Montana school funding

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:56 am

I've been getting more & more frustrated with the school funding debate in Montana, and I was just hoping for some other enlightened opinions on the subject.

From my perspective ( I know this will totally shock some of you), I think K-12 education in this state gets MORE than enough money to effectively do the job of giving our kids the basic tools & skills they will need to become "productive members of society". What I see are far too many examples of waste & inefficiency in the system.

I'll just give one example in an effort to "get the ball rolling"...

Last year, School District 5 (Kalispell), hired a new Superintendent from Reno, Nevada, where she held the same post for the Reno School District. When the details of her hiring were announced, we learned that she was going to receive approximately the same compensation (the total value of her compensation package here was within 1% of what she received her final year in Reno) and the local education propagandists stated how lucky we were to get her & how much of a sacrifice she was making in leaving Reno for Kalispell.

SACRIFICE? Try these stats on for size (and remember, she's being paid the same here as in Reno):

In Reno, her district consisted of 17 schools & 15,000 (approx.) K-12 students.

In Kalispell, her district consists of 9 schools & 5,000 (approx.) K-12 students.

What's wrong with this picture? It is well known that Nevada is the TOP state in the West when it comes to taking care of their educators; why on earth, then, are we paying someone the same $$$ to oversee less than half of what she did in Reno???

Don't get me wrong; this is not an attack on Mrs. Schottle. I have no problem with her personally or her credentials to run our district. The fact is, however, that she could take over for 5 other local Superintendents and STILL have fewer schools & kids to oversee.

This is just one minor example; if you have others, please share them...

Again, I'm on a "fishing trip" here; to me, this is a VERY important issue & I'm curious to hear (and debate) the various topics involved...

Fire away, gang!

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:26 pm

I voted that we're overfunding based on these reasons. Yes, I'm a retired teacher who came out of retirement to try and help a school faced with restructuring as it'll probably be real cold in Miami on July 4th before they can make AYP. We have a little over 100 students in our system with over twenty classroom teachers, a superintendent, a full time guidance counselor, an elementary principal, an activity director...plus we belong to a regional co-op that takes care of our curriculum (never mind the fact that national standards and benchmarks already exist and all Helena has to do is cut and paste) and provides us with a school psych...

Almost the entire high school student body lettered this year and we spend how much money up and down the highways ensuring all of our kids feel good about themselves and their ability to play on a team. Spent nine years in a school system of 35k students that has 3 football stadiums and a couple of tracks and a few baseball fields. Columbia Falls, home of one of the chief litigants, has three football fields (two of which are less than a mile apart), three tracks, etc. Columbia Falls is only 7 miles from Whitefish, less than twenty from Kalispell, 25 or 30 from Big fork...And this doesn't begin to take into consideration systems such as Evergreen, Smith Valley, West Glacier--what a waste! Then, look at Gallatin County and you've got the same number of schools and how many buses meeting each other running the same bus routes?

Last, we have 11.7 percent of all the school districts in the U.S. serving a student body population of about 150k--not even a mid-sized school district in the rest of the country and OPI could and should be providing all the services to the local districts a central office in a large system provides. We could still have local building administrators, but we don't need a superintendent, curriculum director, special ed director, technology/vocational director in every one of these districts the size of a mid-sized high school. But, we can continue to whine why we're not making any money--and we will

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:49 pm

How many years ago did former Montanans go to Nevada and consolidate the schools by county? I think that is one example that's exactly what bothers me--how many administrators does this state need? I guarantee you the main detractors against consolidation are the union and system lawyers who stand to lose their cash cow everytime one of these podunk systems enters contract negotions.

wbtfg · Post by **wbtfg** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:42 pm

Let me tell you a story. A good friend of mine in college, and single mother received her degree in education from MSU, and was lucky enough to be offered a full time job teaching high school right out of college. The school was very small, with total enrollment 9-12 of about 150. She worked from about 7am-4pm at the school, and then drove 30 miles to work as a waitress until about 10pm, and still wasn't able to make ends meat, in fact she was still eligible to collect food stamps.

SO, if our schools are so over funded how is it that a single mom can have a full time teaching job, and be forced to work a second job, and still collect food stamps? This is a loose loose situation for everyone. Not only did she suffer, but so did her son, and so did her students.

mquast53000 · Post by **mquast53000** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:57 pm

wbtfg wrote:Let me tell you a story. A good friend of mine in college, and single mother received her degree in education from MSU, and was lucky enough to be offered a full time job teaching high school right out of college. The school was very small, with total enrollment 9-12 of about 150. She worked from about 7am-4pm at the school, and then drove 30 miles to work as a waitress until about 10pm, and still wasn't able to make ends meat, in fact she was still eligible to collect food stamps.

SO, if our schools are so over funded how is it that a single mom can have a full time teaching job, and be forced to work a second job, and still collect food stamps? This is a loose loose situation for everyone. Not only did she suffer, but so did her son, and so did her students.

I don't know about that story. To be eligible for food stamps a woman with 1 kid must make less than $1041, with 2 kids less than $1300 and with 3 kids less than $1500 in a month (these are gross). Two jobs, one that is full time, I don't think she would be eligible for food stamps.

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:08 pm

Of course we don't pay the teachers anything. We have to pay for the administrators, support staff in the form of bus drivers, teaching assistants, janitors, etc., the power bills to keep all the podunk schools open, fuel to run the bus routes and get the kids to and from excessive athletic venues (explain why we send boys basketball teams one way and the girls the other please), how many hundred thousand dollars does it cost for a track and football field, and your union lawyers and system lawyers don't charge a thing to "negotiate" the contracts? Wonder what kind of business would allow this? The waste in this state is staggering!

Post by **rtb** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 3:10 pm

I would say Montana is doing pretty well on the issue of funding, and many of you have pointed out that in many cases the schools are overfunded. My dream would be to privatize education so that all the excess would be trimmed in a hurry if the schools were run like businesses. Of course this opens a whole can of worms that I don't want to get into, but just a dream of mine.

I will tell you this, education in Montana is 1000% times better than what I have seen so far here in Oregon. YUCK!! I have been told that they had to cut the school year short last year by a week or two because they were out of money?!?!?!?

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 3:57 pm

I'm just going to chime in from time to time...

This time, it's regarding $$$ spent OUTSIDE the classroom.

Fact: Missoula (MCPS) has approx. 10,000 K-12 students and ONE Superintendent. Now, if there are 150,000 K-12 kids statewide, how many Super's should we have? 15? Tell you what, I'll be generous and grant you twice as many; let's make it 30. So how many does Montana actually employ?

Drumroll please....

OVER 200!!!!!!!!!!!

Can someone please explain to me why the TEACHERS don't stage a revolt against their own administrators?? Is it the case that you can't attack your own even when you know they're part of the problem?

If the man from C. Falls (Nicosia) REALLY was interested in straightening out education funding & SPENDING, he should've stepped up to the plate and volunteered to be Superintendent for ALL the Flathead area schools, saving the taxpayers a couple hundred thousand dollars instead of essentially shoving his lawsuit up our collective arses...

TOP HEAVY administrations are just one reason why it's hard for me to support ANY additional funding for education. Whether the unions want to admit it or not, THERE IS TOO MUCH FAT ON THE ADMINISTRATION SIDE of education. When they finally step up to the plate and trim significant amounts of that fat, then we can talk...

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:46 pm

Come on! Do you think Nicosia has the capacity to do the honorable thing and step down? Bu..sh-t :-& Instead, we get to read in the Daily Rag about how "they're all playing politics..." and "...doesn't buy me...textbooks..." Crap. You appear to understand the problem and I'm more than a little fascinated why some of our teachers are in step with the administrators who are fat, dumb and happy are causing so many problems for them and can't seem to understand virtually everything about the much maligned NCLB (in Montana) is intended to simplify their jobs and demand administrators start doing something besides disappear behind a door or counter to drink coffee and consult with lawyers as to the best way to handle "disruptive" teachers? Anyway...I was one of those that couldn't play the game and I'm forever grateful I left so I'll have something to spend when I get really, really tired of small town politics.

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:50 pm

...and as a sidebar: check with the infamous "Betty" in personnel for Kalispell. See if she doesn't require a full application packet for each and every vacancy listed with the Kalispell schools

Meanwhile, teachers from Montana can apply to entire states with ONE application--or better yet--simply provide schools their certificates and the district looks at the bonus based upon the certificate

DCC2MSU · Post by **DCC2MSU** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:16 pm

Fact: Missoula (MCPS) has approx. 10,000 K-12 students and ONE Superintendent. Now, if there are 150,000 K-12 kids statewide, how many Super's should we have? 15? Tell you what, I'll be generous and grant you twice as many; let's make it 30. So how many does Montana actually employ?

I don't know what is really needed for a number of superintendents, but I don't think you can just extrapolate Missoula to the whole state. If that were the case we would basically have one superintendent covering Eastern Montana. And that person would need to be constantly traveling to properly do their job (which would amount to more road time than anything in which case for the same amount of hours the people in the east would get considerably less bang for their buck). Secondly good luck finding a qualified person willing to spend that much time traveling to small towns in Eastern Montana and away from home. Or maybe that is just the way it should be because that would work best for people from the western part? I don't think so but I am obviously biased. I don't know if 200 is too many, maybe it isn't enough? What if we take a district out here and extrapolate it, then we could say Missoula is doing a terrible job. I think you need to consider more factors than that.

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:34 pm

So what you're saying is that a building level administrator and good teachers are not capable of running a school? We are in tough shape if that's the case

One superintendent in Helena could run this entire state; one special ed director could run this entire state; one curriculum director is one too many because we already have the national standards and benchmarks available to all teacher at the McRel site. We are top heavy for absolutely no reason.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:16 pm

DCC,

I'll grant you that a simple extrapolation doesn't work, but COME ON!

OVER 200 Super's to tend to 150,000 kids? The Super currently in charge of district 5 oversaw 15,000 in Reno, remember?

And as far as all that travelling you think is too much to ask? With modern technology, an Eastern Montana Super could easily cover a very large territory with e-mail, conference calls, teleconferencing, IM's, etc. etc. Not everything these people do requires face-to-face communication.

Again, WHY AREN'T THE TEACHERS FOCUSING ON THIS AREA? HOW MANY TEACHERS COULD WE HIRE IF WE SIMPLY STARTED TRIMMING SOME OF THE FAT AT THE TOP? It's amazing to me how these education professionals just fall into lock-step with each other against the taxpayers rather than first cutting costs down to bare bones the way any other professional would.

BobCatFan · Post by **BobCatFan** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:40 pm

A lot of the teachers support the system. Some of the m want to be in adminstration. It is a big pay raise for them.

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:01 am

You know Nicosia whined about politics in the media; amazing all of his staff and faculty are working tomorrow for Columbia Falls cleanup day to make up a snow day. No politics on his part?

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:08 am

One Super could indeed run eastern Montana, and one could run western Montana...espcially, as Cat Grad said, if we took the bull by the horns and consolidated schools.

Attrition will probably win out in the end. 20 years from now, 75% of the schools might simply be closed because there was simply NO town with people (see CTOWM thread, below).

The High Schools are a mess in Missoula. I've heard two rumors: 1) Consoldiate Sentinel and Hellgate; and 2) Sentinel might drop down to Class A. This is just ridiculous if you think about how area population has grown. There is no reason for Missoula to have more than 1 public high school and Loyola. If you look at Washington, Oregon and Colorado, some of those high schools have 4000 kids, and they get adequately served. So, why we have to get all wrapped around the axle when a high school population reaches 2000, is beyond me.

CONSOLIDATION=SAVING MONEY

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:11 am

rtb wrote:I would say Montana is doing pretty well on the issue of funding, and many of you have pointed out that in many cases the schools are overfunded. My dream would be to privatize education so that all the excess would be trimmed in a hurry if the schools were run like businesses. Of course this opens a whole can of worms that I don't want to get into, but just a dream of mine.

I will tell you this, education in Montana is 1000% times better than what I have seen so far here in Oregon. YUCK!! I have been told that they had to cut the school year short last year by a week or two because they were out of money?!?!?!?

That is true about Oregon....

hokeyfine · Post by **hokeyfine** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:25 am

one administrator(vice-principal) at the local high school spends almost her entire day dealing with discipline problems, kids and parents. so the solution that alot of you are saying is get rid of extra-curricular activites. our local school funds most of the extra-curricular on a pay to play, 89% of the students are funded higher than at this school. what benefit are extra curricular activities? does juvenile crime go up? does enrollment and graduation rates go down? why don't we consolidate districts? we don't because politically it would be impossible. why do you think we still have so many colleges and universities. The idea of consolidation has been around for many years. my dad proposed, in the 70's, that three local school districts combine into one high school. his idea was shot down because the local yocals didn't want their town to loose their identity,colors, mascot,etc... People seem to think that the local schools foolishly spend their money, i encourage people to go to a school board meeting and listen, pick up a budget and look at it. if you think there is a problem then say something.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:40 am

I agree. Consolidation isn't a possibility from a political standpoint in general.

Consolidation will occur through attrition, however. As noted, the demographics of rural Montana are such that there are fewer and fewer kids in K-12 schools. What's after Class C? Closure.

gtapp · Post by **gtapp** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:24 pm

With the exception of most churches, the school system in any state is the most inefficient organization that exists! They do not operate like a business (P&L) like they should. My experience with schools leads me to believe that you could pull 40% of the money out of any schools budget and still improve teachers pay if they were run efficiently.

And I don't want any teacher to make another dime until someone can figure out a fair and effective method to determine teacher performance.

STEP ONE. GET RID OF THE UNION AND YOU WOULD BE HALF THE WAY THERE!

Montana school funding

How do you feel overall about K-12 funding in Montana?

Montana school funding