[Southsider2k12]

The presentation was today at the Elston Auditorium and can be viewed on-line here

http://mcaswiki.mcas.k12.in.us/Communicati...get_Information

My impressions of what is going on were pretty much summed up by Carla Iacona, the acting Superintendent of the MCAS who at the end of her presentation actually broke down into tears after delivering the details into the specific programs and people who could be affected. They had four plans for different combinations of school closings, from just Niemann, all of the way up to Eastport, Niemann, and Edgewood. There was also a long list of programs, positions, and administrators that would be cut. Some of the more publicly discussed programs include the JROTC, increasing classroom sizes across the board by 10 to 20% in every single grade level, eliminating art, music, and PE at the elementary school level, eliminate summer school, reduce coaches, reduce counselors, reduce administrators, reduce academic advisers, and many other things detailed in the plan up above. They also talked about offering an early retirement program, which wouldn't generate much in the way of savings up front, but would save a lot in subsequent years after the incentive payouts are gone as a cost.

The most interesting thing that came out of today was that in the last couple of days the MCAS found out it was going to receive a payment from the IDOE that they should have received in 2008 and did not get. This is going to be $5.35 million. Right now the school system is trying to plug a hole of $7.8 million once its cuts from earlier this year are factored in. In the school board responses, Burgwald actually offered up the suggestion that we utilize this cash payment to plug as much of the hole as possible, and then we cut just things that we are able to replace easily. For example if you close a building and layoff teachers, you can't quickly fix that, but shutting down a program is something that can be easily fixed.

The big thing that all board members and administrators who talked mentioned was that they all wanted people to go to the County Commissioners meeting and put the pressure on them at the county level. With all that has gone on, one person holds the power to fix all of this, and that is the Auditor. Craig Hinchman can still decide to certify the newer set of numbers which would restore the old funding levels. Unless that happens, the MCAS has to wait out what happens with mediation and the lawsuit over the numbers. Because the contractual dates for things like notifying teachers of impending layoffs are quickly approaching, the MCAS has to now start to act as if these cuts are going to happen, because if they do not, the budget problems will double next year.

Individually some of the better comments from the board members, included Bill Greene offering to give out the home and cell phone numbers of the Commisioners to people who attend the April 6th meeting to try to ramp up the pressure on them. Kintzele also mentioned that many local public officials wanted to speak today, but they were not allowed to do so because this was not a public comment session. Everyone will be allowed to comment at the Tuesday school board meeting which also will be held in the Elston Auditorium to be able to hold the larger crowds. Jones mentioned the possibility of being able to move a few hundred thousand dollars from the capital fund into the general fund to be able to stem off some cuts, if they could get people to agree to forgo raises.

[JHeath]

I wasn't able to make it to the meting, so thank you for posting this. I'm a little surprised that Edgewood was on the potential chopping block. Any specific reason why that you might know of?

Off to read more before posting anything else.

[MC Born & Raised]

Just looked through the PowerPoint ... that's all pretty brutal. Wow. Very thorough. This auditor situation simply must be resolved. I don't know how or by whom, but this can't be allowed to happen. No summer school, no elementary art, music or P.E. ... bigger classes, etc. This is bad, bad, bad. Ultimately, they've gotta do what they've gotta do and there's nowhere else to cut. Hopefully this is a good wake-up call to the folks that need to get this resolved.

[eric.hanke]

I wasn't able to make it to the meting, so thank you for posting this. I'm a little surprised that Edgewood was on the potential chopping block. Any specific reason why that you might know of?

Off to read more before posting anything else.

Edgewood parents are not as vocal as Coolspring parents.

MCAS found out it was going to receive a payment from the IDOE that they should have received in 2008 and did not get. This is going to be $5.35 million

This is something Mr. Boone should of been all over...

[Southsider2k12]

This is something Mr. Boone should of been all over...

They didn't really mention the exact time thread, but this has been something they have been fighting for over a period of time. They didn't make a public announcement about the shortfall because if they lost the appeal, it wouldn't have mattered. Iacona made it sound like Boone was the one who found this and fought to get it back.

[dusk]

My first impulse would be to sort all teachers by salary, and start cutting from the highest paid until the budget balances. But, of course, things are probably more complicated than that. (Or are they?)

Maybe somewhat more thoughtfully - yet while not holding my breath - I hope primary considerations in teacher cuts are with respect to a reasonable intersection of the following:

1) Giving priority to newer, more qualified/certified teachers over more expensive "dead weight" likely grandfathered and/or cronied around qualification/certification standards.

2) Giving priority to teachers who live in the community, and thus whose wages lost would have the "double whammy" of negative impact on the local economy.

3) Giving priority to those further from retirement. While this may sound like (1), it's more from the point of view of "older teachers should be more prepared to retired". Obviously that wouldn't be true for older teachers who weren't responsible in preparing for retirement. But, hey, isn't irresponsibility supposed to hurt?

[eric.hanke]

My first impulse would be to sort all teachers by salary, and start cutting from the highest paid until the budget balances. But, of course, things are probably more complicated than that. (Or are they?)

Maybe somewhat more thoughtfully - yet while not holding my breath - I hope primary considerations in teacher cuts are with respect to a reasonable intersection of the following:

1) Giving priority to newer, more qualified/certified teachers over more expensive "dead weight" likely grandfathered and/or cronied around qualification/certification standards.

2) Giving priority to teachers who live in the community, and thus whose wages lost would have the "double whammy" of negative impact on the local economy.

3) Giving priority to those further from retirement. While this may sound like (1), it's more from the point of view of "older teachers should be more prepared to retired". Obviously that wouldn't be true for older teachers who weren't responsible in preparing for retirement. But, hey, isn't irresponsibility supposed to hurt?

It's not that easy because of two words. Union, seniority.

[Southsider2k12]

My first impulse would be to sort all teachers by salary, and start cutting from the highest paid until the budget balances. But, of course, things are probably more complicated than that. (Or are they?)

Maybe somewhat more thoughtfully - yet while not holding my breath - I hope primary considerations in teacher cuts are with respect to a reasonable intersection of the following:

1) Giving priority to newer, more qualified/certified teachers over more expensive "dead weight" likely grandfathered and/or cronied around qualification/certification standards.

2) Giving priority to teachers who live in the community, and thus whose wages lost would have the "double whammy" of negative impact on the local economy.

3) Giving priority to those further from retirement. While this may sound like (1), it's more from the point of view of "older teachers should be more prepared to retired". Obviously that wouldn't be true for older teachers who weren't responsible in preparing for retirement. But, hey, isn't irresponsibility supposed to hurt?

In the category of "For What It's Worth", one of the ideas that was offered up Saturday was incentives for early retirement for older teachers for up to 30 teachers.

They can't be forced to retire, because that would actually be age discrimination.

[dusk]

In the category of "For What It's Worth", one of the ideas that was offered up Saturday was incentives for early retirement for older teachers for up to 30 teachers.

They can't be forced to retire, because that would actually be age discrimination.

I don't think age needs to be a factor. Rather, hold everyone to the same certification and qualification standards. Those who were "in the system" before such things mattered will likely not meet the requirements. If they do, fine. But I suspect many won't.

Teachers who can prove they're certified in subjects should have more opportunity to teach those subjects than teachers who can't.

Also, teachers who can demonstrate the ability to use modern technology should be considered more valuable than those who can't. I've heard of too many older teachers who brazenly declare their luddite position on the likes of computers in the schools. That's unacceptable. If you can't figure out how to send and receive email in this day and age, you're not qualified to train the next generation in surviving in this age.

It seems rather telling to me that a system that believes so strongly in testing students can't be similarly rigorous about teachers.

[Southsider2k12]

I don't think age needs to be a factor. Rather, hold everyone to the same certification and qualification standards. Those who were "in the system" before such things mattered will likely not meet the requirements. If they do, fine. But I suspect many won't.

Teachers who can prove they're certified in subjects should have more opportunity to teach those subjects than teachers who can't.

Also, teachers who can demonstrate the ability to use modern technology should be considered more valuable than those who can't. I've heard of too many older teachers who brazenly declare their luddite position on the likes of computers in the schools. That's unacceptable. If you can't figure out how to send and receive email in this day and age, you're not qualified to train the next generation in surviving in this age.

It seems rather telling to me that a system that believes so strongly in testing students can't be similarly rigorous about teachers.

It might not be on age per se, but in this day and age if something affects a group disproportionally, it is considered discrimination against said group. Because rules like that would affect pretty much just older teachers, I would imagine at very least we would see lawsuits over the issue, which would quickly eat up any cost savings.

For the record, I think what you are talking about is a good idea, I just don't see how it could be implemented.

[dusk]

It might not be on age per se, but in this day and age if something affects a group disproportionally, it is considered discrimination against said group. Because rules like that would affect pretty much just older teachers, I would imagine at very least we would see lawsuits over the issue, which would quickly eat up any cost savings.

For the record, I think what you are talking about is a good idea, I just don't see how it could be implemented.

I don't know the exact details, but as I understand it, it's already implemented. Teachers are supposed to be "certified" to teach specific courses at specific grade levels. It simply needs to be followed and enforced, with no exceptions except "we can't find anyone who is qualified".

As a specific example, let's say a social studies class needs to be taught at the middle school level. If there's absolutely nobody qualified, then obviously the school needs to settle for an unqualified teacher. But if teacher "A" is qualified and teacher "B" is not, then teach "A" should get that position.

My understanding of how it works in Michigan City, however, is that if "B" drinks with the right school clique during happy hour, then "B" gets the position, regardless of how more qualified others may be. (I'm sure there are other non-skill criteria used in the "it's who you know" game, but I intentionally picked the most glaringly offensive one for effect.)

I'm not sure why this is such rocket science for the public sector. My employer maintains its labor pool with yearly assessments of skills and contribution to the business. And nobody whines about that being discrimination against the elderly. It's understood that the business will fail without utilizing the best people, and without regularly auditing who is and isn't what the business needs to succeed.

But as soon as it's the public sector, we have to go mambsy pambsy about it, and pretend all kinds of things about personal equality, apparently to not hurt the feelings of the less qualified. <sarcasm>We certainly wouldn't want anybody to feel like anything less than the utterly amazing and fantastic person they consider themselves to be.</sarcasm>

Is anyone surprised about the quality of US public education when the "skill laborers" thereof are selected through a process that favors drinking buddies and/or steering clear of whose feelings might get hurt the mostest....?

(NOTE: I'm not saying or trying to imply you're whining, or encouraging what I'm describing. I'm basically in soapbox mode, here.)

[Dave]

1) Giving priority to newer, more qualified/certified teachers....

Yep, using a criteria like this would pretty much be an employment discrimination lawyer's dream case. The only question in his/her mind would be whether to plan on buying a new car or a new boat with the proceeds from the lawsuit.

I'm very pro-tech myself, but requiring a music teacher to know how to do coding in Java doesn't make sense. On the other hand, I'd be surprised if a teacher was able to do anything these days without at least being capable of reading their email. I've heard of people who ignore their work email, and my standard response is that if someone can't perform a basic job function they need to seek alternate employment.

On the gripping hand, aren't teachers required to get ongoing certification in fields relevant to their jobs? I'd think failure to get regular certification would be a valid criteria for dismissal. All union issues aside, as I have no idea how those mix into the equation.

[Dave]

I'm not sure why this is such rocket science for the public sector.

Oh, come on. You've never heard of someone in the private sector getting a job or a promotion they weren't qualified for because they played golf with the right person/ were related to the right person/ slept with the right person?

The private sector isn't much of a model for perfection when it comes to that sort of thing. Heck, it's worse. It isn't regulated as strictly.

This post has been edited by Dave: Mar 22 2010, 12:01 PM

[dusk]

Yep, using a criteria like this would pretty much be an employment discrimination lawyer's dream case. The only question in his/her mind would be whether to plan on buying a new car or a new boat with the proceeds from the lawsuit.

I'm very pro-tech myself, but requiring a music teacher to know how to do coding in Java doesn't make sense. On the other hand, I'd be surprised if a teacher was able to do anything these days without at least being capable of reading their email. I've heard of people who ignore their work email, and my standard response is that if someone can't perform a basic job function they need to seek alternate employment.

On the gripping hand, aren't teachers required to get ongoing certification in fields relevant to their jobs? I'd think failure to get regular certification would be a valid criteria for dismissal. All union issues aside, as I have no idea how those mix into the equation.

Okay, if you're going to get hung up on the "age discrimination" aspect of my statement, let's change it to remove that part:

Change this:
1) Giving priority to newer, more qualified/certified teachers....

To this:
2) Giving priority to more qualified/certified teachers

How's that? Or do we still have to pretend that necessarily means age discrimination? If so, then we may as well change discrimination laws to add "and also without respect to skill or qualification just in case that implies any of the above"... sheesus..... (my frustration isn't with you, it's with how the master list of every little thing that *could* be considered discrimination is likely to become hundreds of pages long by the time I'm safely converted to ashes....)

Yeah, I can't see requiring music teachers to know how to write Java. But they sure as hell ought to be able to write Perl.... ;-) (that last part was a joke)

[dusk]

Oh, come on. You've never heard of someone in the private sector getting a job or a promotion they weren't qualified for because they played golf with the right person/ were related to the right person/ slept with the right person?

The private sector isn't much of a model for perfection when it comes to that sort of thing. Heck, it's worse. It isn't regulated as strictly.

"Never" is too broad a brush. And I'm not looking for perfection. What I'm looking for isn't even difficult. An independent auditor compiles a list of who is qualified for what, along with *degree* of qualification (the latter could be thought of as tie-breaker material, e.g. rating on a scale of 1 to 5, or whatever), and assign positions in accordance with that.

In cases where it's too close to call, *then* the usual "who likes who the most" crap can reign. But by the time the process is to that level of refinement, a good measure of empirical sanity has been applied.

[Dave]

I have no problem with making personnel cuts based on merit, but determining the criteria as to how to judge merit would have to be carefully determined so as to not discriminate against protected groups.

It might be possible to replace the janitor with 15 years on the job (with 15 years of raises) with a new hire who will work for starting salary, but that seems a lot like penalizing someone for being a long term employee, which strikes me as wrong.

[dusk]

I have no problem with making personnel cuts based on merit, but determining the criteria as to how to judge merit would have to be carefully determined so as to not discriminate against protected groups.

It might be possible to replace the janitor with 15 years on the job (with 15 years of raises) with a new hire who will work for starting salary, but that seems a lot like penalizing someone for being a long term employee, which strikes me as wrong.

Sure, when only the janitor's salary is wrecking the budget. But when it comes to a serious budget crunch and the main issue is educators' salaries, if there's more than a non-trivial relationship between classroom sizes and quality of education, and other factors are roughly the same, retaining $45,000/year teachers means better education for students than does retaining $90,000/year teachers. Obviously it's possible a $90,000/year teacher is "better" than a $45,000/year teacher (although it's arguable that it's more likely the other way around when the $90,000/year teacher is so - GASP! - old that they're chronically distrustful of modern methods and/or technology). But might not that hypothetical superiority be undermined by their needing to have 60 students per class instead of 30?

And, yes, there's more to labor cost than just salary (e.g. medical benefits, pension), so I don't mean to imply one can have twice as many $45,000/year teachers as $90,000/year teachers. But that $45,000 multiplied by a dozen or two does add up to quite a few additional teachers.

I think this nation needs to wake up to the fact that the whole "protected groups" thing is a *luxury*, and presupposes a sound nation (especially in the "character" department) capable of delivering such protection. Undermining fundamental infrastructure (e.g. the development of the next generation) in the name of "protected groups" strikes me as foolish. If the development of the next generation must be sacrificed on the altar of seniors getting to keep their jobs at all costs just because they're a "protected group", then nobody should be surprised when that next generation is too stupid to protect even simpler rights than that.....

[dawn]

"Never" is too broad a brush. And I'm not looking for perfection. What I'm looking for isn't even difficult. An independent auditor compiles a list of who is qualified for what, along with *degree* of qualification (the latter could be thought of as tie-breaker material, e.g. rating on a scale of 1 to 5, or whatever), and assign positions in accordance with that.

In cases where it's too close to call, *then* the usual "who likes who the most" crap can reign. But by the time the process is to that level of refinement, a good measure of empirical sanity has been applied.

Dave, does that make it okay?

below is in response to many of the other comments, so understand this is a blended response:
Union seniority is a thing of the past. Not all of the educators in MCAS are unionized educators. Many do not now, nor have they ever paid a single solitary union due, yet their jobs are protected. Furthermore, President Obama and his educational side-kick Arne are doing everything they can do to bust up union. Yes, bust up union! Furthermore, when a school district begins to suffer financially as this one is, the contract can indeed become a moot point, as many larger districts can attest to.

There are so many people talking that are not educators, nor do they know anything about the profession. At some point school districts must be looked at like a business model. Seriously, a business that has not [i]been producing quality outcomes for 30 years must look at the 30 year employees, and then it is time to go, as they are the consistent factor involved!

If however, there has been any degree of improvement over, let's say a period of 3 years, then you better be keeping the new hires, as they are the piece of the equation that is making the difference, right, they become the new variable?

Age discrimination as a justification for keeping ineffective employees? Please, we are talking about kids who will never have the luxury of zero student loans, right out of college luxury, literally long careers handed to them on a silver plater as their educators have had in many cases.

The majority of educators that have been around prior to 1997 never even had to pass a certification test, and are terrified at the very mention of it, yet they mandate testing daily! The average number of credit hours of those who graduated prior to 1985 don't even surpass 130, where as the current graduates are going to school sometimes for 5 years to meet all the requirements, and with over 145 credit hours. That computes into a lot of money, especially those who had to take out student loans. (the number of new teachers unable to find work is astounding. Most of the newer graduates, those post mandated certification testing, have been schooled in best practices, this is not a statement of absolutes, on any end of the spectrum, but rather an example of some of the grim realities confronting us)

Now, as to the comment by someone else asking why a music teacher would need to know technology? Are you absolutely out of your mind? What rock have you been hiding under?(music is math, science, technology, engineering, reading a new language, theory, geesh, you were obviously taught here at michigan city!)

Kids are far more sophisticated than you, obviously! Every teacher should be well versed in technology, sound pedagogy, reading, (able to diagnose reading disabilities and address them in a cross-curricular setting) and prepare our children for the global reality that we all live in. Maybe, just maybe if they did, the children of Michigan City would begin to raise their academic scores, move somewhat away from the sick representation as identified on youtube, and be viable in the workplace, beyond what Michigan City currently has to offer them!

For the sake of the children of Michigan City, it is time to move into the 21st century!

Oh another "group" that should be on the second rung of the hiring ladder...those who do not live, pay taxes in, or support the economic climate of LaPorte County! How many educators, staff members, and employees in MC, work here, but go home to their better neighborhoods in Porter County and beyond? Wasn't that one of the hanging tools to justify Mike Harding's demise?

Ooooohhh, now I bet I got a few people ticked off! Until such time that the economic crisis passes, you might want to consider those who make this place their home. After all, the last thing you want is the unemployment rate of La Porte climbing, that does not look good for attracting much needed investment in the infrastructure!


Okay, I am coming down off of my soap-box. Bottom line is this. Wake up and smell the coffee people. Oh, I know...you're worried about offending groups? Let's keep all of the educators, and get rid of the phoney made up position, just to have coaches in Indiana High schools! Administrators at the High schools, (non-certified) just to justify a coach! Now there is a joke. I say, cut all competitive sports programs, as they have no sound bearing on the future of Michigan City! You would sacrifice the education of the many for the glorification of maybe one or two? Please! Wake up!

[Dave]

Sorry if this comes across as harsh.

Oops, not really.

Sure, when only the janitor's salary is wrecking the budget. But when it comes to a serious budget crunch

Errr, and when have the schools (or any government entity or private corporation for that matter) ever had a budget surplus? They always want to cut salaries.

and the main issue is educators' salaries, if there's more than a non-trivial relationship between classroom sizes and quality of education, and other factors are roughly the same, retaining $45,000/year teachers means better education for students than does retaining $90,000/year teachers. Obviously it's possible a $90,000/year teacher is "better" than a $45,000/year teacher (although it's arguable that it's more likely the other way around when the $90,000/year teacher is so - GASP! - old that they're chronically distrustful of modern methods and/or technology).

I have to admit the people I know in the educational field are college level (two brothers-in-law and a niece's husband are college professors, and various friends), but for the most part my impression has been that educators like to learn as well as educate. How many technophobe teachers do you personally know who are still teaching?

But might not that hypothetical superiority be undermined by their needing to have 60 students per class instead of 30?

And, yes, there's more to labor cost than just salary (e.g. medical benefits, pension), so I don't mean to imply one can have twice as many $45,000/year teachers as $90,000/year teachers. But that $45,000 multiplied by a dozen or two does add up to quite a few additional teachers.

And how many teachers in MCAS are making $90K? How many are making double the starting salary?

I think this nation needs to wake up to the fact that the whole "protected groups" thing is a *luxury*,

...and some of us consider these to be basic rights. So which protected groups do you want to discriminate against? Older people? Women? Or do you prefer discriminating based on race or religion?

and presupposes a sound nation (especially in the "character" department) capable of delivering such protection. Undermining fundamental infrastructure (e.g. the development of the next generation) in the name of "protected groups" strikes me as foolish. If the development of the next generation must be sacrificed on the altar of seniors getting to keep their jobs at all costs just because they're a "protected group", then nobody should be surprised when that next generation is too stupid to protect even simpler rights than that.....

Hey, and the wimmin should be home havin' babies instead of takin' a job away from a man. And those folks wit' those funny religions gettin' days off for Ramydan an' Chanukka, why should we put up with dem?

Because it's the right thing to do, and it's one of the reasons this is a great country. Duh.

[dusk]

Sorry if this comes across as harsh.

Oops, not really.
Errr, and when have the schools (or any government entity or private corporation for that matter) ever had a budget surplus? They always want to cut salaries.
I have to admit the people I know in the educational field are college level (two brothers-in-law and a niece's husband are college professors, and various friends), but for the most part my impression has been that educators like to learn as well as educate. How many technophobe teachers do you personally know who are still teaching?
And how many teachers in MCAS are making $90K? How many are making double the starting salary?
...and some of us consider these to be basic rights. So which protected groups do you want to discriminate against? Older people? Women? Or do you prefer discriminating based on race or religion?

Hey, and the wimmin should be home havin' babies instead of takin' a job away from a man. And those folks wit' those funny religions gettin' days off for Ramydan an' Chanukka, why should we put up with dem?

Because it's the right thing to do, and it's one of the reasons this is a great country. Duh.

Not harsh at all.

I don't know how many MCAS teachers are making $90K. That and $45K were just numbers for argument's sake.

I don't prefer discrimination of any kind. However, it takes a rather enlightened society to voluntarily not discriminate. American society does not qualify as such a society because non-discrimination here is had in large part by force of law and punishment. When "nobody's lookin'" there be all kinds of discrimination.

I'll repeat one of my points as it relates to that: if we fail to "enlighten" the next generation, we can eventually kiss such rights goodbye altogether, because a war on discrimination will fare no better than a war on drugs, 'cuz "the right thing to do" cain't be legislat'd.

You know what's another "right thing to do"? To step aside after you've had a long, productive life, and let younger people have their chance. I'm not in personally in MCAS, but I've spoken with people in it who tell me there are plenty teachers there past their prime who aren't worth their salaries, sitting with cushy core positions, and they know damned well nobody can make them budge. Are they within their almighty "rights"? Damn straight. Are they doing anybody but themselves a favor? Ditto.

The reason this was a great country is because it was a great people. There's nothing either magical or even merely alive in laws and principles. They're quite inert save in the hearts and actions of great people. Let's hope our lives are breathing the same life into them which our ancestors once did, the benefits of which the last couple generations have been quick to claim and trademark, but not replenish.