2010-11 State Funding for School Districts- CASB

2010-11 State Funding for School Districts Taking Shape

We have known for some time that budgeting for fiscal year 2010-11 would be a rough one for school districts. With each passing quarterly economic forecast, the picture becomes bleaker and bleaker. Finally last week school boards began to get a better feel for the depth of cuts in 2010-11. Be mindful however that the following information is the Governor’s best guess; given the data we have at the moment. As we move into 2010, these figures will likely change, and of course, the legislature gets the final say. As we know, it’s a rare occasion for the legislature to take an idea and leave it as is. The General Assembly will surely make changes.

Despite the Governor’s hope to keep K-12 whole, the reality is that K-12 comprises 43 percent of the state’s budget. Given the cuts that have already been made to other areas of the state budget, there is little else to turn to for 2010-11. This being the case, the Governor’s 2010-11 proposal cuts $260 million from K-12, or 4.56 percent. This $260 million includes the $110 million that districts are currently holding in reserve and anticipate to be rescinded by the legislature in January. However, the Governor’s recommendation does not include per pupil funding changes related to enrollment projections for 2010-11. According to the latest spreadsheet distributed by Vody Hermann at CDE, the average cut will be closer to 6.12 percent, but some districts will be below, some at and some above that average.

The $260 million in cuts proposed by the Governor are taken from the cost of living factor. However, recognizing that this will hit some districts harder than others, there will also be an “equity” factor that will help equalize the cuts across districts.

CASB believes the intent of Amendment 23 was to increase total base funding—the base plus factors—by inflation plus 1 percent. In other words, our opinion is that base funding is all funding outside of categorical funding. In our opinion, therefore, the Governor’s proposed cuts violate Amendment 23 and the state constitution. However, in the state’s current financial crisis we are not certain how this issue will play out or if it will get elevated to a legal decision. As stated in previous Legislative Updates, we are approaching school finance in a strategic manner, working to get every dime possible for our schools but also ensuring that any cuts to funding that do occur are done as equitably as possible.

In addition to the cuts to K-12, the Governor is proposing a series of cuts to tax credits and exemptions to realize another $132 million in savings to the state. As explained by the Governor’s staff, the Governor’s plan is a delicate balance between K-12 and the business community. Should any of the cuts to tax credits and exemptions falter with the legislature, it is likely that K-12 will experience additional cuts.


How to plan

It is still CASB’s belief that boards of education should be prepared to look at cuts above the Governor’s recommended cut of 4.56 percent. A strategy of identifying optional cuts of 6 and 8 percent could prove wise—perhaps more if you are projecting significant enrollment loss in 2010-11.

It is imperative that school districts and board members engage the community in the budget cutting process. Those districts that have not already assembled community advisory groups for budget input should strongly consider it. At a bare minimum, it is vital that the community be informed of proposed cuts so they don’t come as a surprise to staff, parents, business leaders and other school stakeholders.

The process of communicating budget cuts to the community should include a background of the economic and governance issues that have lead to this challenge. Messages should also include how the board and administration (ideally with community input) determined what cuts to propose and the conflicts and trade-offs of selecting difficult budget priorities.

Going Forward with a MANDATE !

By Kent Clawson - Posted on 04 November 2009

What a night for D-49!!!

After months of manufactured turmoil, in the shadow of an apparent recall effort, and with so much alleged support, the Recall detractors lose big (and almost completely). With the election of Danielle Lindorf, Chris Wright, and almost Donahue Quashie, the mandate has been delivered.

For the Harold family and Jackie Vialpandos, it must be crushing to go from a Spring lined with almost unenviable political traction and fodder full of apparent success finally waiting to be harvested, ready to take over the Board, to instead placing only one of the their endorsed candidates (and that one by such a narrow margin that it must have been a sigh of relief to have the final votes counted).

Ms. Lindorf in particular should feel greatly emboldened since spurious statement challenged her commitment, experience, even her religion!!! Instead on this night she finds herself as the new record holder for District 49 candidates after securing a place on 2 out of 3 ballots delivered.

Will this silence the detractors? No, but their shrillness will be tempered by the fact that they failed in their bid and DO NOT represent the majority of District 49 voters. They DO NOT embody the principles that the average District 49 voter embraces.

This election was a defining moment in District 49. It will be reviewed in the not to distant future as the election that empowered the candidates of change. The detractors will no longer be able to pass their conspiratorial vagaries' as those of the silent majority.

It is a great day in District 49 and I wish all of the candidates my best, and I wish all of the victors (including Tammy Harold) success on their new journey.

Kent Clawson

Board's last meeting - Not Bad, Not Bad at all.

As the current term of D49 board members comes to a close, the school community said goodbye to directors Dave Stark, Anna Bartha , and Mark Shook.

When I think of the impact of Mark Shook, Anna Bartha, and Kent Clawson (who left to take a job in another state in September), had on d49, I realize the school district is forever changed because of their service.

In 2004, the status quo for board members was the revolving door of failed superintendents, hands off board governance, and stagnant student achievement.

As these board members leave, they have made an impact that will be felt for years.

They have raised standards, changed policies, ended special interest domination of district committees, and ended rule by unelected committees.

By their courageous act of ignoring the noisy D49 community minority, and pressing forward with a superintendent search, then again ignoring the D49 minority's demand for Mike Poore as the only choice for superintendent, they choose the right man for the time.

Dr Brad Schoeppey and Dr Mary Guinn will make the necessary changes in true accountability, increase standards and will demand and obtain the achievement improvements that have long been the board's end goal.

They will do so on the foundation of policy changes Shook, Clawson, and Bartha championed and instituted.

Charter school administrators and parents are now represented on every D49 committee. But just 2 short years ago, NO charter parents served on any D49 committee.

The relationship of the district and their charter schools has been forever changed by this board's insistence of inclusion of charter school parents . That first charter school mom Shook nominated for the LRPC committee he chaired is now the newest D49 board member, elected by the largest number of votes cast for a single board member in D49 history.

The opposition in the last election branded these new board members as Shook's hand picked candidates, but they found out on election day they were really the majority of this conservative leaning school district's everyman/woman.

As the last meeting of the term came to a close, the words of a past president come to mind.

..."My friends: We did it. We weren't just marking time. We made a difference. We made the (district) stronger. We made the (district better), and we left her in good hands.

All in all, not bad, not bad at all..."

..."Ce n'est pas fini. Ce n'est que le début..."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 comment:

Pat said...

I think you all have done a good job and in the most critical decision you had to make, you hit a grand slam. You have placed District 49 on the path to success with the selection of Dr. Schoeppey and Dr. Guinn and NO ONE can argue with that. I commend Anna, Dave and Mark for their leadership and courage under fire. You made the tough calls, you took the heat from the dissenters but maintained your values, and you have left this district better than you found it. Great job!

November 17, 2009 6:15 AM

Those who wish to commit must supply the required information, or your comment will not be published.

There is one anonymous comment that I especially want to answer and debunk, (again.)

That is, regarding the number of superintendents the 3 board members leaving are responsible for hiring, or firing. Here are the facts.

Bartha & Stark 2005-2009

Ended the rein of Steve Hull and Grant Schmidt.

Bartha voted against Grant Schmidt. Stark For.

Both voted to hire current superintendent Brad Schoeppey

Shook 2008-2009

Voted to end the rein of Grant Schmidt

Voted to Hire Brad Schoeppey.

The other "acting superintendents were just current staff place holders filling in until a permanent superintendent could be found, or retired superintendents hired to be there temporarily. None were fired."

FINAL SCORE

Bartha F=2 H=1

Stark F=2 H=2

Shook F=1 H=1

All three voted to hire the current superintendent.

All 3 (actually all 5) board members voted to end Grant Schmidt's employment.

D-49's Child Beggars

By Kent Clawson - Posted on 07 November 2009

Fundraising practices in our schools have got to change. For years our family has been beset by modern fundraising practices that turned our children into panhandlers. Our children are encouraged to go door to door soliciting people to buy overpriced cookie dough, magazines, coupon books, and a host of other products all under the auspice of the “Helping our schools”. When asked what the goal is, often we are simply told what the reward for the child or the class will be, not about the point of the fundraising.

Our children are instructed to be charitable by bringing in pennies or cans of food, but they take away the lesson that “our class is behind so I need more”. We have taught our kids to “just say no” and turn away from peer pressure, but then turn around and have assemblies and giveaways for the class that “sells” the most widgets. The problem is compounded by the fact that children rarely have the financial means to address the current project. Commercial interests are entering our schools under the auspice of charity, but do so at a price. The school leadership explains to us that these things need to take place to make up for deficiencies in the budget, but what is the goal?

The argument isn’t over whether the school is managing their resources appropriately, but instead is whether we should turn our children into beggars roaming the streets selling overpriced butterbraids. Recently our child was given an “award” in the form of a coupon for a local retailer, but can the child redeem that “award” for the stated prize without assistance? No! Instead the family often goes and spends money that was not intended; at a place they had no intention of going, simply because a child was given an “award”. When this is brought to the school administration we are told that XYZ company is a big “supporter” of our school. If this is the case why don’t they just donate cash? Instead the school is given a percentage of what is spent. At best the “supporting” organizations only take a 50% cut, but often it is as much as 85%. This means that 15 cents of every dollar spent does NOT support your school.

One of the hardest decisions parents must make in regards to their child’s education is the decision to either speak up or remain silent when school practices or policies conflict with what the parent feels is in the best interest of their child. Out of fear that relationships with teachers and building administrators may be damaged by perceived offense, many parents choose to compensate for the problem at home. I ask that we speak out together reducing the inevitable alienation that is felt in speaking out alone. We are not asking that people abandon contributions to our schools, but instead ask that marketing is targeted at the parents, that classroom competitions be done away with, and where possible 100% of donations go to the school. This allows those families that are less able to contribute to not feel ostracized when they can’t contribute, while still allowing those that find value in the current paradigm to continue to do so.

I ask that you contact your building administration and ask that these practices change. I would also encourage you to contact me (kent@kentclawson.com) if you have other views or ideas and so that we can each know that we are not alone in this perspective.

---------------------------------------------------------------

What the Gazzette exoneration story failed to say

Review finds no issues with D-49 board member's campaign e-mail

CAROL MCGRAW

2009-10-29

A review by Falcon School District 49 officials has dismissed allegations that outgoing board member Mark Shook misused district resources to campaign for a slate of three board candidates.

The review was launched after the administration received inquiries about political fliers that Shook sent to staff via e-mail under the auspices of EmpowerParents.org. Fueling the fire was a flurry of online comments from staff and others who questioned whether it was appropriate for him to send e-mails to district employees at work, urging them to vote for the three candidates.

Shook, who was appointed to the board a year ago and is not seeking election, called the brouhaha “rubbish” and blamed it on those running against the three candidates he endorses.

Several online commentators alleged that Shook used his district computer account to e-mail the campaign fliers. If he had done that, it would have violated the state’s Fair Campaign Practices Act, which says government resources cannot be used to endorse candidates.

But Shook said he used his own Yahoo account, and a district investigation backed him up. David Bond, D49’s head of computer operations, said he checked the electronic tracks that show how e-mail addresses make their way from sender to the recipient.

“I found no indication of misuse of district resources whatsoever,” Bond said in an e-mail.

At The Gazette’s request, two independent computer experts at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs also checked the e-mail trail and concurred with Bond’s conclusion, with the caveat that they couldn’t provide an unequivocal answer because they didn’t have access to the district’s logs.

The incident further underscores how volatile the D-49 school board race has been, reflecting a year of district discord that included a campaign to recall two board members and the departure of the superintendent and many other administrators.

Seven candidates are running for three board positions. While the school board race is supposed to be nonpartisan, Shook’s critics say he’s trying to stack the board with conservative Republicans. The three candidates endorsed in the fliers e-mailed by EmpowerParents.org also are endorsed by the Falcon Republican Club, of which he is a member.

It’s unclear whether Shook has a leadership role with EmpowerParents.org, or whether anyone else is involved with it. Shook said he is a volunteer and Webmaster. When asked several times during an interview for names of the group’s officers, he did not answer, and did not respond to subsequent e-mails and a phone call requesting the information. The Web site has no contact phone numbers and offers little insight into what it does, aside from saying its mission is to “‘empower Parents’ by providing information on those issues that concern parents, including information on those individuals running for the School District 49 Board of Education.”

D-49 officials said they don’t know anything about EmpowerParents.org, according to Brad Miller, a D-49 attorney.

Shook acknowledged e-mailing the fliers, and some district employees said they were surprised to receive one— and even more surprised when they found out it was from Shook.

“We thought it was illegal to campaign at work,” said a teacher, who asked not to be identified to protect his job.

Miller said the district concluded that Shook did not use bulk internal district e-mail lists. And he added that the district cannot control, nor does it attempt to control, e-mails sent to its employees.

While no laws or policies were broken, one ethics expert said Shook shouldn’t have sent e-mails to people’s work accounts.

“A school board member should know better,” said Chantell Taylor, executive director of Denver-based Colorado Ethics Watch. “The employees are receiving them at work, and such e-mail systems are for official business. And it’s a disruption of their time.”

Shook, meanwhile, said he has no vested interest in the board race beyond what’s best for students.

“My term ends before they arrive, so there is no (personal) gain at all,” he said.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

What the Gazette failed to tell you.

Over 250 emails were sent out, less than two dozen went to d49.org addresses.

This was a politically motivated complaint amounting to "much ado about nothing", over a handful of e-mails that were positive, not negative, and asked only for the reader's consideration ( and then gave a link ).

This was NOT some political bomb "attack" type e-mail.

Anyone who received it and was offended has my apology.

Here is what the e-mails said, judge for yourself.

Your mail in ballot for d49 school board should be in your mailbox today.

We are asking you to consider entrusting your vote to

Donahue Quashie,

Chris Wright,

and Danielle Lindorf.

Thier positions and bios are linked here:>> http://www.empowerParents.org

The decisions D49 voters make will effect the lives of our children for years to come.

Choose wisely.

.