means struck all the language in the bill (usually a move reserved for the Senate), and moved up the implementation deadline by a year. The plan calls for a set number of hearings (10), the drafting of a preliminary plan by April 2016, followed by the creation of a final plan that would be brought to the General Assembly by January 2017. The realignment would then automatically go into effect by July 2017 — unless the Legislature rejects the plan. The committee approved the strike-all language 9-2 (Reps. Patti Komline and Bill Johnson, both Republicans voted no) 10 days ago.
Since then, H.883 has bounced back and forth between House Appropriations, which has to approve funding for the transition costs, and House Education, which got another bite at the apple last week, and spent several days tweaking the House Ways and Means language. The new version of the legislation extends the deadlines for the plan by a year. The preliminary plan would be due in April 2017 and the final draft would be submitted by January 2018. The Legislature would be required to vote affirmatively to support the plan by July 1, 2017.
House Appropriations is expected to vote out H.883 on Tuesday; the bill is slated for the floor on Thursday and Friday.
Passage won’t be easy. The House Democratic leadership has been counting votes — of members from all three parties. That’s a sign that many Democrats are expected to break ranks.
Steve Dale, executive director of the Vermont School Boards Association, says his members have not taken a position on either version of the House bill. Dale says the consolidation plan is a “massive undertaking” that will require legal and financial support. He worries that the plan would not be “adequately resourced.”
Senate passage doubtful
If the bill passes the House, the Senate would have just two weeks to review the complex proposal. Senators say they do not have enough time to deliberate on the merits and flaws of H.883.
Sen. Tim Ashe, chair of Senate Finance, is floating a provision that would be added on to the property tax rate bill, H.889. A draft of the bill requires that supervisory unions act as a centralized administrative clearing house for local school districts. The provision requires that supervisory unions offer the following services to districts: supply and equipment purchasing and distribution, contract negotiations, administrative and business management, special education services, data management and transportation.
An early draft of the Senate’s version of H.889 also eliminates the excess spending threshold anchor to inflation and includes an expansion of preK education.
CORRECTION: The VSBA has taken no position on H.883. The article originally stated that the association didn’t support the bill.
24
« on: September 08, 2014, 12:20:00 PM »
Is there a transportation consolidation mandate and does it require compliance. What do Act 153 and 156 have to do with it?
I have found information. here is a brief bit. "Previous attempts to consolidate school districts have been a nonstarter. Act 153, passed in 2010, offers incentives for voluntary school district mergers. Act 156, passed last session, expands those incentives and makes them available for school mergers even in supervisory unions where some towns have opted out. But so far, neither has spurred consolidation in districts statewide."
25
« on: September 02, 2014, 08:07:39 AM »
Family Learning Support Systems
Do you need support for a meeting at your school?
Do you have questions about the Special Education process?
Are you and your child in need of an advocate?
Is your child in need of coaching or tutoring to improve her/his learning?
My services may be just what you need:
*certified Special Educator
*certified Guidance Counselor
*certified Special Education Coordinator
*more than 25 years of experience in education
Contact John Woodley, Family Learning Support Systems, 324-7456 or Jwoodo@aol.com with questions or for rates.
26
« on: June 01, 2014, 09:37:12 PM »
I'm just as involved with my own community. I do have an interest in the Fairfax schools and community. I know many great people in Fairfax and Fletcher. I'm curious about what you are saying about my interest?
27
« on: May 30, 2014, 08:04:19 AM »
I have to say that I am very impressed with the insights of Travis and Ohlman. Specifically Travis's comment about "the bloated budget that was never reviewed" and Ohlman pointing out that his questions could not be answered because "information" was not available at the time. hen one starts to piece all of these situations together it should raise questions in the minds of the taxpayers. Three budget proposals into the process and there is a "discovery" that 3 instructional assistants are not needed. Now you know why information is not available to answer questions. Frankly I am embarrassed for the individual who made this discovery. Most of the other cuts appear to have been budget padding. There is a reason why most of the administration is looking for jobs elsewhere....
28
« on: May 01, 2014, 12:41:41 PM »
I believe that the teachers are the glue that holds the school together. Whether they are paid too much is a question I would rather not address. However there are other factors that effect the cost of education and let me add that the school board negotiates with teachers around salary and benefits. The best way to get involved in those discussion is to run for the school board and get elected.
The current situation at the Burlington school district has nothing to do with teachers. The fact that the cost of education in Vermont is going up while the number of students goes down is not all attributable to teacher costs. The fact hat the local budget had another administrator included was not related to teacher costs. When the elementary principal announced her retirement in 2011-2012 there was a plan proposed to save money. The administrative responsibilities would be changed so that there would be a need for "3" administrators instead of the 3 there were in 2012-2113. The cost saving was from hiring an administrator with 0 experience and no administrative license. At the point of restructuring there was a plan to manage special education until the next budget plan (about 6 months give or take). At that point there "suddenly became a need for a special education administrator in the school, in spite of all the talk the previous year about the benefits of the administrative restructuring for the foreseeable future. This proposal came back again in the 2014-2015 budget. I leave it to the readers and the public to connect the dots as I am trying not to say too much.
Teachers are being asked to do more and more all the time. I believe this is typical of everyone out there. The main concern for all teachers is that all the extra work has little or nothing to do with the education and support of young people. What are the root causes of these increasing structural inefficiencies? I could offer 3 or 4 ideas but I will leave that for another time.
29
« on: April 28, 2014, 12:08:17 PM »
The notice of the meeting was posted on this forum on April 15, 2014.
30
« on: April 16, 2014, 01:28:38 PM »
The person working on the fields was the assistant principal. The very person who replaced the administrator that was dropped, except that no administrator was dropped. Now the assistant principal is paid to be outside working on fields, funding raising for her teams, coaching 2 teams after school and meeting with team members during the day. That's why there is a need for another administrator in the proposed budget.
|
Show Posts
