- First they have this horrendous budget cut that pretty much will undo most of the good progress made in the Peabody Schools in the past 10 years (and remember the ONLY PLACE IN THE ENTIRE CITY BUDGET THAT NEEDED CUTS was the Public Schools!)
- Then Superintendent Milton Burnett decided that a select few of his management team needed BIG RAISES... EVEN THOUGH HE HAS AXED 75+ employees and more than 25 teachers
- And now comes this gem... The cost savings plan to remove highly trained (and higher cost) school adjustment councilors and replace them with lesser trained (and cheaper) school guidance councilors - WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT - is actually going to cost the City a bundle!
The Salem News: 'Cost-saving' layoff plan has backfired
Now I have admitted to not being a big fan of coach Niz and don't think he is an effective school committee member. However I can not fault him in this instance. He was simply making a suggestion for a potential cost savings move during the ridiculous sham of a budget that the school committee was working on.
The problem here was in what happened next... the highly paid educational administrative profession known as Superintendent Milton Burnett SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE IMPORTANT POSITIONS! Now... is the difference the number one thing he needs to deal with on a daily basis? Of course not. But THIS IS HIS JOB! He should have looked into this matter (if he didn't already know how it worked) and figured this out BEFORE making this STUPID MISTAKE.
How do we expect our students to learn how to think and act in intelligent and proactive ways when the very people in charge can't even do the basic tasks correctly (while getting a very nice paycheck for the honor as well)??????
12 comments:
If you have been watching the meetings, the entire SC was warned by the SPED director that the plan would not work. Dr. Burnett ignored the warnings of his administration, it seems.
I have not seen any meetings so this is news to me.
Frankly, at first I was going to give the Super the benefit of the doubt and put some of the blame on his staff - who should have informed him of this conflict.
But his arrogance seems to have even over come the learned advice of his own experts.
Isn't the old phrase, three strikes and you're out? Well, time to go!
But wait... this would need to be a Mayor Bonfanti action... and he seems incapable of MAKING A MISTAKE so thus his Super must be protected against his own stupidity.
Frankly, again and again the wrong people are the ones being let go in this City... and the coming elections, I fear, will prove that yet again.
How did the school committee memebrs vote on this? The article said some supported it. Obviously, enough to get this passed. Who supported it and who did not? I agree PI that these mishaps are certainly adding up and becoming costly. When do we say enough is enough?
A Page 1 story in yesterday's edition about the Peabody School Department's decision to cut school adjustment counselors did not include information about how School Committee members voted. Committee members Brandi Carpenter, Edward Charest, Beverley Dunne and Edward Nizwantowski voted to cut the adjustment counselor jobs. Michael Moutsoulas voted present, and David McGeney was absent.
Here is what I could find digging through the posted school committee (& budget subcommittee) meeting notes on this topic:
Part One:
======================================
May 13, 2009 Budget Meeting Kiley School
Category 11 Elementary Guidance
MOTION: Mr. Charest moved to receive document from Ms. Bullard. Second by Mrs. Dunne. Motion carries.
Ms. Bullard read from her document.
Mr. Moutsoulas would like the prior vote on the School Adjustment Counselors to be reconsidered. Mr. Nizwantowski made of Point of Order; Mr. Moutsoulas did not vote on winning side, therefore, cannot raise the Motion.
Mrs. Dunne would like clarification on the reductions of School Adjustment Counselors.
Dr. Burnett explained that there would be 4 School Adjustment Counselors plus one from a grant.
There was discussion about the School Adjustment Counselors; what their roles are and if we will be out of compliance; staggering their case load and have them travel school to school if necessary.
This issue will be looked at again at tomorrow’s Budget Meeting.
======================
April 23, 2009 Budget Meeting Kiley School
Category 11: Elementary Guidance
Dr. Burnett reported that this was an area where the principals did not want to reduce.
MOTION: Mr. Nizwantowski moved to eliminate all School Adjustment Counselors; return 8 Guidance Counselors and then add back 4 School Adjustment Counselors at the discretion of the Superintendent. Second by Mr. Charest. Votes "Yes" Mrs. Carpenter, Mr. Charest, Mr. Nizwantowski, Mrs. Dunne. Votes "Present" Mr. Moutsoulas. Motion carries.
Mr. Nizwantowski is fighting for the guidance counselors. He believes that they are always there and ready to deal with a crisis in a moments notice. Mr. Charest wants to be certain that 4 School Adjustment Counselors will be sufficient to cover the Community School, Eagles Cluster and West classroom. Mr. Moutsoulas questions if we will be in compliance and what happens if we aren't? He cannot vote in favor of this motion without additional information from Ms. Bullard.
=========================
Here is what I could find digging through the posted school committee (& budget subcommittee) meeting notes on this topic:
Part Two:
======================================
April 22, 2009 Budget Meeting Kiley School
Category 7: Elementary Teacher Reduction
Dr. Burnett explained how he determined enrollment and number of classes projected for FY10 and therefore how 5 Elementary Teachers can be reduced.
MOTION: Mr. McGeney moved to follow the recommendation of the Superintendent to reduce 7 elementary teachers which would be a reduction of $301,000.00 (not including health insurance). Second by Mr. Moutsoulas. Votes "Yes" Mrs. Carpenter, Mr. Charest, Mr. McGeney, Mr. Moutsoulas, Mrs. Dunne. Votes "No" Mr. Nizwantowski. Motion carries.
The Mayor would like information on the Student Adjustment Counselors and Guidance Counselors. Mrs. Dunne would like to know what Plan B is if the Library Paras get laid off. Mrs. Dunne would like to know which Consumer Science teacher will be let go. Mr. Charest would like to know when decisions will be made on which particular class at the high school will be affected.
==============
April 14, 2009 Budget Meeting Kiley School
MOTION: Mrs. Dunne moved to receive the document containing information on Guidance Counselors and School Adjustment Counselors as requested by Mr. Nizwantowksi. Second by Mr. Moutsoulas. Motion carries by unanimous consent.
Mr. Nizwantowski would like to see 2 administrators join jobs and reduce housemasters to 3.
MOTION: Mr. McGeney moved to receive document regarding School Adjustment Counselors as provided by Patricia Bullard. Second by Mrs. Dunne. Motion carries by unanimous consent.
Mr. Nizwantowski asked the does if a School Adjustment Counselors can deliver services over an adjustment counselor. The response was either/or could service students and we can set whatever we want.
MOTION: Mr. McGeney moved to accept document from Mr. Nizwantowski relating to the response from the DOESE. Second by Mr. Dunne. Motion carries by unanimous decision.
===========================
OG says..
isn't the REAL issue here with regard to state/federal compliance mandates?? OG is tired of seeing one state/federal mandate after another that has no supportive funding with it...this whole somewhat unpredictable special ed portion of the annual school budget is completely out of control and it truly needs to be fixed....where we draw the line with school adjustment counselors and guidance counselors duties and how we pay for all of this supportive care gets way too convoluted and murky for my liking....do any of you agree with me on this?
I disagree. This is a total lack of foresite (for most). The mandates and union issues have been there long enough to anticipate the process.
The systemic issues are a separate debate.
OG says..
check your facts...planning the special ed portion of the school budget is a crap shoot...there are many unknown variables and surely not enough federal funding support...ask around...come back to OG with your research.
Now you may be correct on some of the issues involved here OG... I for one am not an expert on SPED...
But the State required certifications for these positions is well known and hasn't changed. This was an oversight by the people who needed to make this decision.
It has been suggested (not shown mind you) that those who were in a position to know the correct info brought it to Superintendent Burnett... and he misunderstood or ignored this expert advice.
In either case, it is going to cost the City of Peabody at a time when we can ill afford this extra cost. AND the money aside... this was a TERRIBLE DECISION IN THE FIRST PLACE to cut these support positions for these people who make such a large impact on the lives of our students who need these extra services.
OG says...
If the State or Federal Government is required to supply Special Education
services, why is the city expected to pay for it?
Because! While this may seem to be a flip answer, the reality is that the
federal and state governments sometimes pass good laws – and
sometimes even promise to pay for them – but they sometimes end up as
unfunded mandates. Special education – and more recently – the related No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), fall into this category of unfunded mandates. The
law says we must provide these services and there are real world legal
consequences for failing to do so, including potential legal exposure to students
that we fail and consequences for failing to meet Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) under the NCLB, which include the potential loss of federal monies.
State and Federal special education funding provides only a PORTION of the actual
costs of special education services here in Dark City. The remainder of the cost falls to
the local schools and city in the same way funding for state and federal general
education funding falls short and pushes the costs to the local taxpayer.
Threaded into this financial reality is the need to adequately staff our special ed district needs with the properly certified teachers...let's see what Uncle Milt has to say before we hang him out to dry on this one...
OG,
It is not a crapshoot. You check your facts. I do agree that SPED laws are plenty. That is why you have a special education department to watch over law and procedure. When these specialists tell you something can't work, it should not be ignored.
Aside from the SPED issue, you have a union issue. It is widely known that if you are going to tack responsibilities on an individual, the union will seek compensation. It's not rocket science.
It is too convenient to dismiss the decision because it's hard to understand the laws. There is always too much at stake to adopt that menallity. You hold the decisionmakers accountable. It's the only tool we have, OG.
Post a Comment