| 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 (2,905 Views) | |
| Bill Williamson | Feb 16 2008, 05:34 PM Post #41 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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? |
![]() |
|
| Queen of Hearts | Feb 16 2008, 05:55 PM Post #42 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| LPS Reformer | Feb 17 2008, 06:07 PM Post #43 |
|
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. ![]() Notes: 2002-03 ![]() 2003-04 ![]() 2004-05 ![]() 2005-06 ![]() 2006-07 ![]()
|
|
“Child Abuse” means different things to different people.... ----Randy Liepa 8/9/12 | |
![]() |
|
| LPS Reformer | Feb 17 2008, 06:25 PM Post #44 |
|
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
“Child Abuse” means different things to different people.... ----Randy Liepa 8/9/12 | |
![]() |
|
| Queen of Hearts | Feb 23 2008, 12:54 PM Post #45 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Micki | Feb 23 2008, 01:26 PM Post #46 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| LPS Reformer | Feb 23 2008, 04:28 PM Post #47 |
|
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
|
But, only if you can afford them. |
|
“Child Abuse” means different things to different people.... ----Randy Liepa 8/9/12 | |
![]() |
|
| Micki | Feb 23 2008, 05:41 PM Post #48 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| cecelia | Feb 23 2008, 09:57 PM Post #49 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Al Beabak | Feb 25 2008, 08:40 AM Post #50 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Bill Williamson | Feb 25 2008, 09:22 PM Post #51 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Queen of Hearts | Feb 26 2008, 09:23 PM Post #52 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Bill Williamson | Feb 27 2008, 12:26 AM Post #53 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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? |
![]() |
|
| Hopeful | Feb 27 2008, 09:20 AM Post #54 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Al Beabak | Feb 27 2008, 11:06 AM Post #55 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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 |
![]() |
|
| IDK | Feb 27 2008, 07:08 PM Post #56 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| LPS Reformer | Feb 27 2008, 07:17 PM Post #57 |
|
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
|
Would they accept a smaller paycheck to get it? |
|
“Child Abuse” means different things to different people.... ----Randy Liepa 8/9/12 | |
![]() |
|
| IDK | Feb 27 2008, 07:43 PM Post #58 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I can't help but feel that you are trying to provoke an argument. I will not participate. |
![]() |
|
| Hopeful | Feb 27 2008, 07:55 PM Post #59 |
|
Advanced Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
.......... 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?
|
![]() |
|
| LPS Reformer | Feb 27 2008, 10:11 PM Post #60 |
|
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
|
You just did. |
|
“Child Abuse” means different things to different people.... ----Randy Liepa 8/9/12 | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Forum · Next Topic » |





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











