What is your take on the discipline situation under this administration?  More cowardly sweeping under the rug?

 

"when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem appears to be a nail."

 

Within city hall and MCSD with the Board, they only have a hammer in hand, and a nail to drive home.

 

In this year's budget cycle, we have determined that eliminating the Technology director was a mistake.  Especially with the move to the Common Core standards, we need someone in to lead in the area of instructional technology -- how to use technology in the classroom to teach 21st century skills that students will need to compete in the global economy. So that position is being added back.  Dean of Students is to provide assistance to the Principal at the 6th grade center, who currently has no assistant principal. We have found the students needs are too great. My understanding is that Dean of Students is at a lower pay level than an assistant principal would be.  A primary role of Dean of Students would be discipline. I would think with all the griping on this board of the supposed lack of discipline in the schools, people could appreciate the need for someone to handle discipline so that the teachers and principal can focus on teaching and learning.

 

Vet, yes, we need the staff we have.  The requirements from the state and fed are constantly increasing and changing; seemingly never do they eliminate mandates.

 

And, in response to an earlier post, Debbie Sanders has not been hired in this district (although I don't see why it would be wrong if we did. She did not retire when she moved from Middletown to Monroe; she took advantage of an opportunity for a promotion. We don't blackball people who leave the district to gain additional experience).  We are hiring a principal from Monroe, Jennifer Dennis, to replace the retiring principal at Central Academy.

 

The number of administrators and the types of positions at Middletown City Schools is in line with other school districts. We know this from talking to and observing other districts.  We are looking into why the figures posted in the paper show Middletown with such high administrative costs; it is not consistent with what we know. It may be an issue of how positions are coded in the state reporting system.

 

As to the school nurses, we currently staff with licensed school nurses, the most expensive option.  At that rate, we only have 6.8 FTE nurses. But we have 10 school buildings. So there are not nurses in each building at all times. When there is no nurse, the school secretary, who has essentially no medical training, deals with any health issue that arises.  Under the proposed plan, we could have 10 LPNs, plus an RN, for a lower total cost. And be able to have a licensed health professional in each building at all times, while saving taxpayer money.  I personally do not feel it is the job of the schools to provide basic health care to students (and we certainly do not receive funding for that purpose). The role of the school nurse should be to respond to emergencies and illnesses, and administer medications. If the emergency or illness is serious, parent and/or 911 would be called.

 

We have surveyed other school districts, and the trend is away from licensed school nurses to LPNs. Many districts are already there.

 

Yes, Race to the Top and Title I money are mainly used for administrators and other support staff. These are federal grant funds that may NOT be used to pay the salaries of classroom teachers.  The grants state how the funds can be used. Primarily their focus is on professional development, to train teachers to improve the quality of instruction, and to collect and analyze data and train teachers on how to use the data from testing to tailor their lesson plans. So yes, it does help students.

 

Kathy Jonas has never been paid a stipend to be "library coordinator." She receives supplemental pay to compensate her for working during the summer. Something many people do not understand when they complain about high salaries of adminstrators, is that central office administrators work 12 months a year, compared to 9.5 months per year for a teacher.  Principals are paid for about 10.5 months, as they stay for several weeks at the end of the school year and return several weeks early. For some reason, Jonas' position is not a full year position, hence the supplemental pay to work the weeks she was supposed to be off in the summer.

 

JSmith, I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, when I see incorrect facts (as opposed to opinion), I try to correct them, because they turn into rumors that are bad for our schools and our city.  And I try to explain the reasons for decisions that seem stupid or crazy to others, but make sense if you know the full situation.

 

Actually the contract states the following:

 

As Mr. Fiora posted, the nursing contract does provide for an LPN (at a minimum) in each building.

 

I have no idea what you are referring to about Lisa Lowery's sister or sorority sister. I have no reason to doubt her professionalism. And she does not hire principals--that type of decision is made by the superintendent.

 

The district is not "bringing in a new administrator to oversee the academic coaches." The academic coaches work closely with the building principals and are supervised and trained by the department of learning, including the curriculum coordinators Kathy Jonas and Kathy Jones. So, although the professional development is no longer conducted centrally by the curriculum coordinators, there is still a lot of work to tailor the support and instruction to the needs of each teacher, while maintaining consistency district-wide and ensuring alignment with the state standards. There will be quite a bit of work required over the next two years to convert to the new Common Core State Standards. The curriculum coordinators are paid for fully with Title II-A grant funds.  While you appear not to place any value on professional development, the people who control grant money do. The intent of professional development is to support the teachers as they raise the level of their instruction and raise their expectations of students. Our feedback shows that teachers have been very happy with the new model providing professional development through academic coaches.

 

I do not know what "reading program that taxpayers bought" you are referring to.  If you mean the Reading First program, that was a grant for a limited number of years that has expired. The district's focus on reading all those years has paid off in higher reading scores across the board.

 

"why are the principals dinged on their evaluations if they suspend"--yes and no.  The board set 3 broad goals for the superintendent, which apply as appropriate down the line. They are (1) increase academic achievement as measured by the state tests; (2) improve climate in the buildings; and (3) do it in a fiscally responsible manner, avoiding the need for additional tax revenue for as long as possible without harmful impact on student programs. The superintendent is holding the principals accountable for academic achievement in their buildings, and for improving the climate in their buildings.  Climate includes both students (behavior, discipline, attendance, participation in extracurriculars, etc) and staff (morale, attendance). Definitely one of the metrics is to reduce the number of suspensions. But if a principal does that by just refusing to discipline badly behaved students and sending them back to class, staff morale will go down, and that is another one of the metrics the principal is accountable on. The district implemented this year Positive Behavioral Supports, an approach to student discipline that emphasizes teaching and re-teaching the behavior expected. If implemented properly (which requires the cooperation and participation of all staff in the building), suspensions will go down, staff morale will go up, and academic achievement will rise.

 

I do not despise any of the staff in the district, and always try to be respectful. I do not believe I was disrespectful in my response to Mr. Williams' email, but if it was perceived that way, I apologize.

 

Your final spurious allegation is to some unstated conduct of mine during negotiations. I was not part of the district negotiating team.

 

"now you are talking about special ed cuts" -- yes and no. The district's special ed services were audited by the Ohio Dept of  Education this year. The audit confirmed that alot of what we do we do well. But it also highlighted areas where we are both inefficient, and ineffective.  In other words, we are spending more money than necessary, and we are not seeing good results from that money.  So, yes, we are looking at refining some of what we do in special ed.  We expect to save some money in that process. But we also expect to see better academic performance.

 

tracyl, from your posts you appear to be an employee of MCSD.  I hope you will not take this the wrong way, but I would respectfully suggest that when you hear something that concerns you, ask your principal, or the person in charge of the program, or even the superintendent, for more information, before you jump to conclusions and spread misinformation in the community. If you ask respectfully, in the spirit of one professional to another who both want to see the district succeed, you will receive answers. I would hope that you could see that spreading misinformation and badmouthing your employer will only hurt the district in the long run, and if you hurt the credibility of the district, you will impact the ability of the district to raise tax funds that pay your salary.  We are all in this together.

 

Marcia Andrew

 

 

Marcia Andrew