| Welcome to Livonianeighbors.com. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. To ensure your privacy, never use personal information in your screen name or email address ("janedoe@hotmail.com" or "Billysmom" for example). Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| REP reports; Link to the state website | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 10 2008, 10:41 PM (2,906 Views) | |
| Renee Chesney | Feb 13 2008, 02:36 PM Post #21 |
|
Veteran
|
Okay well then we can compare correct data. |
![]() |
|
| Renee Chesney | Feb 14 2008, 12:04 AM Post #22 |
|
Veteran
|
Alright Al I have my answer from CEPI. You ready to compare data? |
![]() |
|
| Queen of Hearts | Feb 14 2008, 07:24 AM Post #23 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Al must have went to bed early last night. I hope he had time to do some fact-finding (or data-finding), because I would love to hear what you found out. There must be a perfectly logical explanation for the increase in employee numbers, since I am sure they didn't install a revolving door in the HR office. |
![]() |
|
| LPS Reformer | Feb 14 2008, 08:03 AM Post #24 |
|
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
|
![]()
|
|
“Child Abuse” means different things to different people.... ----Randy Liepa 8/9/12 | |
![]() |
|
| Renee Chesney | Feb 14 2008, 01:56 PM Post #25 |
|
Veteran
|
Boy you guys that are so big on research, how come you didn’t do any here? Well maybe you did, but you chose not to disclose what you learned in the research because it doesn’t help your cause. My assumption for the increase in the FTE’s from 05/06 to 06/07 was incorrect, but I was correct in that the difference between 05/06 to 06/07 was not due to hiring 400-500 new employees and can be explained due to modifications of the report from 05/06 to 06/07. After contacting CEPI via email, I received a phone call yesterday afternoon in which they directed me to the following link which describes the REP Report Categories and explains modifications to the form from the prior year. CEPI Description Every district increased because they are now counting Substitute Teachers and Substitute Parapros. That accounts a 374 FTE increase. In addition, “There was an increase in the number of staff members reported by the districts because of the school safety laws going into effect.” The rep I spoke with at CEPI stated that these employees were not reported prior to 06/07 and was significant number to be included in the “oth_supp” column. The increase from 05/06 to 06/07 in “oth_supp” was 110.52 (which represents a 79.9% increase). I checked the rate of increase in this category in Plymouth, Northville and Farmington. Their rates of increase in this category from 05/06 to 06/07 was: Plymouth – 82.67% Northville – 79.22% Farmington – 96% I’ll make a big assumption and state that what the CEPI representative said to me about the large increase in “oth_supp” is indeed true when you compare our increase to other districts. Additional changes to the report included breaking out Instructional Aids by General and Special Ed. If you add the columns together the number for 06/07 was 212.68. This was a decrease of 35.22 instruction aids. Also, LEA DIR was modified and if you compare 05/06 to 06/07 you will see that the Local Education Agency Directors and Assistants now is split between three categories representing an increase of 1. While reviewing the differences between 05/06 and 06/07 you can see that the most significant change in adding employees was in SE Other (Special Ed – Other) which increased by 38.47 FTE’s. The most significant decrease (other than Instruction Aids as detailed above) was 4.97 which were in the Library Specialist category. I only spoke with CEPI and did not contact Central Office for assistance as I felt you would not find any of their answers satisfactory. The posts that inferred that LPS had hired tons more people leaves you crying wolf yet again. You take a number and then decide that it represents incompetence or corruption without understanding the entire situation or having the proper tools to back it up. Every single time I have questioned a board member or administration member on something you guys have represented, it has been proven to me that you have editorialized or twisted it to suit your needs and it is not in fact the whole story. But you guys don’t want the whole story you would rather communicate with the Board and Administration via audience communication and FOIA requests which never equates to good two way communication. You most certainly can say our enrollment is down significantly. That is fact, what is an assumption is your reason as to why. You want the world to believe that it is solely based upon the LI. I’ll agree some of it is, but not the majority of it. That is my opinion, not fact just my take on the fact that LPS’ enrollment is down. You guys on the other hand take it and start calling the board and administration derogatory names (LIar or Dr. LIEpa for example) based on your opinion. What has transpired in this link is a perfect example of the number not properly representing the true situation. So I guess if there is one thing we can agree upon its that numbers don’t LIe, people do. |
![]() |
|
| Sourapples | Feb 14 2008, 02:01 PM Post #26 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Glad to see that you did not rely on verbal answers from LPS Cnetral Office Renee. Can you now obtain the data to expalin where the 2.5 million odd surplus came from after the LI projected a 1.5 mil loss? |
![]() |
|
| Renee Chesney | Feb 14 2008, 02:05 PM Post #27 |
|
Veteran
|
If you had opened your ears and listened at all over the past two years you would know that answer to that question. |
![]() |
|
| Bill Williamson | Feb 14 2008, 02:23 PM Post #28 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hi Renee, If memory serves me right, we had over 100 LPS employees take an early retirement buy out last year. I'm not sure how substitutes vs full time teaching staff are accounted for with these charts. I do realize that the staff taking the buy out were a mix of administrative, transportation, custodial, parapros and teachers. - What should we look for in the 07-08 numbers when they are made available? This staff reduction due to buy out and the timing for the way these charts are now used makes it very difficult for a layman to get a sense that staff changes are reflecting need due to student counts. - With enrollment counts down 400 students, using everyday math, what are the reasons we may not realize a classroom staff count of about 35? - 400 students, 25 per classroom = 16 less teachers 16 teachers x 1.23 support staff per teacher = 19 less support staff |
![]() |
|
| Renee Chesney | Feb 14 2008, 02:39 PM Post #29 |
|
Veteran
|
Bill: Substitute Teachers and Substitute Parapros are each in their own column in the 06/07 rep report. They were not reported prior to 06/07. You should see the change with retirements in the 07/08 report which is calculated as of December each year. Those retiring were counted in 06/07 and will not be counted in 07/08. Per the person I spoke with at CEPI we should start checking for the 07/08 rep reports in April. As with most things school related, you just don't know what your numbers are until you are well down the road. Having to have the next years budget done prior to knowing exactly what your enrollment is and what money you are getting from the State is difficult and would be a huge guess for anyone. My point in posting in this thread Bill was my concern about people irresponsibly utilizing information that they don't understand. A comparison of the 05/06 report to the 06/07 report without the information I provided is like comparing apples to oranges and is not a true reflection of the number of employees employed by the district. |
![]() |
|
| Sourapples | Feb 14 2008, 02:52 PM Post #30 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But a comparison of the Rep Reports for years prior to and including 05/06 should be apples to apples from what you are stating. And then a comparison of 06/07 and onward should be oranges to oranges. Correct? |
![]() |
|
| Renee Chesney | Feb 14 2008, 02:56 PM Post #31 |
|
Veteran
|
In concept I would agree with that, but can't say for sure until you look at the field description link next to each Rep Report (it is the one I provided the link to). Look for the *, read the technical notes and the Mapping Notes for Historical Data for any changes. |
![]() |
|
| Whatever | Feb 14 2008, 03:41 PM Post #32 |
![]()
Veteran
|
Wow! Go and get all nasty after somebody compliments you. Smooth, real smooth. Win lots of friends that way. |
![]() |
|
| Renee Chesney | Feb 14 2008, 03:45 PM Post #33 |
|
Veteran
|
Well you know I don't have any friends and my neighbors hate me so yeah what do I care (big roll of the eyes). |
![]() |
|
| Al Beabak | Feb 14 2008, 04:54 PM Post #34 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Nice work on the report breakdown Renee. I agree that we cannot entirely tell by the difference in reporting really means to the actual head count numbers between the subject years of 05/06 & 06/07. Making any assumptions at this point would be guessing really. I don't remember if you answered the question posed about what 1 FTE really equals. The answer I received from CEPI was that it equals any equivalent of any number of percentage of an FTE that equals 1 as a whole number, and there are no overlapping heads. So .2 + .5 + .3 all serving in any differing function or capacity are only 1 FTE. Also, we definetly will have to do any comparisons of head counts based on pre & post changes to the required reporting to be able to tell what the numbers were for those years. Leaving 05/06 to 06/07 alone. Kind of reminds me of how the state keeps changing the Meap criteria so you cannot accurately compare year to year data. |
![]() |
|
| Renee Chesney | Feb 14 2008, 05:04 PM Post #35 |
|
Veteran
|
Thank you Al, I appreciate the comment. We all need to be careful with the analysis we make on these reports. |
![]() |
|
| Queen of Hearts | Feb 14 2008, 06:35 PM Post #36 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Correction: The buyout was only offered to LEADS (administrators) and LEA members. |
![]() |
|
| CoolnCalm | Feb 15 2008, 07:24 PM Post #37 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thank you for your Factual posts. |
![]() |
|
| Queen of Hearts | Feb 15 2008, 10:08 PM Post #38 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
You're welcome I missed something, though: The ERI was also offered to Cabinet (Central Office administrators). |
![]() |
|
| Bill Williamson | Feb 16 2008, 03:25 PM Post #39 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So as I now understand it the custodial and transportation staff were not afforded the same opportunities as Principals, teachers, parapros and the staff working in the administration offices. Is this accurate? Will they be offered this option this spring? |
![]() |
|
| Queen of Hearts | Feb 16 2008, 03:48 PM Post #40 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The only groups offered ERI last year were Cabinet, LEADS and LEA. Parapros, and CO staff did NOT get it. Custodial, transportation, kitchen, paraprofessional etc. staff are usually not offered retirement incentives - although some of the groups were offered an "ERI" that amounted to somewhere around $2000 several years ago. The reason is that there is not the kind of difference in starting and ending pay for these types of hourly workers as there is amongst the "degreed employees" - when teachers start at say, $30,000 and are earning $80,000 late in their career, there is a big financial incentive for the district to rid itself of the high salaried teacher and replace them with the new teacher at a much lower salary. The ERI is a bargained benefit for each union, and while it is possible that there could be ERIs for these groups, the amount would be negligible, and definitely not enough to convince anyone to retire - it would just be a bonus for someone who was going to retire anyways. At any rate, the other groups have not yet bargained a new contract. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Forum · Next Topic » |








![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)

