Frank Smith Says NB: Budget Season: New Britain Schools Poised To Lose Big - Courant.com

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Budget Season: New Britain Schools Poised To Lose Big - Courant.com

25 comments:

Anonymous said...: With a student to teacher ratio of about 8 students, I guess with the loss of 80 teachers this ratio might go all the way up to 10 students per teacher?

Who would even notice?; February 2, 2011 at 1:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Teacher to student is not that simple. You cannot just take the total school population and divide that by the number of school employees. Only SIMPLE minded people could use that comparison.

There are secretaries, custodians,administrators, special classes that are (by law) limited to the number of students. There are special education that are required one to one help.

So please wake UP SO SMELL THE ROSES.; February 2, 2011 at 1:25 PM
Lou Salvio said...: Mrs. Beloin-Saavedra said in the Courant article that she understands that the NB taxpayers cannot should the burden for the increasing costs of education. Does the teachers' union undewrstand it as well? Do our state legislators understand it as well?
Governor Malloy has said that he will not bond for operating expenses; nor should the City of NB.

Last year, the NB Common Council's Annual Public Hearing on the City Budget was dominated by NB teachers trying to save thier positions. Only six of the over 40 people that spoke, talked about the general city budget. Many of the teachers that spoke were not city residents.
The same thing was true for a discussion that was supposed to be between the Common Council and the BOE.
If the bad weather we are having ever breaks, the city's Finance Board will meet with all major departments and then make budget recommendations to the Mayor.

Mrs. Beloin-Saavedra also said that even with the
$4 million there will be at least 80 layoffs.

We as a city are going to have to make some choices. Every cut will hurt someone/some program.; February 2, 2011 at 2:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Exactly how many principals, assistant principals, central administrators are there? If there are forty to fifty making well into six figure salaries, how about starting there?

Does the BOE have the guts to lay off the lousy teachers that they know we have because Kurtz hired them instead of the young good teachers?; February 2, 2011 at 2:25 PM
Nicholas D. Mercier said...: To the first anonymous:

I have repeatedly pointed out why that calculation is 100% false. Yet people (or perhaps the same person) insists on making the same mistake again and again and again. Please get some facts before you speak, otherwise you end up looking like just a clown.; February 2, 2011 at 4:22 PM
The Clown said...: Mr. Mercier you are correct. My math was a little off probably because it was based on the old numbers before the previous layoffs when they did have 900 teachers. Now, instead of 8 students per class, you actually have 14 as evidenced by the Board of Ed's own annual report:

According to the school district's annual report, the New Britain Consolidated School District has an enrollment of 10,000 students and employs 1,400 employees, of which only 700 are certified teachers. By their own numbers that is a student teacher ratio of 14 students per class room.

If you subtract 80 more teachers, that will leave 620 teachers for the same 10,000 students so the student teacher ratio rises to 16 students per class room.

This report leaves me with an even bigger question:

The School Board brags that they employ 1,400 employees, but only 700 teach. What do the other 700 employees do?

Now who is the Clown?; February 2, 2011 at 4:40 PM
Aunt Sally said...: 700 support staff for 700 teachers.

Sounds a little lop sided to me.; February 2, 2011 at 5:55 PM
Anonymous said...: YOU ARE THE CLOWN !!!!

I would like to be shown where the disrrict employs 1400 people.

After 796 tteachers it would really be stretdhing the imagintion to come up with`1400.; February 2, 2011 at 6:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said:
I would like to be shown where the disrrict employs 1400 people.

HEY CLOWN, CAN YOU READ OR ARE YOU A GRADUATE OF AN INFERIOR SUBSTANDARD UNION PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM AND MOST LIKELY A DEMOCRAT TOO:

Go to the School District's own web site:

http://www.csdnb.org/#about

"The Consolidated School District of New Britain currently has 14 schools, enrolls over 10,000 students and has 1,400 employees including over 700 certified teachers. It is now in its 128th year as a Consolidated School District."

THEIR WEB SITE BOASTS ABOUT HAVING 1,400 EMPLOYEES AND ONLY 700 TEACHERS!

I guess Dr. Kurtz thinks it is something to be proud about only having 50% of her staff involved in teaching!; February 2, 2011 at 6:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Is it possible that they employ "rubber rooms" (teacher reassignment centers) like in NYC, where 100's of teachers who can't be allowed near students sit and look out the window and get paid for it, because they are in the union and can never be fired no matter what they did?; February 2, 2011 at 6:50 PM
Anonymous said...: they must need 700 people to make coffee?; February 2, 2011 at 6:54 PM
J.M. said...: That would seem to go back to poor leadership when half the budget is going towards administrative type jobs that have nothing to do with teaching.

Maybe that is where the cuts need to be made?; February 2, 2011 at 7:27 PM
Nicholas D. Mercier said...: To the Clown:

Here is your flawed logic. Students are not merely divided among teachers like that. I have repeatedly pointed out that there are special education teachers, arts teachers, reading teachers (who are certified teachers serving as support staff), ELL teachers, physical education teachers, and a host of other teachers.

Teachers have release time for planning periods, during which those students are serviced by another teacher (typically an art, physical education, music, or library/media/technology teacher in elementary - in the high school they use the class rotations). Same thing goes when teachers have their lunch break.

Your math is correct, but the logic behind your math is pure fantasy. It is like saying a company employs 10 managers and 1000 employees therefore each manager has 100 employees they manage.

And to the people balking at 700 hundred support staff, keep in mind that includes custodians, secretaries, security guards, teacher aids, hall monitors, all the departments at the downtown office, they probably also counted the lunchroom employees, who knows if they put bus drivers and crossing guards in that count, etc. It adds up quickly when you are trying to run over a dozen buildings.

I'm going to assume that First Anonymous AKA Clown is either the thickest person I've met or is just making inciting remarks he or she knows are incorrect. If you honest still think your math is correct respond with your actual name and I will gladly go over the teacher roster line by line and explain to you where your mistake is. But unless that happens I'm done spending my time on your idiocy.; February 2, 2011 at 8:25 PM
Anonymous said...: Many of you commenting should actually go to a BOE meeting and ask some of these questions yourself so that you'd know the answers.

Hundreds of the 1,400 employees are paraprofessionals assigned to special education students. By law, the district must provide these services. There are also hundreds of other workers who fall into the categories of custodians, secretaries, maintenance workers, and technology support staff.

Yes, there are dozens of administrators as well, although the schools are by no means overstaffed with them. In 2008-09, NBHS had 5 administrators for 3,000 students, a ratio of 600-1. However, in suburban districts such as Newington, Simsbury, Cheshire, and West Hartford, high schools had 4 administrators for 1,500 students, a ratio of 375-1. Southington also has 5 administrators, and they only had 2,100 students, a ratio of 420-1.

If there are too many administrators, they are housed in central office. Even then, it is common practice for EVERY district in the state to have two assistant superintendents (one for business and one for instruction), as well as people paid to develop curriculum (even though the state mandates what the curriculum guidelines are, and really, it shouldn't very from one town to another). Every district in the state could save hundreds of thousands of dollars in redundancies such as this if the state simply wrote the curriculum and stopped forcing each district to reinvent the wheel.

In regards to the student-teacher ratio, over 100 are special area teachers, such as music, art, PE, librarians, computer instructors, wood-shop, etcetera. They are not academic classroom teachers, and cannot be counted as such when determining ratios in class sizes, especially at the elementary level. If 5 of your 25 teachers at an elementary school with 500 students are not classroom teachers, you get a ratio of 25-1, not 20-1.

Special education teachers (of which there are dozens, if not close to 100) also cannot be included in a regular student-teacher ratio count because of the nature of their work. Some float from classroom-to-classroom helping those with special needs only, some have special education students come to work with them in small groups or 1-on-1, and some teach in self-contained classrooms for those with autism or severe physical or mental handicaps. You might have one such teacher working in a classroom of 5 students because the attention these students require is many times greater than the average student. So while they do remove some students from the general population, it is not enough to decrease class sizes substantially.

The reality is that the average NB elementary school has 25-30 kids per classroom, and the middle and high schools 27-35 kids per classroom. Suburban schools, meanwhile, have class sizes in the 15-25 range.

I am not suggesting the city pay more, because I know we cannot afford it. However, we need to change the way schools are funded in this state, since a town like NB has far less property compared to the number of students it must pay to educate. West Hartford has a grand list that is double ours and 1,500 few students in their schools. We may be a big town population-wise, but we are tiny in area, and thus poor in property (not to mention all the state property that is taken off the grand list). A system funded by property taxes made sense 200 years ago when wealth was measured by one's property, but today it is measured by income.

We need to start working together as a community to force the state to make changes so that cities like NB don't continue to lose middle class families to the suburbs because of lack of resources.; February 2, 2011 at 10:10 PM
Anonymous said...: ANONYMOUS SAID: it is common practice for EVERY district in the state to have two assistant superintendents (one for business and one for instruction), as well as people paid to develop curriculum (even though the state mandates what the curriculum guidelines are, and really, it shouldn't very from one town to another). Every district in the state could save hundreds of thousands of dollars in redundancies such as this if the state simply wrote the curriculum and stopped forcing each district to reinvent the wheel.

REPLY:
It sounds like our legislature should be looking to copy the model school system in Texas, where the state not only determines the curriculum for every student in the entire state, but they also select and mandate which text books each class must use throughout the state. There is absolutely no difference in the curriculum offered in a class in Houston, Dallas, Austin, etc. because the state board of ed has made those decisions for you.

Perhaps we should be contacting Governor Perry to ask for his assistance in sharing their hugely successful plan with us.

Why not take an example from the winners for a change?; February 3, 2011 at 10:55 AM
Anonymous said...: I would like to see some of the numbers. If the "Special Ed" is such a major portion of the budget as I keep reading, then why don't we look into doing what so many other Connecticut towns have done and contract out these services to a private vendor.

There is even a long list of such private vendors already approved by the State Department of Education.

Once again, private solutions for public sector problems.; February 3, 2011 at 11:14 AM
Nicholas D. Mercier said...: "I would like to see some of the numbers. If the "Special Ed" is such a major portion of the budget as I keep reading, then why don't we look into doing what so many other Connecticut towns have done and contract out these services to a private vendor.

There is even a long list of such private vendors already approved by the State Department of Education.

Once again, private solutions for public sector problems."

Due to Federal Laws like IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) and other various state and federal regulations there is a limit as to how many students can be placed in an outservice. It is extremely difficult to do without parent conscent as well, even moving extremely distrubed children with a history of violence into a self contained classroom is an uphill battle if the parents wish for their child to be "mainstreamed".

In the past it was more common to have schools exclusively designed for special needs students, unfortunately many of these schools did not service the students well and acted as little more than holding pens. While some of theses institutions exist today in a new way (such as the ACES and CREC facilities or the BOSES in NY) they only take a limited number of students.

Most special needs students today spend a mixture of their time in special needs classrooms and regular instructional classrooms. So even if the severe students were sent to seperate institutions it could not be done for students whose IEPs called for a set amount of regular classroom instruction. Furthermore, many districts are unable to contract outside services to come in and service students within the district because of clauses in their contract with the teachers union prohibiting the hiring of non-unionized licensed teachers.

The legal landscape surrounding education, especially special education is very complex and mired in litigation. Some of the "quick fix" solutions have glaring roadblocks in the way once you start to actually try to implement them.; February 3, 2011 at 3:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Anon said: "I would like to see some of the numbers. If the "Special Ed" is such a major portion of the budget as I keep reading, then why don't we look into doing what so many other Connecticut towns have done and contract out these services to a private vendor."

These types of programs are actually MORE expensive than keeping the students in the district, since many of them require intensive programs with as many staff members as students. No doubt about it, the problems we face with funding are caused in large part by the unfunded mandates by the state and feds. Assistant Superintendent Ron Jackubowski has said in public that if the state fully funded special education mandates, this district would not have any funding deficiencies.; February 3, 2011 at 4:03 PM
Anonymous said...: How about following the example set by the State of Connecticut and eliminating every in-house custodian, replacing them with a contract maintenance company?

A few years ago, the State laid off hundreds of state janitors and simply contracted out each and every one of their jobs.

As far as I know, there is not one state employee involved in cleaning buildings anymore.

What's good for the goose...; February 3, 2011 at 6:28 PM
Nicholas D. Mercier said...: To Anonymous:
RE: contracting out cleaners

This is something that people could look into but again there are some wrinkles. I most public schools the janitors don't merely clean the schools. They are often involved in furniture movement, grounds maintenance (trust me, they've been working hard with this snow), and are also on site throughout the entire day to deal with problems you get in schools, leaky pipes, vomit, etc. While you might be able to contract out of the building cleaning duties you'd still potentially have a staffing issue.

Unlike the state buildings where the cleaning crew does mostly just that at the school level they double as maintenance. Now you could potentially lay off some of the janitors and create new building maintenance positions that operate in a different manner. You might even save some money that way, but to assume you would save massive amounts without looking into the details is iffy.; February 3, 2011 at 7:31 PM
Anonymous said...: To say that contract cleaners would not do things like clean vomit or shovel snow sounds like little more than union propaganda.

The state utilizes contractors to clean all state buildings, mow all their lawns, plow all their snow and do much of the physical maintenance of the buildings.

Also to say that contractors won't clean up vomit is false. A cleaning contractor does all the room changeovers between patients at the UCONN Health Center. The contract cleaners are responsible for cleaning up all vomit, urine, feces and blood spills.

UCONN is probably saving a fortune over paying unionized state employees to do these services (not to mention they contract out much of their nursing staff too).; February 3, 2011 at 8:11 PM
Anonymous said...: The Rowland Government Center in Waterbury is managed by a contract management company. Contract maintenance, security--not one state employee involved.

Sounds like the state really found a way to break the unions and run things responsibly!; February 3, 2011 at 9:04 PM
Nicholas D. Mercier said...: You misunderstood what I was saying. I am saying that unlike a business that contracts for their cleaning services and has a crew of janitors come in to do night/morning cleaning, contracting for a school position would be more difficult. You are talking about replacing full time staff with contracted staff that would have to be there full time.

You may even be able to find a company that contracts out cleaners, groundskeepers, movers, handmen, etc. But ultimately you are merely replacing full time union workers with full time contracted employees. You might see a savings, but the question is whether the savings worth the change. Especially since many contracting companies have a high turnover rate meaning new workers frequently having to relearn the ins and outs of the buildings.

Again - I am not saying it isn't something that could potentially be done. But until an actual plan is put forward that shows savings I would have to reserve judgement. And the state may contract out for all those services (snow removal, grounds keeping, etc.) but are they all serviced by the same bodies? In the schools the janitors do much of this work as one full time employee. If a school district had to contract out a groundskeeper, a custodian for daily/nightly cleaning, snow removal, and building maintenance you are then talking about 1 full time and several part time positions to replace one full time position. Again, it is a question of cost benefit analysis, and until real numbers are presented I wouldn't want to say that it would either cost less or more.; February 3, 2011 at 9:07 PM
Anonymous said...: What people seem to be missing is that by contracting out services, you then eliminate the expense the school board has to pay for the full load of benefits for employees such as: retirement plans, health insurance, paid sick, vacation and personal leave, unemployment compensation insurance, worker's compensation insurance, federal employment and social security taxes, just to name a few.; February 4, 2011 at 11:17 AM
Nicholas D. Mercier said...: Oh I understand where the savings can come from. However, the contracting company certainly takes these expenses into account when they make their contract, so the expenses don't just vanish. Whether or not it saves money depends in large part on what the contract cost is for the services need. My point is that to replace janitors you'd be contracting out several different types of services, not just cleaning/custodial.

Another benefit to contracting is you know what the cost (generally) will be. When you employ the people yourself then you get a mixed bag, some years are lower, some years are higher, depending on current wage rates, disability, etc. Again, not saying it couldn't save money. Just saying that to assume it would automatically save money is a bit unreasonable.; February 4, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)