![[Nameplate]](http://www.gcdailyworld.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
Fair ~ High: 90°F ~ Low: 65°F Thursday, May 24, 2012 |
|
Fewer Greene County school districts might be worth some discussionPosted Friday, August 3, 2007, at 8:55 PM
District 45 State Representative Bruce Borders (R-Jasonville) probably raised some eyebrows of suspicion from area school administrators this week when he slightly suggested in a discussion about the current property tax mess Greene Countians are facing that now might be the time to think about trimming costs in a big way.
One way is obviously to curtail the amount of money that is spent in the county's five school districts for administrators and support staff. I have never fully understood why this large county by area and small by population with just over 32,000 residents has to have five separate school districts. Each district has an administrator who's making nearly $90,000 a year in addition to a multiple number of principals, assistant principals, athletic directors, office staffs and so on. This is not a personal attack on any of them. They all are doing an admirable job and providing our youngsters with incredible educational training. It's about dollars and cents. Borders noted that Greene County is a good example of how there is an overload of administrative costs involved with the operation of five separate school districts -- in a county with a small population. While not suggesting there be a change in that setup, the Republican lawmaker said speaking from a fiscal view, a smaller consolidated administrative set up might be something worth exploring. Other counties and community -- much larger than Greene County -- operate with a single superintendent and central administrative office. Vigo County is a good example. The lawmaker also pointed out that state government -- the governor and lawmakers -- are wrongly taking a lot of the heat for the current property tax situation. It's true, the legislature and governor are responsible for the tax formula that is used to calculate property tax bills. But local units of government -- our schools, cities, towns and township bear a serious fiscal responsibility in the way they spend the property tax revenues they receive. The state only receives a small fraction of the local property taxes collected. The bulk of the tax revenues are divided up among the local municipal bodies and schools. Borders just might be right. Now might be the time to think about how to creatively cut local spending before it's too late and property taxpayers take up residence on the "poor farm". Two school districts in this county just might make better sense to the taxpayers. What do you think? Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Extra, Extra!  - Archives - Blog RSS feed ![[Feed icon]](http://www.gcdailyworld.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon} - Comments RSS feed - Send email to By Nick Schneider, Assistant Editor - Login Hot topics 2012 graduates, the future is yours ---- Seize it, but enjoy the trip(0 ~ 1:06 PM, May 21)
Sticks, stones AND words hurt
I really don't want or need six cats
As the years accumulate, life has new meaning
Misfortune with no fortune in my fortune cookie
|
Email link
Read comments (21)
Blog archive
Sounds like more unemployment in Greene County as scores of teachers are let go.
Sounds like more unemployment in Greene County as scores of teachers are let go.
I say this because, in my humble opinion, teachers jobs are often sacrificed to pay for administrative costs.
Also, school boards are often run by folks who, for sake of another term, are power-hungry and not willing to give up their power for such a grand experiment.
reneabram, I get that...I'm just saying that will never happen without teachers being dismissed...'tis the power game.
I know that we are wasting tons of money on administration in Greene County but I just don't see how, with as many power brokers we have in our school systems, any single corperation can be formed.
All that said, I'm for it!
Consolidation of school corporations in Greene County is going to be nearly impossible. The only school district without debt is Bloomfield (because they have not yet built a new facility, but with all the talk about not being able to take in 50 more students, perhaps that's what is being considered).
The State will not consolidate school districts who have the debt load Greene County schools now have. There are 4 newer schools (with Eastern being the newest). Each time there is consolidation, the State has to take on and eat that debt load.
If this "local spending" is truly the problem with the property tax fiasco, then why wasn't Mr. Borders (or any other lawmaker) suggesting consolidation three years ago when he took office? They knew this situation was going to happen that long ago. Why only now are we hearing that it is the County's spending and local spending that has caused the property tax problem?
We're hearing it because the entire legislature (both Ds and Rs) are responsible for this irresponsible situation. THEY developed this "circuit breaker" taxing situation. THEY got rid of the inventory tax (which was a great thing for economic development), but THEY did not plan for the aftermath of it -- i.e. what monies are going to replace the void where the inventory tax once was.
Perhaps our local government and schools could cut back some, but honestly, when the power to make real change rests in the hands of the legislature, and now that they've made a giant mistake, the blame is being placed elsewhere. I'm sad to see this because cities and towns struggle now to pay for basic services. Let's stop pointing the fingers outward from Indy toward Greene County and local government and work together to make sensible laws that will not cause more Greene County residents to have to choose between paying their taxes and buying food and medication.
Perhaps Rep. Borders could introduce legislation mandating that the State MUST take the debt load from counties wanting to consolidate their school districts to save money. If that is done, the 5 school districts will have 1 Superintendent, thereby saving nearly $450,000 in those payrolls coming out of County coffers.
Consolidation is more about combining administrations than physical movement of students. The school corporations (under consolidation) would become Greene County School Corporation, instead of 5 separate and distinct corporations with different school boards. There would only be one school board (probably initially made up of two members from each current school corporation or something like that.)
There would not be a reduction in teachers because there is no reduction in students or physical facilities.
Greenee, that is all well and good BUT you and I both know that it wouldn't take long for the power brokers to want to consolidate those "smaller, less cost-effective" schools into a basketball/ football powerhouse...um..I mean, fine educational facility!
I am always amused when any elected official assigns the blame for any financial crisis. Without a doubt, the blame is always designated for someone other than the elected officials. Also, Ethermuse has a very valid point, prior to any merger of administrations (which would be a good topic to assess), the administrators will pursue other methods to tighten the purse strings. That is always a good indication that the number of teachers in the county will soon decline.
It's funny that this topic has come up again -- a school superintendent suggested this about 20 years ago or so. The cost savings of consolidating the administration would be significant. A better way of realizing this cost savings, while keeping the schools as they are would be this: Form a school "management" company for all school districts. Hire a superintendent, an assistant superintendent, an HR guru, a sharp chief financial officer, a book keeper, and an office assistant or two. The county could afford very, very competent and qualified individuals, while reducing overall costs. This management team would be "leased" to the school corporations in the county to run the operations. That way, the schools stay intact (I think they will have to considering the geographic distance between them in the county), while realizing the savings! The crucial part of this is we can't just hire anybody (no relatives of so-and-so or whatever), these people need to be very good at what they do.
I disagree w/ Rene Abram. Eastern Greene is going to be 3 separate schools. One high school, one middle school and one elementary school. With each school having at least 300 plus students I think two administrators per school are necessary. Please find a high school in Indiana comparable to Easterns' size that does not have a Principal and Assistant principal..the same for the Middle School and Elementary School. Wake up to reality, you cannot expect 1 administrator for 300 kids!
Several issues all of which the rest of the world deal with routinely.
Busing...welocme to the real world. A bus ride of 45 minutes to an hour (including stops to pick up and let off) is standard for everywhere. In the afternoons, the "late buses" frequently go for 1 - 1 1/2 hours as the combine several routes for later activity children
Non-main curriculum course offerings...welcome to the real world. Regardless of your personal interests, languages (spanish, French, german, mandarin, etc. are needed to allow for our kids to experince what happens outside the county in the real world. Experiencing other cultures and being able to speak a foreign language (besides Greene Countian) is a must in todays world of business. Music, art, computer classes; as the numbers increase and the costs decrease (less administration) then there is more money for education for the kids (simple ISTEP Algebra, thank you).
Athletics...This would allow those schools with and without certin athletic programs or those with few numbers to field full teams to do so. Those kids who join athletics for the fun would not be forced to face significantly better competition with all of the loss of face but rather compete at their own level for fun. There are many potentially fine football players at other schools in the county who get lost after the little leagues end because they do not have a place to advance to. And dare I use that four letter word "soccer" which due to the supposed cash crunch (p.s. love the new grandstands) and other contrivences of the school board and that respected football hall of famer AD, precludes a significant number of kids from enjoying this activity as a school sanctioned one. Forget the real world, everybody surrounding Greene County has it and the kids definitely want it (but what does that matter). In conclusion, I offer Nick Schneider and Representative Bruce my congratulations for their bravado in suggesting the obvious, and my condolences because a school board position is one of power and in aging men, keeping just a little power is more important that doing what is so obviously right and they will fight to keep it.
This is really a subject that needs to be discussed/considered. If for no other reason, to objectively evaluate what Greene County is currently doing. I believe the comparison of Greene County to Vigo County is a difficult one, but lets look at it anyway. The data I'll refer to is available at http://www.doe.state.in.us then on the left side of the web page select K-12 School Data, then select the county, the corporations will be in green and the schools will be blue. I'm looking at the corporations since this is an article concerning combining central offices.
To start off, Vigo County has an enrollment of 16,431 and all five schools in Greene County have a combined enrollment of 5,693. Vigo County has 36 certified (licensed) positions in their central office. Greene County has a total of 6 certified positions in the five central offices. In Vigo County that is 1 certified central office person to serve 456 students (16,431/36 = 456). Greene County has 1 certified central office person to serve 948 (5,693/6 = 948).
Next, look at other administrators (building level etc.); Vigo County has 55 of those or 298 students to one administrator. Greene County has 24 of these and that gives us 237 students to one administrator. Then there is a category called Administrators and Other Certified Personnel. Vigo County has 163 of these, so that gives them 100 students to each of these staff members. Greene County has 50 of these and that gives us 113 students to each of these staff members.
In two of the three areas the Greene County schools are serving more students per staff member. In the central office that number is over double the number in Vigo County.
Gov. Daniels started this conversation over a year ago. The Indiana Policy Center at I.U. crunched the numbers and presented the results to a committee chaired by Sen. Luke Kenley of Noblesville. After reviewing the summary, Gov. Daniels seemed to back away from the idea and proposed that smaller school corporations "ban together" and try to obtain some economy of size in their purchasing. I know the superintendents in Greene County have been investigating some of these possibilities.
Looking a local property taxes: Vigo County has a local property tax levy of $3,168 per student (ADM), while the average of the Greene County Schools is $2,866 per student. Property taxes are high, I just paid mine a few days ago. The amount that goes to schools is the largest amount on my property tax bills, but providing all students with a free education is undoubtedly the most important task for our local governmental units.
So, continue to talk, read, and educate yourselves. This proposal will likely not just go away. I expect to see some sort of future referendum on the subject and we need to "look before we leap!"
Interesting to see how many education experts we seem to have in Greene County... I didn't realize there were so many. *Note: snide remarks only directed to those deserving; not all.
By the way, ONE corporation seems to make the most sense, from a taxpayer perspective to a teacher perspective to even an administrative perspective. You can make lengthy lists of pros and a moderately long list of cons (I guarantee the "pro" list will be much, much longer - if you need to see it, call me; I'll start work on it, but it may take until Thanksgiving to list the pros), but comparing Greene County schools to any other county/corporation setup - with or without data - is an apples-to-oranges comparison, particularly without first-hand knowledge of how those corporations operate.
Even as a Greene County resident (and an actually credentialed educationist), I can't claim to know how our schools all operate - just one not-so-hot example with a couple of good-to-decent ones. The starting point is a good, thorough examination and comparison of our existing five corps. and how they could be put together in a model that might be entirely original and innovative (heaven forbid).
Of course, there is one final vantage point to see this from - not that anyone will look there - and it would be that of the students. I wonder what they think?
I don't agree. Barefoot makes the real point here that you get more layerss of "buracracy" the bigger you are, and that actually increases costs.
Whats most important is the children-not the grades they make in some standard test or if they win state championships or what not. I as a child rode the school bus in vigo county for over an hour each way and today that same bus is now taking a half hour longer.
This problem does rest firmly with the state legislators and the states budget-the local property taxes have to raise to meet the short fall from the states return of Educations portion of the Sales and income taxes.
In the district I live the rate actually dropped because the STATE told them it had to. The are in Finacial difficulty and could have stood to not dropped the rate.
If Mr. Crites is correct that it can be done, then it is something that should be looked into to save money.
My main point was that the legislature is blaming cities, towns, and counties for its failure to put in place any mechanism to fill in the gap where the inventory tax used to be -- and then want to blame others for it.
The truth is, the legislature was telling everyone it would be fine three years ago. Their position changed once they saw what was happening. They had the power to change it and did nothing. What's worse, they didn't want to listen to the people who were telling them how bad it was going to be. Now they (and the Governor's office) look really bad because they are backpeddling to fix a problem they were told was going to happen.
I have a source on a county review board and he told me that the inventory tax removal did not effect most of the local townships much at all. ( the farming townships that is) and the farming townships are the ones with the worst economic conditions of schools.
I have said this for the past 6 years that I have lived in the Bloomfield area. Everyone is afraid of giving up their power. It would make alot more sense to cut admin costs. WRV & Blmfd. are just a few miles apart. They could move elementry kids in one location and JR/High in another. But this would probably make to much sense and I know it is going to step on toes.
In the Summary of Legislation considered by the First Regular Session of the 115th General Assemby Nove 21, 2006 - April 29, 2007, here is an exact quote about what caused the spike in property taxes. Please note #2:
"There were four main factors that led to the anticipated 23.8% average increase in property tax for Indiana property owners in 2007: (1) annual adjustments (trending); (2) the repeal of the inventory tax; (3) state and locally mandated property tax increases from the last few years; and (4) return of the Homestead credit to 20% (from 28% in 2006)."
NOTE: The language that is interesting is the word "anticipated" -- they KNEW this was going to happen and why but they didn't fix it when there was still time to do it.
Renea Bram has a good point about the spending issue. We spend more per child than any nation on public screwling, and yet we get stupider every year. Why? Is this money spent on beautiful schools, sports facilities, lawnmowers, tractors, paging systems, air conditioning and dare I say it, administration?
ReneAbram-Our kids might be our future tax payers, but they will also be future parents who won't want to send their kids to crappy schools. You won't get good teachers if you have 1 administrator for 300 plus students and the teachers have to take up the slack. I'm sorry, but in this day and age you can't rely on other parents to raise responsible kids. It's unfortunate, but you just can't depend on it.
FYI - I'm not hiding behind initials, most do not use their names when they blog.
I think with your tax concerns you should have run for county council/commissioner instead of school board, that might have been a better fit! No hard feelings, but I just feel if you're going to be a member of a school board, you should put the kids first and a school administration requesting 2 principals per building is reasonable...now about needing 2 superintendents, I'd say you and I would agree that is not necessary :)
I also think that consolidation of the schools in this county would be a great idea. As was said it has nothing to do with busing the students it has to do with saving costs on admin. positions. I believe Sullivan Co. also does this. They have an elem. in Carlisle, a high school in Sullivan, elem. in Sullivan as well. All run under one school district with one Super's office and school board.
The schools could be set up to even interact with each other possibly offering more class options for the students.
How does this get started? Should someone do a feasability study to show the actual savings before thousands of man hours are spent running around frantic about how to make the changes?
Mr. Crites, any suggestions?