Update 2: So I have seen a message from President Liza Rankin on why she, Director Evan Briggs, and Director Michelle Sarju backed out of this meeting. In a nutshell: - She says there was no organization to the meeting which is just not true. They had a moderator lined up and naturally the board members could have set parameters for what to discuss, length of meeting, etc. All that was fleshed out. - She also claimed that if the meeting was PTA sponsored, they needed to have liability insurance to use the school space. Hello? PTAs use school space all the time and know they have to have this insurance. - She seems to be worried about the Open Public Meetings law. Look, if she has a meeting in a school building on a non-personnel topic, it should be an open meeting. It appears that Rankin is trying, over and over, to narrow the window of access that parents have to Board members. She even says in her message - "...with decisions made in public." Hmmm - She also says that th
Comments
It says "These levy funds are designed to:
- "Reduce the number and severity of state cuts to education."
- "Support our students and teachers in the classroom."
- "Fund new textbooks and classroom materials."
It also says:
"State cuts to K-12 funding have been dramatic - about $32 million in cuts to SPS over the past two years - and we anticipate a $28 million gap for next year. This levy will fund $25.5 million (asterisk - "approximate") over three years to help offset state cuts to instructional programs."
"The levy will partially fund the new teacher's contract (about $16.8 million [asterisk - assume this also means "approximate"] of the $19 million total cost) that will help SPS retain, develop and recruit excellent teachers. Levy dollars will support teacher mentoring, career ladder stipends, a 1 percent pay increase in 2012 and 2013, and a comprehensive evaluation system."
"The levy will also fund $5.9 million (asterisk - again, "approximate") in needed materials for elementary music, middle school language arts, and high school science and social studies."
There are two other generic paragraphs about the legislature authorizing the levy, and the per-$1000 of assessed home value the levy would cost.
So, according to the SEA site, there is only $14M of the levy available for discretionary spending. That means it could go for offsetting cuts to classrooms or it could go to anything HQ desires.
Now, why does the postcard say that the levy needs to pay for only $16.8M of the contract? Well that's because they anticipate that they can use a bit more than $2M of the TIF grant for the CBA items.
Therefore, the latest information says that out of $48M of the levy, they will only really be about $16M discretionary blank check funds.
Please note that the CBA implementation includes at least THREE new positions at HQ.
Wondered if the District is getting poised to hire Teach for America's teachers.
Right off the bat, I still wonder why we would need them and how we would pay for it.
They already have this list.
Lastly, Schools First has already violated FERPA once this year, so what's another violation to them?
I also got that postcard, wondered who paid for it and how accurate it was. I also wondered if it was appropriate for the school district to be engaged in political lobbying of this sort.
Did anyone else get a robocall from Maria(?) a few months ago, urging SPS parents to vote in the primary election?
I did, and I also found that a strange and political use of school district resources.
(At what point does this become an abuse of the robocall technology?! Is the district going to call us and tell us how to vote next?)
--sue p.
Ha ha ha! Just kidding. Accountability isn't for people like them.