MAN ABOUT TOWN: It’s All About the Schools, Stupid
By GEORGE SOUTHERN
Falls Church Times Staff
February 1, 2010
I write this with trepidation, aware that if I keep urging that Falls Church City Schools merge with Arlington schools, the Man About Town might become the Man Run Out of Town.
But – these are desperate times. I keep thinking about a comment Gordon Theisz made three weeks ago: “The schools are why Falls Church became independent in the first place. If you give away the schools, then why bother to run the town/city?”
The good doctor makes a good point: It really is all about the schools. And in urging that we merge with Arlington schools, I’m not trying to save money – I’m trying to save the schools.
Remember Around the World in 80 Days? Crossing the Atlantic on a steamboat, the heroes run low on fuel. So Phineas Fogg buys the boat and orders it stripped of everything that will burn to fuel the boiler. He wins his bet, but the ship is left a mere skeleton.
That’s what I see happening to our school system. We’ll stay independent at all costs – stripped of the programs that make education an enriching experience.
What makes good schools, anyway? I fear that in judging our schools among the best in the country we’re relying too much on standardized test scores. Sure, our kids are smart – because they’ve been nurtured by smart parents and given all the advantages. But there’s so much to a great school program that isn’t measured by test scores, and essential elements could be eviscerated by the budget crisis. Some examples: music, arts (including vocational), sports, and foreign languages.
In addition to teaching in half a dozen schools myself, including inner-city schools, my itinerant career caused my children to attend schools in Alexandria City, Fairfax County, Arlington, and Falls Church, plus private schools on four continents. One superior thing I noticed about private schools is that sports were not primarily an “extracurricular” activity – they were a core component. Playing on a team was not an option, it was a requirement – and forget about being “cut.” A team experience is so important to a child’s development. But now we’re talking about reducing the already low emphasis on school athletics and physical education.
As a student I was never much of an athlete, but I did play in the band, which is a “team” of a different sort that also demands physical coordination. Studies show that students who participate in music programs also tend to score higher in academic achievement. But the budget deficit could cause the termination of the school system’s longtime, dedicated music paraprofessional, Larry Allen. (Watch our feature video of the elegant argument by GMHS student band president Jack Western to save Allen’s job.)
Then there are the industrial arts/vocational courses which our little school system can hardly support anyway. Many students need these programs, so thank goodness for our agreement with Arlington to allow them to participate there.
Middle school foreign languages other than Spanish? We’re struggling to maintain French, while Arlington includes Arabic, Chinese, and Latin.
Our youngest daughter benefitted from the swim club started in 2004 by Janice Nette, a GMHS parent. But the school system had no money to fund it, even in those flush times. It took five years for the swim program to become a full-fledged school sport. And it was always catch-as-catch-can to schedule pool practice times – while over in Arlington, all three high schools have their own pools.
Our eldest daughter attended JEB Stuart High School in Fairfax County, and rowed on the tradition-laden crew team. That experience led her to row at the University of Virginia and to compete in the NCAA finals in California, where her boat won. (No such chance at George Mason.)
Meanwhile, Arlington continues to raise the bar with teacher salaries – and don’t tell me that doesn’t attract good teachers. Look at the Falls Church pay scale compared to Arlington – starting salaries are about the same, but for experienced teachers, Arlington pays far more. Wonder why our teacher turnover is so high?
Take a look at the spending reduction options proposed by Superintendent Lois Berlin. The “worst case” scenario – and it does indeed sound draconian – saves only $3 million. Parents are rightly protesting – don’t cut this, don’t cut that. But what is the poor superintendent supposed to do?
It’s like Mark Twain said: “Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.” We can talk all day about why school programs must not be cut, but that doesn’t do a thing to preserve them.
Folks, read the handwriting on the whiteboard. It’s not going to get any better. Even with higher and higher taxes, Falls Church cannot provide the opportunities to students that exist next door in Arlington. It’s not a matter of bad management, it’s a matter of 1) a poor economy of scale, 2) a weak commercial tax base, and 3) an ever-increasing student/resident ratio.
And now, please excuse me while I don my bulletproof vest before venturing outside to walk the dog.
By George Southern
February 1, 2010
Jay Mathews just ranked Falls Church the best school district in the area. Good luck convincing anyone we ought to merge with Arlington after that. Housing values just jumped, George, as people looking for the best school system for their children start looking for houses for sale.
GEORGE SOUTHERN RESPONDS: Only fair to add that the #1-ranked school on Jay Mathews’ Washington Post list is Arlington’s H-B Woodlawn. George Mason ranks #4. Here’s the link.
.
No need for the vest, George. Although I disagree strongly, and especially with several of the allegations you portray as facts, you should have the freedom to call things the way you see them and still be treated as a neighbor. Yea, as a friend, since I think your criticism is heartfelt and expressed in the spirit of wanting the best for Falls Church and particularly for its school students.
But I think your facts are wrong if you are saying that our ratio of participants in sports and band is not as high as in nearby Arlington and Fairfax schools. Also, I think you’re missing much of the value involved in small schools and small classes. Our success in getting students to graduation is tops in the area. And the ratio of students participating in IB continues to grow from historically high levels. An article posted yesterday in FCT details the very successful outcomes that our IB students are experiencing. The inner strength that those students developed, for time management, for community service and other keys to life success, becomes very clear in their stories.
This budget will be extremely difficult. But the City’s founders understood from the beginning that an independent school system would probably cost more per student, and they certainly recognized that their schools’ facilities would probably lag behind in some respects because of the lack of economies of scale. And yet, important components of our system exceed those of our neighbors. These include all-day Kindergarten, extended day care (without a waiting list for access), and the IB (which has a longer and deeper history here than with our neighbors). It was for leadership in such areas that our founders chose the route of independence, and I think it was, and will continue to be, the right course.
George, George, yes it is all about the schools, but you missed my point – it is all about OUR schools. This City was founded to have its OWN schools. Despite all of the grousing about higher tax rates, the majority of the citizens of our City will spend the cash to keep the schools at the top of their game.
On a different note, anyone notice the striking difference between the roads in Fairfax Co. and Falls Church yesterday and this morning? You can see the City border outlined in snow. Our staff, despite their workforce number shortfalls, keep our town moving. The plows hit my little street to no-where at least seven times on Saturday. In Fairfax Co., we’d still have a slippery slope to climb out of. Great job public works staff!
George,
We FCT staffers don’t normally comment on each others’ opinion pieces, but this time I can’t resist.
No, no, no, no, no. Over my dead body! They’ll have to take us by force before we become a part of Arlington or Fairfax! (Which Fairfax may do if we lose any more money in the water litigation.)
My family moved here specifically to be a part of an excellent, small school system. We’re not giving that up without a fight.
But keep pushing us. The prospect of being incorporated into a larger system is the ultimate downside that will result from an inability to set spending priorities in the upcoming budget debate. Having our wonderful small schools become big county schools is a sobering thought, and we should establish priorities to avoid it.
Stan Fendley
Interesting take on this subject, very thoughtful, and I think it examines the issue from a perspective not often seen in these discussions (and that’s a good thing, I mean to say!)
I’m curious–what exactly were the issues that led Falls Church to want their own school system? What was it that Fairfax County was doing or not doing that led Falls Church-ians to decide to take control like that, way back in 1948 (I believe)? Any historians out there who can shed some light on this, more than “we just wanted better schools”, please? Thanks!
This is an intellectually honest piece. The question, from my perspective, has always been whether we can (or are willing to) afford EXTRAORDINARY schools. Having better schools than Fairfax County in the 1940′s and 1950′s was probably not a huge challenge. Falls Church was an urbanizing town of transplants, surrounded by rural, low tax/low-service farming communities.
But having better schools than surrounding jurisdictions now is very hard — and very expensive. And if our schools are not demonstrably better — then what is the point of having an independent City? Being “just as good” can’t be the goal, because there is then no point to the independence premium paid by our citizens.
So the question does come down to whether we, as a community, are really willing to pay the price for extraordinary schools? We will certainly see this budget season.
George,
My wife Celeste and I moved here in large part because of the schools. With five kids, we have a vision of our kids growing up in a small community where our family knows the majority of kids and their families. But just as importantly, we envision a top notch public school education that allows them to STAY fully engaged in that community (as opposed to sending them out to private school). Elusive goals in the D.C area, but this City makes that possible and that vision spurred our move from Falls Church, Fairfax County, to the City seven years ago. My instinct says the basis for our moving here would be undermined if we allow our schools to merge with Arlington. I don’t believe, however, that we can ignore your position without thorough examination. One initial question in the equation ought to be, “Are our schools really all that good?” And even if our high school is top notch because of the IB program, what about the rest of the system? With a kid currently in every school in the system, I have particularly wondered about MEH. I love the community feel, involvement and concern for our kids that MEH has consistently demonstrated with my kids through the principal, vice principal and teachers. But I also have been dismayed by the fill-in-the-blank, worksheet approach to the MEH curriculum. Very little writing or critical thinking required. Mostly, fill in the worksheet, memorize it, and take the test. I don’t believe that is good preparation for the IB Program, college, or life. Additionally, a few years ago, I was struck by how few top schools (“Most Competitive” category) were destinations of our graduating seniors, notwithstanding that GMHS’ small size and our demographics allow for an advantage in many statistical areas. Perhaps that year was an aberration, but these serve as examples of possible indicators that cause me to sometimes question just how good the school system really is. My family, as others, has a lot invested in the City’s schools being what they are reputed to be. I’d like to believe they are all that they are touted to be, but as we as a community face some difficult decisions, we owe ourselves a hard look at what we are as well as what we want to be, before we rule any solution out.
One thing to consider is that the only way to be sure that all of the students who live in the city attend GMHS would be to have a separate school system. If we do not control the schools, we have no control over attendance boundaries — everything is subject to redistricting at any time, whether it is for educational or budgetary reasons/
In my 11+ years on school boards, I have seen first hand that redistricting fights are the most divisive things a school board deals with. Sometimes the arguments turn very ugly. Sometimes the results are rational decisions, sometimes politics and pressure take precedence over things rooted solely in educational advantages. Most of the people I have listened to at redistricting hearings say “but I bought my house because I wanted to go to this school.” I have seen people get far angrier at redistricting hearings than I ever did at a tax hearing (of course, with the economy nowadays, maybe that would no longer be true).
There are pros and cons to mixing things up with redistricting, but the community needs to realize that this is a possibility if we head down that route, unless there is some way to build some assurances into the merger process. I think this is something the community would need to think about. It may be that some folks would welcome that, I just have not heard that yet.
Mr. Peppe makes an excellent point above: redistricting hearings can be very emotional and very ugly.
But they often become so for a good reason: if a city or county government moves you to a different school district, the value of your home can plummet and the education and experience your children receive can be markedly worse.
One of the many reasons we selected Falls Church City was that we figured we couldn’t get redistricted here, as opposed to Arlington. Perhaps we were wrong.
Additionally, I would disagree with Mr. Chavern’s comment above. Being “just as good” is fine, because a) people will always disagree about which system is better anyway; b) there’s lots of ways to measure excellence; and c) if we are just as good but have smaller schools and class sizes, that’s an asset, too.
David, with the Washington Post story cited today on FCT, I think we can still consider ourselves extraordinary. There are the other benefits pointed out about why people move here (and they still are moving here, so something is right) and about redistricting. I am firmly in the “keep ourselves independent” camp.
Brian, we are not at MEH yet, but I think you should be having a dialog with the school administration and school board about the activities. Perhaps there is a curriculum committee that could use your help as a volunteer?
On the issue of college destinations, I think that there are a lot of factors that go into a kid’s college choice including cost, scholarship availability, programs of study, location, etc. I don’t think that WHERE someone goes to college is as important a measure as HOW MANY go to college.
In reply to Susanna, about how the City came to be:
According to local historians, including the late Wayne Dexter, who wrote a history about Citizens for a Better City, (CBC) since updated in 2009 for CBC’s 50th Anniversary, Falls Church was incorporated as a town in 1875, but when population practically tripled in the 1940s, the town’s schools, streets, and other services were inadequate. To quote, “Newcomers drawn to the area during the war generally demanded higher quality educational and municipal services than was customary in what was then rural Virginia. They were willing to pay taxes and float bonds,… but were strongly opposed by many of the native residents used to low taxes.” Better schools and more control over the community’s destiny were the major motives behind the successful effort to obtain City status from the Virginia General Assembly in 1948.
After the division, the City had no high school, and the elementary schools were old and in extremely poor condition. I remember old friends relating how they gathered friends and neighbors together to clean the schools from top to bottom while bond issues were being approved by the City’s first elected council for George Mason High School and the renovation of the Madison and Jefferson schools. Lou Olom, longtime CBC member and City activist, can fill you in with more details.
It isn’t logical to think that Falls Church could become part of Arlington or Fairfax and maintain any special control over the schools. Either county would immediately integrate our students and schools with what they have.
For me (and many others, I assume) the main attractive thing about Falls Church schools is the small size of the entire system. In my mind it’s a hybrid of a public and private school system. George mentions many nice things about Arlington’s schools – how many students attend each high school? How many kids go through the entire school system with the same peers?
I guess I don’t get it – if someone wants to send their kids to Arlington (or Fairfax County) schools why not move to Arlington (or Fairfax County)? The benefits offered by Arlington over Falls Church (that George outlines) have existed for a long time. I don’t think Falls Church parents are looking for those things. We didn’t move here hoping they would add a swimming pool to George Mason High School.
I’m fine with having some economy of scale issues. I’m hopeful that in the coming years we’ll finally have some luck with increasing the commercial tax base. I’m willing (along with many people) to pay more taxes to keep the schools strong. I’m also willing to drive on unplowed streets if that helps us keep our schools strong.
Ultimately, I think the question George starts off with is the key, “What makes good schools, anyway?”
My answer is that the size of the school system is what makes the schools good. Joining with Arlington would, by definition, make them worse in my eyes. Obviously, not everyone would agree with that – and fortunately most of those people live in Arlington.
By the way – is there a link to the data that compares Arlington teacher salaries with Falls Church? George mentions this in the article but doesn’t say how to view the information directly.
Just a wild thought! As a 24 year resident homeowner in Falls Church who kids were educated long before I moved here, I am probably the only city resident that has no dog in this fight. I wonder if opposition to joining with a bigger based government, i.e. Arlington or Fairfax, would be as distasteful to those who moved to FCC because of the school system if the FCC school system was only so-so. If so, could a possible solution be to privatize the Falls Church School system so that those folks who wanted to keep their kids in the current system would individually pay for, and be able to exert much much more control over, the quality of their childrens’ education. If this were a possibility, some of the current uncertainty over the future of being such a little fish in such a big ocean might be overcome to everybody’s advantage.
Lloyd, that’s an interesting idea. However, there are many quality private school options in the DC area so if I wanted to send my kids to a private school I would have picked an existing one.
To answer your question, as long as Falls Church schools are on par (by what measure, I don’t know) with neighboring jurisdictions then I’m happy to have my kids in them – because of the size.
I think we’re a long way off from Falls Church schools being of lower quality than most Fairfax County schools (no offense to Fairfax County – that’s where I went to school from 3rd – 12th grade)
LLoyd, I too am a long time resident with no children but I feel I do have a dog in this fight…my tax bill. I follow the school issue as a citizen and a taxpayer rather than a parent.
Gordon, your “little street to nowhere” being plowed 7 times, strikes me as a bit better an example of the city paying for a service redundantly more then an example of efficent use of tax dollars. That minor snowfall did not rate such a response.
Hence, I put forth the argument that the reason we have such budget and economic woes is the fact that the government, (city, state and Fed)_ can no longer operate with any sort of fiscal responsibility. Its ingrained in theie mecahnical makeup now. They spend 5 years or more of future tax dollars in advance. They cannot figure how to tighten their belt because they are built from the ground up to over spend. For each worker they have 5 staffers. They have positions that shoud be filled by part time contractors or volunteers. No one is accountable at any level.
Rather than asking what makes one school system better than another, let’s ask ourselves what makes the Falls Church City schools unique or different from neighboring schools. If we lose what makes us unique, and ultimately more desirable for many families, then what are we trying to save? We all know that a bigger school system can offer a vast array of choices that a small school system simply can’t afford. More languages, more sports, perhaps better facilities, and the list goes on. But what, as a small school system, can we offer our students that is unique and different from what they would get next door? Our high school children have attended the FCC schools since kindergarten. When they say on a Saturday night “I’m going to X’s house” we have probably known X and his family for many years, and if we don’t, we know someone who does. Anyone who has raised a teen knows that any help you can get raising them is greatly appreciated if not sorely needed. The sense of community that is created through the years cannot be underestimated. Combine this with an excellent student-teacher ratio, a strong curriculum and an active and involved group of parents, and the advantages to our system over neighboring counties is evident. Let’s fight to keep what makes us different., including cherishing our paraprofessionals, such as Larry Allen, who not only help our student-teacher ratio, but who also offer a certain “je ne sais quoi” that our school system needs to survive and flourish.
I agree with Hannah. There are good schools available all over Northern Virginia, but we have a good school system that is unique. The sense of community our schools generate is a wonderful gift for our children and for the greater community. I went to Langley HS in Fairfax (often considered one of the best high schools) and there was no sense of community and most of the teachers were scores-oriented and didn’t seem overly engaged.
We also have a great resource for enrichment in our city – our recs & park department. Through the community center we run some of the best sports leagues, sports camp, dance programs, enrichment camps, etc. There are many people from Fairfax and Arlington in our programs. Suggest we have something they want.
And for those who don’t have children in the system, the value of your home is tied to the performance of the schools. If you consider your home an investment then you want to see the schools perform well. Also, I think everyone in the city benefits from the sense of community that the schools help generate.
Gordon: With all due respect to the Challenge Index, I think it is a limited perspective and means relatively little about the overall quality of our schools. Historically, we have loved it when we were high on that list and dismissed the methodology when we were lower.
Regionally, it is also impossible to compare a small, single high school against massive multi-high school districts straight-up. On a head-to-head basis (average SAT’s, for example), George Mason usually comes in about the same as McLean and a little behind Langley. In other words, very good — but “normal” for our area.
As has been noted, size is a two-edged sword. It is great to be in a “cozy” district where you know everyone and everyone knows you — from K through 12. However, it does limit the potential offerings, particularly at the high school level.
Finally, at a physical plant level, we have some real problems. TJ is old and GMHS flatly needs to be replaced. My guess is that we are probably on par with most Fairfax high schools in the facilities department, though at this point we are clearly behind Arlington.
This is a long way of saying that we have really good schools that I have been happy with for my kids. But I wouldn’t call them “extraordinary” as compared to surrounding jurisdictions now — and I do wonder whether we have the will, as a community, to pay the price necessary for them to be so. (I wish we did.)
On the other hand, if our goal becomes just to be competitive with surrounding areas then I think it is legitimate for folks to ask “what is the point?” I am not advocating for joining a larger jurisdiction but our current fiscal choices — such as for funding for the schools — will certainly have long-term implications for the future existence of the City.
As always the range of comments is very enlightening. I, like others, do not have children in the Falls Church School system (both my boys graduated from Yorktown High School in Arlington). We did not move to Falls Church five years ago because of the high quality schools. My wife and I moved here because we have always liked Falls Church City. An essential part of the intangibles that make Falls Church what it is today is the School system. A City’s character is determined, in large measure by the sense civic pride and citizen involvement in City activities. Other localities will often focus on neighborhoods we are fortunate in that our neighborhood is the City itself.
For me the heart and lungs of what makes Falls Church an attractive place to live is the school system. The sense of civic pride, the sense of community and even the sense of security is based on our school system. I believe its funding should be the top priority for the City. I will be following the budget discussions very closely.
David wraps up with the question, “what is the point” and I think Hannah already answered it well. The point is the size of the school system and how that makes it different from the surrounding options. I, for one, am willing to pay more for that difference.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t strive to be extraordinary but if we end up “on par” with the surrounding schools then I’m satisfied.
I will say that if we ever did combine our school system with Fairfax County or Arlington then there really would be no reason for being an independent city.
George, thank you for your thoughts. You make a lot of good points. I also enjoyed the two previous pieces you wrote suggesting that Falls Church merge with Arlington. It has been great to read reactions from residents with and without kids in the FC schools and to hear what they value about our schools. I’m not sure what the answer is, but with the budget as dire as it is, I don’t think any idea should be rejected without consideration.
First, I would strongly oppose any move to Arlington for the School System.
However, I am wondering about this concept of outsourcing with respect to our police department (including our parking enforcement). Has anyone studied whether there would be significant savings to the city by outsourcing our police department with coverage from Fairfax or Arlington? We are only 2.2 square miles and having been in the Courtroom many times, I am amazed by the number of officers that we employ.
As the nephew of several NYPD officers (and firemen), I am extremely pro-police but we need to use this concept of outsourcing on other issues rather than our schools. Do we really need a “Parking Enforcement” vehicle for 2.2 square miles? How about all those other “City” vehicles that are seen all over “Little” Falls Church?
There are some interesting points of view expressed in these posts, but I don’t see a description of the core premise — how exactly would the City of Fall Church give its schools to Arlington? And why to Arlington, rather than Fairfax County from whence the City came? Would Arlington want the schools? How would Arlington tax the residents of Falls Church for taking over and operating the schools? And if the City no longer ran a school system, could it or would it continue to function as an independent city? Are the schools of any of the other independent cities in Virginia run by adjacent counties?
Good grief. Talk about strange bedfellows: I find myself in agreement with Dave Chavern!
I am a 30-year resident of the City of Falls Church. Dave is right that the Challenge Index is only one, limited measure of quality. He is also right that we have touted it when we were ranked highly and downplayed it when we were not. (By the way, does anyone know if the middle school IB program was included in this year’s Index? If so, wouldn’t that distort the ranking?)
He is right again that measured by other criteria, such as SAT scores or college admissions, we are very good but “normal” for this area and certainly not extraordinary.
As for size, I can remember when the school system truly was small. It has been steadily growing for many years (as the trailers bear witness) and is “small” only in a relative sense. Andy, I believe Hannah’s point was really less about size and more about “sense of community.” That too is fading quickly. The percentage of students who attended K – 12 together was not much over 50% when my son graduated in 2004. I would guess it is considerably below 50% now. Again, probably still very good but not as great as it was and declining.
Finally: George, please bring me your bullet-proof vest because I will need it for what I am about to say. The proposed school budget reductions could affect many important programs, including music, foreign languages, and sports, and critical personnel such as band paraprofessional and Assistant Principal. However, I have not seen or heard of proposed cuts for Special Education. Am I wrong? If so, please enlighten me. If I am correct, would somebody (Ron? Kieran?) explain why? Shouldn’t all programs be asked to share in the necessary reductions?
Stan Fendley’s harsh comment is disturbing. As one of the de facto “publishers” of the Falls Church Times, he seems to be staking out a position on the future of our city schools that may or may not be in the best interest of all students. His position also seems to suggest a kind of xenophobia about those big school systems; that they have some hidden menace for children rather than broader educational opportunities
Sandy and I confronted many of the issues that our Falls Church parents do today with regard to our kids. Our kids went to public, private and parochial schools. We never presumed to influence or find a means to imprint our subjective desires on any school, recognizing that any sway we could bring to bear might be detrimental to goals and aspiration of other parents for their children. In the end, as we watched our children received their professional degrees in law, dentistry and education, we knew all too well that we had no pat answers to the ways and means of achieving the best possible elementary and secondary education for our children.
I spent eight years on the City Council doing my part to make sure that all Falls Church school “kids” received the financial support they required in the classroom. And as a co-chair of the financial subcommittee on building the new Henderson Middle School, we made sure that the facilities were in place for their classroom needs.
But I was always cognizant that the majority of households in the City do not have children in the schools and I also realized that as the assessment values waned, pressure might build for alternatives. I am not sure we are at that point yet, but the next few years will probably be even more challenging for the school budget.
So, with an appreciative nod to George, in the end, it’s not about individuals finding ways to exert more personal control or influence over the our City schools, it’s about the best possible education for all kids—not just the ones who live under our roof.
Hi Sam,
Thanks for your comment. And sorry to be disturbing.
No, I think the teachers and administrators in big schools typically are just as dedicated as those in small schools, and have the children’s interest just as much at heart. Clearly, students at larger schools can have opportunities to take a larger array of classes and participate in a larger variety of activities. Some kids flourish in that environment. In the case of our kids, my wife and I are convinced the small school setting works better. So having made the investment to move here for that reason . . . I’m not giving it up without a fight! A civil fight, of course. I’m a pacifist at heart.
Thanks again for your comment.
Stan Fendley
Lou, maybe I wasn’t properly interpreting what Hannah said. I went to school in Fairfax County. I went to one elementary school for a couple of years but then when to another one (a magnet GT program). Some of the kids from my elementary school went to the same middle school I went to but others didn’t. Then, about half the kids that went to my middle school ended up going to a different high school than I did. Obviously, something like that can’t happen in Falls Church, which is one reason I’m living here.
As for your question about Special Education, maybe the school board and the Superintendent feel that kids without special needs are better equipped to handle reductions. My answer to your question, “Shouldn’t all programs be asked to share in the necessary reductions?” would be “No.”
I’ve wondered about the Special Education program here, as well. At MD there are 2 Sp.Ed. teachers and 6 Paras; at TJ there are 6 Sp. Ed. teachers. Assuming the student-teacher (not counting Paras) ratio for Sp. Ed. students of 3:1, that means on average there are on average 5 Sp.Ed students per grade. By comparison, just across the frontier line at Tuckahoe Elementary there are 5 Sp.Ed. teachers and 3 assistants, averaging a little over 2 Sp. Ed. students per grade.
How is it that we attract so many Sp. Ed. students? Is the Sp.Ed. program what makes our school system special (no pun intended), and therefore above being affected by budget cuts?
The short answer re special ed is that our programs have long attracted families with kids who need special ed services due to our reputation for serving their needs better than most school systems. (We were on the forefront of the inclusion movement about 20 years ago, Hal Lippman and a strong group of parents led that charge and many students have benefited as a result.)
In Arlington and Fairfax kids can attend a neighborhood school if that is the best placement or a school that has a center for children with certain disabilities, such as an Autism center. We have no such centers, and this skews the numbers at individual schools a bit compared to our numbers. (Students may also be placed at private schools, if that is determined to be the most appropriate placement, I’m not sure how our numbers compare to other jurisdictions for private placements.)
Special ed services are driven by stringent laws (in addition to a philosophy or approach adopted by the division) and therefore it is not too easy to reduce those services, even during a budget crisis.
Taking into account the many categories of eligibility criteria for special ed services, I believe there are far more than five per grade in FCCPS although I do not know the exact numbers. I believe the majority of special ed students get services in the categories of speech and language and specific learning disabilities.
Eligibility categories:
Autism
Deaf-Blindness
Deafness
Developmental Delays
Emotional Disability
Hearing Impairments
Intellectual Disabilities
Multiple Disabilities
Orthopedic Impairment
Other Health Impairment
Specific Learning Disabilities
Speech or Language Impairments
This is very useful, thanks. Our son is deaf and not a word of special services being available was mentioned to us when he started school in the system seven years ago. (Nor did we ask, to be fair.)
I understand the state and Federal stringencies regarding special education services; beyond that, it just seems like the “philosophical approaches” for these services are outweighing the philosophical approaches for maintaining music, sports, and other academic services that are available to all students, not just for a select group. Certainly cuts can be made in special education; I’ll guess the willingness to do so is likely not there.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, what has been talked around for a long time and what must be discussed going forward is establishing a “School Tax”. There I said it. Not necessarily in the traditional sense and yes we would most probably need Richmond approval, but lets face it families with students in our school system are basically getting a “private school” education at a public school expense. Except now it begins to fail because we can’t or don’t want to reduce what has been built on since the 70′s. I personally credit Dr. Pace (superintendent of schools for about 20 years) for getting our school system to the level and recognition it has today. A special tax on the families that enjoy the benefits could provide the difference from loosing programs to retaining and perhaps enhancing programs. I’m not thinking of making the School Board a taxing district but perhaps it could be an addition to our existing tax system except the money would be restricted for schools only. Similar to Fairfax County and their leaf collection tax in some areas of the county. There are several ways to accomplish it, but it is time to seriously study the possibility and the benefits.
I think you hit the nail on the head, Barry. Rather than calling it a “tax,” however, the school system could charge a “fee for services” not unlike the Day Care fee with a sliding scale, for example. This, of course, opens the debate on whether to charge fees for other educational services that go above and beyond the “required” for a select group of students, and I think that’s a debate whose time may have arrived.
Special Ed is indeed a complicated area, and an area driven to a large extent by a legal framework. My experience in other school systems is that FCCPS is relatively more accommodating than some other districts (though I am sure some parents here might not agree). I was used to more legal appeals for special ed services in other districts. The landscape is moving towards legal requirements to provide even more services. For example, a recent court case required that a school system pay private placement cost for students who never even tried the public system.
The School Board is currently listening to all the discussions and opinions about the budget. In the end, it will come down to priorities. The proposals from the Superintendent are based on her perceptions, after hearing from her staff, of how to prioritize potential cuts based on their effect on education and safety. The board then listened to the senior staff, including the principals, about the proposal. The next step was the first public hearing.
It is clear that there are differences of opinion about the effects of these changes, and about the threshold issue of what level of funding the board should ask for. Stay tuned!
Ron
Instead of a schools tax I suggest we work hard to increase the commercial tax base in the City.
The problem I see with a schools tax is that you then have to look at other services offered by the City but not used by everyone and see if you should tax that separately. What if I never use the library or the community center or the senior center? Should we tax the people who use those extra since they use them?
We’re in a tough economic situation. The value of property in the City has dropped, which reduces (by a lot) the revenue coming in. I assume sales tax, BPOL, and other taxes are down also. Are the schools becoming proportionally more expensive or are we just in tough times? It seems like the system has worked okay for a long time and I guess I don’t see what’s changed that now makes it impossible to keep it working.
It sounds like my tax rate will go up (and my actual taxes will go up too since I’m guessing my assessment won’t go down) and the schools will have to cut back some. This seems appropriate for the times. With luck, the economy will bounce back soon, we’ll make some progress increasing the commercial tax base, and my kids will continue going to good schools.
School expense issues have been around for a very long time Andy and not likely to go away regardless of how the economy is doing. We pay taxes for all the benefits we recieve and have available in the community. The one area that does not benefit everyone and won’t unless you have kids in the city is the school expense of some $19,000 a student. My heart goes out to the School Board this year in particular. Just as an example, if there are 3,000 students in the schools and a School Fee/Tax of $100 applied that would = $300,000. Now what could they pay for with that…….yes many school related expenses. Not sure what the real school population is or what $ to use but if a little study was put into it, just maybe we could keep the “Band Aide”…….Food for thought.
Thanks to Victoria, Dreamingin, and Ron for their enlightening and helpful information.
However (in for a dime, in for a dollar), I have a few more questions. What does the Special Ed. program cost the school system? What percentage is it of the system-wide budget? What is the per student cost compared to the non-Special Ed per student cost?
Ron says “Special Ed is an area driven to a large extent by a legal framework” and that “[i]n the end, it will come down to priorities.” No problem; provided the criteria for establishing those priorities are fair, reasonable, and defensible. They better be if virtually all educational and extracurricular programs and activities are eligible for budget reductions except for one apparently untouchable “sacred cow.” And I sure hope that one of those criteria is not fear of being sued by an influential lobby unwilling to consider making some sacrifice for the good of all students.
Lou Mauro:
My Autistic son thanks you for your concern. If he ever reaches a stage of development where I can have a conversation with him, I’ll let him know that you were worried that he was getting more than his share. In the meantime, don’t you have a City Council member to abuse?
I will try to get the exact budget numbers for special education services. I do not have a breakout at hand. It is also complicated because this is one area that does receive some federal funding, though the federal funding does not cover a great portion of the cost.
I might not have been as clear as I should have been about the legal requirement. What I was trying to convey was, regardless of what we would or would not like to do, special eduction services are mandated by law — they can not be cut because of lack of funding. There are legitimate arguments about what services are necessary and appropriate, but the school system has to provide some services, and the legal trend has been towards requiring more services, including out-of-system placements. There is a very detailed legal process that kicks in if parents and the system do not agree on particular services, and the school board does not have any say in the matter.
I do hear from parents who think their students are not receiving required services from time to time. I also hear from folks who think we spend too much in this area.
When I was on the board in MD, a state commission determined that both special needs students and a few other categories of students, such as students who did not speak English well, required about twice the per-pupil spending of other students because of the extra services required.
Ron, thanks again for taking the time to offer additional information. If you get reliable budget numbers breaking out Special Ed. costs, I think everyone would appreciate your sharing them. At least we know now that school officials have discretion with regard to “what services are necessary and appropriate,” and presumably consider the cost of services when making such decisions. If they don’t, they should.
Jim: while inappropriate, I understand how you might react personally to my questions and comments, though they are certainly not so intended, but snide remarks about “abuse” are uncalled for. For the record, I have the utmost respect for special needs children (and adults) and their parents, educators, and caretakers, and donate regularly to special needs organizations. My questions and comments are related to the budget and are honestly intended to discover where dollars may be saved. It is natural for parents to feel that the programs and activities of which their children are a part are the most important. But given the current crisis, school officials have to make cuts somewhere, and in my opinion, legal requirements aside, no program or activity should be sacrosanct.
Hot topic. I’ve said before that I can’t imagine ever supporting a merger with a surrounding county unless we literally had no other choice. I believe that with the right vision and leadership the City has a bright future. We’ll have to get through the next couple years with increased taxes, decreased services, and (hopefully) improved efficiencies throughout (maybe even by outsourcing some services). Since it *is* all about the schools, I would hope that any cuts in the school budgets would be done so very carefully. We must remain competitive to attract and retain great teachers.
With the right execution in the coming years, I believe that we *can* establish the right commercial tax base to not only fund a world class school system (even for a somewhat larger number of students) but also enjoy unparalleled city services. All without losing our “Little City” charm. I firmly believe that this can be done.
Seeing so many posts about this topic here on FCT is a bit disheartening, to be honest. I want to read / engage in this online forum because I think it’s great for the City, but it’s discouraging that the loudest voice behind FCT doesn’t even believe the City can / should exist anymore.
GEORGE SOUTHERN RESPONDS: Brian, perhaps I should feel complimented as the “loudest voice,” but I don’t think that’s accurate. There are many voices on the Falls Church Times staff, but the “loudest” voices are those of our readers and commenters. The 40+ comments above constitute a far more important voice than anything I could write. They include members of the School Board, parents, future parents, taxpayers without children, and more. This online discourse was the vision of one of the FCT’s founding members (not me): “The FCTimes can become a hub where problems are identified and debated, solutions are vetted, and often plans for action are made and results monitored.” So please don’t characterize the Falls Church Times by my once-a-week opinion column. And for that matter, wouldn’t you agree that it’s healthy to challenge assumptions — even the most cherished ones? When a newspaper can’t or won’t do that it’s little more than a cheerleader for the status quo.
Lou,
The fact that you can understand how someone might be upset in itself means that you know you may have walked up to the line on a couple of these comments to make your point.. I actually don’t disagree in general about proportionate fairness in budeget cuts. It wasn’t really what you said, but the tone and the sarcasm used to say it. I imagine the community will have many more emotional moments as we attempt to determine what is fair relative to the schools budget. You are correct, my ‘abuse’ commnent was inappropriate, and for that I apologize.
I agree that no program budget should be sacrosanct. Other than philosophically, we are not a designated or otherwise official system with a focus on Sp. Ed. students. If one special service is subject to cuts, all special services should be subject to cuts equally. This may mean I may have to pay for my son to take IB exams, or pay more for sports, but I’d much prefer that to a loss of those activities in order to support a small and select group of students. And yes, as the parent of a deaf student I would support paying for extra services for him. The greater gain for our family of living in FCC, having our son attend school here and being a part of the community, even if extra services came at a cost, far outweighs any sense of entitlement to special treatment at the expense of others.
I also agree that a stronger commercial base will help; that, however, is a long term fix. In the short term, I think an across the board trimming of special services is fair.
Personally, I’d rather pay more taxes and preserve our schools – special ed and regular ed. I think it makes sense for some specific expenses to shift back to students/families (IB exams, maybe some materials/sports cost, student parking!), which I suppose is effectively the same as Barry’s idea of a $100 fee. Keep in mind, families are already chipping in money here and there (voluntarily and not), so it’s not like sending a kid to school is completely covered by taxes now.
And now I’ll mix two controversies into one conversation. If people are demanding we reduce support for special education shouldn’t we be reducing support for affordable housing?
Quick comment for George S. – it sounds like you’re convinced the only future for Falls Church is merging with Arlington. If that’s not the case I’d love to read an editorial from you about what other options we have.
@George – You get the ‘loudest voice” label from me because you seem to generate the most comments, but it’s not an official title …
The fact is that your lightning-rod posts do reflect on this blog overall and influence the perception of readers regarding the motivations and ideas of the people behind it. How about you switch it up with an opinion post about what we can do to make the City viable in your mind?
I’m all for vetting ideas, challenging ideas, and engaging our citizens to discuss solutions. To the extent that your repetitive posts about quitting on the City generate productive dialog from the rest of us about what needs to be done to make the City successful, I think they’re valuable posts. That said, you could write posts suggesting we fire the entire City staff or solve our budget crisis by turning Cherry Hill Park into a regional trash dump and you would generate a ton of comments — it doesn’t mean the posts represent good ideas.
JIm,
Apology accepted. For my part, I’m sorry if I came across as sarcastic and harsh in tone. One of the hazards of electronic communication, I’m afraid. It was not intentional—- this time, anyway—no promises when it comes to the current Council majority. :0)
I am certain that Lois Berlin looked at special ed along with everything else. It is easy to criticize special ed funding when you have never had first hand experience with the program. I would say this, our public schools are there to provide an education for everyone and to get all students to reach the best of their potential. Failing to bring along the kids who are falling behind puts them at a disadvantage for the rest of their lives. It’s good for kids and ultimately good for our country.
For my part, the criticism I have for the schools are the custodial cuts. One of my commanding officers in the Navy told me that “a clean ship is a happy ship.” When we went about cleaning and putting a fresh coat of paint inside and outside of our ship, the crew was happier and things ran smoother. I would say employee cuts need to occur elsewhere.
It would be great to hear from folks who actually went through this school system themselves. Just a thought.
Gordon, since you don’t name anyone in particular, I don’t know whose comments you are addressing. If it’s mine, I note first that I did not “criticize special ed funding.” Of course special ed must be funded. I simply pointed out that it was one of the few programs or activities, if not the only one, not included in the proposed budget reductions. Second, though I’m not sure that it matters all that much, as a substitute teacher I do in fact have first-hand experience with the program. And third, I wholeheartedly agree that the schools should provide an education (in the broadest sense of that word— more than just the three Rs) for “everyone” to the end that “all students” can realize their potential. That’s the point! In an extraordinary budgetary crisis such as this, one may prioritize by cutting some programs or activities more or less than others, but I feel that none should be entirely off-limits unless required by law.
Gordon, failing to support students who excel puts them at a disadvantage for the rest of their lives, as well. The proposal to have these students pay for IB and AP exams, for example, places an unfair burden on these families with no concomitant burden on the families of special needs students.
Ours in not a magnet school system for special needs students. By failing to make proportionate cuts in the special needs program, the message being sent is that these students are more important than the rest of the student body. That’s simply not true. For many students music and sports provide the motivation, muse, inspiration, and self-confidence needed to succeed. Why are these students considered less important?
Victoria, I’m not sure when IB and AP exams became something funded by schools. When I was in high school in Fairfax County in the 1990s I’m pretty sure we all paid for our own AP exams. What about SATs, who pays for those? I was kind of surprised to hear that Falls Church is paying for AP exams.
I’m guessing most families with kids with special needs have various expenses that aren’t covered by the schools – is that an unfair burden on those families?
This is what I think – kids with special needs have higher hurdles to get over in life than kids without special needs. In tough times, I think the kids that have more inherent advantages can get by with a little less.
Victoria, I fail to see how excelling kids in Falls Church City are put at a disadvantage by having to pay to take an IB exam. Like Andy, my family paid for my AP exams, and everyone still has to pay for SATs and college application fees. These are voluntary activities. I’d also bet there are programs for financially disadvantaged folks to still participate. I also played in the band, and my kids are doing so, and I think that the arts are very important and would not support drastic cuts there. Athletics are also important to keep the kids well too and my kids play too. Again, all voluntary.
Special education utilization is voluntary, but provision of it is required by the state. I don’t believe the same is true for advanced classes. BTW, even kids in private schools are permitted an IEP evalation by the public system. This is about taking care of educational needs, not providing “nice to haves.”
If we are talking about subsidies, however, what about paying Fairfax County to send kids to Thomas Jefferson HS? If FCC already has one of the best high schools in the region, why are we sending the uber-gifted elsewhere? Ouch, did I touch an electric rail?
Gordon and Andy, I respectfully beg to differ with both of you. The tired argument has always been that since the students who excel will naturally succeed, they’re obviously not at any disadvantage. This is a fallacy. The highly able students are our national leaders in the making, and curriculum designed for them is increasingly passed over in favor of the (often remedial) education necessary to meet NCLB and other standards of learning. Our system has 14 special education teachers and specialists, but only 3 specialists for the highly able. The numbers speak for themselves.
I don’t think students who take IB and AP exams should have to pay for the exams at all. Shouldn’t we want to support our best and brightest? I’ll also agree that in tough times, belt tightening is prudent and exam fees may be necessary. The problem is that the tightening isn’t across the board–it’s disproportionately affecting all but one group of students.
The question about paying for students to attend TJHSST is about showing support for our best and brightest who need a stronger educational focus on science and technology. I see nothing wrong with that; our school system is providing an educational service to a very select and very small group of students. And I fully expect to see cuts to this budget to be considered, as well.
The bottom line is that, all required educational opportunities notwithstanding, every special educational service in our school system should be subject to budget cuts and considerations.
Well said, Victoria.
Ok, a few more clarifications on special ed.
Special ed is affected by the budget proposals. All staff would be subject to some of the cost cutting proposals, including special ed staff. Examples would be the loss of 2 days of pay and the changes to the benefits plans. All areas would also be subject to the 5% material and supply cut. There is a proposed loss of a special ed instructional team leader position at TJ, and the reduction or elimination of the support student services coordinator position.
Even now, the system has also been trying to deliver some of the mandated services in a more cost effective manner, such as using cabs for transport instead of buses, streamlining paperwork, and using technology.
I do not have an average cost per student because the range of services is so broad and varied. Many students receiving special ed services also use other services such as gifted and talented, and career and tech services, so it is hard to identify a meaningful average given all the overlap. We do receive some federal and state funding that can only be used for special ed purposes (last year $366,800 federal- which was used to provide 4 FTE teacher positions and $327,200 from the state).
Hope that explains some of it a little better. The various proposals for cutbacks hit all areas. The school board will continue the budget discussion Tuesday night at a work session (rescheduled from this Saturday because of the weather), so stay tuned and keep weighing in.
Ron
And a clarification for TJHSST -
Participation in sending qualifying FCC kids to TJHSST, a regional Governor’s school, IS part of the required Gifted program the City Schools must have and in particular, has had approved by the Virginia Department of Education. Please refer to the FCC school website for the G and T program, called TAAP here in Falls Church.
Additionally, the cost of sending kids to TJHSST is roughly $13.500 versus the over $18,500 the city pays to educate those children here in FC. The city “sells” tuition seats to kids whose families live outside Falls Church at a net gain of over $5000.00. This was fully vetted just 6 or 7 years ago during the school budget process and the school board wisely determined then that participation by FCC in TJHSST is not a budget issue. (Thank you to Jerry Barrett, former school board member.)
No local school district can replicate the opportunity presented by any regional governor’s school. Allowing all who meet the criteria set by the school an opportunity to attend these schools (regional governor’s schools) is appropriate.
Thanks CR for the clarification on the TJHS issue. I went to the VDOE website:
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/instruction/governors_school_programs/academic_year/schools/jefferson.shtml, and there it is.
Also thanks to Ron for the special ed clarification, clearly not getting a free pass. I’ll look forward to how all of this works out. In the meantime, we can all rest comfortably knowing that our own children are highly intelligent and among the best and brightest, kind of like Lake Wobegon – all above average.
Victoria, I think it is misleading to say that we have only three TAAP specialists when there are is also the IB coordinator at the high school and all the teachers there who teach IB and AP classes. I would say they are definitely dedicating a lot of time to our advanced students. The three TAAP specialists you refer to are the one at MEH, one at TJ, and another who splits her time between TJ and MtD. In addition to what they do, attention is also paid to challenging the advanced students in the elementary and middle school grades by the classroom teachers.
I believe that it is a monumental mandate to provide an appropriate education for all students, including the gifted, students with disabilities, students with below average capabilities, and the average students. Many school systems fall woefully short of meeting that challenge, especially when resources are limited.
Our school system does a pretty good job of meeting the needs of all those varied populations. I hope we are able to continue to accomplish that after this budget cycle.
Based on Ron’s last comment this might be a moot point (since the special ed program will be impacted by cuts) but I’d like to respond to Victoria.
First of all, just because you’re tired of the argument doesn’t make it a tired argument. Here’s an extreme example – what if there was no public education and everyone had to fend for themselves. Who would be more negatively impacted? The high achievers might not achieve quite as high but the special needs kids would be devastated. This is a bogus scenario but to me it indicates that indeed not all kids need to be treated the same.
I really don’t get the argument about IB and AP exams. I think it’s great that the City has been able to pay for them when times are good and hopefully there will be options for low income families to get assistance with them in the future. Many families in the City have more than enough money to pay for exams. Where should we draw the line? Should we cover college tuition for all our students as well?
In case anyone from the School Board or City Council is reading I’ll again mention that I’d rather pay more taxes than go beyond the Tier 1 cuts that were proposed. The Tier 4 cuts would be a disaster and shouldn’t be considered.
I wonder if funding for special education will become an issue for the upcoming school board race? There are some strong opinions here – perhaps one FCT poster is considering a run for school board?
Andy, your argument makes flawed assumptions. The first is that you assume all high achieving students are innately motivated, and that all parents of high achieving students can afford and are willing to help their student excel. The second is that you assume the converse for special needs students: all special needs students are innately unmotivated, and that all parents of these students can not afford or are unwilling to help their students excel.
As for the exams, just as many families in this city have more than enough money to pay for exams, many families in this city have more than enough money to pay for special needs programs. All of us with students in this school system can justly state that we often receive a pseudo-private school education at the cost of a public school education. Why then, in financially challenging times, should one group of students receive more at the expense of other groups?
Finally, if there is an argument to be tired of here, it is the argument that one is damned if they show support at all for the best and brightest (see the Lake Wobegon comment above), and damned if they don’t show extreme support for special needs students. All we’re doing is debating the merits of the budget process, not which programs should be cut below the required or eliminated altogether. The solution lies between these two extreme positions, in which all programs are subject to equal cuts.
Ditto again, Victoria.
How about considering merging with Fairfax County Schools? Arlington has very good schools and very bad schools. Fairfax, being an outer county, had a much larger portion of very good schools. (Langely is THE best school in the greater Washington area based on SAT scores – beats us hands down – as do several other schools in the Fairfax district. And, it would give FCC residents an equal chance at Thomas Jefferson – the premier school in the nation.
This city doesn’t have the tax base to support a school system – unless we fire some city employees. Having volunteered briefly with the city, I can personally name at least 3 deadbeats.
Also, has anyone seen the remodeled, spacious social services offices on the first floor of the West Wing at City Hall? If we’re so rich, why so many social workers? (This does NOT include those working with juveniles.)
One more comment based on another person’s comment.
Teachers’ jobs are to teach. Schools’ jobs are to create an environment where learning CAN take place – safe for example.
Education is a privilege – just ask a kid in Haiti.
If a kid CHOOSES not to learn then he/she should be removed from school until they are motivated. Are we now so twisted in our thinking that we think teachers should MOTIVATE our kids? Think about it. Do you go into work and tell your boss, “I’m bored, motivate me.”
This comment is from a person with a kid who lounged through school and is now paying a VERY steep price. I think if the school had read him the riot act, he might have shaped up.
The Social Services offices are located in 7 Corners. The offices on the west wing you are referring to houses DES staff, Housing staff and Human Services staff. The offices were redone apx 10 year + ago and the furniture is either 10+ years old, recycled, and a couple pieces purchased 5-6 years ago. Other offices revamp on the west wing some 10+ years ago were the Real Estate office and Human Resources. Just want to clarify this. The newest remodeled offices are located on the East wing and were done a couple of years ago. Also there are 2 -3 and even 4 people crammed in the “newly remodeled” space on the west wing.
Falls Church may not be able to offer the range of activities that large school systems can, but the most important thing about any school system is the teachers, more specifically the quality of the teachers.
The article below makes a couple of interesting points…first that high quality teachers matter more than anything else in succesful learning…more than new buildings, or bands, or sports participation or anything else.
Second, teacher effectiveness varies a lot…really good teachers can manage a class, move test results upward, and cover more material than not very good teachers. (I realize that teacher unions struggle with this idea, but it is pretty well proven.)
Third, it is very hard to predict who will be a really good teacher. Most of the credentials have very limited connection to the best teaching outcomes. But, it is possible to identify great teachers from watching them teach.
Fourth, most schools pay teachers based on time of service rather than proven teaching ability….ie; great teachers get the same pay as poor teachers.
While it helps to have a set of smart and advantaged kids, it seems possible that the quality of FC schools is largely the result of great teachers (our son’s positive experience in the schools for nine years supports this).
Thinking about the points above suggests that FC has the capacity to continue to provide a great education but that our limited funds should be focused on building the very best possible group of teachers at every level. We should be willing to pay top salaries or more for teachers that have proven that they are the best. At the same time, we need to find ways to either improve underperforming teachers or encourage them to move on.
One of the good things about being a small school system with a community willing to support schools is that we have the option to give careful evaluation of teacher effectiveness the attention it deserves and to invest in great teachers. Even in a tight budget year, it is a matter of priorities.
For more info…see
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/12/15/081215fa_fact_gladwell
Jeff, I think you make some great points. I don’t know how the current system works but implementing a program where teachers are rewarded for performance would be great.
Jeff, that was a fascinating article and your points are all valid and well taken. I would possibly argue that the smart, advantaged kids that make up the typical FC demographic plays a larger role than you give it credit for. I think any school system, or individual school, with a school full of smart advantaged kids will also have very high pass rates on standardized tests, will have the money to provide the computers and other materials that help them learn, will have high rates of parental support and involvement which helps kids do well, and all the other pluses associated with those demographics. You would be hard pressed to find a school with those demographics where the students are not mostly doing well, no matter what the teacher’s credentials or years of experience are.
It also follows, however, that good teachers will be attracted to such a school, as long as the pay is competitive and they are treated right. I think FC schools have a lot of great teachers. I also think that lately some great teachers and administrators have left….retired, moved away, been lured away by “better” jobs, whatever. In many cases they have been replaced by young, untested, unproven teachers and administrators. I am not saying they are not good teachers and administrators, I am saying we don’t know yet. Something like nine brand new teachers at TJ last year. Three fairly young principals (out of four) who have never principaled their own school before. All possibly good at their jobs, but the jury is still out.
My question is, why aren’t these jobs going to teachers and principals who have proven their ability to be successful by teaching for a few years or principaling for a few years in another system? It seems to be a trend that has developed here over the past few years, and I for one find it odd.
Victoria, I’m not sure where you came to the conclusion that I think all high achieving students are innately motivated, or that their parents can afford and are willing to help their kids excel – or why you think I think the opposite is true for special needs kids. I’m not even sure how that relates to what we’re talking about – I haven’t mentioned motivation anywhere.
Earlier you said “the tired argument has always been that since the students who excel will naturally succeed, they’re obviously not at any disadvantage” and it perplexes me. Students who excel are clearly at an advantage over average and special needs kids – that’s’ why they’re excelling.
I’m still not getting your issue with the exams. AP tests cost $86 and CollegeBoard offers fee reductions for families with financial need that gets them down to $56. Which $86 special needs programs are you talking about? If there are similar item costs in the special needs program that can be pushed back to families then that might be something to look at.
I also find this argument flawed: “Why then, in financially challenging times, should one group of students receive more at the expense of other groups?” What if my kid doesn’t play in the band or play a sport and doesn’t take IB/AP exams? Wouldn’t my kid be receiving less than other kids? This is how government and society works. By your logic, shouldn’t we all just pay for exactly what school services we use?
This isn’t a budget discussion – your position is that if one special service is subject to cuts then all special services should be subject to cuts equally. I disagree with that. I don’t think all special services should always be treated the same.
Lou’s original comment was “shouldn’t all programs be asked to share in the necessary reductions” and it sounds like all programs are – so if you think the sharing isn’t being done fairly I think you should make some specific suggestions. Personally, I have confidence that Dr. Berlin’s proposal was made with careful consideration of all the students.
Victoria, you are so mistaken when you think that I do not support programs for high achievers. In fact, I do support them and my oldest took advantage of the IB programs. The problem is that not all of our students are blessed with natural gifts to excel in school and the role of the PUBLIC school is to educate everyone. My point has consistently been that we need to continue strong funding for the special education program, so that every child can achieve their full potential. If all of the kids were above average (like in Lake Wobegon), then we could minimize the funding and bury our heads in the sand. But they are not.
Indeed. PUBLIC schools should provide equal levels of service. Ours is a PUBLIC school system without a magnet focus. That means no budget item, required services notwithstanding, should be protected from budget deliberations. The School Board moved into its budget deliberation processes on the assumption that certain services that go above and beyond requirements for a non-magnet school system are untouchable. By definition this will lead to disproportionate cuts in the budget.
Actually, the School Board is looking at every option, and no decisions have been made yet.
In the past, the practice was the Superintendent presented a budget, then the school board debated that budget. There was often a bit of confusion about which budget was which- there were references to the Superintendent’s budget, then the School Board’s budget, then meetings where references to the two got mixed up. There was also a budget projection by the city and a number that some felt the School Board was supposed to hit.
We took a step back this year- the School Board has been meeting more with City Council, and leadership of the School Board and Council have been meeting more, so that we all had the same facts.
We also changed the direction to the Superintendent. The School Board directed the Superintendent to come up with several funding scenarios, and to tell us, in her professional judgment, and based on her discussions with her staff, what changes could we make to achieve difference levels of funding reductions. The prime directive was what changes would lead to more efficiencies, hurt education the least, and preserve safety. There is always room for improvement, but the last two budget cycles focused on reprogramming and efficiencies, so that mainly leaves cuts this time. Even if we try to keep all things constant, some things have gone up due to inflation (snow removal, health care, the pension, which is mandated by state law, etc.).
The school board spent a work session hearing the suggestions from the Superintendent, and then spent a Saturday hearing from and questioning the Superintendent and staff about the proposals. School board members have also been meeting with and listening to members of the community, including groups like the PTA, businesses, and other organizations, and visiting schools and hearing from staff.
We also tried to make it easier for everyone to weigh in by making the calendar for both the city and school actions on the budget easily available (you can actually subscribe to a feed from Google Calendar so that you always have the latest on the meetings, if you really want to be plugged in), and we posted (and continue to post) all public comments on the website for everyone to see.
That brings us to now. The next step is supposed to be a work session Tuesday for more discussions among the board (under VA law, we can not all talk together even via email about it- we have to save the open discussions for in person meetings). If we are snowed out, we may move the meeting to Saturday, so stay tuned.
The City Charter requires the City Manager to include the school requested budget in his proposed budget, so the School Board has to decide on a number prior to that time. The current plan is for the School Board to make that decision May 2. The City Council then debates, and eventually the School Board gets an allocation and goes back to the decision making for a final budget based on that allocation.
At this point- no decisions have been made, and everything is on the table, although some things are required by law, or funded by dedicated funding that can only be spent on certain things.
I hope that explains the process more clearly.
Ron
Ron, thank you for taking the time to detail the process. It sounds like there are plenty of opportunities for citizens to officially chime in on the proposed budget options.
Ron, thank you. The openness and transparency of City documents is greatly appreciated. A couple of questions:
1. Are the proposed Tier Cuts fixed or fungible? Will they be adopted individually or en masse? For example, will all Tier 1 cuts have to be adopted before subsequent Tier cuts are made?
2. Would you mind elaborating a little more on what exactly is “dedicated funding” as well as provide some examples? In my world, “dedicated funding” translates into “untouchable earmarks,” and I just want to better understand what you mean.
Thanks.
1. The cuts are completely open at this point. The board asked the Superintendent to prioritize, so she grouped then into tiers that would achieve certain levels of reduction, but those levels were arbitrary, and really just a starting point. The tiers are useful to visualize one way of grouping cuts, but the board will look at each item, may add items, and may remove items. We have not defined the specific process of how we sort through and vote for each item, so that will be a point of discussion at the next meeting on Saturday. I realize that process often drives (and sometimes preordains results), so we need to be careful about how we go about this.
2. Dedicated funding means places where we have certain funding that, by law, has to be spent on specific areas. Some special ed funds are examples- some of the funding can only be spent on that area, and can not go into the general pot. There are some other federal and state programs that fall into this category, and some grant funding works this way. the state or federal government mandate something, and provide funding that can only be used for that thing. Of course, the government also sometime mandate things and then do not fund it, or then temporarily fund it. Special ed is a good example of where the federal government decreed that, by law, certain levels of service had to be provided, but only funded a portion (with a promise that was never fulfilled to eventually fund more). There are other areas, like Title I funding that also have to be spent in certain categories.
This is one reason that it is important to focus and only chase grants and funding that fit with the strategic plan, especially short term funding that then goes away in a few years.
The stimulus money likewise came with many legal strings, and requirements that we could not cut certain areas below prior levels.
Ron
Our tax rates will eventually increase to the point where residents will cry Uncle. It looks like we are entering into a double dip recession and stimulus funds will not last forever. Our family is definitely in favor of an Arlington County/City of Falls Church school system merger. The merger could free up Falls Church City funds to enrich the lives of our children (and adults) in other extracuricular ways — e.g. more funding for the library, parks, community programs, and etc…
The writing is on the wall — or chalk board — Merge Now!
Karen Jones
The dialogue, above, about the city, the schools and the taxes has been interesting reading. Could there be threshold at which prospective home buyers decide to purchase elsewhere in order to avoid the higher property taxes we pay in Falls Church City? Will the city deficit act as a damper on the value of property in the city? Just questions – it’s probably too soon to tell.
Karen, I’m not sure how merging our schools with Arlington is going to free up revenue. I assume Arlington will expect us to pay them for running the schools. They might be able to run them a bit more efficiently than we can (probably by getting rid of some of our schools and integrating the kids into other Arlington schools) but it’s not like we’ll have a bunch of money left over. And if we do have money left over why don’t we lower the tax rate to whatever level people in Arlington are paying?
Kathleen makes a good point. It is certainly possible that at some point the tax rate will get high enough that people won’t be willing to move to Falls Church. We’re not at that point yet (or else all these folks would be living in Arlington and sending their kids to school there now).
As for property values – they are currently elevated over neighboring Fairfax County properties and probably Arlington properties as well – because of the demand for Falls Church schools. If the schools decline, or become part of Arlington, the property values will fall (bringing revenue down and forcing us to further cut services or raise the tax rate even higher).
Andy, your assumptions about the consequences of a merger with Arlington are no more valid than Karen’s. Unless and until someone in authority seriously takes this issue up with Arlington County officials, everything is pretty much speculation. And hopefully whoever does that will have a pro-FC plan to bring to the table before discussions begin. The problem will be reconciling the differing views on what is pro-FC.
Lou, you’re right that I don’t have anything specific to back up my assumptions. One of my assumptions seems hard to refute – that if Arlington ran our schools (or, more accurately, was on the hook to educate our kids – either in our schools or their schools) the people of Falls Church would have to pay something in exchange.
And this isn’t an assumption: if my kids are getting an Arlington education then I’m not going to be willing to pay more than Arlington taxes so the City’s rate will either have to come down to what Arlington’s is or I’ll have to move to Arlington!
This is why I’d love to see someone run for Council or School Board with the stated intention of investigating our options for merging our school system with Arlington’s.
At Saturday’s City Budget Forum there were many residents who have children in the Falls Church School system. My husband and I moved here to be close to the Metro. We like the City, our neighbors and the City services.
During the discussions, education (our school system) was listed first on the lines of service. I was surprised to learn that only 23% of the family households have school age children. The school budget is 44% of the general budget.
It is estimated that it costs about $19,000 per child per year. It was noted at Saturday’s Forum that an additional $12,000 is granted yearly for those students who qualify and attend the T J Science & Technology magnet school. This community has established that all will support and pay for the best for our students! But, these are difficult times for our City. I believe that parents will pick up the cost of programs, if their children will benefit.
The fluctuations in yearly attendance numbers has been noted as renters coming/leaving in the large rental apartment buildings. On my street, we only have 5 families each with two school age children. Three are renters who plan to be here for two years. One owner prefers a private school.
At the Forum, we were asked to state our priorities…do we want: police, trash & recycling collection, street maintenance, library, storm water maintenance, top schools, etc?
There were many petitions being circulated by those interested in running for City Council. There are many decisions to be made….what are our community priorities at this time when we have a $9 million deficit? We need to look at options.