2) On the teachers contract, having gone through this once myself whilst on the board, if the law and the contract are the same now, if there is "no contract", there really is, in that both parties agree to operate under the old one until one side or the other doesn't want to. So, negotiations can go on, like they did for 20 months in 1992-1994.
Two of my last meetings had votes to accept or reject a mediator's recommendation. I was a lame duck, and before the election I voted for it, and after it, I rejected it.
3) On state funding, while any new money sounds good, overall, it's a loss for EPSD taxpayers. Because EPSD is a relatively wealth off district (around the 25 percentile), it gets about 50 cents on the dollar compared to an average district and only about 33 cents on the dollar compared to poor districts. (In very round numbers, EPSD gets 20% and the average is about 40%.) That's only to get worse after the recent court cases.
4.1) At a place where I spend much time in another state, I'm advocating for them to actually enforce the cell-phone policy, which is not unlike EPSD's, but it's applied unevenly. Educators there complain that they're not supported by the administration (all the way up to the highest levels) and many teachers then let anything go, adversely affecting those who want some discipline.
4.2) Both sides should consider what they say. Kids are listening. Reducio ad Hitlerum. And don't talk nasty trash about the female VP, your (grand)daughter is probably listening, too.
1.1) On the "realignment", while it's always questionable if the enrollment projections used to justify the facilities expansion will come true, the extra space will be useful in any case. IMHO, almost any grade structure is workable, and the design of how to use the new one best will be developed over time. Several board members questioned many of the past and future so-called district priorities were things which EPSD should be doing, but didn't really suggest which new positions shouldn't be funded.
1.2) But that's only half the story, or maybe only a fifth, as far as capital improvements. Nothing has been said recently (except by me) about a possible HS project costing about $250,000,000, compared to the $65,000,000 for the MS's. What's up???
For my own info, I called the business manager from another SD which did build a brand new HS to find out how they covered the cost, with or without a referendum. While their project was about half the size of EHS, they dedicated about $2 million of new money each year for 5-6 years to eventually have enough to fund the bonds. For EPSD, $250 million would take between $16-19 million of debt service, or at least 3 mills.
Thus, I publicly advocated that for FY24-25, ESPD should take the full 6.2% allowed by the Act 1 index, if they were serious about any HS renovation or new construction on the scales proposed so far. Instead, they reduced the increase to 5% and then 4%.
2) On the teachers contract, having gone through this once myself whilst on the board, if the law and the contract are the same now, if there is "no contract", there really is, in that both parties agree to operate under the old one until one side or the other doesn't want to. So, negotiations can go on, like they did for 20 months in 1992-1994.
Two of my last meetings had votes to accept or reject a mediator's recommendation. I was a lame duck, and before the election I voted for it, and after it, I rejected it.
3) On state funding, while any new money sounds good, overall, it's a loss for EPSD taxpayers. Because EPSD is a relatively wealth off district (around the 25 percentile), it gets about 50 cents on the dollar compared to an average district and only about 33 cents on the dollar compared to poor districts. (In very round numbers, EPSD gets 20% and the average is about 40%.) That's only to get worse after the recent court cases.
4.1) At a place where I spend much time in another state, I'm advocating for them to actually enforce the cell-phone policy, which is not unlike EPSD's, but it's applied unevenly. Educators there complain that they're not supported by the administration (all the way up to the highest levels) and many teachers then let anything go, adversely affecting those who want some discipline.
4.2) Both sides should consider what they say. Kids are listening. Reducio ad Hitlerum. And don't talk nasty trash about the female VP, your (grand)daughter is probably listening, too.
1.1) On the "realignment", while it's always questionable if the enrollment projections used to justify the facilities expansion will come true, the extra space will be useful in any case. IMHO, almost any grade structure is workable, and the design of how to use the new one best will be developed over time. Several board members questioned many of the past and future so-called district priorities were things which EPSD should be doing, but didn't really suggest which new positions shouldn't be funded.
1.2) But that's only half the story, or maybe only a fifth, as far as capital improvements. Nothing has been said recently (except by me) about a possible HS project costing about $250,000,000, compared to the $65,000,000 for the MS's. What's up???
For my own info, I called the business manager from another SD which did build a brand new HS to find out how they covered the cost, with or without a referendum. While their project was about half the size of EHS, they dedicated about $2 million of new money each year for 5-6 years to eventually have enough to fund the bonds. For EPSD, $250 million would take between $16-19 million of debt service, or at least 3 mills.
Thus, I publicly advocated that for FY24-25, ESPD should take the full 6.2% allowed by the Act 1 index, if they were serious about any HS renovation or new construction on the scales proposed so far. Instead, they reduced the increase to 5% and then 4%.