posted by Tom Moertel at 3:05 PM /
Within the Blog-Lebo conversation about the new teachers’ contract, reader John Kendrick did something bold: He offered a plan to restructure the school district.
The plan is certain to be controversial. Doing away with school real-estate taxes for seniors. Merging the elementary schools. Cutting the school staff by half. Each of these changes, if proposed by itself, would raise the ire of some politically powerful group within our community. Mr. Kendrick’s plan proposes them all.
You may view such changes as welcome or foolish, but either way you must recognize that some kind of change is inevitable. Our current school system is unsustainable; its costs are growing faster than our ability to pay for them.
Sooner or later, our elected representatives are going to have to start making some of those “hard decisions” they keep putting off. And those hard decisions will require sacrifices.
What will those sacrifices look like? Who will be asked to make them? Those are the questions our community must struggle with in the coming years.
And it’s in that struggle that plans like Mr. Kendrick’s are helpful. They provide something concrete, something to love or hate, something to help us consider what sacrifices we are willing to make – or not.
So I offer Mr. Kendrick’s plan to you without judgment or endorsement: as something to think about and talk about.
Please don’t bash Mr. Kendrick if you find fault with his plan. Instead, offer real criticism, real alternatives. If we are to prosper as a community, we must be able to discuss difficult subjects honestly and without name-calling. We must be able to come together as a community to make those hard decisions.
And now, as presented in Mr. Kendrick’s earlier comment:
The “Kendrick Plan”
If you examine the last three budgets:
If we target a 50% staff reduction, then the salaries and benefits following the enactment of my proposal would total approximately $20.5MM and $7MM respectively, for a savings of $27.5MM.
If we increase the earned income tax to cover the $6MM difference, then the earned income tax rate would approximately double as the tax incidence shifts to a younger demographic.
The staff reductions would come from school consolidation and the elimination of programs:
The plan is certain to be controversial. Doing away with school real-estate taxes for seniors. Merging the elementary schools. Cutting the school staff by half. Each of these changes, if proposed by itself, would raise the ire of some politically powerful group within our community. Mr. Kendrick’s plan proposes them all.
You may view such changes as welcome or foolish, but either way you must recognize that some kind of change is inevitable. Our current school system is unsustainable; its costs are growing faster than our ability to pay for them.
Sooner or later, our elected representatives are going to have to start making some of those “hard decisions” they keep putting off. And those hard decisions will require sacrifices.
What will those sacrifices look like? Who will be asked to make them? Those are the questions our community must struggle with in the coming years.
And it’s in that struggle that plans like Mr. Kendrick’s are helpful. They provide something concrete, something to love or hate, something to help us consider what sacrifices we are willing to make – or not.
So I offer Mr. Kendrick’s plan to you without judgment or endorsement: as something to think about and talk about.
Please don’t bash Mr. Kendrick if you find fault with his plan. Instead, offer real criticism, real alternatives. If we are to prosper as a community, we must be able to discuss difficult subjects honestly and without name-calling. We must be able to come together as a community to make those hard decisions.
And now, as presented in Mr. Kendrick’s earlier comment:
The “Kendrick Plan”
If you examine the last three budgets:
- The distribution of expenses and revenue are stable over the last three year period, so we can extrapolate one year forward with reasonable accuracy.
- Staff salaries and fringe benefits account for approximately 75% of the annual school district expenditures. The three year average for salaries is approximately $41MM and the three year average for Earned Income tax is approximately $14MM.
- The Real Estate Tax accounts for approximately 67% of the annual school district revenue. The three year average expenditure for The Real Estate Tax is approximately $50MM.
- The Earned Income Tax accounts for approximately 8% of the annual school district revenue. The three year average expenditure for The Real Estate Tax is approximately $6MM.
If we target a 50% staff reduction, then the salaries and benefits following the enactment of my proposal would total approximately $20.5MM and $7MM respectively, for a savings of $27.5MM.
If we increase the earned income tax to cover the $6MM difference, then the earned income tax rate would approximately double as the tax incidence shifts to a younger demographic.
The staff reductions would come from school consolidation and the elimination of programs:
- My vision is to have a single elementary school, a single Junior High School, and a single High School.
- I would close all of the existing elementary schools and use either the Mellon School or the Jefferson School as “The Elementary School.”
- I would use either the Mellon or the Jefferson School as “The Junior High School.”
- The High School would remain where it is.
- I would sell any school that is not being used under my plan and use the proceeds from the sale to finance any changes that may be needed to the Mellon or Jefferson schools and then I’d use any remaining amounts to reduce the district’s long-term debt.
- The program reductions would be determined by beginning with state mandated educational requirements and incrementally adding programs as the budget or private contributions allow, but always within the guiding principle of achieving the financial goals that I outlined above.
- I would employ service delivery using professional providers like Blackboard. The classroom presentations would be digitized and available “on-demand.” These presentations could be shared or sold to other districts, and other districts could also contribute or sell their presentations into a collective pool that would be available to all Pennsylvania school students. This option would add additional academic programs at a lower cost per program.
- It is my belief that the quality of a digitized classroom presentation exceeds the quality of a traditional lecture, in part because:
- The lecturer is better prepared knowing that they are being recorded;
- The students can freely rewind the material and listen to the content when they have either missed the message or don’t understand what is being communicated.
Labels: hard decisions, john kendrick, plan, restructuring, school district
78 Comments:
I'll jump in here, though I've tried to refrain from blogging Lebo since comments seem to degrade quickly.
Mr. Kendrick's plan, would eliminate neighborhood schools, one of Lebo's best assets in my opinion.
I'll direct residents to one of my favorite articles from the PA Dept. of Education tilted "Renovate or Build New" which lauds our elementary and middle school renovations and which our district has never made available to the public on their HS renovation site.
It was posted on James Fraasch's and beieve the link is still there.
The rest of Mr. Kendrick's plan I haven't formed an opinion on.
Dean Spahr
Here's the link to Renovate or Build New.
http://www.saveourlandsaveourtowns.org/pdfs/RenovateorReplace/RoRMASTER.pdf
Dean Spahr
Mr. Kendricks' proposal for teaching on the cheap via technology is poor educational policy. As a college professor I am aware of a large body of educational research (based on research, not on opinion) that almost all students benefit greatly from personal interaction with teachers in small classes (esp at the elem. level though also very helpful at other grade levels too) and with other students, esp. those at the same level of preparation and higher. Even at the college level, teaching via TV, online, and with other multimedia (such as Blackboard) is not consistently effective when learning outcomes are measured. Is saving tax money more important than children's academic education?
Couple things to note:
1. We are having incredible difficulty modifying and updating one school within a reasonable budget framework. I'm not sure how we could live through or pay for modifying 3 (the HS and both middle schools).
2. The cost and angst of busing will also be a tough hurdle.
3. A significant complaint in our community currently is gridlock and cut through traffic during peak hours. Existing cut through routes would increase in volume and new problem neighborhoods would be created as school traffic tries to swim upstream to get across town for school.
4. I don't see much of a market for the existing elementary schools, especially if all commercial properties and a few residential properties will bear the tax burden. If buyers exist for these buildings, the areas in which some are located would have to rezoned for commercial use. That won't come easy, particularly in the Howe, Foster, Markham and Hoover neighborhoods. Commercial use would also add to the problems identified in #3 above. We can't even erect a health club on Castle Shannon Blvd because of the traffic lobby, so I'm relatively certain that the folks in say Foster area won't be quick to welcome an office building into their neighborhood. Even if we can accomplish the re-zoning, most new owners would need to significantly retrofit these buildings and would expect some equally significant tax relief in return. Not sure that helps.
5. Eliminating school parks and the fields at Lincoln, Markham, Foster, Howe and Hoover would make non-existent any recreational outlets for kids in these neighborhoods and would devastate the youth sports in this community. As a result, families will leave to find communities in which these opportunities are available for their kids. New families will have no interest in moving to a community that has no neighborhood playgrounds, field space or organized youth sports.
6. Doubling class sizes would inhibit learning and move our school district to the bottom of any ranking system (that so many hold so dear).
7. Eliminating interscholastic sports would also deprive our remaining students of critical components of student life and personal development that can never be found in the classroom. Not to mention we'd have an increase in juvenille delinquency, crime, drug and alcohol abuse and a bunch of unhealthy and unmotivated kids
Are changes necessary in Mt. Lebanon? No question. However, turning it upside down is not the answer.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I want to add one further point about digitized classrooms. The issue at hand is what is the purpose of a classroom teacher? Is a teacher a dispenser of knowledge that lectures for a 40 to 90 minute period or someone who facilitates student learning? A high school teacher who talks for more than 10 minutes in a given period is rapidly loosing student interest and teaching effectiveness. Digitized lectures may work for 1/4 to 1/8 of a class period, but you need a professional in the room who knows other proper teaching methods to make the lecture effective. Teachers are more learning managers than top down robots spouting off bon mots that enchant the students.
The moment you turn on a television or monitor in a secondary classroom, you have already lost half the students. You need well trained (meaning appropriately paid) professionals working with a small group (once you get beyond 23 students in a room, effectiveness diminishes) for quality learning. The Kendricks proposal returns education to warehousing students. If this proposal were to come true, I would predict decreased student competency and an increase in the drop-out rate.
I'm intrigued with Elizabeth Mazur's comments. Many colleges and universities have been turning to extended or distance learning, and on-line education has been a very effective teaching tool. I'm not sure of Ms (or Dr?) Mazur is familiar with the current techniques of digitizing content and broadcasting the lectures over the internet? You have an instructor in front of the room because the students are watching the same classroom presentation as though they were in the room. I'll grant you, 15 or 20 years ago the PowerPoint decks that my business school was pushing out to an extended learning audience was no match for the classroom experience that I received. But a lot has changed since then.
There was an interesting discussion today on the ABC News program "This Week". During the discussion (if I am not mistaken) our current secretary of education said [something to the effect] that education would be the civil rights of this decade.
Integrating service delivery has a number of significant impacts. A few notable ones include: (1) persons with a physical disability have far fewer limitations accessing the same educational content as other students; (2) educational content or curriculum can be customized and available "on-demand"; (3) we can identify those instructors who are "the best of breed" and have them teach to ALL of the students; (4) we can have a standardized curriculum across ALL school districts in core academic areas (if we choose); (5) the cost per student for declines tremendously as the scale of the distribution increases; and (6)the only barrier to any educational opportunity is limited by the scalability of the internet. What other approach is available today to provide such a large group of people with a classroom educational experience?
We have the ability to start thinking about employing alternative instructional methods that will provide superior educational content and at a lower cost and becoming the community that others want to follow once again. In fact, the reality is, we HAVE TO start thinking about how we are going to lower the cost of a quality education.
I remember listening many years ago to Governor Casey's State of the State speech where Gov. Casey called on local school districts to start firing teachers because the state can't continue to afford to carry this burden. The opposite has happened since then, and PA, a state founded on religious principles, has turned to gambling to address their fiscal distress!
I also think that my proposal addresses tax equity for our senior citizens that own homes. Nobody seems to be thinking very much about them these days.
I really welcome your constructive comments. Please tell me what you think. I'll answer any sincere questions that you have truthfully. This is not a personal issue. I feel like we are like the Titanic -headed for the ice.
I'll be happy to address Mr. Franklin's comments in my next post.
I'm intrigued with Elizabeth Mazur's comments. Many colleges and universities have been turning to extended or distance learning, and on-line education has been a very effective teaching tool. I'm not sure of Ms (or Dr?) Mazur is familiar with the current techniques of digitizing content and broadcasting the lectures over the internet? You have an instructor in front of the room because the students are watching the same classroom presentation as though they were in the room. I'll grant you, 15 or 20 years ago the PowerPoint decks that my business school was pushing out to an extended learning audience was no match for the classroom experience that I received. But a lot has changed since then.
There was an interesting discussion today on the ABC News program "This Week". During the discussion (if I am not mistaken) our current secretary of education said [something to the effect] that education would be the civil rights of this decade.
Integrating service delivery has a number of significant impacts. A few notable ones include: (1) persons with a physical disability have far fewer limitations accessing the same educational content as other students; (2) educational content or curriculum can be customized and available "on-demand"; (3) we can identify those instructors who are "the best of breed" and have them teach to ALL of the students; (4) we can have a standardized curriculum across ALL school districts in core academic areas (if we choose); (5) the cost per student for declines tremendously as the scale of the distribution increases; and (6)the only barrier to any educational opportunity is limited by the scalability of the internet. What other approach is available today to provide such a large group of people with a classroom educational experience?
We have the ability to start thinking about employing alternative instructional methods that will provide superior educational content and at a lower cost and becoming the community that others want to follow once again. In fact, the reality is, we HAVE TO start thinking about how we are going to lower the cost of a quality education.
I remember listening many years ago to Governor Casey's State of the State speech where Gov. Casey called on local school districts to start firing teachers because the state can't continue to afford to carry this burden. The opposite has happened since then, and PA, a state founded on religious principles, has turned to gambling to address their fiscal distress!
I also think that my proposal addresses tax equity for our senior citizens that own homes. Nobody seems to be thinking very much about them these days.
I really welcome your constructive comments. Please tell me what you think. I'll answer any sincere questions that you have truthfully. This is not a personal issue. I feel like we are like the Titanic -headed for the ice.
I'll be happy to address Mr. Franklin's comments in my next post.
In response to Michael G.'s comments:
* If 20% of the population is over 60 then we can exempt them from the school district real estate tax right now. The adjustment to the wage tax would not be very significant for most of our residents and we can easily help the elderly residents immediately.
* I disagree concerning your perception of how service delivery would appear within a classroom, [or perhaps a home of some would prefer that setting] but we could always change the traditional role of the teaching staff that remain following the workforce reduction. This is a concept that we can evolve with creative suggestions.
In response to Mr. Franklin's comments:
1. I don't have the visibility into the cost of operating the elementary schools alone now and I don't know the cost of any renovations that may be required at the Jefferson or Mellon Schools. We could consider other sites for these consolidated schools; but the idea is to consolidate the elementary schools. There was a study done for the School District to consolidate the elementary schools to reduce costs. This is not a new idea.
2. Busing can be out-sourced so we don't need to buy assets. I don't know what the cost of busing for the impacted students would be relative to the cost of operating the schools in their current structure.
3. Honestly, I'd examine the traffic flows using a simulation model and several "what-if" scenarios. I'm not an expert on how to resolve our traffic problems.
4. Unlike residential property, the value of commercial real estate is a function of its suitability for a particular use. I'd welcome professional opinions on how the property could be used for a purpose other than a school. The values would follow accordingly. You might be surprised to see what suggestions are offered. Perhaps the municipality could buy one as a youth center?
5. The parks may be nice, but I don't think that we can continue to afford this luxury. I wish that we could, but we've lost too many economic assets in our region over the last 30 years. Too many. We should have NEVER let this happen, but we did, and now we have to live with the consequences.
6. I disagree. When I was an undergraduate at Purdue I competed in classes with up to 7000 students and our academic programs consistently ranked in the top 10 nationally. I am referring to The Gourmann Report when I cite rankings. If anything, we're faced with declining enrollments. If we were located in Fairfax County VA then it may be different; but our class demographic trends aren't suggesting growth.
8. Well, we're spending more today on athletic programs that we did 20, 30, or 40 years ago and we have a bigger problem with drugs now than we ever did. I disagree - there are other forces driving drug use. Increasing the athletic budget isn't the answer.
Change can be sudden, or it can be phased. I suggested in an earlier post that we'd be better to use a phased approach.
However, [again] I think that the assistance to the seniors should be immediate. They don't need to carry our burden any longer. We need to address these problems ourselves.
I'd offer another thought for the resource constraits that are associated with school consolidation:
Let's adopt year-round education! This is not a new idea, but it would increase the capacity of our existing resources by increasing facility utilization rates - for instance over the summer, where they now are idle.
Couple comments and then I'm done:
1. "Perhaps the municipality could buy one as a youth center."
I realize that this is just an idea, but it is exactly the sort of feel good spending idea that you and Mr. Ewing argued so strongly against in other threads.
2. "We've lost too many economic assets in our region over the last 30 years"
Like what?
3. "When I was an undergraduate at Purdue I competed in classes with up to 7000 students."
I don't think anyone wants to view their child's K-12 education as a competition. Small student-teacher ratios have and continue to a be a critical component of education at the K-12 level in Lebo and they remain a strong selling point for colleges and universities.
4. If you refuse to acknowledge that those who are involved in athletics are less likely to use drugs and alcohol, then I'm relatively certain that you and I will never agree on anything. Further, I've never suggested an increase in the athletic budget, but to suggest that athletics be eliminated reflects a bias on your part (or at least a lack of information) that frankly discredits many of your other suggestions.
Thank you for your kind remarks, Mr. Franklin - as always, it has been a pleasure.
But before you go, perhaps you have not noticed that we're not making much steel here anymore. In fact, we're not making much of anything in the region anymore. If you haven't noticed the loss of manufacturing in our region then it's YOU that have lost touch and are not credible - not me.
Good night, Mr. Franklin.
So far what I'm hearing is that the community wants to simultaneously:
1. Maintain the number of teachers;
2. Increase teacher pay;
3. Maintain the elementary schools and the parks that surround them;
4. Maintain the level and variety of programs; and
5. Reduce the budget.
Guys, this will not work.
Does anyone else want to offer any suggestions for the future? I've offered a plan, but I'd like to hear others...
What I had in mind was an increase in the student to faculty ratio. The integration of service delivery was intended primarily for the students at the High School level. I'm not advocating the elimination of teaching staff with an on-line experience. Instead I a suggesting that we integrate service delivery as an alternative.
To answer some of the comments concerning class size - I personally don't see a relationship between class size and academic achievement, and I frankly don't have a problem increasing the class sizes.
John, you have given this a lot of thought and I applaud you for coming up with a plan. Here is my plan:
1. Administrators should take a pay cut. They are not being held accountable at every turn.
2. Cap the high school renovation project at $75 million and repair the school.
3. Give the kindergardners their $1000 back.
Elaine Gillen
Forgot to add number four:
4. The School District needs to stop going to court over Right To Knows and zoning issues. Where is the money coming from to pay the legal bills?
Elaine Gillen
I would balk at exempting any homeowner from school property taxes. If we were to exempt home owners over the age of 65 from the school property tax, I would predict that over the course of several year there would be a movement into the community of owners over 65 and tax aged owners moving out. Mt. Lebanon would become a 6 square mile Leisure World.
Regarding class size, there is an overwhelming amount of research that consistenly deomonstrates that small class sizes have a signigicant impact on student achievement. According to the Mt. Lebanon school district website, Lebo has a student to teacher ratio of 16 to 1. To me, this is a healthy ratio. A plan that would push the ratio to 30 to 1 is disasterous for student learning and will have negative social consequences. If school was just a teacher lecturing, sure you could get by with a high student to teacher ratio. Since effective teaching has the teacher lecturing less than 1/4 to 1/8 of a period, you need a small class size for other appropriate and proven methods to work.
Elaine has an excellent idea concerning administrative pay structure. I've suggested a change in administrative pay structure that would include an incentive to reduce the budget while maintaining the educational quality objectives. For example, a $10,000 annual pay increase per $1MM of budget savings. Contrary to an interpretation of my proposal, I don't have a problem paying a Supt. $250,000 annually [an increase of $100,000 from a $150,000 base] PROVIDED the Supt has delivered $10MM (or some significant level of budgetary reduction) while maintaining educational quality goals.
The legal fees are another issue that I agree with. I've noticed, even in the context of trying to write an article in MtL, everyone's first response is, "Are we legally obligated to...?" The school district is the same way. I agree with Elaine.
Michael G. - the teaching contract when I was a student limited class sizes to 30 students. I honestly can't say that the teaching size was a problem PROVIDED that the person teaching was effective. WOuldn't you rather have one skillful educator teaching 30 students rather than two less effective or perhaps incompetent teaching a class of 15? I think that is one of the flaws basing an entire argument on that single metric.
- and I'd be willing to pay a skilled, effective educator a much higher wage than we have on the district scales IF the performance is there.
Michael G.,
When considering the effects of a change, you must consider all effects, not just the one that happens to be the most obvious.
If the school staff were halved, for example, not only would the student-to-teacher ratio go from 16:1 to 30:1, but also something else would happen (that you didn't consider): we would free a ton of money. That money could then be invested in other educational interventions.
Thus the right question to ask is whether students would be better off if we spent all of that money on teachers, bringing the student-to-teacher ratio back to 16:1 (the status quo), or on something else. If something better exists, we could buy that thing instead to bring student achievement back to its present day level – and have money left over.
That leftover money could be returned to taxpayers, or we could invest it in further educational interventions to exceed today's level of achievement.
Thus it's not a foregone conclusion that by cutting staff you necessarily reduce student achievement. If you cut staff and do nothing else, yes, student achievement will suffer. But if you use some of the freed resources to do something else, you may end up better off than before.
Cheers,
Tom
Tom has an excellent point.
Does anyone remember learning about the principle of capital formation? The savings can be invested in many ways. Tom has suggested an excellent idea. Another might be to encourage investment in the community so that we have a larger tax base TO tax.
Does anyone remember that John Fernsler said when he was leaving the commission? He said that our commuity needed to consider increasing commercial real estate development to offset the residential tax burden and to build the tax base. I wish that we had listened.
Look at what Cecil Township has done. 30 years ago they didn't have 24/7 police services. Post- Southpointe Cecil Township has a much larger police force and a state of the art police department; and Cannon McMillan has the benefits of the higher tax revenue.
Mr. Kendricks: I would prefer two qualified teachers teaching 15 students than one qualified teacher teaching 30 students. I have not come across many arguments saying that half of Mt. Lebanon teachers are ineffective (I am sure there are some ineffective teachers in the system, but I doubt if half the teachers are ineffective).
There is a difference in class size limits and average class size. There will be some classes that have a higher enrollment because its a specialty courses with a limited amount of instructors. For core courses, I prefer small class sizes. I think an algebra class with 30 students is too many.
Mr. Moertel: If something else out there exists that improves the status quo, has a positive budgetary impact, and is neutral to positive on student achievement, I would be open to discussion. However, Mr. Kendricks current solution is highly negative to student achievement.
Michael G, you should look into Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS). For certain subjects like mathematics, ITS systems have proved very effective, often approaching the elusive "two-sigma" effect size of one-to-one human tutoring. I would not be surprised to find that for certain subjects, 1 teacher for every 30 students and ITS is a combination that outperforms 1:16 teaching, both in terms of cost and student achievement.
Cheers,
Tom
Michael G:
You write: "Regarding class size, there is an overwhelming amount of research that consistenly demonstrates that small class sizes have a signigicant impact on student achievement."
I don't think the evidence is as overwhelming as you may believe.
In the early 1990s, when many states were flush with cash, policymakers championed the findings of a 1985 experiment in Tennessee. The Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio (STAR) project.
States extrapolated from those findings to justify spending billions to make relatively modest cuts in class size in all schools, not just in those serving the poor.
About three dozen states now fund either voluntary or required class-size reduction programs. In 1996, California launched the first and largest such effort, eventually providing incentives for school districts to lower class size to 20 in kindergarten through third grade at a cost of $20 billion.
In 2002, Florida voters approved an amendment to the state constitution that reduced class size over time in all grades. The state estimates that it will cost an additional $353 million this year, on top of the $16 billion the state has spent so far, to meet the requirements. In November, Florida voters will be asked to loosen those requirements to avoid massive spending cuts.
A study released in May by the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University found that the Florida program had no effect on student achievement.
Research on California’s program also showed no gains in achievement attributable to smaller classes. Michael Kirst, an emeritus professor at Stanford University, says excitement over the program resulted in school districts hiring “all sorts of teachers just off the street” who lacked any formal training. Space shortages forced schools to hold the newly created classes in hallways and closets and on auditorium stages.
Nonetheless, Kirst says, the program was popular. “One lesson from California is that with parents, smaller class size is overwhelmingly favorable, and they don’t give a fig about the research that says this is not going to help their kids,” he says. “They intuitively believe that small class sizes will allow more individual attention.”
Dean Spahr
My above comment is pulled from an "American Association of School Administrators" Smartbrief, not my own research.
Dean Spahr
My proposal is a high level sketch that is based on guiding principles. This is where leadership seperates from management.
I'd like to see new leadership in our School District direct the management to develop a school system that can provide a high quality education at a lower cost. Integrating technology of some type may be part of the answer. In fact, I think that it will be part of the answer.
In the process, our community may develop other innovative ideas that others will come here to see as we become recognized as a leader and innovator once again.
My plan will evolve over time, but the guiding principles like: smaller government and lower taxes; respect for the ownership of private property; our willingness to contribute rather than the government "taking"; etc. should guide the journey.
I seem to remember Glenn saying at a School Board meeting around 2000 that the goal of our district was to provide every student with a customized educational program. How else can we afford to provide this type of educational experience without integrating technology?
In terms of the discussion on class size, here is just one of many examples of efficacy: http://www.aera.net/uploadedFiles/Journals_and_Publications/Research_Points/RP_Fall03.pdf. If you can't read it, the report indicates that 13-17 students/class is optimal class size, esp. for early elementary. So, yes, adjusting a class from 25 to 20 will not change student achievenment; one needs to go lower than that.
In terms of Mr. Kendricks' dispute of my assertion from RESEARCH of the questionable efficacy of his pedagogical (technological) plan, I will say that several dozen studies regarding COLLEGE STUDENTS indicate that computer-based multimedia can improve learning and retention of material presented during a class session or individual study period - BUT NOT REPLACE THE in-person INSTRUCTOR. The fact that many universities rely on technology for academic instruction is not based on measurable academic learning outcomes but on its lower economic costs.Also, one cannot generalize from persons of one age group to another.
In sum, Mr. Kendricks seems to be hoping to make Mt. Lebanon a "Sun City East" in terms of no services for persons under age 50. He is free to choose to live in such a place, but for most of us the word "community" has a multi-faceted multi-generational meaning that has more than self-interest in mind.
Dr. Mazur,
Penn State has significantly increased the use of distance learning programs. Are you saying that Penn State's graduate professional, academic graduate degrees, and undergraduate degrees offered through distance learning are ineffective? Isn't Penn State's Phd program in educational administration a top 10 program? Aren't most students distance learners? Granted, it's not my field, but as a Penn State Alum that was my recollection.
Haven't studies indicated that student motivation is the most important factor in learning?
I really would welcome your suggestions on how to address our challenges...
Any ideas?
What are your guiding principles?
Dr. Mazur:
No argument here on your finding, in fact I came across the same info elsewhere.
"A consensus of research indicates that class size reduction in the early grades leads to higher student achievement. Researchers are more cautious about the question of the positive effects of class size reduction in 4th through 12th grades. The significant effects of class size reduction on student achievement appear when class size is reduced to a point somewhere between 15 and 20 students, and continue to increase as class size approaches the situation of a 1-to-1 tutorial."
Dean Spahr
Just a couple of points:
In theory, I agree with Mr. Kendrick's guiding principles. However, they are just abstractions that have no meaning outside of a concrete situation. I would like a smaller government footprint, but our local government is tasked with providing a quality education for 20% of its population. That's not small and that's not cheap. If the value of small government is in conflict with quality public education, education wins out in my mind. Our officials charged with providing that education need to be good stewards with our tax dollars. I do not know if our school board is being a good steward (my inclination is that they could do better), but it is a huge undertaking running an organization of almost 6,000 people. (A business model for schools does not work since students are not customers in the sense that they are coming in to buy lattes and they are not products in the sense that they are widgets.)
In the points that Mr. Spahr, there was a lack of data on starting points and desired goals. If 20 students per class for K-3 is California's desired goal, then there is not going to be much of a change. A change is not going to happen until you get much a lower class size (mid-teens) for the younger age groups. Of course this is going to be costly. Teachers' salary and benefits are the largest line items in any school district's budget. Schools that have been doing education on the cheap are now waking up to the real cost of a quality education and the disservice they did to their previous generations of students. People may complain about the costs and little to show for improved classroom size, but the truth is that the districts were not bold enough to effect real student improvement.
Lastly, while Mt. Lebanon has a 16 to 1 student-teacher ratio, the average class size will be higher, probably in the low-to-mid-20's. This is not bad for a public high school.
I am not opposed to integrating technology into the classroom. However, I think that the idea that increased technology will lessen the need for teachers is incorrect. If anything, technology will increase the need for more instructors. Class size for online groups need to be much smaller than an in-class group. 15 to 18 students seems to be the sweet spot for online classes. Online classes create a larger demand on a teacher's time, so a teacher will need to teach fewer sections to be effective (and not burn out). The time and classroom management demands on a teacher with integrate technology in more tradition classroom increases as well. More technology is not a cost savings boon.
A little thought experiment: Say you are a parent of three children. Double that overnight. Are you going to be as good as a parent as you were the day before?
If you love your children it shouldn't matter how many you have, should it; or is there only so much love to give?
I sincerely doubt that Dr Mazur will list her guiding principles, but if she did I have a pretty strong feeling that they would be quite different than mine. My political orientation is not very popular with liberal academics. Granted, I don't know what her beliefs are, but if they are different then that's why we have elections.
Michael G,
What makes you say, "[T]he idea that increased technology will lessen the need for teachers is incorrect. If anything, technology will increase the need for more instructors"?
What you're suggesting is that technology cannot improve efficiency, at least in education, a claim that is contrary to both reason and numerous observations.
Nobody is suggesting that you can achieve better student outcomes by doing away with teachers and replacing them with technology. What many researchers are saying, however, is that teachers plus modern computer-based intelligent tutoring systems is a combination that can be much more effective than traditional group instruction.
Even at "good" S:T ratios like Mt. Lebanon's 16:1, group instruction is much less effective than 1:1 tutoring – by as much as two standard deviations in performance. Once you leave the 1:1 ideal and start "sharing" teachers among students, performance rapidly declines until, eventually, you are offering group instruction that allows for only limited tailoring to differences among students. Then performance becomes less sensitive to class size because, in effect, everybody is getting the same instruction regardless.
The achievement difference between a class size of 1 and 16 is huge; between 16 and 30, small. So if you halve Mt. Lebanon's staff, you do give up some small achievement benefit, but you also free a lot of funds that, if invested wisely, could plausibly provide a greater benefit.
Cheers,
Tom
Tom is right.
What we all must also consider is that we are funding our schools subject to resource constraints. We must always remember that our resources are finite while our wants are infinite - hence the problem of scarcity.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Hi Michael G.,
Thank you for your thoughts.
Did your sources tell you that the cost of an on-line course is usually a premium to a classroom course? Does the difference in price account for the enrollment differential?
What would you suggest to reduce costs while preserving the quality of education?
Re; Class sizes, you might find this article of interest.
In many cases, what smaller classes do is simply increase the number of teachers (and salaries, and benefot costs, and retirement costs)
http://hechingerreport.org/content/class-sizes-are-increasing-but-does-it-really-matter_4154/
Joe Wertheim
Michael G,
One of our readers pointed out to me that you're not including your full name in your posts. From now on, please abide by our Comments Policy. (It is explained in the right-hand sidebar of the home page.)
If you don't include your full name from now on, I won't be able to publish your comments.
Cheers,
Tom
Joe,
This is a very interesting article. Thank you for sharing it with all of us.
It sounds to me like increasing class sizes and reducing headcount is a attractive option.
What about the seniors?
Should we eliminate the School District property tax for any residential homeowner over the age of 65?
I think that there is an issue of tax equity here. I'd like to see the tax burden carried more by those who consume the products and services.
Our senior citizens have worked hard for home ownership. One of my guiding principles is respect for the ownership of private property.
Let me start by saying that I respect Mr. Kendrick for presenting us with a plan and engaging us in conversation. I am in agreement that something needs to change. However, I have a few points to address.
1) By losing the parks and facilities as Mr. Kendrick suggests, and merging all of the neighborhood schools, we are losing essential pieces of our community that make it desirable. Even residents who don't have children benefit from our facilities. The increased sense of community is an important reason people move into and remain in Mt. Lebanon.
2) In addition to being the mother of several young children in the district, I am also a college student. Most of my classes are taught via Blackboard and other on-line resources. This translates into a high degree of self-learning and independent work on my end. I can tell you right now- that may work for a few select high school students, but it certainly wouldn't work for my 11 year old and it really won't work for my 6 year old.
3) If class size doesn't matter and Purdue has 7,000 seat lectures yet still remains competitive, why does their website state that 72% of their classes have less than 29 students? They also claim to have a student to professor ratio of 14:1...that's even better than we're doing. Giant lectures may work for certain college classes, but those are not the ones in which high level, outside-the-box thinking is occurring. To get that you must still spend your class time in a more intimate setting with direct contact to your professor. I, for one, would pay a lot more for the benefit of the best teachers and smaller class sizes.
Michele Wilson
Hi Michelle,
It's nice to meet you.
I'd like to respond to your three statements point by point:
1. My point is simply, "Who is going to pay for all of this?" We're going to have to make decisions on what to keep, like it or not. Maybe they will keep the athletic programs and the elementary schools with the parks and relinquish the science and math programs? Who knows. I'd rather see the kids have an opportuntiy to receive a strong academic foundation than a football, but there are many who seem to disagree with me.
2. Blackboard is not the only alternative and the technology is evolving. My proposal is not static, it's the architecture for a new structure where the details can evolve.
3. WELL! You're going to love this! The year after I graduated (1985), Purdue broke up the large lectures in favor of smaller class sizes. I also noticed that as they decreased the class sizes their rankings declined in many key programs, but they still remain a very strong university.
The statistics may be a lot different today than when I was there. Purdue competes for students and like many universities they try to promote a low student to faculty ratio. Unfortunately, like most universitites, they include graduate student teaching assistants in that calculation. The reality is that the graduate student teaching assistants are at the university for their education, not their students'... 8)
I honestly can't say that the large classes that I competed in made me less competitive when I graduated. In fact, that intense competition gave many of us a strong professional edge - and I would point to the success of our alumni in very key professional and corporate roles as evidence of the strength of our education.
I'd like to clarify my response to your third point. We had a student to faculty ratio that was somewhere in the upper teens/low 20's when I was at Purdue.
The university had very large lectures and recitation sections with around 25-30 students that were lead by teaching assistants. Again, the inclusion of the TA's distorts the metric (in my opinion).
But the course curve was based on a very large number of students, and the university was intensively competitive academically.
When I was there the typical engineering courses had about 400-500 students in a class. The university would gradute classes of about 500 engineers three times per year (1500 engineers) each in electrical, mechanical, civil, and smaller sized classes of under 100 for the year in aeronautical, nuclear, and materials engineering.
Purdue consistently ranked in the top 10, and in most engineering fields, the top 5 nationally using just about any ranking system.
Not being a Hoosier, I really haven't kept in touch since I graduated though...
The reason for the shift had to do mostly with the new president, Stephen Beering, that arrived in 1985 who I seem to remember having some ties to Pitt's medical school?
Anyway, his educational philosophy was different and he discouraged the large class sizes and began an aggressive program to expand the branch campuses and distance learning.
Let me start out by acknowledging that I am not a professional educator nor an expert on modern educational theory.
However, I am an amateur idle speculator. You can check my license.
It seems to me that there is perhaps a sliding scale on class sizes, because I personally believe there are two "modes" of education.
In early childhood, the most important thing is not to be bombarded with rule-based constructs or vocabulary terms for complex concepts. The important thing is to be taught how to reason , and how to begin consuming more and more complicated forms of written or verbal knowledge.
On the other hand, once someone has a full grasp of language, mathematics, and other general studies, they are ready for the "rote instruction" mode of education.
So I tend to believe there's truth to both sides - that low class sizes, going all the way down to 1:1, are ideal for situations where the primary impediment is not the material but the particulars of a person's ability to cement knowledge. But they're terribly inefficient provided you have a large body of people working from a common, obstacle-free starting point.
I have no idea where the threshold lies, but I think we can all agree that a 4 year old doesn't need a physics webinar just like a grad student does not (hopefully, should not) need a personal evaluation of their reading comprehension.
I guess where I'm going with this is there is probably a heck of a lot more nuance than simply "X:1 is the golden mean!" I also think it's possible that topic specialization plays a factor too. That physics webinar may work great for UG PHYS 101 but might be insufficiently general to produce the next Einstein.
Is anyone aware of research that has tried a hybrid approach - public schooling where students have some amount of personalized, one on one instruction, combined with lecture-style class time? Are there schools seeing economies of scale and/or better educational performance that way?
That's an intersting concept - a design addressing the suitablility for a purpose.
The next question that follows is, "What is the purpose of our local schools?", and then, "What should our mission and vision be?"
- and then I would add, do we have the ability to afford that vision, and if so, who pays?
I'd like to present another perspective concerning the purpose of our local schools -
What contribution is our expenditure in our local school district making to the regional economy? Isn't the part of the purpose of our educational expenditure to create an educated workforce that will support the regional economy in future years?
What proportion of our local school graduates ultimately find careers or start businesses in the region?
Is our heavy investment in local education subsidizing the workforce of other states, and perhaps other countries? If this is happening, how does this benefit our area?
“[Our] heavy investment in local education is subsidizing the workforce of other states.”
Tom, I’m afraid that what started out as a noble goal for relevant discussion has morphed into the theatre of the absurd.
John,
I was sort of speculating on the same lines last night.
It seems to me that one way to incentivize community investment, prevent brain drain, and curb temporary residency for schooling would be to provide a tax break to alumni who remain residents. Or, put less favorably perhaps, a tax shift onto short-term, school consuming residents.
I was trying to combine this somehow with a kind of tax-revenue feedback loop for the school district, where by creating bright, talented people, the district feeds itself in the form of increased tax revenue capture from their increased earning potential.
It all seemed to me to be very aligned with both the economics of what Mt. Lebanon needs (i.e. a school district that essentially economically sizes itself based on the perceived value of its education) as well as the kind of community we're trying to promote (a place to put one's roots and support community investment).
The idea would be that the SD has to compete to continue to draw revenue, that the majority of un-enrolled residents get a break, and that the alumni still get a great education at a reasonable price.
Then it got pointed out to me that it could all be construed as a disingenuous form of tuition-through-taxation. And that retaining those bright people rests on them being able to find employment to keep them here, and at an earning level that justifies the taxes.
I'm still kind of convinced that the economics could (should...) work such that you could show Mt. Lebanon to be a comparable bargain with respect to private school tuition. And that, for the community, the premium over neighboring districts would be justifiable.
My argument would be that, to the extent that the community benefits from having a good school system (property values, civic events, recreational facilities), that you could break down the district costs into a "educational program" / "ancillary" structure and fund the latter through general taxation.
I don't know what the balance would be. It would be different, that's all. And people would feel like they knew what they were paying for. It would throw a lot more scrutiny on the suggestion that a new building is needed, because it would have a smaller tax base to justify the educational gains to.
But I couldn't deny the argument that all this rests on jobs for bright people, and as you pointed out, the macro trend for Pittsburgh does not favor that.
Anyhow, it's a thought.
When you consider the mechanisms in place, we're taxing the property owners of our community for the benefit of other states like Virginia.
I got the idea that 2/3 of the property owners were over 65 from our exchanges, Mr. Franklin. If that measurement is correct, then we've created a mechanism where we're transferring wealth from the elderly in our community for the benefit of states like Virginia, aren't we?
But you don't think that our economic assets in our region have diminished in number, do you?
Matt,
You have some very interesting thoughts. My first question would be, "How can you determine who the short-term residents are?" We built our home in Mt Lebanon in 1977 and expected to remain here for about 4-5 years. 33 years have passed since then and guess what - we're still here... ;)
What your suggesting is more of a user tax that places the burden directly on those who consume the goods and services. I don't know if that heavy of a tax support the cost of the schools. Alternatively, the tax incidence can shift towards those residents who are most likely to consume and thus my proposal to increase the earned income tax and to decrease the school district real estate tax.
You have raised some interesting thoughts though.
Matt,
Another way is to look at asking those in non-core academic areas like athletics to assume 100% of the cost of these programs.
The collection of the funds would become their complete responsibility. One possibility is for them to seek contributions.
Another opportunity may be for residents that live close to the elementary schools and have elementary age chiildren to pay a special assessment; particularly if they feel so stongly about their neighborhood schools.
Consider it in this context, "If I don't live near a local elementary school and I don't receive a direct benefit from having one down the street then is it fair for someone like me to support one where others benfit at my expense?"
Mr Franklin,
What proportion of the students that participate in our athletic programs become professional athletes?
What proportion of the students that participate in our academic programs become business professionals?
Mr. Kendrick, when I asked you what lost "economic assets" you were referring to you boldly noted that we don't make much steel in Allegheny County any more. (Well there's a newsflash!) This astute observation was apparently in support of your position that Mt. Lebanon can no longer afford to keep its parks.
Now you would have me believe that because many of our students grow up to become employable, bright, contributing members of some community other than Mt. Lebanon we should drastically reduce our school district budget. Under that theory, why on earth would any state continue to fund a large university? Are all of its students being employed in-state? Or better yet, why would any state university accept students from out-of-state when there's a real "risk" that those students will take what they've learned (on someone else's dime) and apply it somewhere else?
Look Mr. Kendrick, I agree with you that we spend a lot of money in this town on a lot of things that many view as luxuries. I won't debate that. I understand and appreciate that our expenses are outpacing our revenues, and there will be choices to make. Hard choices. I also agree that the largest single expenditure that we can hope to control right now (on the school side of the ledger) is the high school project. I'm all for limiting that to an amount that accurately reflects what we need.
My point is this . . . the way to effectuate change isn't to pull the table cloth off of the table minutes before Thanksgiving dinner. You're not going to garner much support for plans to reduce school spending with knee jerk condemnations of athletics, parks, fields, small classes and our neighborhood elementary schools. Suggesting that we stop funding our schools because we don't see a measruable return on the investment isn't outside-of the-box thinking, it's out-of-body thinking.
Educating our kids isn't like buying a penny stock. Frankly, it couldn't be any further from that type of analysis. It's an investment in people, not an investment that leads to some sort of monetary reward.
I think where we are in disagreement John is the extent to which we would fund non-academic components of the school district through taxes.
My idea would be to assess the benefits provided to the community as a whole (civic events like the HS musicals, orchestra, football games; facilities such as the parks, playgrounds HS pool, tennis courts, meeting spaces, and adult education programs; and intangibles such as increased property values and a family-oriented community).
I would call those all "general" school district expenses and fund them through a general tax.
The specific school expenses would make up the rest.
As for determining length of residency - the idea would be that residents pay as they accrue their benefits (above), and students pay as they accrue theirs. The hope would be that enough of the infrastructural cost of operating schools is covered in the general fund that the pro-rated remaining costs per student would be favorable to private school, but probably at a slight to modest premium to other districts.
At that point, the SD would have to put up or shut up. (Or shut down, I guess.) To remain competitive, the district would need to offer educational value. To the extent that education falls, students leave, costs go down. And vice versa. Tie the educational program to its market value.
Going to a fully consumption-taxing model belies the fact that there are quite a number of benefits available to all residents (again, above). It's not like they weren't here when you moved in. If you choose not to use them, that's your option.
There are communities out there that bypass your concern by choosing (as a community) not to have schools and parks. Mt. Lebanon has not chosen, and I hope continues to not choose, to be one of them.
Also,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Angle, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Kelly_(baseball), and last but certainly not least http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Wilson_(baseball)
Cheers :)
Mr. Kendrick, I really loathe doing this, but let’s take your ridiculous analysis a step further:
What proportion of the students that participate in our music programs become professional musicians?
What proportion of the students that participate in our arts programs become professional artists?
What proportion of the students that participate in our theatre programs become professional actors?
Think of the money and the space requirements that we could save if we just lopped these programs from our budget!
But let’s also look at it my way too . . . How many students who participate in our athletic, music and arts programs are given access to higher education opportunities that wouldn’t have otherwise been available to them? No, I’m not suggesting that our athletes and artists all receive scholarships, but many are afforded access to top institutions (including Ivy League schools) because of their involvement in these programs. Not to mention that those who participate simply for the sake of participating become well-rounded, confident individuals. I’m happy to support that effort.
Matt,
Fair enough, and all good points. Ultimately, the balance will need to be set by the community subject to the resource constraints. The mechanism for allocation will probably come to voting for specific candidates.
That being said, I have presented this proposal to inspire discussion and offer an alternative perspective. The emphasis in our community has been to provide for special interests like Mr. Franklin, and to care for the perceived needs of the children.
I am offering alternative perspectives from other groups, like our senior citizens, who seem to have been forgotten in these community discussions.
A clever politician will observe that whether 20% or 66% of the residential real estate property owners are over the age of 65, all of the members of this class are eligible voters. With 900 votes electing a candidate, the senior population, if organized, can change the entire direction of our community - if they choose.
If we exempt residents over the age of 65 from paying taxes, and they still want to contribute, then the opportunity remains through private contribution. Private contribution has proven a more efficient and effective mechanism to transfer wealth from one group to another when compared to government, and we're respecting the property rights of our residents in the process.
What I want everyone to consider is "the deal" that our community has given this very vunerable group. We have residents, like Mr. Franklin, who openly stated that he [Mr. Franklin] does not believe that anyone has the right to own a home in Mt Lebanon. Mr Franklin believes that home ownership in our community comes with obligations and these apparently include his list of entitlements that will provide for his comfort. Mr. Franklin believes that if you are unable to provide for him then you need to sell your house and move.
I am offering another perspective - suppose we organize the seniors, get out the vote, restructure the school district, shift the tax incidence, and then give the young families the same deal that Mr Franklin is giving the seniors - namely, if you don't have the right to live here and you can't afford to pay for the goods and services that you want to consume, then you can pack your bags, put your kids in the car, sell your home, and move!
The mechanism that we have in place today is essentially class warfare - I'm just suggesting that we organize and add another class to the game and I am providing them with a proposal on how to restructure the schools.
Tax equity is an interesting discussion, and I certainly welcome all opinions.
I hope that you can also see the relationship between these issues of tax equity, our guiding principles, the mission and vision of our schools, and the subsequent strategy that is implemented.
Added remark:
In fact, I’m offering a better deal to the home sellers – particularly if a senior buys a home; because the perceived value of the home will be greater if a senior buys the home expecting a $0 tax liability compared with the current situation where a senior has to sell a home to a young family facing a massive property tax increase in the years ahead!
- and I'll offer another perspective...
I have heard liberal academics tell you that our society is better-off investing in our youth rather than our seniors; afterall, dollar for dollar, our youth have more to contribute back given the number of years that we can expect them to live.
Somehow, that translates into a practice where we discriminate [through our tax policies] against older property owners and [through our tax policies] deprive them of their right to own real property in favor of a "wealth transfer" so to speak to younger families.
But if a liberal academic was ever asked to provide their guiding principles, many would likely say that discrimination is wrong and they are opposed.
Sometimes actions speak louder than words.
Matt: I prefer this list,
COMMANDER ROBERT SMITH ‘84. U.S. Navy Commander Robert Smith is one of two recipients of the 2008 Vice Admiral James Bond Stockdale Award for Inspirational Leadership. Smith was recognized for his time in command of SEAL Team TWO and is the first Navy SEAL to receive this recognition. While attending Mount Lebanon, Smith was team captain for both football and wrestling and a member of the 1983 WPIAL football championship team. A 1989 graduate of the Naval Academy, Smith has received numerous personal and unit awards for his deployments to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Africa.
DR. ANN M. VALENTINE ’89 Ann Valentine is an associate professor of inorganic and biophysical chemistry at Yale University. Her research explores the use of metals in nature and the development of potential titanium-based anticancer drugs. She was awarded the American Chemical Society Dreyfus Lectureship Award in 2007 and the Saltman Award for Metals in Biology in 2009. A varsity swimmer while at Mt. Lebanon, Valentine was a four year varsity swimmer at the University of Virginia where she was an Echols Scholar and member of Phi Beta Kappa. She received her Ph.D. in Chemistry from M.I.T.
DEBRA FITZGERALD ’82 Debra Fitzgerald is a CPA and Ernst & Young’s Pacific Southwest Advisory Managing Partner. She leads a practice of 300 professionals, providing Fortune 1000 companies Advisory Services focused on risk and business performance. A four year letter winner and senior captain for Mt. Lebanon Cross Country and Track, Fitzgerald was on the 1982 WPIAL Spring Track Championship Team and a three time winner of the Molleneur award. A strong supporter of Mt. Lebanon girls’ cross country and track for over twenty years, Fitzgerald established the Coach Schreiner and Coach Wentzel Awards, given to a girl each season who demonstrates positive attitude, hard work and a strong commitment to the team.
JOHN SURMA ’72 John Surma is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of United States Steel Corporation. While a student at Mt. Lebanon High School, Surma was one of the founding members of the inaugural Mt. Lebanon High School Varsity Ice Hockey Team which captured the first high school ice hockey varsity championship in Western Pennsylvania in 1972. After graduating from Mt. Lebanon High School, Surma received a Bachelor of Science degree in Accounting from Penn State University. In 2005, he was inducted into the Penn State University Ice Hockey Team’s Hall of Fame.
DR. JOHN FRANK ’80 John was a distinguished football star at Mt. Lebanon High School, Ohio State University, and with the National Football League San Francisco 49ers. He retired from pro football while at the top of his game at age 28 to complete medical school at Ohio State, going on to a career in surgery. He is a board-certified Otolaryngologist and dedicated facial plastic surgeon Dr. Frank was recognized as an athlete by the All Big Ten in his junior and senior year at Ohio State and was a three time Academic All American while there. He was also the team captain, most valuable player, and most inspirational player. He ranks as one of the top five athletic scholars in the United States and was a candidate for the Rhodes Scholarship. He was on two winning teams for the Super Bowl. Dr. Frank was inducted into the Jewish Sports Hall of Fame at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Mr. Kendrick, I didn't expect you to answer my questions and I won't offer any credibility to your interpretation of my beliefs by arguing with you. However, we agree on something. It takes very few votes to change the political landscape of this community. This is something that I talk about quite regularly here. Might I suggest that you rally the senior citizens and others who support your model and identify a candidate. A couple commissioners' seats are opening up in 2011.
Based upon your analysis of our dire circumstances, and the considerable number of residents that would benefit from your proposals, you really should have no trouble having folks see it your way.
Mr. Franklin,
When you said on August 29, 2010 at 12:36am,
“Mr. Kendrick, as you've already admitted, you don't know me. You've also let us all know that you have 5 or 6 degrees so you're obviously pretty smart. Taking these facts into consideration, you should stop assuming things about me and stop getting your information from the likes of Mr. Ewing. In some fantasy created by Mr. Ewing, he's attached my name to some $8 million athletic promise. I don't know anything about it, let alone was I the driving force behind it. I've never promised any some of money to anyone for anything as it relates to athletic fields. I'm sure Mr. Ewing will site to some meeting at which such an amount or some promise was made, but I wasn't there. Sorry to disappoint you."
I want to be clear - you don’t feel or have any moral, fiduciary, or contractual obligation whatsoever for the delivery of the $8MM in funds that Mr. Ewing referred to in our discussions?
I did take Mr. Ewing’s word that you made a pledge, and this was your first refute of that claim.
But, if you didn’t make a pledge, and a pledge was made by someone else, then I think that the school district and the municipality need to start thinking about the management of “the pledge process” and how they manage and spend based on voluntary contributions.
Aside from that, I strongly suspect that we do have distinctly different guiding principles. I believe in capitalism, free markets, the right to own real property, limited government powers, limited government intrusion into our lives, smaller government, and lower taxes.
I'm still waiting to hear your set of guiding principles.
Are you scoffing at our senior citizens Mr. Franklin? Our senior citizens are a growing and affluent demographic that now has a plan in their hand, inspiration, organization, a set of guiding principles, and time to execute. No matter how you look at it Dave, it’s a political time bomb waiting to go off – and when it does, you can kiss your turf, Water Park, miniature golf course, and government care of your children from cradle to grave good-bye!
They may not care about 1:1, 25:1, 50:1, 75:1, or even 100:1 student to faculty ratios. They may tell you that if you want your turf, Water Park, miniature golf course, and government care of your children from cradle to grave, then you can look for contributions, get a part time job or start a home-based business to pay for your unlimited wants; or you can put your kids in the car, pack your bags, sell your house, and move! Isn’t that about what you’re offering them right now?
Welcome to the Lebo blogosphere Mr. Kendrick. If you want to accept Mr. Ewing's wild rants as gospel, you'll eventually get burned. I'm not the sponsor or even a component of the alleged $8 million promise. As God as my witness.
And for the record, the ONLY person I'm scoffing is you. I've struggled for the last week trying to figure what it is you DO like about our community. Be that as it may, I have faith that the seniors who know and love this community like I do, see the value in the same things that I do. As I've said, I acknowledge, we can't afford it all (whether you're 26 or 62). Nevertheless, I remain confident that we will always preserve those things that make us special..
I'm not burned Mr. Franklin - to the contrary, you inspire me!
I see something that is very, very wrong and I'm offering our seniors and any person who ever wanted to help our seniors my thoughts as a way forward to right a tremendous wrong.
No need to focus the conversation on me. It's really not about me, you, or even John Ewing for that matter. It is about trying to meet the needs of ALL of our residents in an equitable manner and not just the special interests.
As you once said, "No need to thank me."
Mr. Kendrick, I'm growing weary. You suggest that you are a free market capitalist, who is opposed to having the govt provide for our residents from the "cradle to the grave" yet you also suggest that you are "trying to meet the needs of ALL of our residents in an equitable manner."
You suggest that our seniors are being forced from their homes and are entitled to some tax relief, and then you suggest (just a few hours later) that our seniors "are a growing and affluent demographic."
My head is spinning.....
And as an aside, and purely for purposes of playing devil's advocate, what level of responsibility would you place at the hands of our seniors for creating and supporting what you proclaim to be a ticking time bomb? I don't recall too many 30-somethings in elected office (until just recently). Truth be told, many of our elected officials over the course of our history have been our more "experienced" residents. Our community has not been over-taxed by a bunch of young soccer moms or baseball dads....
Mr. Kendrick:
While I appreciate everything you espouse with respect to conservative principals as they relate to government, I don't understand how they relate to the debate over the public's funding of an education for each of its citizens. Last I checked, that battle was fought and won by our Founding Fathers in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
I've seen your CV on LinkedIn and won't, in a million years, proclaim to be blessed with your level of intelligence. If anything I am envious of it. That said, what you wrote earlier("Aside from that, I strongly suspect that we do have distinctly different guiding principles. I believe in capitalism, free markets, the right to own real property, limited government powers, limited government intrusion into our lives, smaller government, and lower taxes.")are almost certainly the principles that Mr. Franklin shares. Not that he needs me to speak up for him.
The point you seem to be missing in your overwhelming defense of the senior citizens of our community is that they have a CHOICE where they wish to live. Nobody is holding a (figurative) gun to their heads and demanding they stay here and put up with these obnoxious tax hikes. For now, at least, they are free - just as we have chosen to do - to put their home on the market and move to a neighboring county or state. (And, as an aside, hopefully they will have better luck!) Has it occured to you that these fine folks live here because they choose to live here? Have they even asked for your assistance?
You also negate the fact that many parents of school-aged children in Mt. Lebanon CHOOSE to both pay their obnoxious tax bill AND pay private school tuition. Why would they do this if, for no other reason, they enjoyed living and taking advantages of the community aspect a town like Mt. Lebanon affords?
I applaud you for taking ownership of some truly radical ideas and positing them on a local and very unofficial town blog. Are your intentions to follow up on them by running for either a member of the school board or commissioner? THAT would enable you to take a position of leadership in the town. Otherwise you appear to be someone with an inordinate amount of time posting on a blog that, again, plays no official role in the goings-on related to local policy.
In my humble opinion your bigger beef is on a more macro level and should focus on groups like the NEA (my father was a long-time member) which have hijacked the system by removing any modicum of responsibility on its membership.
Just because we live in a bubble of a town with a 100% graduation rate doesn't negate the fact that, nationally, 31% of teenagers drop out of high school.
Our public education system is indeed failing our citizenry in many, many areas of the country. Positing ideas to essentially start over from scratch in a town like ours where things overall are working simply borders on folly. But, again, thats just one man's opinion....
Mr Franklin,
You interpretation of my comments above is not accurate. Perhaps you shoud read my remarks more carefully.
Are you pleased with the expected tax increases that Mt. Lebanon is facing over the next 5 years?
Do you feel that there will be any need to change the structure or the mission of our schools?
Do you have a vision or can you offer any suggestions on how our school district can either maintain or increase the quality of our students education while reducing expenses?
I don't hear many plans from you Mr. Franklin. Have you given this any thought, or do we just continue down the same path?
I'd love to hear your ideas!
Hi Bob,
Thank you for your comments.
Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but don't we send the public school tax and the per-pupil government funding to the private school that a parent selects, or did that practice end? I seem to remember a payment transfer for those electing a private school option.
I would like to present the same questions to you that I did to Mr. Franklin:
Are you pleased with the expected tax increases that Mt. Lebanon is facing over the next 5 years?
Do you feel that there will be any need to change the structure or the mission of our schools?
Do you have a vision or can you offer any suggestions on how our school district can either maintain or increase the quality of our students education while reducing expenses?
Should we continue down the same path?
I'd also like to leave the discussion to everyone else for most of today. I've done a lot of talking, trying to get ideas out for discussion, but these are questions that everyone can discuss among themselves. Please feel free to criticize or offer suggestions to my proposal.
Whether or not we benefit a particular group, or restructure and adjust the tax incidence to relieve ALL homeowners, the proposal puts cash back into the hands of the homeowners of our community. Remember, another guiding principle that I posted in an original post was a belief that it's not what the government takes from us, but what we give to them.
Mr. Kendricks:
Neither private schools nor the parents sending children to private schools receive money from local school districts. I believe there are transfer payments to charter schools (they are considered public institutions). St. Bernard's, Seton-LaSalle, Shady Side Academy, and the like, do not receive monies from local school districts. PA Cyber school does receive monies because it is a charter school.
I have not ready many comments here by the folks opposed to your proposal who state that they are fine with the prospect of increase taxes in the coming years or that they are satisfied with the status quo of the operation and mission of the school district. What I see as the core issue is the contention that either people embrace your statement of principles and your proposal for the school district or they are considered defenders of the status quo and favor increased taxes. There does not seem to be a lot of room for nuance.
My take is that your proposal is very radical and impractical. That does not mean I favor increased taxes nor the educational status quo.
My principles are that I believe education to be a public and common good. I have a responsibility as a citizen (no matter my age) to contribute to the welfare of the local community and its public goods. I recognize the need for an entity to organize the distribution of public goods (be they safety, recreation, education, transportation, etc.) and the collection of taxes and contributions to pay for the public goods. I believe that government should be as small as possible, yet at the same time recognizing that coordinating public goods is not a small endeavour.
You have asked in previous comments about a real estate tax exemption for owners over the age of 65. I am opposed to a general local exemption, because that will lead to an increase of seniors buying properties and young families moving out. Also, it will increase people avoiding the real estate taxes by living with or transferring ownership to their parents or grandparents over the age of 65 instead of owning property in their own name. I am not opposed to a needs base partial rebate on property taxes to owners over the age of 65 if they have lived in that residence for more than 15-20 years and continue to live in it year round.
Hi John:
1) I don't know the answer to that question either. But it would be news to me if that does, indeed, happen. I know that is what is supposed to happen in a charter school set up (which I endorse) but schools like St. Bernards are certainly not charter schools. By that same notion, one would infer that someone home-schooling their children could opt out of paying the school portion of their tax bill. And that would really be news to me if true.
2) No, and if you have read anything I have posted here in the past couple of years, you would know that I am as over the top anti-tax as they come. You would also know that we have chosen to let our actions speak louder than my silly words. God willing, we are moving to a suburb of Charleston, SC as soon as our home sells. (In the market?)
3) Change the structure - yes. Change the mission - no. Consolidation will be inevitable at some point if the economy continues to sputter and the tax revenues continue to decline. In my opinion the tipping point has now been reached. It will be a few years before the results come in on my opinion. The mission of the school should still be what it always has been. That being to provide the best educational opportunities available within the available framework of funds and facilities. Where you and I seem to be "off" is your denial of the ability for someone to pick up and move if they feel their interests are not being served or to stay but put their kids on a bus to Shadyside Academy or Central Catholic or St. Bernards, etc. All in all the MTLSD (of which I am not an alum) has done a very good job in fulfilling its mission over the past 80 years. My beef is and always has been with those who have now chosen to spend taxpayer monies in such a way that will have a net negative effect because, quite simply, the piggy bank is broken.
4) I don't have a grand vision. Maybe if we were staying here I would, like I hope you will, run for the school board and make my actions speak louder than these words. But that ship has sailed. I believe that spending a reasonable amount on the high school to fix the roof, window and HVAC systems along with some extras to upgrade the technology elements should be enough at this stage of the macroeconomic environment we're all stuck with. I agreed with James Fraasch's proposal to plan and save now for a future big fancy new building. I believe it was one of H. Ross Perot's central tenets of success to "not buy an asset that depreciates that you can't afford to buy today." Of course he made his money selling to the government and we all know how good they are at managing finances.
I also believe that towns like ours could benefit greatly from consolidating central services such as police, fire, garbage, public works, etc. Allegheny County's glory days where each individual township could afford any amenity it wanted because everyone had a job at the mill are long gone. Yet we still continue to operate as if that were the case. That said, I remember the absolute UPROAR from some in the community a few years ago when a former commissioner put forth the idea to eliminate ONE police officer's position. ONE! You'd have thought the town was going to turn into the North Side overnight if that had happened based on the reaction. So, in the end, it didn't.
In principle you are going to have to know that we agree far more than we disagree. As Mike Madison has written on his other blogs, the South Hills of Pittsburgh are in for a very rough ride in the future. One needs to look no further than the North Hills and to Canonsburg to see where retail and corporations are setting up shop. I wish you all the best in solving these problems and will always, absolutely always, in heart remain a Pittsburgher and wish it nothing but great things. Same goes for my hometown of Warren, Ohio and all the other formerly great rust belt towns that are now, essentially, wards of the state. But that is a discussion for another day....
Hi John:
1) I don't know the answer to that question either. But it would be news to me if that does, indeed, happen. I know that is what is supposed to happen in a charter school set up (which I endorse) but schools like St. Bernards are certainly not charter schools. By that same notion, one would infer that someone home-schooling their children could opt out of paying the school portion of their tax bill. And that would really be news to me if true.
2) No, and if you have read anything I have posted here in the past couple of years, you would know that I am as over the top anti-tax as they come. You would also know that we have chosen to let our actions speak louder than my silly words. God willing, we are moving to a suburb of Charleston, SC as soon as our home sells. (In the market?)
3) Change the structure - yes. Change the mission - no. Consolidation will be inevitable at some point if the economy continues to sputter and the tax revenues continue to decline. In my opinion the tipping point has now been reached. It will be a few years before the results come in on my opinion. The mission of the school should still be what it always has been. That being to provide the best educational opportunities available within the available framework of funds and facilities. Where you and I seem to be "off" is your denial of the ability for someone to pick up and move if they feel their interests are not being served or to stay but put their kids on a bus to Shadyside Academy or Central Catholic or St. Bernards, etc. All in all the MTLSD (of which I am not an alum) has done a very good job in fulfilling its mission over the past 80 years. My beef is and always has been with those who have now chosen to spend taxpayer monies in such a way that will have a net negative effect because, quite simply, the piggy bank is broken.
4) I don't have a grand vision. Maybe if we were staying here I would, like I hope you will, run for the school board and make my actions speak louder than these words. But that ship has sailed. I believe that spending a reasonable amount on the high school to fix the roof, window and HVAC systems along with some extras to upgrade the technology elements should be enough at this stage of the macroeconomic environment we're all stuck with. I agreed with James Fraasch's proposal to plan and save now for a future big fancy new building. I believe it was one of H. Ross Perot's central tenets of success to "not buy an asset that depreciates that you can't afford to buy today." Of course he made his money selling to the government and we all know how good they are at managing finances.
I also believe that towns like ours could benefit greatly from consolidating central services such as police, fire, garbage, public works, etc. Allegheny County's glory days where each individual township could afford any amenity it wanted because everyone had a job at the mill are long gone. Yet we still continue to operate as if that were the case. That said, I remember the absolute UPROAR from some in the community a few years ago when a former commissioner put forth the idea to eliminate ONE police officer's position. ONE! You'd have thought the town was going to turn into the North Side overnight if that had happened based on the reaction. So, in the end, it didn't.
In principle you are going to have to know that we agree far more than we disagree. As Mike Madison has written on his other blogs, the South Hills of Pittsburgh are in for a very rough ride in the future. One needs to look no further than the North Hills and to Canonsburg to see where retail and corporations are setting up shop. I wish you all the best in solving these problems and will always, absolutely always, in heart remain a Pittsburgher and wish it nothing but great things. Same goes for my hometown of Warren, Ohio and all the other formerly great rust belt towns that are now, essentially, wards of the state. But that is a discussion for another day....
Since I have not commented on this restructuring plan, I have no idea why Mr. Franklin keeps trying to drag my name into his argument with Mr. Kendrick.
Is Mr. Franklin’s motive is to distract attention from his previous whining about the school expense while he is the megaphone for deadbeat athletic supporters who want to run the cost of the High School Project even higher through the implementation of a $1-Million Public-Private Partnership to turf and light Mellon Field suggested in the Municipality’s Capital Improvement Plan?
We all know the 20-year history of the athletic supporters is to promise to raise money for field development and then default on their promise to raise funds:
Twenty years ago the athletic supporters promised funds for the Scott Township property field development and defaulted on their promise. The Municipality owns that property at a cost of $1-Million.
Recently, the athletic supporters promised support for the development of the McNeilly Field complex and defaulted on that promise. The Municipality owns that property at a cost of $2-Million.
Mr. Remely hasn’t seen the $8-Million promised by the athletic supporters. Mr. Franklin denies knowledge of that promise.
Now we have a $1-Million project to turf and light Mellon Field but Mr. Franklin forgot to include that project in his list of charities to which he suggested I make a contribution. Was this just an oversight on Mr. Franklin’s part or doesn’t he intend to voluntarily contribute to the project the athletic supporters are suggesting should be done with Municipal tax dollars?
“A penny saved is a penny earned,” Mr. Franklin.
Bob,
Thank you for the kind remarks. I always feel bad to learn that another long-term resident is leaving, but I understand.
Our community faces formidable challenges. There are some factors that we can control, and others that we cannot control. We cannot control the global economic environment, but we can think of creative strategies to maximize the value of our community in the global environment. For example, we may see means based testing for social security benefits. Personally, I wouldn’t like it, but it may come anyway. If it does, we have the power as a community to counter its effects on our seniors by changing the structure of our tax policies and in the process shield them from 25-50% of the impact and build value in our residential properties in the process.
This discussion was intended to get us thinking about the choices that we WILL have to make, and the challenges that we will face in developing the creative alternatives that will be needed for our schools to meet their mission. Ultimately, I would like to see a mission statement that is more focused; and I would like our community to understand that there is only so much that we can provide with our limited resources. By the same token, when we make a commitment to deliver we must execute meticulously and people will want to come here knowing that what we do we do well.
I appreciate all of your thoughts and suggestions.
Very best regards,
John Kendrick
Mr. Ewing, I love the back and forth banter and the tongue in cheek debate, but lying just isn't cool. I honestly have no idea who or what committed $8 million to build a new field house, but I do believe that the entire issue was made moot when our SB instructed the architect to design a campus that included the field house in the total package. Therefore, I can only assume that the majority on the SB wants to include this component in the overall project cost. I'm not suggesting that their position in this regard is good or bad, but their "approval" of this component has made it - for the most part - unnecessary to raise private funds. If someone came to your door today asking for a donation to fund the development of a polio vaccine, would you write a check? In this instance, your beef shouldn't be with the athletic boosters, it should be with the SB who has included this component on a fully funded basis, thus ELIMINATING the need for any private fundraising efforts.
Next, the McNeilly project was killed by Commissioners Humphreys and Logan . . . period. They cast the dissenting votes against the bond issuance in 2005, even though the Commission acquired the property in 2004 for the purposes of building fields. Just a few weeks prior to the 2005 vote on the bonds, Mr. Humphreys informed the youth sports groups that he would only vote for the bond issuance if the associations and others would commit to contributing $850,000. Obviously, this was an unrealistic expectation, particularly given the timeframe that Mr. Humphreys imposed on their fundraising efforts. To its credit, the Soccer Association did commit $125,000 to the effort; however, no promise was ever made for the additional $725,000. To the contrary, the athletic associations informed Mr. Humphreys that his demand COULD NOT BE MET within his deadline. Some would argue that he never gave the association a reasonable opportunity to participate. After all, raising $725,000 takes some time. Mrs. Logan was also looking for an assurance of private financial support, but she had greater concerns about the safety of the park and didn't think the plans for its use were thoroughly developed. "I cannot in good conscience support something for which there is no real plan," she said. That was the end of it. Contrary to your suggestion, there was no broken promise, no failed commitment. Mr. Humphreys offered the ultimatum and it ended right there. Plain and simple. As far as I know the issue has never been revisited from either a public or private angle, so the property that the Commission purchased in 2004 sits undeveloped today.
I take you comment to mean you would not consider voluntary gifting from alumni, residents, parents, corporations and foundations to pay for enhancements to the school district. That is too bad for the children.
Voluntary gifting would solve a large problem for the community because it would dissolve a large block of non-support for the High School spending. Continuing down a self-interested path will continue to erode support for education in Mt Lebanon.
This is where you and I differ. There is no reason for the municipality to develop Mellon Field - a SCHOOL property. Mixing municipal budgets with school budgets is irresponsible public policy and poor budgeting practice.
I told Chip D. I would support the Mellon Field Project if he raised the funds voluntarily. However, if it is funded with public confiscatory taxes I will pay the taxes and send the difference to my own high school.
I see no reason for backroom politics and political deals to determine a municipal budget that will inflate community spending beyond the referendum limits of the school especially when no effort was made by the deadbeat athletic supporters to raise the funding for McNeilly in a later time frame than Mr. Humphries suggested, We have the field sitting there to be developed by the athletic supporters and they need to be held accountable for their deadbeat behavior. Your rhetoric is unconvincing, Mr. Franklin.
Post a Comment
<< Home