|
Post by momto4 on Mar 15, 2010 10:00:16 GMT -5
Have any of you heard anything about music education cuts in the district? This morning I received an e-mail about proposed cuts that if true, is very concerning. I saw that there is a Facebook group set up about this as well.
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Mar 15, 2010 10:32:53 GMT -5
Here is what I received in an e-mail and what is also posted in the info section of the Save Quality Music Education in District 204 Facebook group. I have not yet verified this info and I do not know the creator of the group. ======================================= Spread the word: Please let people know that the rich offerings in music education in District 204 are in jeopardy. The programs that feed into Metea Valley, Waubonsie Valley and Neuqua Valley are being cut - significantly. Please read this Breaking News followed by what we’d like you to do. The music program in District 204 is facing unprecedented budget cuts. A large percentage of staff will be removed from mostly middle school programs throughout the district resulting in a staggering change to a program that has garnered attention for its dedication to music education. We have heard that up to 20 of the current music staff in District 204, mostly teachers of band and orchestra instruments, will be gone at the end of the current school year. What is the consequence of this? No individual instruction will be given at the middle school level. Students will ONLY meet in large groups. No one can deny that the State of Illinois and Indian Prairie School District 204 are facing challenging financial times. It’s true and difficult decisions must be made. But never in the history of our school district have such targeted cuts been proposed to severely impact ONE program - especially one of the most successful programs in the nation for music education. To remove teachers at the lower levels will, in a short time, have a negative impact on Metea Valley, Waubonsie Valley and Neuqua Valley High Schools. In the past when cuts have been made they seem to have been proportionate; everyone feels some pain but in this case, the music program is being completely altered by this decision. Individual instruction in the younger grade levels is the foundation of the program. It is illogical to cut the “key component” that teaches the important skills needed for competency and future success. We know if they take away this part of the program it will be extremely difficult to reinstate in the future. Our message to the Administration and School Board is this: There must be another solution. Our music program is too precious to dismantle. Ask the administrators of our district and school board members to defend their decision to essentially “gut” the music program. Ask them how they could target something that works so well. Ask administrators and board members to go back to the drawing board. We are certain that together with the music teachers that they will come up with ideas that maintain the structure of the solid music program we have come to expect. Ask: “WHY”? Here’s how you can take ACTION: Contact Superintendent, Kathryn Birkett and our School Board members. Let them know why you think this program is beneficial for students and should be maintained. Cuts do not have to be this drastic. Please share positive anecdotes. Keep all correspondence civil and respectful. If you are a parent, student, alumni, or just plain someone who enjoys music, please take ACTION. Action: Call or email Kathryn Birkett, Superintendent, about these stunning cuts. Call 630.375-3010 or write kathryn_birkett@ipsd.org Action: Contact School Board members. Here are their email addresses: Board President: curt_bradshaw@ipsd.org susan_rasmus@ipsd.org cathy_piehl@ipsd.org mark_metzger@ipsd.org dawn_desart@ipsd.org chris_vickers@ipsd.org alka_tyle@ipsd.org You can also call board members at the main office number: 630-375-3000. Action: Contact the principal of your school. Visit www.ipsd.org to find their contact information. Ask how the cuts will affect your child’s school. Share you opinion about the proposed changes. Action: Send a note via US MAIL to the Superintendent and School Board members. The Central Office address is: Indian Prairie District 204 780 Shoreline Drive Aurora, IL 60504 Action: Attend the School Board meeting on Monday, March 22 at 7pm when the budget, which includes these drastic cuts, will be presented for 2010-2011. Let’s “PACK THE PLACE” like they do sporting events! Media Action: Write a letter to the editor of local and metropolitan newspapers. The Naperville Sun P.O. Box 4830 Naperville, IL 60567 www.napersun.com The Daily Herald 4300 Commerce Court Lisle, IL 60532 fencepost@dailyherald.com The Chicago Tribune – Chicagoland Extra Section 435 N. Michigan Avenue Chicago, IL 60611 ctc-tribletter@tribune.com The Chicago Sun-Times 350 N. Orleans St, 10th floor Chicago, IL 60654 www.suntimes.com Media Action: Radio host, Steve Cochran @ WGN Radio is a District 204 resident www.wgnradio.com/about/contactus/email/weekday/ WGN TV Weatherman, Paul Konrad was a music student in District 204 pkonrad@tribune.com Media Action: Call WGN TV to request TV coverage of the School Board meeting on March 22. 773-528-2311 WGN Television 2501 West Bradley Place Chicago, Illinois 60618-4718 Action: Circulate a PETITION to Save Quality Music Education in District 204. Present it to the School Board at their meeting on Monday, March 22, 2010. Action: Speak to the board on March 22nd. You must sign in before the Board meeting for the PUBLIC COMMENT segment of the meeting, which is at the end of the board agenda each week. Special note to: Parents: Contact the 204 Administration and School Board to share your positive experiences with instrumental music education. There are parents who CHOSE District 204 because of the positive reputation of the music program; we need to hear from YOU. Spread the word. Current Students: Contact the 204 Administration and School Board to tell them why you have chosen to be involved in music. Spread the word. Music Alumni: Contact the 204 Administration and School Board to share positive anecdotes about your involvement in instrumental music. Spread the word. Grandparents, Aunts, Uncles, Siblings, etc: Contact the 204 Administration and School Board to share how your grandchild, niece, nephew, sister or brother has benefited from playing an instrument. Spread the word. Music Educator: Contact the 204 Administration and School Board to share how the music program in District 204 has been a positive influence on other music educators in Illinois and around the nation. Spread the word. Action: Forward information: If you do not feel comfortable responding to a call for action, please forward this to others who may want to share their feelings about the positive impact of music education and the consequences of the pending cuts to the program. Action: Forward information: If you do not feel comfortable responding to a call for action, please forward this to others who may want to share their feelings about the positive impact of music education and the consequences of the pending cuts to the program. Action: Contact your elected officials about the lack of education funding in the State of Illinois! Contact your elected officials about the lack of education funding in the State of Illinois!
|
|
|
Post by warriormom on Mar 15, 2010 12:35:04 GMT -5
This is the first I have heard about specific music cuts.
This is unfortunate and makes me all the more angry that through all of this our Superintendant and other admin. staff will only have a pay "freeze".
They need to feel the pain of what this district will feel as the result of a runaway government who overspends!! We should demand at least a 10% pay cut for all administration!
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Mar 15, 2010 12:40:03 GMT -5
Here is what I have heard back from a reliable source. =========================================== It is true that the administration is proposing to reducing teacher headcounts in music, as they are doing elsewhere. The number 20 is certainly incorrect. One early number talked about was 19, but the end number was less based on retirements and people moving.
The core of what the administration is proposing is to stop in-day technique classes at the middle school. It's certainly not ideal, but it's hardly "gutting" the program. They will also be proposing to offer technique in before and after school timeslots on a fee basis. There's really very little changing at the elementary level, except that the schedules of the elementary band and orchestra staff are being tightened up and they're being assigned to more buildings each (each person doing more, thus requiring less staff). The only significant change at that level will be that at two elementary buildings, band or orchestra will take place during the day instead of before school (it was the only way to make the schedule work out correctly).
When the state reverses 40 years of holding even or increasing its funding (by imposing a substantial reduction in state funding), drastic measures are required. We're happy that we haven't needed to take the approach that several area districts have taken, which is to eliminate 5th grade band and orchestra. We felt that was too drastic.
Administration also met with the leaders of the music staff and gave them their plan for a 19 job reduction and how they intended to make that work. The leaders were given the opportunity to reshuffle the administration's plan in a manner they felt would be more workable. All they gave back was a plan for reducing the staff by 10. That's wasn't enough.
Lastly, I would encourage you to think about this in an overall sense, not a line item sense. Every dollar we protect in music has to come from somewhere else. At what cost are we, as a community, willing to keep music at its current level? The administration's plan is already to let class sizes grow to 31. Is the community willing to live with class sizes of 33 or more to maintain music at its current level? My guess is that the non-music parents won't support that. We could increase the probable stipend cuts in athletics beyond the rather significant levels that are already on the table (the public hasn't seen those yet), but like the 5th grade band and orchestra idea, that was deemed a little too drastic. With the sort of programmatic cuts we're looking at having to make, it's not realistic to expect that music would go untouched. The administration believes that it has identified the least damaging way to affect music in a world in which everything needs to get reduced to some extent.
Will this hurt music? Without a doubt. But everything else is getting hurt as well and our job must be to balance that impact of what's taking place. We're trying, as much as possible, to not eliminate opportunities for children. Instead, we are trying to either reduce things a bit or make them somewhat more self-sustaining (i.e., fees increases). We found that more attractive than outright elimination of opportunities.
One item of perspective: We took $6.5 million out of this year's budget last year, in order to ensure we'd remain in balance. In the first half of the current year, we worked to take $9.5 million out of next year's budget for the same reason. We were able to do both of those without significantly affecting the students. We now need to take $12-16 million MORE out of next year's budget. With 82% of the budget being teachers (the removal of whom obviously affects students directly), we are no longer in a place where there are easy things to do to avoid having an impact on the program. And what that also means is that we're now at a place that unless we start reducing teacher head counts, we can't make the budget work.
One complicating legal item: State law requires us to give notice to any teacher for whom we might not have a job next year, and to give that notice no later than 60 days before the end of the school year. That deadline date is rapidly approaching. That's why this action needs to be taken now.
I completely understand the pride and the passion that is generated with the music program. But seeing the budget in a global sense, I also recognize that there is a limit to what can be done to "save music" as the email calls upon people to do. And I can't help but think that the energy and emotion being generated here would be much better directed at the General Assembly, which has the ability to prioritize things in a way that education need not be negatively impacted. It's ridiculous to cut money being spent on children while maintaining spending to support fish and wildlife programs.
This problem has no good local solution because it's not a local problem. The problem was the state failing to properly prioritize (largely because they're testing the water for a tax increase). Consider that the Governor's budget calls for a $2.3 billion reduction in state expenditures next year, of which education is $1.3 billion. That's ridiculous. The House Republican leadership has already told the Superintendents that a 5-10% cut everywhere else in the state budget would allow education and the human services budget to be at the same level next year as was the case this year. This is simply a game of politics being played with the state's children.
All of that tells me that the energy local music supporters are mustering and expending to stop the district from implementing this plan would be better spent addressing the problem at its source.
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Mar 15, 2010 13:12:40 GMT -5
Other cost-cutting ideas that have been proposed are cutting JV and B teams and/or implementing pay to play for sports. See article about Batavia www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=365919The cost cuts do have to come from somewhere, and the places that have the least impact on academics make the most sense but I hate to see any of this happen.
|
|
doc
Frosh
Posts: 0
|
Post by doc on Mar 15, 2010 13:58:53 GMT -5
How long will people pretend and continue to ignore that this IS NOT only a state issue. Yes the funding changes have hurt- yes, the late payment are hurting as well, but 204 was going to be in the RED anyway - their own fact sheets showed everyone that. Yes the state funding is the larger of the impacts, but far far from the only reason we are all screwed. -- I get nauseous reading quotes from our super about how we're not spending here- wait a darn minute, What about $150M for a ref that only approved $124M for an unneeded HS ? And just to skip over the needed vs unneeded for those who still think we''re somehow growing -what about the $3M or so in additional operating costs for a school that will NEVER- repeat NEVER be utilized as it was built. ? What about transportation cost differentials ? What about $17M in extra costs - legally maybe, but under the table from taxpayers for rates on initial bond issues- not counted as MVHS cost ? What about $5Mto $10M in expedite costs? What about implementing ADK KNOWING full well t realies on state funds that have been in jeopardy for years ?
There's well over $20-$25M that should still be here - and is now exasperating the situation and costing people jobs, and the kids here full educations.
Nice job SB and SD - in bringing this district to it's knees, yet still having snowed enough people who I know are intelligent enough to know better, but ignore these facts because a shiny new school sits in the north.
what will it take to admit that we have spent ourselves into this mess as well ? Part of the blame lies right here in leadership. How many more jobs- how many more program cuts ?
|
|
Arwen
Master Member
Posts: 933
|
Post by Arwen on Mar 15, 2010 14:37:31 GMT -5
How long will people pretend and continue to ignore that this IS NOT only a state issue. Yes the funding changes have hurt- yes, the late payment are hurting as well, but 204 was going to be in the RED anyway - their own fact sheets showed everyone that. Yes the state funding is the larger of the impacts, but far far from the only reason we are all screwed. -- I get nauseous reading quotes from our super about how we're not spending here- wait a darn minute, What about $150M for a ref that only approved $124M for an unneeded HS ? And just to skip over the needed vs unneeded for those who still think we''re somehow growing -what about the $3M or so in additional operating costs for a school that will NEVER- repeat NEVER be utilized as it was built. ? What about transportation cost differentials ? What about $17M in extra costs - legally maybe, but under the table from taxpayers for rates on initial bond issues- not counted as MVHS cost ? What about $5Mto $10M in expedite costs? What about implementing ADK KNOWING full well t realies on state funds that have been in jeopardy for years ? There's well over $20-$25M that should still be here - and is now exasperating the situation and costing people jobs, and the kids here full educations. Nice job SB and SD - in bringing this district to it's knees, yet still having snowed enough people who I know are intelligent enough to know better, but ignore these facts because a shiny new school sits in the north. what will it take to admit that we have spent ourselves into this mess as well ? Part of the blame lies right here in leadership. How many more jobs- how many more program cuts ? If we as a district hadn't voted for the referendum to build MV, the district wouldn't suddenly be in the black and able to accomodate the millions of dollars in cuts to state funding. To say this is the fault of the SB is unfair IMO. Programs are under the gun in most of our neighboring districts, and many students are being impacted much more negatively than ours. Plainfield, Batavia, Oswego, Kaneland and the Chicago Public Schools to name just a few have all been in the news for the cuts they've had to make. Is our SB responsible for their financial woes too? I place the blame squarely where it belongs, at the feet of the elected officials in Springfield. Not a one of them will get my vote for re-election in November. Back to the topic at hand, I am sad to hear about the proposed cuts to the music programs, but the alternative areas to hit are equally unappealling. Sports? PE? Art? Librarians? Special Needs Aides? Reading Interventionists? Project Arrow? I wouldn't like to see cuts in any of these areas. Each one has big benefits for some students. While my kid may not need/want each one, they are all truly important programs for the kids that do use them. I just have to say that I hope the teachers agree to a contract with no raises. If we are cutting programs left and right, they will lose a lot of support if it goes down any other way. I would like to see the district offer/encourage early retirement to the teachers earning more than $100K too. We could staff 2 classrooms for the price of each of them.
|
|
doc
Frosh
Posts: 0
|
Post by doc on Mar 15, 2010 17:41:11 GMT -5
How long will people pretend and continue to ignore that this IS NOT only a state issue. Yes the funding changes have hurt- yes, the late payment are hurting as well, but 204 was going to be in the RED anyway - their own fact sheets showed everyone that. Yes the state funding is the larger of the impacts, but far far from the only reason we are all screwed. -- I get nauseous reading quotes from our super about how we're not spending here- wait a darn minute, What about $150M for a ref that only approved $124M for an unneeded HS ? And just to skip over the needed vs unneeded for those who still think we''re somehow growing -what about the $3M or so in additional operating costs for a school that will NEVER- repeat NEVER be utilized as it was built. ? What about transportation cost differentials ? What about $17M in extra costs - legally maybe, but under the table from taxpayers for rates on initial bond issues- not counted as MVHS cost ? What about $5Mto $10M in expedite costs? What about implementing ADK KNOWING full well t realies on state funds that have been in jeopardy for years ? There's well over $20-$25M that should still be here - and is now exasperating the situation and costing people jobs, and the kids here full educations. Nice job SB and SD - in bringing this district to it's knees, yet still having snowed enough people who I know are intelligent enough to know better, but ignore these facts because a shiny new school sits in the north. what will it take to admit that we have spent ourselves into this mess as well ? Part of the blame lies right here in leadership. How many more jobs- how many more program cuts ? If we as a district hadn't voted for the referendum to build MV, the district wouldn't suddenly be in the black and able to accomodate the millions of dollars in cuts to state funding. To say this is the fault of the SB is unfair IMO. Programs are under the gun in most of our neighboring districts, and many students are being impacted much more negatively than ours. Plainfield, Batavia, Oswego, Kaneland and the Chicago Public Schools to name just a few have all been in the news for the cuts they've had to make. Is our SB responsible for their financial woes too? I place the blame squarely where it belongs, at the feet of the elected officials in Springfield. Not a one of them will get my vote for re-election in November. Back to the topic at hand, I am sad to hear about the proposed cuts to the music programs, but the alternative areas to hit are equally unappealling. Sports? PE? Art? Librarians? Special Needs Aides? Reading Interventionists? Project Arrow? I wouldn't like to see cuts in any of these areas. Each one has big benefits for some students. While my kid may not need/want each one, they are all truly important programs for the kids that do use them. I just have to say that I hope the teachers agree to a contract with no raises. If we are cutting programs left and right, they will lose a lot of support if it goes down any other way. I would like to see the district offer/encourage early retirement to the teachers earning more than $100K too. We could staff 2 classrooms for the price of each of them. really- that's the best you got ? Is our SB to blame for others woes too-? how childish in the face of a crisis, trying to deflect the real issue here- 204. tell me which of these statements is false: 1/ we added approx $3M in operating expenses for MV 2/ We added some unknown amount for transportation but even FOIA won't break that loose 3/ we spent $17M to secure favorable bond interest - taken from Ops funds and NEVER accounted for in the cost of MVHS 4/ We spent untold Millions more in operating costs to expedite such school- again still not accounted for because we're still pouring money into the final cost 5/ we sold a ref based on a total FUD number of 10,400 HS students- soon to be 11,000 + in the NIU report yet when we started freshman centers a good number of people said 8800-8900 max. Who was right ? oh and total SD population down 2%-3% every year for the last 3 years. 6/ The SB knew the exact number BEFORE they spent one dime on MVHS 7/ we overbuilt and soon we will be consolidating 8/ we spent $20M+ more than the referendum on MVHS because we chose not to include all the financing costs in the total - so people approved $124M and we will spend $150M - glad you're OK with that, many are not, and as more find out, they will not be either. 9/ we started ADK which relies on state funding to put us more in the black - yet by all the outcry supposedly we knew the state did not have the funds. Writing checks from a bankrupt checking account is really not a good thing. Why not try and answer some of these instead of avoiding them. Guess what the problem is not going away this time, and all the spin from our SB-SD and their minions will not make it go away. A perfect storm has occurred. Who made all the above decisions ? The group in Springfield- nope they were all made right here. Yes, the state funding, both the way it is done and the late payments has had a severe effect on everyone, that is duly acknowledged. No one is defending Springfield - but to blame then 100% is just silly or naive or both. Time and again I kept hearing about how good we were with our money - until that is we HAD to had the northern HS- then all common sense went out the window. So what I am saying is that we would have been impacted much less than today had they not done the things above- and today those decisions are costing jobs and programs that we likely would have been able to save- can't wait to hear your answer to them if you're going to try and have a real discussion stick to 204 - isn't that what matters most. To me hearing someone is worse off doesn't make me feel one little bit better... we were in much better shape than most to start with - the fact we threw it away is what bothers me.
|
|
|
Post by grounded on Mar 15, 2010 19:43:48 GMT -5
Doc,
Congratulations, you prompted me to join this board. Are you mad that more people won't jump on your bandwagon? Go back to blue and be blue.
If you truly think you can persuade anyone to think that your posts are altruistically for the good of 204, then go back and re-read them. Every one of them speaks to a spoiled child that didn't get there way. (school). No one could have predicted the depth of this recession, and regardless, the majority of the D204 residents voted for a 3rd high school. Which, by the way if one fine building.
|
|
|
Post by brant on Mar 15, 2010 20:12:38 GMT -5
Doc, Congratulations, you prompted me to join this board. Are you mad that more people won't jump on your bandwagon? Go back to blue and be blue. If you truly think you can persuade anyone to think that your posts are altruistically for the good of 204, then go back and re-read them. Every one of them speaks to a spoiled child that didn't get there way. (school). No one could have predicted the depth of this recession, and regardless, the majority of the D204 residents voted for a 3rd high school. Which, by the way if one fine building. The majority of D204 voters (88%) didn't give a d**n enough to vote. With all of the cuts, school closings and layoffs as well as the SD tearing itself apart the last two years, ask yourself if MV was really worth it. You may have your new HS but not the way you expected.
|
|
Arwen
Master Member
Posts: 933
|
Post by Arwen on Mar 15, 2010 20:48:10 GMT -5
The majority of D204 voters (88%) didn't give a d**n enough to vote. With all of the cuts, school closings and layoffs as well as the SD tearing itself apart the last two years, ask yourself if MV was really worth it. You may have your new HS but not the way you expected. If we didn't have a 3rd HS, we'd still be facing cuts. Transportation costs could be higher now than they would have been at BB (not sure this is true, but suppose it is), but they aren't higher than they were with 2 high schools and double buses for all routes due to the freshman campuses. Without a 3rd HS, we'd have had to build a MS to address overcrowding there. Granted, the operational costs would have been lesser than with a 3rd HS, but they would not have been negligible. We'd have needed a similar number of teachers under either scenario, and that is where our big costs come from. IIRC, the construction funds came from a referendum that couldn't be used for operational costs, so the cost differential between a HS and a MS couldn't be used to make up for the drastic cuts in state funding all Illinois schools are facing. Our property taxes would be lower in the long term, which would be fantastic, but it is not what won out in the election regardless of how many people showed up to vote. As far as school closings go, I've seen no mention of potential school closings by KB or the SB in response to the budget crisis. Why the fear mongering? The realities of increased class sizes, teacher layoffs and programs cuts are distressing enough without adding unfounded rumors to the list.
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Mar 15, 2010 23:26:53 GMT -5
1/ we added approx $3M in operating expenses for MV true...but we voted for it.2/ We added some unknown amount for transportation but even FOIA won't break that loose might be true maybe not....3/ we spent $17M to secure favorable bond interest - taken from Ops funds and NEVER accounted for in the cost of MVHS something illegal here?4/ We spent untold Millions more in operating costs to expedite such school- again still not accounted for because we're still pouring money into the final cost $'s used were from the savings (eola vs. BB)5/ we sold a ref based on a total FUD number of 10,400 HS students- soon to be 11,000 + in the NIU report yet when we started freshman centers a good number of people said 8800-8900 max. Who was right ? there are a lot more factors involved than just enrollment...I think some SD members acknowledged that 8900 was possible thoughoh and total SD population down 2%-3% every year for the last 3 years. 6/ The SB knew the exact number BEFORE they spent one dime on MVHS SD was granting the wishes of the voting public.7/ we overbuilt and soon we will be consolidating you know something we don't?8/ we spent $20M+ more than the referendum on MVHS because we chose not to include all the financing costs in the total - so people approved $124M and we will spend $150M - glad you're OK with that, many are not, and as more find out, they will not be either. And then what? addresed above9/ we started ADK which relies on state funding to put us more in the black - yet by all the outcry supposedly we knew the state did not have the funds. Writing checks from a bankrupt checking account is really not a good thing. ADK is a good program but I would have no problem if they pulled it back because of lack of funding. but when you get paid out every year based on several different criteria, You earmark those dollars to benefit the students. pretty simple
|
|
|
Post by steckdad on Mar 15, 2010 23:34:20 GMT -5
Here is what I have heard back from a reliable source. =========================================== It is true that the administration is proposing to reducing teacher headcounts in music, as they are doing elsewhere. The number 20 is certainly incorrect. One early number talked about was 19, but the end number was less based on retirements and people moving. The core of what the administration is proposing is to stop in-day technique classes at the middle school. It's certainly not ideal, but it's hardly "gutting" the program. They will also be proposing to offer technique in before and after school timeslots on a fee basis. There's really very little changing at the elementary level, except that the schedules of the elementary band and orchestra staff are being tightened up and they're being assigned to more buildings each (each person doing more, thus requiring less staff). The only significant change at that level will be that at two elementary buildings, band or orchestra will take place during the day instead of before school (it was the only way to make the schedule work out correctly). When the state reverses 40 years of holding even or increasing its funding (by imposing a substantial reduction in state funding), drastic measures are required. We're happy that we haven't needed to take the approach that several area districts have taken, which is to eliminate 5th grade band and orchestra. We felt that was too drastic. Administration also met with the leaders of the music staff and gave them their plan for a 19 job reduction and how they intended to make that work. The leaders were given the opportunity to reshuffle the administration's plan in a manner they felt would be more workable. All they gave back was a plan for reducing the staff by 10. That's wasn't enough. Lastly, I would encourage you to think about this in an overall sense, not a line item sense. Every dollar we protect in music has to come from somewhere else. At what cost are we, as a community, willing to keep music at its current level? The administration's plan is already to let class sizes grow to 31. Is the community willing to live with class sizes of 33 or more to maintain music at its current level? My guess is that the non-music parents won't support that. We could increase the probable stipend cuts in athletics beyond the rather significant levels that are already on the table (the public hasn't seen those yet), but like the 5th grade band and orchestra idea, that was deemed a little too drastic. With the sort of programmatic cuts we're looking at having to make, it's not realistic to expect that music would go untouched. The administration believes that it has identified the least damaging way to affect music in a world in which everything needs to get reduced to some extent. Will this hurt music? Without a doubt. But everything else is getting hurt as well and our job must be to balance that impact of what's taking place. We're trying, as much as possible, to not eliminate opportunities for children. Instead, we are trying to either reduce things a bit or make them somewhat more self-sustaining (i.e., fees increases). We found that more attractive than outright elimination of opportunities. One item of perspective: We took $6.5 million out of this year's budget last year, in order to ensure we'd remain in balance. In the first half of the current year, we worked to take $9.5 million out of next year's budget for the same reason. We were able to do both of those without significantly affecting the students. We now need to take $12-16 million MORE out of next year's budget. With 82% of the budget being teachers (the removal of whom obviously affects students directly), we are no longer in a place where there are easy things to do to avoid having an impact on the program. And what that also means is that we're now at a place that unless we start reducing teacher head counts, we can't make the budget work. One complicating legal item: State law requires us to give notice to any teacher for whom we might not have a job next year, and to give that notice no later than 60 days before the end of the school year. That deadline date is rapidly approaching. That's why this action needs to be taken now. I completely understand the pride and the passion that is generated with the music program. But seeing the budget in a global sense, I also recognize that there is a limit to what can be done to "save music" as the email calls upon people to do. And I can't help but think that the energy and emotion being generated here would be much better directed at the General Assembly, which has the ability to prioritize things in a way that education need not be negatively impacted. It's ridiculous to cut money being spent on children while maintaining spending to support fish and wildlife programs. This problem has no good local solution because it's not a local problem. The problem was the state failing to properly prioritize (largely because they're testing the water for a tax increase). Consider that the Governor's budget calls for a $2.3 billion reduction in state expenditures next year, of which education is $1.3 billion. That's ridiculous. The House Republican leadership has already told the Superintendents that a 5-10% cut everywhere else in the state budget would allow education and the human services budget to be at the same level next year as was the case this year. This is simply a game of politics being played with the state's children. All of that tells me that the energy local music supporters are mustering and expending to stop the district from implementing this plan would be better spent addressing the problem at its source. great post MT4
|
|
|
Post by mom24 on Mar 16, 2010 7:07:05 GMT -5
Elgin SD U46 SB met last night and this AM they announced their cuts. One was to eliminate art, music and PE from Kindergarten. Personally, I think ADK should be eliminated. We couldn't afford it in the first place. We relied on $ from the state and went ahead and implemented before we had the $. We can thank Dr. D for that one. Sorry for those older K students, had one myself, but as a SD we have to think of the whole not just a handful.
|
|
Arwen
Master Member
Posts: 933
|
Post by Arwen on Mar 16, 2010 11:20:55 GMT -5
Elgin SD U46 SB met last night and this AM they announced their cuts. One was to eliminate art, music and PE from Kindergarten. Personally, I think ADK should be eliminated. We couldn't afford it in the first place. We relied on $ from the state and went ahead and implemented before we had the $. We can thank Dr. D for that one. Sorry for those older K students, had one myself, but as a SD we have to think of the whole not just a handful. I agree with you. I think we should roll it back, charge tuition like Batavia is doing and/or make more half day classrooms around the district so more parents see it as a viable option.
|
|