[Vision2020] MSD trends
Donovan Arnold
donovanarnold@hotmail.com
Sun, 01 Jun 2003 01:15:25 -0700
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>Dale,</P>
<P>Interesting how we can just through numbers and statistics around without questioning the validity of how we got those numbers or what they really mean. Please answer the following questions and you will understand what I mean.</P></DIV>"* Fact #1: Adjusting for inflation, MSD's spending has increased at a
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>rate 3.7 times faster than student enrollment."
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> 1)What percentage of these children are disabled 15 years ago vs. today?</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> 2)What is the percentage increase cost of MSD vs. that of the national average, nearby school districts, and the Private schools?</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> 3) What is the fixed cost of educating children? In other words, if we only had 100 hundred or less in our school how mush would the MSD have to spend per child to maintain the same opportunities for children and meet federal and state regulations. In other words, shouldn't the cost per child go down when you have huge numbers and up for less? If Ford was to produce only one Ford Escort in 2004 wouldn't it cost about $20 Million to do so, but if they produced 15 million wouldn't it cost about only $9K to produce one?</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>4) Are you using the national rate of inflation for education which is about 10%, or the national overall inflation rate which is about 3.5%? This is the difference between comparing inflation of a computer to a house. Different markets have different rates of inflation that you are suppose to use otherwise you are just playing number games.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>"* That means we can hold real dollar spending constant and keep the
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>amount of spending per child the same (i.e., freeze the annual budget until
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>the number of students starts increasing). This is assuming that students"
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>What if utilities increase? What if a building is declared unsafe? What if the insurance for fire protection increases? What if teachers leave because they can't get a pay raise? What if the insurance coverage on teachers and workers increases? What if the number of children with a disability increases? </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>*" Fact #2: The rate at which staff members are being added to the MSD
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>payroll is about the same as the rate at which the enrollment is decreasing
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>(3% per year).
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>* Commentary:
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>* Of those 52 additional staff additions, 17 were teachers. However,
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>35 non-teaching full-time staff were also added to the payroll. These
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>>additional 52 people were obviously needed to teach our 336 fewer students?" </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>What classifies as a teaching position. Is a Nurse considered a teacher? Or how about Secretary? How about a construction or maintenance worker? Or how about special assistant to help disabled children? How about a psychologist to assist children who are victims of sexual and physical abuse? Or a guidance councilor to help students get into college or get a job so they don't go on welfare? Which one of these should we get rid of?</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>"* Fact #3: In spite of a near four-fold increase in inflation-adjusted
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>>spending, test scores have gone from a high of 95.2% in 1992 to a low of 63%</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>1)Is this because we are now testing all children vs just a few select ones like in 1992? </P>
<P>2) Are there different tests now then in 1992?</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>>* Commentary: This would imply a negative correlation between: "</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>1) Is 63% the year for 2003 or is this your highest to lowest? (Nice to know 1992 was the highest, I was class of 1992 when I attended MHS.)</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>*" Spending and test scores.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>* Staff size and test scores
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>* Smaller classes and test scores
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Can anyone please tell me what sense any of this makes? How is any of this
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>"for the children"? Perhaps Mike Curley can answer this because no one from
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>MSD or the school board has.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>If our student enrollment continues to fall at the rate it has been, MSD
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>will reach 50% of its 1993 maximum size in the 2008-2009 school year. Can
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>anyone justify that we continue to increase inflation-adjusted spending when
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>>we're about to educate half as many children?" </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>1) What methods did you use to estimate the regression parameters of this prediction model for the 2008-09 school year? Using a simple regression model for estimating the future populations of the MSD would not produce any significant data even with multiple factors being considered. It is unlikely that all variables were taken into account in this prediction. According to the 2000 US Census the number of residences with families with children in elementary and secondary education is increasing, not decreasing. The primary variable in this reduction in the number of children is the increase in the number of children attending private schools in the region. Four primary variables must hold true in the simple linear regression model that you have chosen to follow. 1) The number of families with children must continue to want to enlist their children in these private schools. 2) The private schools must be able to handle the ever increasing numb!
ers of children at a profitable margin. 3) The parents of the children must be able to continue to afford the cost of sending their children to private schools. 4) All other factors controlling the current population trends must remain constant.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>I doubt you can maintain with any reasonable degree of certainty that none of these factors will change in the next five to six years. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>"As with other government organizations, I fear that self-perpetuation is the
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>>actual goal within MSD."</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Primary Disagreement:</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>I do not disagree with you on the notion that the Educational System doesn't prioritize its income to the best interests of the children. In the summer of 1991 the MHS built a building that connected the main HS building to the Annex building. This project cost millions and it served no purpose. It had no classrooms and no storage. It basically made the building look nice, added a meeting place for before and after classes, and keep you from getting wet when going from one building to the other. I was mad when after I saw it was build when we needed other things. I was also opposed to the huge amount of money spent on the electronic bulletin board. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>My primary disagreement with you is that the schools do need the money, it is just how that money is spent. Look at UI. They spend $10's of millions of dollars on making the school look "pretty" when teachers are being cut, salaries slashed, benefits lost, class sizes increased, and buildings that have classrooms being left condemned while recreation centers and maintenance buildings are being constructed that put local businesses out in the cold. All this before one bureaucratic administrator is cut or salary slashed. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>In order to fix the problem, instead of slashing funding which leads to the faculty, staff, and students beings hurt, try something else. How about mandate that the administration require certain salaries and benefits to teachers and faculty, class sizes be only be so large, and buildings be updated before the administrations can add electronic bulletin boards and neat looking buildings that make the school look nice but serve no educational purpose can be bought. Why not require a public vote to raise the salaries of educational bureaucrats? Or require a rule that says teachers get a raise before the administrators do. We need to hold the people that make the decisions accountable for their actions. Instead your way allows a giant hole that administrators understand how to get out of. Close that hole first, that is where the money is going. Don't punish children, faculty, and staff for the actions of administrators that are trying to pad the!
ir resumes to get jobs elsewhere. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>The state of Idaho ranks only 46th out of 51 (counting WDC) for spending per student according to the 2003 World Almanac. That means only states like Mississippi and Louisiana spend less then we do on education. Our text books are old, our computers are rare, are buildings inadequate, are teachers underpaid, and disability services lacking. My complaint is not how much we are spending on education, we don't spend squat on education, my complaint is why it is not getting to the students. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>Donovan J Arnold</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P> </P>
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>MSN 8 helps <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMSENUS/2752??PS=">ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES.</a> Get 2 months FREE*.</html>