Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
REP reports; Link to the state website
Topic Started: Feb 10 2008, 10:41 PM (2,905 Views)
Bill Williamson
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Queen of Hearts
Feb 16 2008, 02:48 PM
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.

Would this mean that we should expect to see a 15 or so reduction in the
number of teachers in the 07 / 08 counts, reflecting the drop in student count?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Queen of Hearts
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Bill Williamson
Feb 16 2008, 05:34 PM
Queen of Hearts
Feb 16 2008, 02:48 PM
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.

Would this mean that we should expect to see a 15 or so reduction in the
number of teachers in the 07 / 08 counts, reflecting the drop in student count?

I assume that there will be a reduction in full time general ed. teachers. I understand that if there hadn't been enough teacher retirements last year, there would have been more teacher layoffs because of the loss of gen. ed. students.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LPS Reformer
Member Avatar
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
Here is 5 years worth of data on LPS.

Note that in the last year, Subs were added for reporting.

Posted Image


Notes:
2002-03
Posted Image
2003-04
Posted Image
2004-05
Posted Image
2005-06
Posted Image
2006-07
Posted Image

Posted Image
“Child Abuse” means different things to different people....
----Randy Liepa 8/9/12
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LPS Reformer
Member Avatar
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
Posted Image



Posted Image


Posted Image




“Child Abuse” means different things to different people....
----Randy Liepa 8/9/12
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Queen of Hearts
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Queen of Hearts
Feb 16 2008, 05:55 PM
Bill Williamson
Feb 16 2008, 05:34 PM
Queen of Hearts
Feb 16 2008, 02:48 PM
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.

Would this mean that we should expect to see a 15 or so reduction in the
number of teachers in the 07 / 08 counts, reflecting the drop in student count?

I assume that there will be a reduction in full time general ed. teachers. I understand that if there hadn't been enough teacher retirements last year, there would have been more teacher layoffs because of the loss of gen. ed. students.

I was thinking about this, and now I think I was wrong on the answer I gave previously.

Staffing levels for the 2007-08 school year would have been determined by the projected student counts the previous spring. So you probably won't see the staffing levels reflected in the 07-08 REP report, if they lost more students than was projected last spring.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Micki
I love teaching.
As a parent in this district, I would want to see high staff numbers because it means more support for students, lower class sizes and a greater ability to differentiate and increase student learning. You should be fighting for this, not bickering over it. It makes me second guess if I did the right thing or not with one of my kids to be perfectly honest.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LPS Reformer
Member Avatar
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
Micki
Feb 23 2008, 12:26 PM
As a parent in this district, I would want to see high staff numbers......

But, only if you can afford them.
“Child Abuse” means different things to different people....
----Randy Liepa 8/9/12
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Micki
I love teaching.
I would say that spend the money on the kids with lower class sizes, more teachers, etc... and cut somewhere else. That is what is best for kids.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cecelia
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Micki
Feb 23 2008, 12:26 PM
As a parent in this district, I would want to see high staff numbers because it means more support for students, lower class sizes and a greater ability to differentiate and increase student learning. You should be fighting for this, not bickering over it. It makes me second guess if I did the right thing or not with one of my kids to be perfectly honest.

You were trying to do the right thing for your child. If you think a transfer back to public because of the special help available on-site you should do that. There is nothing wrong in children from the same family going to different school systems (that is, public and private). Children are different, schools are different. Follow your heart. No one knows your child like you and your husband. Only you can decide. Good luck.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Al Beabak
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Micki
Feb 23 2008, 04:41 PM
I would say that spend the money on the kids with lower class sizes, more teachers, etc... and cut somewhere else. That is what is best for kids.

Are you saying cut in non-classroom support? A very unpopular position, but one many school districts have had to make to cut expenses and save money for the teachers and classrooms.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill Williamson
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Queen of Hearts
Feb 23 2008, 11:54 AM
Queen of Hearts
Feb 16 2008, 05:55 PM
Bill Williamson
Feb 16 2008, 05:34 PM
Queen of Hearts
Feb 16 2008, 02:48 PM
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.

Would this mean that we should expect to see a 15 or so reduction in the
number of teachers in the 07 / 08 counts, reflecting the drop in student count?

I assume that there will be a reduction in full time general ed. teachers. I understand that if there hadn't been enough teacher retirements last year, there would have been more teacher layoffs because of the loss of gen. ed. students.

I was thinking about this, and now I think I was wrong on the answer I gave previously.

Staffing levels for the 2007-08 school year would have been determined by the projected student counts the previous spring. So you probably won't see the staffing levels reflected in the 07-08 REP report, if they lost more students than was projected last spring.

If I understand your post, present staffing needs are based on the
spring 06 / fall 06 counts. LPS had approximately 280 less kids in
the 2007 spring count from the 2006 Fall count. So would it follow
that 08/09 staffing needs would be based on THAT spring 07 and the
fall 08 counts? The teacher and support staff needs should reflect
this student reduction?
-
With less students why wouldn't we be able to reduce staff too? Student
loss is primarily in our K-6 population. The "small class sizes" established
with the implementing of the legacy plan should be easy to maintain with
the increased concentration of these students in our elementary buildings.
-
LPS's 150 million budget is 85% staff and 15% other.
280 Less students = 2.3 million less in funding, (that's 10% of the other)
-
Less funding yet maintain staff = 10% less monies for classroom resources.
or
Less funding yet maintain classroom resources = less staff
-
I realize it is not this simple, of one or the other. My feelings are still, less
students leads to the need for less staff. The small class sizes touted thru
out the Winter of 05 by Joanne Morgan and others would be maintained.
-
I'm still upset we are now spending 80,000 / year on disposable work books
for everyday math instead using that money to retain a math teacher.
Sorry, that's a topic for another thread.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Queen of Hearts
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
My understanding is that this year's staffing is based on projections from the spring of '07. By the time the first count day rolls around (November, I think), and an accurate count has been taken, teachers are into a routine with their classes.

If you want to get the staffing to be reduced to match the student counts, that would mean that teachers would need to be laid off late in November, and their classes would have to be redistributed into other classrooms. Doesn't sound good for student achievement to me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill Williamson
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Queen of Hearts
Feb 26 2008, 08:23 PM
My understanding is that this year's staffing is based on projections from the spring of '07. By the time the first count day rolls around (November, I think), and an accurate count has been taken, teachers are into a routine with their classes.

If you want to get the staffing to be reduced to match the student counts, that would mean that teachers would need to be laid off late in November, and their classes would have to be redistributed into other classrooms. Doesn't sound good for student achievement to me.

I don't WANT teachers cut!
But, as I now understand the report, per your explanations, our present 07/08
staff size was determined by projected spring 07 numbers. These were larger
than the actual counts funding is based on.
-
A 08/09 report should show a staff reduction of 12 to 15 teachers and 12 to 15
support staff to reflect the 350-400 student count reductions (and funding reductions).
This, of course, is provided the criteria isn't adjusted again.
-
The legacy consolidated schools and increased the numbers of students per
building at each K-8 grade level. An administrative benefit of this consolidation
is it allows for staff reductions without substantial class size adjustments.
-
For example:
360 less students / 12 grade levels = 30 per grade
With only 3, 5-6 schools that's 10, 5th and 10, 6th graders less per school.
A building of 15 5th grade class rooms, 25 students each = 375, 5th graders.
Subtract the grade level loss of 10 = 365
365 /14 classes = 26 students per class. (an increase of 1 per class)
2 less teachers, 2 less support staff at each 5-6 building. (6) total
less staff and this was caused by only the 60 less 5th and 6th graders.
-
A building with 84 4th graders and 4 teachers = 21 per class
The 30, 4th grade student loss split among 12 buildings is about 3
per building and a tougher example. It would follow thou that:
81 students / 3 teachers would increase class size to 27 per class.
12 buildings could cut, 12 teachers, 12 support staff (24) total.
-
I realize that this is all hypothetical. 1 K-4 teacher per grade level
per building could equal up to about 50 teachers. I think it does
meets the contract guidelines of class size for elementary students
to be no more than 27 students. Thank goodness some of these classes
have more than 21 students in their classrooms right now.
-
But I ask, is this what funding reductions could force us into?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hopeful
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Bill Williamson
Feb 26 2008, 11:26 PM
I think it does meets the contract guidelines of class size for elementary students to be no more than 27 students. Thank goodness some of these classes have more than 21 students in their classrooms right now.

Since when are elementary classes limited to 27 children per class. This has not been the case for several years. My children had 28 children in their kindergarten classes and the large class size has continued over the years.

Congrats to anyone that does get to have smaller class sizes for elementary age children, but probably not at LPS.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Al Beabak
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Hopeful
Feb 27 2008, 08:20 AM
Bill Williamson
Feb 26 2008, 11:26 PM
I think it does meets the contract guidelines of class size for elementary students to be no more than 27 students.  Thank goodness some of these classes have more than 21 students in their classrooms right now.

Since when are elementary classes limited to 27 children per class. This has not been the case for several years. My children had 28 children in their kindergarten classes and the large class size has continued over the years.

Congrats to anyone that does get to have smaller class sizes for elementary age children, but probably not at LPS.

Which is another good reason for offering the option of full day & half day K. Reduce class sizes, attract young families, and of all things, offering customers an option!

Imagine that
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IDK
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
Al Beabak
Feb 27 2008, 10:06 AM
Hopeful
Feb 27 2008, 08:20 AM
Bill Williamson
Feb 26 2008, 11:26 PM
I think it does meets the contract guidelines of class size for elementary students to be no more than 27 students.  Thank goodness some of these classes have more than 21 students in their classrooms right now.

Since when are elementary classes limited to 27 children per class. This has not been the case for several years. My children had 28 children in their kindergarten classes and the large class size has continued over the years.

Congrats to anyone that does get to have smaller class sizes for elementary age children, but probably not at LPS.

Which is another good reason for offering the option of full day & half day K. Reduce class sizes, attract young families, and of all things, offering customers an option!

Imagine that

How does offering full day and half day K reduce class size? Full day K means you have to hire more teachers and where is the money coming for that? My children have never had less than 29 in their classes in elementary it was usually 30 in lower el and 32 in upper el. I would have loved a class with the low 20's. Maybe you should sit on the negotiation committee for contracts and have the contract changed to limit class size to 27. Many teachers would love to see a lower class size requirement in the contract.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LPS Reformer
Member Avatar
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
IDK
Feb 27 2008, 06:08 PM
Al Beabak
Feb 27 2008, 10:06 AM
Hopeful
Feb 27 2008, 08:20 AM
Bill Williamson
Feb 26 2008, 11:26 PM
I think it does meets the contract guidelines of class size for elementary students to be no more than 27 students.  Thank goodness some of these classes have more than 21 students in their classrooms right now.

Since when are elementary classes limited to 27 children per class. This has not been the case for several years. My children had 28 children in their kindergarten classes and the large class size has continued over the years.

Congrats to anyone that does get to have smaller class sizes for elementary age children, but probably not at LPS.

Which is another good reason for offering the option of full day & half day K. Reduce class sizes, attract young families, and of all things, offering customers an option!

Imagine that

How does offering full day and half day K reduce class size? Full day K means you have to hire more teachers and where is the money coming for that? My children have never had less than 29 in their classes in elementary it was usually 30 in lower el and 32 in upper el. I would have loved a class with the low 20's. Maybe you should sit on the negotiation committee for contracts and have the contract changed to limit class size to 27. Many teachers would love to see a lower class size requirement in the contract.

Would they accept a smaller paycheck to get it?
“Child Abuse” means different things to different people....
----Randy Liepa 8/9/12
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IDK
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
I can't help but feel that you are trying to provoke an argument. I will not participate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Hopeful
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
IDK
Feb 27 2008, 06:08 PM

.......... Full day K means you have to hire more teachers and where is the money coming for that? [/QUOTE]

LPS should offer full day kindergarten because some in the community have requested it, and the full student allowance is already being paid by the State.

Kindergarten is a cash cow for LPS. The students are in school for approximately 3 hours per day and the State of Michigan pays LPS the FULL student allowance for each of these 1/2 time participants. (LPS gets the same amount of money for a high school student as they do for a kindergartener.)

The real question is.......WHAT HAS LPS DONE WITH ALL OF THE KINDERGARTEN MONEY THEY HAVE BEEN PAID UP UNTIL NOW? ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LPS Reformer
Member Avatar
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
IDK
Feb 27 2008, 06:43 PM
I can't help but feel that you are trying to provoke an argument. I will not participate.

You just did.
“Child Abuse” means different things to different people....
----Randy Liepa 8/9/12
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply