One of the reasons for publishing this blog is my belief that some school systems, and EMSD#63 specifically, fail to provide their community adequate information and transparency.
I recently wrote a post congratulating Melzer School on passing No Child Left Behind’s Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). That post was in response to East Maine School District’s Dr. Clays “Academic Excellence Award – 2010 Illinois Honor Roll”.
Last Spring I was astounded to have Superintendent Clay responding directly to some of my posts. The dialogue lasted only a couple of months and ended when Dr. Clay created his own blog site where he could control his message. Too bad for us he couldn’t take the heat.
In his latest post, Dr. Clay reaffirmed one of the reasons for my writing this blog. Note the posting dates. Without someone questioning the result of his work and it is his work as Superintendent that I am ultimately questioning, he would not have felt any need to respond.
So, I guess this is as good a time as any to ask a couple other questions.
The report presented below displays three important trends:
- Attendance/Non-attendance rates
- District Superintendent salary rates
- and Total Expense rates
between 2006 and 2010. Source for these facts are The Illinois State Board of Education (Annual Statement of Affairs Report) and FOIA requested EMSD#63’s Detail Budget Reports.
Rate of Attendance 2006 - 2010
So, how does Dr. Clay justify the outrageously high absentee rate in light of the extraordinary Superintendent pay increases and District expense history.
Money is the mothers-milk of Public Education. In the near future District #63 parents and residents will be faced with the prospect of forcibly lowering the cost and quality of educating or increasing revenue through a tax increase referendum.
I bet East Maine School District #63’s current Financial Task Force has never seen numbers like these at their meetings!
7 comments:
Mr Butterly:
You must know womething that you are not telling us. I do not have the time to dig any deeper at almost 8PM on friday night so I will ask and look deeper later. Why the 17,000,000 increase from 2009 to 2010. It cannot be personal. I mean for the sake of easy math, at 100K that would be 170 teachers. Was it facilities?? What gives??
Anon: Friday February 11, 2011 5:50PM,
Thank you for your question. That said, you’ve created a problem.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but every comment on this and EMSD#63’s blog has a receipt time stamp attached.
The next time you decide to shill a comment, make sure the time you reference, should you be so daft as to reference a time in your comment, is a time earlier than that which will appear on the blog comments receipt time-stamp.
Quote: “I do not have the time to dig any deeper at almost 8PM on friday night so I will ask and look deeper later.”
My blog post was time-stamped: “Friday, February 11, 2011 5:25 PM”.
You stated as part of your comment that it was “8PM” when you wrote the comment.
Your comment was received (time-stamped) on this blog site: “February 11, 2011 5:50 PM”.
I opened it up just after 6:00 PM.
Anon, when you do something like this, it diminishes or even voids the rest of you question – no matter its importance or legitimacy. You are welcome however to restate the comment should you so choose.
And by the way, maybe it’s best you continue to refer to yourself as “Anonymous”.
I will not comment further.
I received an email from someone intimately familiar with the goings-on at EMSD#63. It read:
"Mr. B,
You do know who wrote that comment. Look at these 21 words: “You must know womething that you are not telling us.”, “Why the 17,000,000 increase from 2009 to 2010.” and “Was it facilities??”.
He’s back!
Why not answer his question?"
So I gave this some thought and here the answer:
Yes, the significant difference between 2009 and 2010 expenditures primarily relates to facility modification.
I hope Dr. Clay, if it was EMSD#63 Superintendent Scott Clay who wrote the comment, is satisfied. That said, it’s too bad the writer chose to focus on the least important fact displayed within the report.
Maybe the District would have been better served had the author focused on questioning or explaining the extraordinary high absentee rates experienced by this district, as reported between 2006 and 2010.
Just a thought!
Mr. Butterly:
At exactly what age can I expect the incredible paranoia to set in??? If those who know me (including my wife) knew that you thought I was Dr. Clay they would laugh their asses off!!!
I am a father of a child who attends middle school in D64. I found about you and your blog by your posts on PRU. I say your recent post and say the 17 mil increase from 2009-10 so I asked a question. You seem to know a great deal of data so I asked. But of course the only person who would even think to ask this question is a shill (at first) or Doctor clay.
Anon: Friday February 11, 2011 5:50PM and Sunday February 13, 2011 1:44 PM,
Well I guess I stand corrected and hereby publicly apologize to Dr. Clay for even considering the comments authored by you to be his. I should have remained faithful in the knowledge that he would never have posted a message with such obvious spelling errors. Now, of course, I am sure you are definitely not Dr. Clay.
Maybe you can clarify something for me. You stated: “If those who know me (including my wife) knew that you thought I was Dr. Clay they would laugh their asses off!!! I am a father of a child who attends middle school in D64”.
Why would those who know you “laugh their asses off!!!” for my believing you to be Dr. Clay? And what’s the deal about your need to inform me of your family status? If I were Dr. Clay, I would definitely find that implication offensive.
Now, let’s go back to blog post’s primary question.
As a parent, would you not be concerned if District 64 had absentee rates equal to East Maine School District #63’s? Would you not be concerned with the extraordinary growth in tax moneys, your tax money, being spent relative to the results?
I’m not a parent and I am concerned! There is no excuse for 15% average truancy rates in any School District. There is something definitely wrong!
Mr. Butterly:
Let's take the last question first. Of course I am concerned!!! I want all kids to attend school and have those schools be the best possible (I should mention related to children being absent that in my opinion parents are more than 50% for that). I have no problem spending my tax dollars at the current rate but, as with so many government agencies, my issue is overall quality. In other words, you and I do not have any huge disagreement here. I say that even though our families experinece with the PR school system thus far has been outstanding.
Having said all this, I do think we have to be fair when we look at numbers. My puupose is not to start from a point where every number increase must be these "terrible" people wasting my money. When I saw the 17 mil increase, it generated a question which I asked. I do not pretend to know what facilities issues were involved in that 17mil, but I do think there are such expenditures that are necessary yet from 50000 ft a spread sheet might look terrible. If you look at my family budget this year you would see a HUGE increase in June. We had to buy a new car.
Related to the other questions, I am sorry if my spelling errors offend you. There are related to fat fingers, rushing and the disadvantage of not being educated in this district. This is a part of ther reason folks would laugh their asses off - Dr. Clay, I am sure, would not hit the publish button without reviewing the document. You see, while I am very good at what I do, my skill sets are not in the area running an entire school district that is resonsible for educating thousands of children.
Related to needing to inform you about about my family, I did not "need" to do that. You were clearly making assumptions about who I am and I thought explaining a bit bit about myself might be helpful.
With all respect, it is facinating to me that a simple question about a number that stuck our like a "sore thumb" would generate so much rambling from you. You could have simply answered the question but instead you dig into every word of my posts looking for a point to attack. I am not attacking you. I just asked a question.
Let me close with one more question. When you say you are not a parent, does that mean you have never had a child attend any of these schools or does that mean you do not currently have a child attending these schools?
Anon: Monday, February 14, 2011 4:54 AM
I believe you when you say you are concerned. And I agree with you that truancy, in part, and especially in a grammar school setting, is a parent-centered problem.
This state of affairs could not be more true than in the case of EMSD#63, where so many immigrant parents lack the educational foundation and historical respect for and importance of scholarship, as one might find in more affluent and less ethically/financially challenged communities like District #64.
District #63 with it’s myriad languages and dialects, is not alone. Other US, Canadian, UK and Western European educational institutions face the same dilemma.
It is, I believe, one of the many unintended consequences of current immigration and multicultural policies as practiced in western society.
The question, of course is, how do you solve it? My answer to that, I’m sorry to say, will require a separate post at some future date.
You go on to say: "I have no problem spending my tax dollars at the current rate but, as with so many government agencies, my issue is overall quality. In other words, you and I do not have any huge disagreement here.”
I get that YOU have no problem spending YOUR money for mandated government services.
I on the other hand, have a problem spending mine, especially in these times. I feel the same way about my neighbor’s money. Some of them are living on a fixed income, mostly Social Security. Their houses have lost significant value and they remain unsalable in this market. Some owners have not reached the age(s) to trigger a real estate freeze. Some of my neighbors have lost part of their income. You get the point. Times are bad, yet unfettered profligate spending goes on.
It appears you are happy with the return on investment at District #64. The same cannot be said for me concerning EMSD#63.
When you discussed your “purpose” you used the term “terrible people” wasting your money. I don’t consider Teachers, Administrators or Board Members “terrible”. I consider child abusers “terrible”. I consider some Teachers, Administrators or Board Members naïve and in far too many cases, professionally immature, incompetent and self-serving. The key word here is SOME. Unfortunately, no district is immune from this virus.
As to the 2009-2010 17+ million dollar increase in year-to-year expenditures; there remains doubt on the need for those changes in physical plant. Good people can disagree on that subject, but it done and no longer a FUTURE ISSUE.
That said, my wallet can’t distinguish between necessary or unnecessary expenditures. The money and moths fly from it just the same.
One more thing. Some of that increase, went to fund payroll increases and in one case, a questionable non-transparent, 1 year, no-bid, no-written-contract, $108,000 employee/consulting/mentoring agreement for former Superintendent Williams.
I was not offended by your spelling errors. I only used that aspect of your comment as an example to illustrate a temporary cognitive blip – on my part. As to fat fingers, rushing or any perceived disadvantage in education not having attended grammar or junior high school in District #64, I can’t help you there.
I hope this response clarifies my position.
Post a Comment