If you ask the wrong question, you wind up with the wrong answer. The St. Louis County School District’s restructuring plan is a case in point.
From the beginning, the question was framed as a matter of how to save $5 million. The district’s financial consultants were projecting a $4 million budget deficit by 2011 if the district took no steps to reduce costs. At the same time, the consultants urged the district to seek an additional $1 million in savings to provide an extra cushion against unexpected cost increases.
So “Save $5 million” became the mission of the district's restructuring. At the same time, district officials assumed that changes in work rules, or holding the line on wages and benefits for senior employees, could not be part of the solution.
With the question framed in such a way, it was inevitable that communities, students, and less-senior district employees would be asked to make the sacrifices to protect the privileges and pay of senior staff.
So what if the question were framed differently? What if the district actually followed through on its commitment to develop a plan that was not only financially viable, but politically and socially acceptable? Here’s how the question could have been framed: “What changes do we need to make as a district to maintain as many of our small schools as possible?”
What's the difference? In the district’s current approach, it’s the communities, both residents, students, and local businesses, that are asked to suffer the consequences of school closings, along with less-senior district employees, many of whom will lose their jobs. Communities like Orr and Tower-Soudan are threatened with the loss of viability if the restructuring plan is approved as written. Cook also stands to lose in several important ways.
But frame the question in the alternative, and it is the district which bears the burden of making the changes needed to MAINTAIN schools, rather than close them. And before exploring that, let’s dismiss the idea that this is impossible, or that quality education can’t happen in very small schools. That’s total bunk.
Here is a true statement: every single one of the schools in ISD 2142, even Cotton, could run just fine as a charter school, with current enrollment figures. And if they employed more effective teaching models, like project-based learning, and used distance learning technologies to a greater degree than at present, they could provide exactly the kind of education our kids will need to thrive in a competitive 21st century world.
If a charter school can continue to educate the children in our communities, but a traditional public school can not, where does the fault lie? Certainly not with the communities being asked to bear the burden of this restructuring plan.
Our communities can sustain and even improve the schools we have right now. How? For one, get the district’s employees together and ask them the following question: Would those of you at the top of the pay scale be willing to accept a freeze on wages and benefits for the foreseeable future to save the jobs of dozens of your fellow employees and maintain schools in our communities? Or are you going to insist that others sacrifice significantly to maintain your automatic pay and benefit increases? Ask the question in an auditorium, and let the public attend.
It’s exactly the same question that businesses all across the country have asked their workers during the current recession— and many of them have opted to share the pain, by accepting pay freezes or even pay cuts, to spare their co-workers from loss of employment. In many cases, those pay cuts will become permanent.
Here is another true statement: virtually all of the district’s projected deficits come from increases in the cost of wages and benefits. Add in a three percent annual pay increase and an eight percent increase in health benefits every year, and it’s pretty easy to run up a deficit in any school district. On the other hand, capping those at current levels, or keeping increases to the bare minimum, puts district shortfalls at manageable levels, maintains jobs, and communities.
Changes in work rules would also help. Get this— at many charter schools, some teachers take a bus or van home at night and pick up kids in the morning on the way in to school. The teachers make extra money, but the school saves a lot, too. And at the end of the day, the teachers at many charter schools sweep up their own classrooms, reducing the need for janitorial services. These are the kind of common sense things that we used to take for granted in the days of the one-room schoolhouse, but inflexible work rules now prevent such cost-saving measures in many cases.
Now I’m sure they’ll be shaking their heads at the district office at the very notion of seeking concessions from senior staff—which just goes to show how the district got itself into such a mess.
I don’t know about you, but I have a hard time accepting the devastation the district’s school closing plan would wreak on some communities in our area, just to protect automatic pay increases and inflexible work rules, which are at the root of the district’s projected financial crisis. Most everyone else in our communities, including mine workers, have had to make adjustments to difficult times. Maybe it’s time that senior school district employees be asked to do the same.
This isn’t to suggest that teachers aren’t worth what they’re paid. The good ones are worth even more. But when there isn’t enough money to pay the bills, why should our communities, taxpayers, local businesses, and less senior teachers and staff suffer potentially huge financial losses just to protect wage increases and ever-escalating benefits for those at the top of the district pay scale?
I actually think many teachers and staff wouldn’t mind being asked to pitch in. Teachers in similar situations have opted to forego pay increases before, to protect jobs, schools, and students, which is perfectly consistent with the union philosophy of solidarity.
But we can’t get the right answers in ISD 2142, or even in the new district being discussed by area cities, until we start asking the right questions.
It’s time to shake off the status quo, and refuse to accept that we must close schools to protect outdated attitudes and old ways of thinking. If traditional public schools don’t adapt to the new fiscal realities of local, state, and federal budgets, none of them will survive in the end.
Is the 2142 teacher pay schedule out of line with that of surrounding school districts which aren't bankrupt? If teacher wages in 2142 aren't out of line with surrounding districts then the problem lies not with the teachers, but with 2142's current business plan of trying to operate 7 under-capacity schools, and going bankrupt in the process. A yes vote in December will fix 2142's flawed business plan by consolidating schools into more efficient units, reduce overall labor costs by eliminating positions, and provide a far greater educational experience for our kids.
Small class sizes at the high school level simply don't allow for the depth of electives and advanced classes, taught by real live teachers, that our kids deserve. An alarming number of 2142’s college-bound high school students are already being open enrolled in schools like Virginia for this very reason. The author dismisses the problem with small class sizes as bunk: I say the problem with small class sizes at the high school level is far too real, and very plain to see if one chooses to look around. Levy failure in December will mean Statutory Operating Debt for 2142, and harsh cost savings steps such as emergency school closures. When this happens we can look only forward to even greater open enrollment loses as parents rush their children out of our district in a flight to quality.
Not too long ago a 2142 planning meeting was attended by a couple of our local legislators. Those attending the meeting lamented the fact that 2142 was headed for a collision course with bankruptcy and needed help. The answer from the legislators was brutally clear: 2142 needs to change. No help would be forthcoming until 2142 was able to recognize the need for change, and have the courage to do it.
The time has come for all of us in 2142 to recognize the fact that demographics have indeed changed. Student numbers are way down at all locations, and we’ve seen it coming for quite some time. Out of frustration we can scourge the senior teachers of 2142 until we can no longer grasp the whip, but at the end of the day we all know deep down inside that for 2142 to survive we need to make substantial reorganization changes in the form of school consolidations.
Lonesome_Polecat,
This blog never once said teachers are not worth their pay. This blog asks the question if by taking a pay freeze you could save other teachers jobs and keep kids education choices would you.
This is not an attack on teachers, it is a well thought piece on asking questions.
I assume by your musings that you are a senior teacher in ISD 2142. I applaud you, teaching is a very hard job. I ask you though would you be willing to freeze pay for say 1 year? To allow ISD 2142 to figure out how to SENSIBLY make cuts and changes that respect and honor our kids and communities?
Would you be willing to make some changes to your future pay scale in order to cut school costs? Chisholm teachers chose to do this and they were able to keep a local school.
I think our admin and other support staff should make concessions as well.
If you honestly believe our children are important then lets sit down and figure out a way to work this out to respect our kids. A 50 to 75 mile bus ride does NOT respect them. No matter how many time you and your vote yes committee friends say it is you are WRONG!
If you and others continue your attacks on any ideas that real concerned citizens put out there it will end up being no jobs as ISD 2142 will become a remnant of the past.
Lets work together, lets make realistic plans that are not the death of communities in order to further other communities.
I will be voting NO, my family will be voting No. We choose to not go into debt to lose our kids local education. I refuse to allow ISD 2142 and Johnson Controls the ability to kill my town.
VOTE NO because our kids are all important.
To respond, if you compare the pay structure in 2142 with similarly-sized schools anywhere else in Minnesota, ISD 2142 would be right at the top, and probably by a wide margin. Unfortunately, the district likes to compare its pay scale with districts like Virginia or Hibbing, which is completely unrealistic. The city clerk in Tower, or Cook, or Orr, doesn't make anything close to what the same official would make in Hibbing or Virginia. That's the case in small towns everywhere, simply because the resources don't exist to pay more. And it's not just in the public sector. Most private sector employees or small town business owners don't make anything close to what they could in a larger city. That's one reason so many of our young people opt to leave the area. Living and working in a small town has many advantages, but earning a top income isn't one of them. ISD 2142 seems to want to buck this trend, and I wouldn't object except that it threatens to destroy communities like Tower and Orr.
When I see people write that small schools can't provide a quality education, I just shake my head, because there's virtually no evidence or research to support that claim, and plenty of research to the contrary. It's simply a nostrum that gets started and repeated so many times that people accept it. If students in 2142 are being denied courses they want, it's simply because of a lack of creativity and follow-through on the part of the district. Utilizing technologies like interactive television and online curriculum, combined with proven teaching models, like project-based learning, can easily provide students with a high quality education. It's just reluctance to change that keeps such proven methods from being implemented.
It's worth noting that there are plenty of school districts in Minnesota that have no more enrollment than a single one of iSD 2142's schools. Litttlefork-Big Falls, for example, has only 317 students district-wide, yet it maintains a healthy fund balance, wtih a smaller operating levy than is in effect in 2142. One way they do this is with a teacher pay structure that tops out at $10,000 less than in 2142.
Is polecat suggesting that Littlefork is somehow irresponsible for not consolidating with I-Falls in order to boost its high school class sizes? Does polecat believe that ISD 2142 would be proposing school closures if funding were no object? Of course not. This isn't about education. It's about enabling the district to eliminate a sufficient number of young teachers and support staff that they can ensure continued pay raises and Cadillac health benefits for its senior staff.
Keep in mind, the district plan doesn't even address the limited class size issue for at least two of its schools. It proposes to maintain Cherry and Babbitt as is. Cherry might pick up a few students north of Cotton, but it will unlikely be more than a handful. As for Babbitt, the district will be lucky to keep a dozen students from the Tower-Soudan area, so the restructuring does nothing to address the plummeting enrollment there.
If this is about providing adequate class sizes, how does the district justify doing nothing for these students? They just ignore the issue, because it's nothing more than a rationalization.
In the end, polecat can't deny the fundamental basis of my argument, which is that the district is asking some communities and less senior staff to make extraordinary sacrifices in order to maintain the status quo for its senior staff. Yet unless the district gets its teacher/staff costs under control, this restructuring won't make much difference. Projected increases in pay and benefits will eliminate whatever surplus the district might achieve from restructuring within two years. Then we'll be right back where we started, only saddled to a $80 million debt obligation.
Thank you Marshall!
Marshall,
Thanks for answering my first question. The simple answer is no: 2142 teachers are NOT overpaid comparing them to surrounding districts which aren't going bankrupt. And why do you think comparing a 2142 teacher to a teacher in Hibbing unfair? I submit that it's far more challenging to teach in a bankrupt district that often can't afford basic supplies,technology, and support. Cook began the school year teaching its computer science class by cramming 35 9th grade students into a run down computer lab designed for 20. Orr computers are so bad I believe they may have had to bus kids to Cook to take MAPS testing. Before one makes broad anecdotal assumptions about the comparative worth of teaching one should step up and walk a while in their moccasins, or at the very least take the time to chat with a few of your local teachers, especially the senior ones.
As far as the small class size argument goes I prefer to draw my conclusions not with some research paper, but instead by what I see and hear happening right here at home in our own schools. Ask a high school teacher at Tower how many electives were offered 10 years ago versus now. Ask a high school student at Cook what electives are now offered, how many honors classes. What you'll find is that our high school elective and advanced offerings are absolutely pathetic, and particularly so when compared to a school like Virginia. Our 2142 kids entering college for degrees in science and engineering are often taking remedial classes just to catch up with their classmates. This is simply wrong and our kids deserve better. A critical mass of high school students allows a school to have a range of electives and advanced classes. With small class sizes most electives are cost prohibitive, as we're seeing now. The 2142 consolidation plan bolsters class sizes at the high school level and helps solve this problem.
As far as technology solving the small class issue, let me ask you this. Have you ever taken an online class? Have you ever taken a class via interactive TV? I'm guessing you haven't. When and if you do you'll quickly find that these electronic classes are a poor substitute for the real thing. Much of the learning in a classroom is not about chapter and verse in a text book. A huge amount of the learning comes from the interaction, discussion, questions and debate with the teacher and students alike. Its actually a wonderful, organic experience to behold, and why anyone would want to trade this kind of rich learning experience for the blank stare of a computer monitor or television set is a real puzzlement to me. And I certainly hope that others parents will be challenging alternative plan proponents with the same question.
Our kids deserve the best education we can give them, and we only have one chance to get it right. The consolidation plan 2142 is putting forth in December is a culmination of 2 years of planning, research, debate, and proven technology. To vote no and throw 2142 under the bus of statutory operating debt for the thin promise of a plan based on anecdotal evidence and and theory is simply reckless in my book. Our kids deserve much better. Vote Yes.
Response to time to start asking the right questions.
Here is how the author of the above opinion states the way things should be framed:
“What changes do we need to make as a district to maintain as many of our small schools as possible?”
First of all, this might be possible if we are the federal government and can print money at will. Unfortunately, this is not the case given the current circumstances for many reasons that are clear to most in this district by now.
Second, the district administration is well aware of the consequences of these needed actions. Our communities have spent 2 years working on different scenarios with many planning committees; this was the preferred scenario of some 30 different plans identified by said planning committees. The cream has risen to the top over this time. The district does bear a burden of making the changes needed to maintain as many schools as is economically and educationally feasible, they are not charged with making decisions which lead to bankruptcy or lead to an inadequate level of education. They are not in charge of economic development in our communities. The department of education has given its blessing to this referendum, they believe it is well thought out and has merit.
Third, technology is important but is not a catch all or substitute for a real life, qualified teacher. It adds value but does not take care of everything. These teachers are educated to a bachelor’s and many times a master’s level which requires a lot of discipline and intelligence to obtain in the first place. I think it possible but inadvisable to have a professional driving the bus, sweeping the floor, cooking the food, doing the books or any other support functions that a school has whether it be public or charter. I see our teachers doing some support staff functions already as part of this is under their contract and due to the system being under financial duress. Contract concessions have been made. They were trained to do a specific function in our school system which is what they should be focusing on. Many administrative staff have educated themselves to Master’s and Doctorate level in some cases; they are worth their pay level. Will administrative staff sacrifice as well if the referendum fails, considering that the district eventually dissolves they are out of a job as well. Sounds like an economic impact to me for the area with that. If you wish to hire someone under qualified in a charter school that would be your choice. Best wishes with that.
On the positive side, volunteer opportunities should abound with a new charter school as they do with any school in this area. Perhaps the writer of asking the right questions will be able to scrub the toilet bowls and help a child learn to read as well. It should help lower operational costs and provide some useful community service for the immediate area.
Here is a good read for all:
Growing Gap: Minnesota's Teacher Recruitment & Retention Crises
http://www.mn2020.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B049E72F9-290F-48AA-909A-A3053DFA13C0%7D&DE=
If we want to maintain a quality of education for our youth, we need to pay the going rate as it is a cost of doing business. These people can go into the private sector and make more; currently they stay because they are dedicated individuals. Don’t assume this will always be the case when pay and benefits are degraded to the point where it isn’t worth it anymore and they can’t afford to stay. They have to make a living for their families as well. Anything less degrades our educational system to the point where we are putting on a good show but not really providing anything of substantial quality. This is not a case as in a manufacturing industry where layoffs can occur to help out the business; the two models are not comparable. It isn’t a situation where we layoff in the middle of the school year because, sorry, we don’t value our children’s education and just can’t afford it this year. Perhaps we can obtain a waiver for our child’s graduation requirement from the state as well. This isn’t McDonald’s where we can order up an educated future member of society to go please, hold the extras.
http://www.teachersalaryinfo.com/average-teacher-salary-minnesota.html
Personally, I get really irritated with those individuals who feel that our educational system and state employees are punching bags for all of our financial woes. If you want to have quality systems in place, we need to pay the going rate in taxes to obtain this. We will be paying for what we get. If you go out and buy a beater car, don’t expect it to run like a newer, well maintained model. This is our choice now.
I like this statement by the writer at the end of his opinion.
“If traditional public schools don’t adapt to the new fiscal realities of local, state, and federal budgets, none of them will survive in the end.”
I think that he has it right with that.
These future buildings of the #2142 restructuring plan are located where they need to be, where the students are in highest density and efficiently centralized to a general area taking into account building conditions, travel times and cost efficiencies.
If two years hasn’t been enough time to make a decision, I imagine we can wait for a savior to come from the south and hope it goes away. By that time someone else will be making these decisions for us.
The sensible thing to do would be to go with a plan that we know will work. Enough time has been spent without rehashing previously dismissed scenarios over and over to no avail. Anything else at this point is a waste of most everyone’s time.
Vote Yes This December for the plan which makes sense, our #2142 restructuring plan.
Marshall-
I guess the questions you asked upset our area ISD 2142 teachers. I guess that they believe in the ISD 2142 mantra............ Fair isnt always equal.
JUst to make sure Iron Ranger understands where I am coming from....... Voting yes in December does NOT make sense. The ISD 2142 plan rips apart communities and loeaves kids devistated. VOTE NO- that makes sense.
Lets all show up to the Tower Civic Center on Wednesday November 4th at 6pm to try to find a plan that respects our children, communities and all teachers.
The fact is ISD 2142 gives us a GREAT education- I have 2 daughters who are proof. I went and spoke with teachers and others at the school, they assured me my children are not the exception, they are the fact- ISD 2142 and the Tower-Soudan High School educate our kids, they leave for college with the foundation to excel.
My daughters not only did their High School classes, they did 6 weeks of summer college and numerous other volunteer and educational choices. They chose to be involved. Small schools give kids a great foundation- it is up to parents to let our kids fly!
It appears the main premise of the "alternative plan" being discussed is that 2142 books can be balanced on the backs of senior teachers. The fiscal problem 2142 is facing is huge; without passage of a new levy or bond over $4 million in permanent cuts will need to be made to keep the district solvent, so let’s look at a few numbers.
There are approximately 126 permanent teachers in 2142. To come up with the needed $ 4 million savings each teacher would have to take a permanent hit of $33,000. I’m guessing this number is getting close to the entire annual salary for the new teachers.
OK, so let’s leave the new teachers alone and go after the senior teachers. For sake of argument let’s say 50% of the 2142 teachers fall into the “senior" category. This means that in order to make 2142 solvent fully half of the teachers in the district would need to take a permanent salary cut of $66,000. I’m guessing this is beyond what most of them make in a year.
My point is that the premise of trying to run 7 schools as we always have and simply balance the books on the backs of the senior teachers might sound wonderful to the uninformed, but it quickly becomes pure hogwash when one takes the time to look at the real figures. That is, unless, one truly believes that 2142 will thrive with a cadre of teachers who's pay levels approach sub-minimum wage.
For 2142 to survive it absolutely needs to reconfigure into an efficient school system. A yes vote in December will do just that.
I'm afraid polecat is reading things into my comments that don't exist. The fact is, ISD 2142's pay structure is significantly greater than for teachers and staff in other similarly-sized schools— and that is a key point. This district was created as a way to preserve small schools in remote communities. That is its mission, a mission that seems to have been forgotten here. It was supposed to work by pooling administrative services to help keep costs in line and allow these small schools that might not otherwise be able to sustain themselves to survive. If the combination into a single district is used as justification to boost the pay scale to that of much larger communities with much greater resources, then the purpose behind creation of the district is being badly undermined.
It is absolutely true that small schools will always be more expensive to operate, which is why smaller school districts throughout rural parts of Minnesota and the country as a whole invariably pay somewhat less than in much larger communities. It is the only means to survive.
ISD 2142 represents a significant departure from that trend, and that is the single biggest reason that the district is now talking about closing schools. Closing schools and devastating communities like Tower and Orr, allows the district to continue to pay higher teacher salaries and benefits. If the district didn't intend to keep increasing pay and benefits, it wouldn't need to close schools.
On the other hand, it undermines the livelihoods of business owners and residents in these communities, who will watch their investments in property and careers erode significantly.
I don't know if polecat is a teacher or not, but he or she certainly sounds like a public employee. I find that many public employees are unaware of what has happened over the past several years to those of us in the private sector. The reality for most workers and small business owners is stagnant or declining wages (which started prior to the official Dec. 2007 recession) and huge increases in out-of-pocket expenses for health insurance and health care. When you account for those higher costs, most residents of our area make much less today than they did five or ten years ago. The standard of living for those in the private sector in our communities is declining significantly. That's apparent to those of us who experience it, but it is not apparent to those in the public sector, who continue to receive their regular pay increases and excellent benefits.
Before polecat suggests that we should quit complaining and get a public sector job, he or she should keep in mind that it is the taxes that the private sector pay that keep the public sector employed. And when the district makes decisions that undermine the private sector, it undermines its own tax base. I should also add, that the district's plan involves the layoffs of dozens of less senior workers. Sadly, it is the lowest cost employees on the district's payroll that will lose employment under this school closing plan, which means even more people must be laid off to ensure the continued pay increases for those with seniority. I know the idea of solidarity isn't what it used to be among public sector employees, but this is a ridiculous abuse of seniority.
In the end, of course, the real issue is that the district can't meet its mission of sustaining small rural schools within the current funding stream, without making changes. My question is, who should make the adjustment. Polecat and the district say it is the communities and less senior employees who must bite the bullet. I say, let the district adjust its staffing costs to meet available revenues, and maintain community schools and jobs that way.
As for the issue of electives, polecat questions whether I've ever taken an online or interactive TV course. I think he well knows that I finished my education well before the dawn of the Internet or such interactive technologies, but I can say that my son has taken several online courses as part of his high school education and the results were pretty similar to his experience with live teachers... in other words, mixed. Depending on the teacher, some were very challenging, while others were poorly-managed. While I realize polecat doesn't sanction educational research that doesn't support his or her beliefs, there is no evidence that student learning is negatively affected by the use of distance learning technologies. There is evidence, however, that busing students long distances reduces their rate of participation in extracurricular activities, which certainly can affect their educational experience.
One final point about distance learning... the experience those of us from earlier generations may have had in school isn't particularly relevant to today. Young people these days obtain virtually all of their information in ways entirely different than we used to. For them, utilizing the Internet to obtain information is second nature. As they enter their professional lives, most will further their educations, or obtain information for work-related projects, from online sources, and will routinely participate in video-conferencing. Why shouldn't we be incorporating these technologies routinely into their educational experience? To do anything else, is to leave them unprepared for the future.
lonesome_polecat,
I have not heard that this "alternative plan"as you call it balances the books by stealing money from teachers. I assumed you were a fair and just person when reading your posts. Was I wrong? The fact is that all areas need to make cuts. The parents need to pay higher taxes, the kids need to do some online learning, the teachers need to make some pay freezes and possibly pay a higher amount of their benefits, the admin needs to take some pay freezes and pay for some of their benefits, the secretaries, janitors, bus drivers etc- EVERYONE needs to make concessions- EVERYONE needs to take it in the wallet in order to give our kids a good education one that is worth their time!
The kids are who matter in this- not the teachers, admin, etc- and a 50 to 75 miles bus ride? That is assinine- and to expect our kids to do this? your out of line!
The kids are what teachers should care about. My oldest is in college to be a teacher- she knows she will make very poor money- but to her she sees our kids as the future.
When did teaching become about being rich???? When did pay become the reason to be a teacher?
I keep shaking my head in disgust. Teach our kids without padding your pockets. Teachers should be teaching because of a belief in children, not because its a job they make high pay for.
Lets all show up on Wednesday November 4th at 6 pm.
Lets all work together and show ISD 2142 and Johnson Controls how much Iron Rangers believe in our children and their futures.
If we all work together we can give them an education that we can all be proud of.
Marshall,
If you'll quit with theatrics for a minute and scroll up to my last post showing the magnitude of the district's financial problem you'll see that my analysis doesn't comment on whether the teachers are overpaid or underpaid. It simply shows that patching the district's $4 million hole cannot be done by cutting it from teachers, senior or otherwise. The problem is simply too big and the numbers too large. It cannot be fixed unless half the teachers in the district agree to work for free from this point forward. Suggesting in your original post that the district's financial problems can be fixed by gaining concessions from senior teachers simply isn't even remotely accurate.
My question to you about taking an online or interactive class was genuine and asked for a reason. If you are going to be championing something like online classes as a routine alternative for our kids, then at the very least you should take a couple yourself and draw your own conclusions. In our household one of my kids has taken a high school interactive language class and the results were luke-warm. The 3 or 4 online college classes they've taken, including one I've participated in, were better than nothing but fell far short of the experience one gets with a real-live teacher, even a mediocre one. Distance learning sounds kinda cool, but based on my personal experience I can't imagine anyone willingly choosing it over a real teacher unless no other alternative existed.
I actually appreciate your energy and sincerity. But the notion of abandoning the current 2142 plan for a vision that is based upon a grotesquely flawed economic analysis, as well as alternative teaching methods that somebody read about which sound sorta cool is where we part ways. I'm voting yes.
At the risk of injecting actual numbers into this debate, polecat should be aware that according to the district's own budget projections from last year, capping wages at current levels and holding increases in benefits to three percent annually through the 2011-12 school year would save $2.2 million. That would get us half way to a break even point. The district can also save in other areas, such as fuel costs. The district's projections, on which all this restructuring is based, assume a 10 percent annual increase in fuel costs. As we both know, fuel prices have fallen by at least fifty percent since 2008, when these numbers were generated.
At the very least, such concessions would enable the district to significantly reduce the need for school closings. The district would likely still have to close the Cotton School, which has far and away the lowest enrollment. How much that would save is difficult to know, since the district won't answer our questions about the cost of operating individual schools and no one knows how many of those students will end up in the district, or elsewhere.
In the meantime, the district should be focusing on stemming the tide of open enrollment losses and focusing on helping schools like Tower, rather than actively undermining them, as they did for years through lack of maintenance, and by forcing students who live five miles south of Tower to be bussed 20 miles to Babbitt. The district's intransigence on transportation and other issues has pushed more than one parent to send their kids to Virginia. Other families have made the switch to Virginia this year out of uncertainty about the future of the Tower School.
I might mention that we reported this week on the Bois Forte Band's huge new housing project, which is now fully funded and set for construction next spring. Over the next three to four years, they plan 100 new housing units. They already have 60 families on the waiting list... and that's families, with kids. It could easily bring another 50-100 students to the Tower School, particularly if the district made even a tiny effort to accommodate the needs of Indian students. It's offered mostly benign neglect in the past, at least in Tower. Add another 100 students, through population growth in the Tower area and a minimal job of marketing and active student recruiting and that's another million dollars on the plus side, rendering the district's vaunted deficit all but gone.
The district, under these circumstances would at least stand a chance at passing an operating levy. I've always thought the biggest impediment to passage of an operating levy has been wages and benefits. It's pretty hard to convince people who have watched their own incomes and benefits decline steadily to dig deeper in their own pockets just to guarantee pay raises and great benefits for district employees. If teachers would make a commitment to get real on compensation, they would likely find more yes votes out there on an operating levy. I know you may not want to hear it, polecat, but times have changed for most American workers and small business owners and it eventually has to affect public sector workers as well. The imbalance in wages and benefits has grown too large to be ignored by the public.
I wish all of us could earn more and have great health benefits, but that era is gone in America and I don't think it's coming back anytime soon.
Good job with the numbers you were able to get Marshall. Green Tea, it would help if you cooled your jets just a little bit. Every school and the community it represents needs the support of each other, remember that. If we are going to make this thing work, we need open-mindedness and a willingness to support each other. A wise reminder to the facilitator of Wednesday nights meeting: You will have people attending not necessarily there to gain an understanding of what is Plan B going to look like. They will be there because their union headquarters in the Twin Cities wants them there to rabble-rouse and disrupt. The key for the facilitator will be to announce at the beginning of the meeting that the purpose of the meeting is to gather positive comments toward an alternative plan and work toward that accomplishment. It should not become a bitch session with negative comments on why Plan B will not work. Playing the devil's advocate is one thing, working to defeat the process is entirely another.
No doubt there are members on the panel who feel intimidated by others in their school attendance areas who will likely brainstorm ideas that may have been rejected by a panel member in his/her own community. In brainstorming- style problem solving, every idea is a good idea and should not be rejected for consideration because of personality conflicts or ego-deflation. Whoever facilitates this meeting needs to keep that in mind, counsel the panel member whose ego might be hurt, and allow all participants an equal opportunity to participate and share in the decision.
These efforts by members of the community in the interest of saving the schools for the kids is fantastic. Had the school board members, both collectively and individually, initiated this process in this manner 2-3 years ago, we most likely would have a better plan on which to vote come December.
Just some thoughts at-large.
orrcountry,
I am a parent, one who does not understand why my kids are being sacrificed in ISD 2142's reorganization plan.
I have given a PERSONAL opinion, answering someone who has stated that teachers should not be asked to make any concessions. As the plan stands right now younger teachers will lose jobs, anyone who works in the district who is low in senority will lose their jobs. I ask this is that not the biggest concession any teacher can give? They will be without a job. My question is why should teachers and support staff have to lose jobs? If everyone who works for the school district can make a small concession and we can save jobs why wouldnt we do that? Why should towns be asked to lose schools? If everyone affected can all make small concessions in the end everyone wins.
If during my trying to explain this I mispoke I am truly sorry, but the fact is I am truly working to find a way for all communities to be able to keep a local education alternative.
The ones who matter in all of this are our children. Would I as a parent, as a taxpayer be willing to pay higher taxes if I knew my kids would continue to have a local education? Yes- I have voted yes 3 times already. The fact is I have put signs in my yard for the last 3 votes, I placed signs in my yards for the teachers contracts. I support my school.
Now- can the same be said for others? I honestly do not know. I only know that in my house we have always supported our school. We volunteer, we work on committees, etc. We are involved.
ISD 2142 decided to take away my ability to be involved in my childrens education and I am mad. I feel that they are taking away my chidrens school and in reality the family that they have made in their schools. A 50 to 75 mile bus ride takes away my childrens ability to be involved. A 50 to 75 mile trip to school takes away our ability as parents to be involved. Is this what ISD 2142 calls the future of education? If it is they are not really thinking about our kids now are they.
ISD 2142 has stolen my childrens right to local education and I am mad. I refuse to sit back and allow a few members of a school board say our kids are unimportant.
I will be voting NO on December 8th. I will vote no with a clear concience and hope that the new plan being worked on gives my kids their school back.
Lonesome_Polecat,
You asked a question about online learning. Online learning can be done in conjunction with site based learning. It is being done in college's all around the State of MN and other States as well. The classes have so many days of site based learning along with the online activites. Lets say you take a college writing class. One Monday you will look at the online syllabus. You will find out what is due for that particular week. During this week the teacher who is in charge of this class will travel between schools and spend 1 day each week with a different school. This teacher will also be available by email and in some cases text message to answer questions and read papers to decide what needs to be fixed on the papers. Peers will also read your papers and give peer reviews of what you can do to make your paper the best it can be.
I have also seen lab programs that give users the ability to conduct experiments through cyber technology. Is this always the optimum? I dont think so. The fact is if your child is advanced, and yes those who are ready for College advanced classes in High School are advanced then it sure can work.
Also many scholarships such as the MN achieve scholarship give kids who have taken online classes during High School extra scholarship money. I assume the dept of Education feels online learning is not only acceptable but that it is a great use of technolgy. Otherwise why would they give extra scholarship money to those who have used this technolgy?
The fact of the matter is online learning used in conjunction with site based learning has been shown to be a great way to get an education. In todays world we have to be creative with educational choices. Those who give 110% get back 110%.
Sorry Green Tea: Maybe I wasn't clear enough and we may have misunderstood each other. Your comments about a neutral school for Cook and Orr rubbed me and our group wrong. We are searching for excuses to close our school in Orr, we are searching for answers to keep it open. We are hopeful for economic development in the Orr attendance area that will provide a working wage income so families, especially those who had to leave when the Ainsworth plant closed and the timber industry collapsed, can return and feel comfortable raising a family and being part of the community. We want to forge an even stronger relationship with the Nett Lake community, so those children don't have to travel so far to attend school. We support each community, especially the Tower-Soudan area, keeping their school intact.
Please accept my apologies if you felt I over-reached.
I appreciate the comments about Wednesday's meeting. I hope people aren't planning to come to disrupt, because they won't be allowed to do so. The moderator is very experienced and is going to make it clear at the outset that the discussion will be limited to those city representatives at the table. The audience will have a chance to voice their views, but only after the panel has concluded its work. If people were planning to come to argue the pros and cons of the referendum, they might as well find something else to do on Wednesday evening, because the referendum isn't on the agenda. This meeting is focused on what happens Dec. 9, in the event the referendum fails.
Marshall,
I'm a little confused. You plan calls for the wage freeze on teachers and closure of Cotton. I'm a supporter of the current 2142 plan which in fact calls for the strategic closure and consolidation of schools including Cotton, but how can you propose closure of a school in another community when you are unwilling to bus Tower's H.S. students to Babbitt and keep a nice remodeled K-6 in Tower? It seems, well, rather hypocritical.
I take great exception to your insulting statement about Tower School and its relationship to the Bois Forte Band , to wit:
"It's offered mostly benign neglect in the past, at least in Tower."
For your information the Tower School has a full-time Indian Liaison staff person that works hard to provide linkage between the tribal community and the school. In addition, Tower school has a full time Indian tutor, and a special session of parent-teacher conferences are held in the spring at the Vermilion Tribal Wellness Center to help facilitate interaction between teachers and parents. The classroom teachers that I know are very mindful and respectful of tribal culture as they craft their lesson plan as well as classroom discussions. I call that a lot more than benign neglect. You can feel free to hurl insults at me all you wish, but you owe the all teachers and staff at Tower-Soudan School a huge apology.
Orrcountry,
I had no idea that Orr was against the school between Orr/Cook. Zelda has always maintained that ORR was very much on board for the new school. I also was at quite a few meetings where Ms. Strong of the Nett Lake schools said that Nett Lake was on board as well.
I am very sorry if my words upset anyone. I was not my intention. I am speaking as someone who is tired of watching 2142 and Johnson Controls choose which communities they are wanting to grow and which they just want the tax money from.
Every kids matters in ISD 2142. I have maintained that from day 1. I have had to deal with quite a few attacks because I am willing to speak up and due to that sometimes get uppidy and reply without reading my words over and over.
I hope you accept my appology.
My husband was also an Potlatch/Ainsworth employee, he had over 17 years there having begun in 1991. The loss of this plant and its timber related losses have hit many people and seem to still be hitting people. The truth is without a local education choice it will be hard for any community to grow and prosper. What ISD 2142 and Johnson Controls have chosen to do is unacceptable and I just keep hoping enough of us feel this way. There is strength in numbers! If we vote NO in high numbers we will have a chance to build something out of the ashes ISD 2142 will have left us with.
I will be at the meeting tomorrow evening. I will be there listening to the brainstorming of those who want to see our small towns survive. I have made my own ideas known and now I am hoping to see just what this group will come up with.
Green Tea: You're alright, OK? Zelda was wrong, she never brainstormed with the general population as a whole. She, personally, pushed the idea of getting Orr to support the combined school between Orr and Cook, at the intersection of U.S. 53 & U.S. 73. Our group opposed the closing of the Orr school and the relocation of the school. She heard some of us very well during the spring meetings, but instead chose to walk and talk the district's plan. Whoever you are getting your information from is feeding you something that comes out of the cow after the hay is processed.
Once Johnson Controls chose the site 4 miles north of Cook, Zelda then changed her tune. Now, as a school board director, she should have spent time getting to know the people in the Orr School attendance area, giving updates to people on the board's plans, and seeking feedback on the plans and ideas. But she didn't. Or maybe she did. Zelda has a well-known reputation of strutting around with an air of superiority and aloofness, picking and choosing who she wants to associate with. These may be harsh words, but they are without doubt. I hope she has learned her lesson!
As far as Theresa Isham Strong is concerned, some of us have been scratching our heads as to why she came out in support of the joint school. We have heard whispers, and I might as well make them public, that some people don't want their kids to attend school with the Nett Lake kids. The source of the comment has now passed away from us, so the whisper is over. I remarked to this gentleman that I thought our society had grown beyond that kind of attitude, but apparently I judged others by my own feelings.
I am a straight shooter, Green Tea. I could never get elected to public office, because I do not feel comfortable playing both sides against the middle. I am passionate about preserving our schools in our communities and exploring any and all opportunities to do so. You may expect to get some feedback about this post, and there will be blood shooting out of the eyes of some who feel footsteps behind them. But I do this because we all need to be completely honest with each other if we hope to be successful. Take it from me, the worst thing to watch being made is sausage and laws...and this is politics.
Thanks for your response.
I think polecat needs to investigate a little bit. If the Tower School was meeting the needs of its Indian students, there wouldn't be 15 of them getting on a bus to Virginia every morning. Polecat is getting the perspective of a few teachers, not that of Indian students or parents of Indian students who have been unhappy for a long time. Perhaps polecat should attend a meeting of the Local Indian Education Committee and hear their perspective. That's all I'm going to say about the matter, although there's plenty more I could say about this issue.
My point is that whether polecat wants to accept it or not, there is a perception on the reservation that Tower has not engaged Indian students to the extent that's needed. That's not true in every case, but I think if you compare the Indian graduation rates in Orr with those in Tower, you'll find a significant difference. You'll also find higher satisfaction in Orr among Indian students and parents. If that were fixed, we could bring a dozen students back right now and ensure that the huge influx of new students to the reservation will be served primarily in Tower. Given what's going to happen there, it's easy to see that Tower could be the largest school in the district within five years if the school board would pull its head out of the sand. They have been unwilling to acknowledge that the Tower area is poised to experience significant growth in population and the school could benefit significantly if they would just meet the needs of the new students.
They also need to quit parasitising Tower, as they've done for years. I'll bet polecat isn't aware of the fact that any student who lives ust five miles south of Tower is bussed by the district 20 miles to Babbitt. Even when parents request that their kids go to Tower, the district plays games with transportation to push them towards Babbitt.II've heard this directly from affected parents. If the cutoff between the two schools was at the actual halfway point, Tower would easily have an additional 50 students and its enrollment would be larger than Babbitt's. But the district is so focused on saving Babbitt, they don't care what they do to Tower. We're the sacrificial lamb and the district won't hear any arguments to the contrary.
OrrCountry,
I find your following comments interesting:
"As far as Theresa Isham Strong is concerned, some of us have been scratching our heads as to why she came out in support of the joint school. We have heard whispers, and I might as well make them public, that some people don't want their kids to attend school with the Nett Lake kids. The source of the comment has now passed away from us, so the whisper is over. I remarked to this gentleman that I thought our society had grown beyond that kind of attitude, but apparently I judged others by my own feelings."
I've heard similar comments from an individual closely involved with the process in the Tower area. This person is still alive and kicking. Perhaps this is some of the problem at the local school there, I would imagine as in every community, there are always some bad apples and that it is not a reflection on the community as a whole, I choose to give the area the benefit of the doubt.
As with you, I would hope that most of our society has grown beyond this but there are those who would use any means or whispers to defeat the referendum even if those means are ethically corrupt. It is just another means to drive stakes between our different communities. Together we are much better but some can not accept that. Our different cultures make us stronger and we learn from each other better ways of doing things.
IronRanger: Just in case I was misunderstood, the gentleman who intimated the remarks to me was as appalled as I am. The comments that some idiots still feel that way, for reasons I can't understand, have been acknowledged by others who have heard the same thing. What a shame is all I can say. The Orr School has developed an unparalleled cultural exchange that could serve as a model for anywhere in the nation. Why would we want to give that up?
Orrcountry,
Indeed, sadly that may happen if Orr closes and the nearest alternative becomes Virginia after Cook closes due to inadequate funding. The loss of students will continue if we as a district do nothing. I see new traditions beginning in a new building which combines Cook and Orr, the educational, technological and economic advantages of this outweigh any perceived negatives. Education is what this is all about. It is farther than the original building choice site but I do not believe far enough for either Nett Lake, Orr or Cook to dismiss the option totally. The comparison of the toilet bowl flush comes to mind as in a letter from an individual in the Cook area.
What I see for Nett Lake is that if no option of a building is available in the area, they will likely construct one on their own resulting in a further loss of students from #2142. They have the means to do so should they choose but at this time are willing to work with #2142. I think they believe the restructure plan has merit. I think it better for the Cook, Orr, Nett Lake, Crane Lake & surrounding areas that they work together because the student number demographics make sense for a building there, reducing taxpayer costs as a whole over the long term and keeping travel times down to a minimum.
My two cents.
I don't know if any of you are aware, with the $78.8 million referendum that the district is asking for is really $125 miilion that we will have to pay for. $46.2 million is the intrest that we will pay on this referendum. I wish that the board would have told us this. I found this out by our local board member here in Tower-Soudan. The board tells us to trust them, and they can not even tell us this. What is there to trust, they can't be honest with us, so why should we be willing to go ahead with their plan. I feel that with the five city redistricting, we are better off, as we will get out of 2142, and maybe our district will be honest. Voting "NO" is our only option as we have a back up plan. As our Tower-Soudan school is the only one with projected growth, and they still want to close our school, this is a plan I will not support. So come Dec 8th I urge you to Vote "NO" as this is the best option, at this time.