School Board Won’t Participate in City Efficiency Study
By GINGER PINHOLSTER
Falls Church Times Staff
December 18, 2010
While Falls Church City Manager Wyatt Shields is contracting for an outside efficiency study on City operations and possible consolidation of services, including with City schools, the School Board has declined to participate in the efficiency study.
At the December 14 School Board meeting, Board member Greg Rasnake said he had been contacted by a member of City Council regarding the Board’s decision not to participate. Rasnake emphasized that, in his view, the Board’s problem with the efficiency study is related solely to concerns about timing — late in the year, when the Board is preparing its next budget.
“Rushing a study in front of this budget whose purpose is to look at consolidations will be tantamount to recommending consolidations, and I think to do so would be a mistake,” he said.
The Falls Church Times reported earlier this month that while Shields has the authority to proceed on his own with an efficiency study, Mayor Nader Baroukh has recommended that both the City/School Board liaison group and the Council’s Government Operations Committee review the proposals.
SPECIAL EDUCATION PENALTY
Superintendent Lois Berlin reported that the Schools were being penalized $185,000 for failure to comply with complex federal and state laws concerning special education.
The issue relates to the “maintenance of effort” requirement, Berlin said, which stipulates that local funds spent on special education must not be less than the prior year. The City spent less in 2010 because an employee moved away, she said.
Most Virginia school districts receive a 50-percent waiver of this requirement. Falls Church did not, because it was deemed “disproportionate”—meaning the number of ethnically diverse students taking part in its special education programs is too high, according to the state.
Ultimately, Berlin said, “We were $185,176 out of effort.” Most of this expense will be covered by contingency funds, but money from the stimulus bill will pay $57,000 of the tab.
According to Board chair Joan Wodiska, “The state is saying, `You are serving too many students, some kids within a certain group, you shouldn’t be helping, [but] we’re going to help those kids because it’s the right thing to do. We have done our due diligence to reduce expenses, and in turn, we are being told we must send a check for $185,000, and these are funds we could use in Falls Church to reduce taxes, cover salaries or services to students, but our hands will be tied by the special education law.
“The federal special education law tied the School Board’s hands and dictated our spending levels on special education services, and to make matters worse, the federal law, designed to protect and ensure the education of students with disabilities, is actually hindering our ability to serve students, and even our taxpayers. It is deeply frustrating,” Wodiska stressed.
The Board has made a number of appeals, including outreach to representatives in the Senate and House, she said.
RELOCATE GEORGE MASON HIGH SCHOOL?
Board member Susan Kearney asked whether the Board should consider moving George Mason High School from its current location, but no one on the Board responded.
“At some point, I’d like to see this group take a substantive look at what could happen in this City if we did something other than have a high school on the George Mason campus property, which would include an evaluation of the value of that property, what kinds of development we might put there, how that might change our perspective on other land in the city, and its usability for school facilities and so on,” Kearney said. “I’m not sure when that fits in the timeframe, but I feel like this group taking a look at that might change the way people think about what we’re doing here to the benefit of both the school board and the kids.”
After a pause, Wodiska moved on to other business. In September, Wodiska had strongly refuted speculation that the school division might tear down Mary Ellen Henderson Middle School, which is located adjacent to the high school. Wodiska had emphasized at that time that there are no such plans.
COMING SOON — HIGH-TECH-HIGH?
Technology—including Internet access for students in need and online learning opportunities for those outside Falls Church City—took center stage at the meeting.
Board members approved a five-year strategic technology plan and also hinted at two special initiatives on the horizon: A public-private partnership with Milestone Communication to extend Internet access beyond the classroom, and electronic learning resources that could be offered to students in other communities.
When students face a digital divide between their school and home, “we can’t improve student achievement the way we want to,” said Board chair Wodiska. A key goal of the proposed revenue-generating partnership with Milestone Communication, initiated as a result of Wodiska’s role as president-elect of the Virginia School Boards Association, would be “to provide Internet access to students in need,” she said.
Board vice chair Pat Riccards had described the proposal in a November 21 Falls Church Times commentary. “The plan is simple,” he wrote. “Milestone can replace a light pole currently on our school property with a new pole that allows for cellular service. Telecomm companies would then pay an annual fee to host an antenna on our light pole. Each year, our school division could collect approximately $30,000 per pole for such use. Through this partnership, we will be able to improve Internet access at [Thomas Jefferson Elementary School] . . . As an added benefit, the Falls Church City Public Schools is able to use this partnership to provide an Internet connection to students throughout the City.”
The School Board is currently “reviewing contract language to formalize this innovative public-private partnership,” Wodiska said in an e-mail exchange following the December 14 meeting. “It’s a win-win for everyone. It can provide a steady source of revenue, expand Internet access, bridge the digital divide for low-income students, and even help expand our city’s digital infrastructure to support public safety.”
Further public dialogue will take place before plans are finalized, she said.
ONLINE LEARNING
Educators also have begun to talk about boosting electronic learning resources and “embracing kids who don’t necessarily attend our schools to do some of their learning with us,” Board member Kearney reported.
Currently, Wodiska explained after the meeting, students have access to e-learning opportunities via outside providers and teachers, sometimes at a cost to the school division. Online learning can be leveraged to enhance course offerings, academic rigor, and the student experience, but the current approach is “piecemeal” and “can be cumbersome,” she said.
“Today, non-resident students pay tuition to attend our brick and mortar classes,” Wodiska said. “In the future, the School Board envisions a day when it may be possible for non-resident students to pay a fee to attend an online course at George Mason High School taught by our very own George Mason teachers as a way to raise revenue for the district.”
So far, she said, the Board has held work sessions with high-school staff to discuss, for example, establishing a new e-learning policy, common rules for students, grading, length of offerings, assessment, and more. Site visits for Board members and high-school staff may be planned to learn more about online schools in Virginia and Florida.
FIVE-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN
The Five-Year Strategic Plan for 2012-2016, unanimously approved by the Board, outlines five goals, starting with the need to “provide a safe, flexible, and effective learning environment for all students.” The plan includes a strategy for implementing fiber and 1 Gbps Ethernet as well as wireless access to every school. It also emphasizes “just-in-time,” or on-demand technical assistance for users.
Wodiska and others commended technologist Steve Knight for his hard work and vision in preparing the strategic plan.
Knight fielded comments by Board members Rosaura Aguerrebere and Charlotte Hyland concerning the Access technology, which among other features, allows parents to log into a secure system to track their children’s daily grades. Hyland said she felt the previous technology, Angel, “was easier,” and she wondered whether most teachers have been able to master the Access system. Aguerrebere reported problems with logging into the Access system. “The logon is just impossible,” she said. “I gave up, after a month.”
Knight acknowledged that some users have experienced a learning curve with Access, but he said professional development for teachers is continuing. He also noted that mastery of the previous Angel technology took several years.
Board member Rasnake asked, “Are we squaring the use of technology with the components that make for a well-rounded education?” he asked, with a nod to Thomas Jefferson Elementary School music teacher Marie Harbison, who was in the audience. “Are we making sure we won’t plug our students into the Hal 2000 and then spit them out on the other side?”
Berlin said the question went beyond the scope of Knight’s mandate, and then Wodiska added, “Art and music are safe in our district.”
Kearney recommended keeping an eye on “cyber-bullying as it’s changing over time with new tools and platforms and technology.” Knight said division leadership recently took part in a panel on cyber-bullying, and he hopes the division can soon pull together a task force and a summit to address the issue.
Details about the new technology plan are at http://tinyurl.com/FCCPS-tech.
ESOL PLAN
Also during the meeting, the Board approved a new English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) plan, covering 2010 through 2015.
The 181 English language learners (ELL) who enrolled in Falls Church schools for the 2009-2010 year represent about 9% of the total enrollment of 1,991, a slight decline compared with the prior year. As of January 2010, ESOL staff consisted of five full-time teachers, three part-time teachers and two full-time and one part-time paraprofessional. Goals emphasized within the new ESOL plan include efforts to “close the persistent academic gap between the ELL student population and the mainstream population as measured by standardized test scores,” and to increase the participation of those students in advanced programs and classes. See http://tinyurl.com/FCCPS-ESOL.
Wodiska commended Jennifer Riccards, head of the ESOL advisory group, and Board liaison Aguerrebere. “This is a great example of how the School Board is reaching out to and engaging the public,” she said after the meeting. “The group has benefited from Jennifer and Rosaura’s rich knowledge and passion for the well-being of ESOL students, and in turn, our entire community.”
NEW CURRICULUM
Three new curriculum offerings were approved: A new two-year IB environmental systems and societies course, an intermediate band course, and a contract jazz ensemble course. An existing standard-level IB biology course will now be shelved, while the new IB environmental option will encompass the realms of both science and social studies. An existing jazz ensemble will now provide students with a half-credit, and the 150 high-school band students will be split into three groups, based on ability and experience.
OTHER BUSINESS
Rasnake also commended Falls Church Times staffer George Southern for his role in promoting public discourse about community issues. He said he hasn’t always agreed with Southern, who recently announced plans to forego writing opinion pieces (http://tinyurl.com/hadmysay ). But Rasnake said he looks forward to reading Southern’s news coverage of the city.
The School Board meeting is online at http://tinyurl.com/FCCPS-12-14-10.
By Ginger Pinholster
December 18, 2010
A couple of corrections, I was actually contacted by a member of City Council and not by legal counsel as you site in your story. [Editor: Correction made, thank you] Also, I emphasize that my personal view, and one shared by at least one other Member of the Board, is that I am not opposed to doing an efficiency study. I just think that the timing is terrible. We are on the door step of the budget cycle and simultaneously have to hire a new Superintendent. These are heavy lifts in and of themselves – both for the Board and the School staff. I am absolutely not opposed to studying ways to save taxpayer dollars and I think other Board Members feel that way as well. But I think it makes more sense to do so over the Summer – after the Budget cycle and during the summer recess when school staff could devote more time to the effort. It would probably also make a lot of sense to allow our new Superintendent to have input in the process. That said, I am so pleased at the breadth of your article and welcome not only the scrutiny, but also any story that gets the School Board’s work and message out to the community. Thank you and Happy Holidays!
Mr. Rasnake, thank you so much for the speedy correction. When you said you were “contacted by council,” I heard it as “counsel.” I’m glad you corrected that interpretation, and we have updated the story. Happy holidays to you as well.
No worries Ginger.
Referring to Greg Rasnake’s comment about this not being a good time for the FCCPS to participate in the City’s efficiency review, I would say that now is the best time.
Was anybody watching Meredith Whitney’s interview on ‘60 Minutes’ last night when she warned of the crisis now with local government budgets? She was referring to the same bond rating agencies that got the meltdown of the housing market and collapse of the financial system wrong. Gov. Christie of NJ, like him or not, is trying to get his state’s budgetary crisis under control. Our own Gov. McDonnell said last spring that he intended to push more spending down to the local government level to balance the Commonwealth’s budget. The City Council is trying to get out in front of the issue and minimize the consequences of having to react to it…like we have been doing for 2 years.
The City’s pension funds are underfunded to the tune about $20M, which is 33% worse than previously estimated. That was the result of the Retirement Board (another citizen working group) flagging the issue. In kitchen table economics, that’s a cost of about $4,300 per household. FCCPS now has a $4M pension fund gap in its supplemental pension fund for some teachers. That hole was discovered by the auditor (a material breakdown of internal financial controls) and it’s cash that will have to be paid out in the future by the taxpayers of FC. That’s another $1,000 per household. Fairfax is looking to extract $128K in water overcharges and we are likely not done with that issue yet. The City is currently running a $1M operating deficit and the fund balance is 22.5% below where it should be. The City appears to have been rolling its budget deficit forward into FY11 and now FY12. The City Manager has stripped away all but $140K of the usual $4M CIP (for the City and the Schools) to balance the budget. FCCPS wants a new multi-million dollar school. City Hall wants a multi-million addition plus a new million dollar fire engine. Who knows what other demands upon the Little City’s finances and the taxpayers lurks out there? These wants and needs total more than $100M ($21,700 per household, excluding interest on the debt) and the FCCPS says that now is not the time to participate in an efficiency review. I don’t understand.
John Tuohy, our former City CFO, prepared a series of memos regarding a wide range of governmental efficiencies that are sitting in the desk drawer of the City Manager. In Feb. of this year, the LRFPWG (a citizen working group) prepared a list of various efficiencies that the City and the Schools could use to streamline and even reprogram funds. That list is also sitting in the City Manager’s desk drawer.
Perhaps it is past time to bring in a third party who is objective to help the City and FCCPS with the identification and implementation of efficiencies. Why kick the can down the road again and wait until summer to do it? If both entities don’t take this situation seriously, then the sustainability issue (and consequences) of Falls Church will be front and center. It always baffles me that government of any size consistently refuses to recognize and get out in front of a fiscal issue but rather prefers to be reactive.
Did anybody read the article in the Dec. 9 edition of the Alexandria Times (http://www.alextimes.com/news/2010/dec/09/fairfax-county-should-take-over-alexandr/) about maybe it being time to allow Fairfax County to take control of the Alexandria schools, just like Fairfax City did long ago? There is now open discussion in Alexandria about this possibility and they have 6 times as many students as we have and pay 21% lower real estate taxes. The City was a team player in the FCCPS Qualified School Construction Bond application for $6M. I think that the FCCPS needs to be a team player with the City to ensure that it is sustainable. I’m flummoxed as to how now is not a good time for the FCCPS to participate in an efficiency study.
I’m surprised at Mr. Sommerfeld’s comments because, while it is thoughtful and detailed it misses the major point – If The Falls Church City Schools Are Not The Most Important Budget Item Nothing Else Matters!!!
There is absolutely no reason to continue to maintain the City of Falls Church without having the exceptional schools system we have. Everything else is extra. The ONLY reason to maintain our existence is to keep our schools.
Consolidation means degradation – our students’ high achievements will be lost in the mire of an under performing school system and the overwhelming problems of class size, socio-economic disparity, gangs, drugs, etc., that plague the Fairfax system.
And what of the special education experience we provide for all of our students, much of it reported here – how long before the music, arts, IB, even sports programs are dissolved for expedient reasons.
Fix our budget but not on the back of our students – they deserve all of the opportunities we had in school.
Thank you Richard Sommerfeld for laying it all out for us to see. I am apalled that the City Manager wants to spend money we don’t have for a study we don’t need which will profoundly affect the Schools who won’t participate! And it appears that the City Council is anxious to go along with it. Just impliment what has already been suggested.
By the way, how much can we save by getting rid of all this duplication of administration between the Schools and the City? I bet it is in the $100′s of thousands.
The existing recommendations that are sitting around in desk drawers – can anyone put those out on the web somewhere for people to look at?
Mr. Sommerfeld links to an “article” in Alexandria Times, which is actually a letter to the editor (that looks a lot like something George Southern would write). I have no idea if there’s a real movement in Alexandria to transfer their schools to Fairfax County based on this one letter to the editor – but even if there is it’s not a comparable to our situation. While the Fairfax County system is much larger than the Alexandria system they’re certainly closer to the same scale than our system is to either Arlington or Fairfax County. I suspect the Alexandria schools could become part of Fairfax County without a huge change in their configuration. If our schools become part of one of our neighboring counties they will be drastically changed in terms of format and size.
Seems to me that the reason the school board doesn’t want to cooperate is because they have bought into the fear that the new council has a majority of boogiemen who will cut the schools. Thus far, there hasn’t been any sign of that.
Mr. Baker is right on when he says that the schools are the reason for being independent Falls Church City. They are why the property values are higher than the neighbors and why our City has the highly educated and salaried work force it has – people here value education. Sure, there are those who moved here for its quaintness or its village atmosphere, but those qualities arose because of the attraction of the independent schools.
Still, the school system needs to play along with the budget process. This City is too small to not work together toward a common goal – excellent schools and City services. The taxes we pay are how we accomplish this, and we all benefit.
Well said, Charlie! Did you have a ghostwriter?
People should keep in mind that only about 20 to 25 per cent of Falls Church residents have students in the schools.
By the way, Ginger, your two articles on the schools were outstanding. Very impressive.
I’ve seen Lou’s stat (in various forms) kicked around before and I’ve always wondered how it works. I think the current population of the City is about 12,000 and this year there are 2,052 students in the school system. That means over 17% of the population are actually students.
If each student has a sibling and two parents who are also residents then I guess that would mean that about 17% of the residents have students in the school (but it also means that 34% of the residents either have kids in the schools or are kids in the schools).
I’m not sure what the point is… but stats are always fun to play around with.
Andy, another helpful statistic might be how many residents have had students in the school in the past, or have young children that will attend schools in the near future.
The problem with Lou’s 25% or your 34% is that it loudly implies that the remainder (majority) have no interest in supporting the schools. Having one’s children educated here in the past or anticipating sending children to the schools also gives a resident a reason to support the schools. I’d bet that statistic switches the majority.
Charlie and Andy,
I myself was not “loudly implying” anything by throwing out that number. It’s just something to be kept in mind when trying to assess how people might react in dire financial circumstances. Everybody values the schools in good times. How much does that change, if at all, and if so, why, when circumstances might require drastic budgetary action and personal sacrifice?
Lou, I agree that it will be interesting to see how people react as the tax rate goes up (which it obviously has to do, at least in the short run). I think history has shown that parents of school children (past, present, and future) come out to vote in Falls Church at a rate much higher than everyone else.
Just to be absolutely clear to Mr. Baker, I was not advocating consolidating our schools with Fairfax and our schools are not the sole reason today for Falls Church to exist. That notion, to my mind is 62 years out of date. The point is that the Little City has serious economies of scale issues. The Little City needs to be more efficient at how we deliver our services to our residents and our students.
The Schools believe that they service about 24% of households. I believe that the schools service about 20% +/-, and the Schools take about 53% of the City’s budget (including debt service). I’m not here to debate the schools, which I support, but rather to encourage the City and the Schools to work for the whole of Falls Church, not just one interest group. We elected a City Council to represent the whole of our community and they are trying, with an efficiency study, to keep that in focus.
It’s pretty clear that the City and the Schools need to work together to identify efficiencies and consolidate services where possible. Some of that already exists, such as in the maintenance of the school buses, crossing guards, communications and grounds keeping. More can be done and the sooner it happens the better.
Taxes cannot continue to rise unabated without serious consequences. The most detrimental of consequences will be a drop in home prices because of disproportionately higher taxes. If home values continue to decline, the City will tax its citizens more just to stay even with current budget expenditures and not allowing for any growth in the school population. The precursor to that was stripping away the CIP, which puts our infrastructure at risk and raises safety isues for our students. Even harder budgetary choices will have to be made. If you really want to see the consequences of this scenario play out, look to NJ, PA and IL which have a plethora of small jurisdictions which have become economically unviable. This debate is already playing out in Virginia with some municipalties looking to reconsolidate with their counties.
And while we are concerned about about the quality of education for our students, don’t forget the contract that the City and the Schools have with their teachers, police and civil servants for their pension programs. Those are the same loyal people who keep the schools open, provide a quality education, keep our streets safe, maintain our parks and libraries, keep the water and sewer system functioning, and hang the Christmas decorations from our light poles.
I totally agree with the idea that the City (and schools) should work hard to run efficiently – one reason why I’d love to see more public discussion/debate about some of the already proposed ways of being more efficient (these reports that are in Mr. Shields’ desk drawer somewhere). I’d love to see the FCT write a series of articles describing the specifics of the different suggestions and how implementing them would work. I know that would be time consuming to write so I’m not criticizing the FCT – just throwing out an idea.
Mr. Sommerfeld points out that the schools service about 20% of the households but take about 53% of the budget – but doesn’t follow up on the meaning of those numbers. Is that a fair balance? I assume the expectation isn’t that the City should spend only 20% of its budget on the schools. So if it’s not 20% and not 53% what should it be? Would it work for the City to just peg a certain percentage of the budget to schools and leave it at that?
I also agree that there’s a tax rate that would trigger a decline in property values – it’s one of two ways the City could actually fail (the other is to significantly impair the schools, which would trigger a similar decline in property values). What tax rate would trigger that decline? From what I can tell, houses in the City still sell very quickly – which indicates to me that we’re not near an unsustainable tax rate. Would $1.50 start the decline?
Let’s be careful not to mix advocating policy with giving sound financial advice. I realize there’s a fine line – but the Long-Range Financial Planning Working Group should be strictly doing the latter.
It appears (to me) that [the] second paragraph above is advocating policy and trying to use financial statistics/numbers to push for some sort of budget evening (i.e., if only 24% of households are served by the schools, then maybe they should get only 24% of the budget). This type of advocacy calls into question the whole objectivity of the working group – if the working group is just another political entity trying to advance policies, then perhaps their advice should be ignored.
I was surprised and concerned to read School Board chair, Joan Wodiska’s, response to the City schools’ losing funds because of the state’s determination that a disproportionate number of ethnically diverse students are in its special education programs. According to Ms. Wodiska, “The state is saying, `You are serving too many students, some kids within a certain group, you shouldn’t be helping,’ [but] we’re going to help those kids because it’s the right thing to do.” However, the purpose of the relevant law and its requirements has nothing to do with not helping students who need it, but rather with not “dumping” students into special education classes for reasons other than educational ones.
There is a long history in this country of over-designation of minorities to special education programs, and when it appears that a school district has a disproportionate number of minorities so assigned, that district must show that such designations are appropriate. This is an important safeguard for ethnically diverse populations and shoudn’t be dismissed by the school board as the state saying Falls Church shouldn’t “be helping” students. Exactly the opposite is true.
I encourage the City School administration and School Board to reconsider.
The budget needs to be balanced. I agree with the Long Range Planning (Council appointed) Group. The City has agreed to be evaluated. The School system should do so also.
I have heard many times, in many venues, that memos are in the “City Manager’s drawer” that lay out efficiencies to be had by combining School and City administration. So who is going to finally do the Freedom of Information request to get these out in the public domain? Anyone….?
Mike –
I just submitted, to the city clerk, a FOIA request for:
………..”copies of all studies on improving and or cutting the cost of delivering services provided by the City of Falls Church Government and the Falls Church City Public Schools (FCCPS).”
I set the scope to run for the past 10 years and to include any reports in the possesion of the FCCPS, too.
I am due an initial response back by the end of next week (due to holidays and weekends.)
I will let you all know what surfaces.
I agree with “name not provided” – the LRFWG needs to not publically overstep its bounds as an advisory group. It is obvious that Mr. Sommerfield has a strong opinion about what the City should do. It is far less clear what the rest of the LRFWG members feel. I often wonder when I read Sommerfield’s writings whether the LRFWG is already functioning as a rogue body.
In the context of defining and sustaining the inter-dependent relationship and value between municipal and educational agencies in any community—and in this case Falls Church—I have never read a more uninformed and biased comment than that offered by Mr. Baker.
Mr. Baker contends that the “ONLY reason to maintain our existence is to keep our schools.” I would submit to him that the ONLY way to maintain the quality of our schools is to develop and enhance the city’s ability to deliver the resources needed to teach the kids. Perhaps Mr. Baker can point us to a school system in Virginia that exists without a municipal or county government to support and sustain them?
In that regard, the school board at this point in rejecting the Council request to do the efficiency study seems to share Mr. Baker’s view of the relationship of the city government to its schools. For those of us who have served on the Council—in my case for eight years and as the Vice Mayor—having supported every school board budget request and serving as one of the Council co-chairs of the funding subcommittee for Mary Ellen Henderson Middle School, the Board’s action is equivalent to telling the Council—and in effect the citizens of our community who have supported the schools down the line–to go pound sand. Perhaps the Board can explain to us how doing the efficiency study in the midst of the current fiscal situation will adversely affect classroom instruction—rather than seemingly sharing Mr. Baker’s apparent view that the City is in actuality an unwanted albeit necessary appendage to the school system?
The reality is that the City has numerous major financial challenges with probably more to come that will affect its long-term sustainability. Accordingly, the City and the Schools need to work together NOW on the efficiency survey to ensure that we don’t lose the support of our citizens. Any assumption that the citizens will support a tax rate no matter how high—and the school board not endorsing the efficiency study gives life to such a conclusion–is a gamble that our city—that our school children—cannot afford to take.
Further, each time I drop off my granddaughter in the morning at one of those Fairfax County schools of which Mr. Baker is so disparaging, where she is enrolled in a program for high achieving students, and I look out at all those children of diverse backgrounds in the school yard—I will think of him defining them and their goals and aspirations in the context of “socio-economic disparity”—and apparently happy that he is in the “safe” more homogeneous haven of Falls Church.
Lastly, Mr. Baker should be aware that, at least in 2006 when I received my last briefing from the Falls Church Police Department, there were gang issues at George Mason High School.
Mr. Anderson should know that all members of the LRFWG signed the memo on the budget deficit issue. Additionally, Mr. Anderson should avail himself to the biographies of the groups’ members. It may cause his comments to become more informed and less adversarial.
I know of no person in this city who advocates degrading the education we provide to our children. Even many of those of us who have never had children in city schools have had the benefit of a good, public education in other school districts. We view paying taxes to support the education of the generations that follow as our part of a fair deal. Although I recognize that good public schools are good for property values, I consider that fact secondary to the value of education qua education — education for its own sake and its own value.
As I read the comments attached to this article in the context of the city’s overall financial situation, it seems to me that people are making a rational and entirely valid distinction between financial resources that directly impact education in the classroom — teachers, principals, educational facilities, teaching aids and support materials — and the administrative overhead of the school system. I think we all want to continue providing a first-class education to our students. That does not preclude our also wanting to make certain that we are devoting only the necessary resources to administrative overhead and, thus, conserving maximal resources for the classroom.
It is in this spirit, as I see it, that everyone active in the school system has a vested interest in participating, willingly and cooperatively, in the City’s efforts to find sufficient efficiencies to main both an excellent education system and city services. If there are efficiencies to be had by consolidating school and city administrative functions — IT, personnel, financial management, etc. — then implementing those efficiencies inarguably is in the best interest of educating our students, particularly during financial lean times but ,really, always in the interest of good government.
The schools simply cannot exist as a fiefdom, separate from the broader interests of the community as a whole. I urge the School Board to embrace the city-wide audit, in the interest of the kids and the taxpayers.