Superintendent Defers Own Bonus; Doesn’t Ask For Pay Raise
October 9, 2009 | 1:57 pmFrom the agenda of the next school board meeting…
Requested Action
2)Awarding the Superintendent 96.7% of the Performance Bonus for successfully meeting goals for the 2008-2009 school year;
3)The Superintendent’s request to defer the Performance Bonus Award until the end of the 2009-2010 school year so the health of the budget can be adequately assessed.
Financial Impact
The contract states that the Board may award up to $20,000 to the Superintendent for meeting the performance goals. It should be noted that [at] the 2008 Retreat, the Superintendent met a substantial percentage of the stated goals and refused to accept the approximate award of $15,000.
It should also be noted that the Superintendent did not request a raise and her salary will remain as per the 2008-2009 contract. However, teachers and staff received an approximate bump of 2.5%.
And that was done in spite of a larger than expected ($6.4 million) fund balance, which is the focus of another agenda item that looks to reduce the fund balance by over $1 million to $5.6 million infusing that money back into the system after the $2 million cuts earlier this year. (see Agenda Action Item “a” for more details)
Wow, they should give her a bonus for doing the right thing.
Hush or they’ll do it. We desperately need more paraprofessionals in some of the more difficult classrooms at Clairemont. Paraprofessionals cost only between $17,000 and $25,000 depending on seniority (not counting benefits which are probably another 40%).
[...] Shared Superintendent Defers Own Bonus; Doesn’t Ask For Pay Raise. [...]
Thanks Dr. E! The good karma will come back around when the economy improves!
BTW… all the schools need parapros, not just Clairemont.
Yeah, but Clairemont scores are declining and third grade math is depending on rotations of parents to help. Actually, agree that all the schools need paraprofessionals so the teachers can teach instead of just doing herd control.
From what I have observed, perhaps the problem at Clairemont could be better solved with a new principal.
Maybe, can’t say I know. But the decline in scores, I believe, is over a 5 year period so cannot be blamed on any one reconfiguration or principal or class or teacher. The presence of paraprofessionals has gone up and down over the years. They are so much better and cheaper than tutoring or other stopgap measures once scores already suck. There’s no question that every classroom of kids has a different character and there’s definitely some difficult ones right now. (And by the way, some of the worst behavior problems come from “good homes” as well as under-priveldged, stressed homes and may even be gifted). But these are children, not hardened criminals, and there’s ways to handle this if the right educational and staffing decisions are made. Good paraprofessionals (truly good ones, not just failed teachers), who are used in the the classroom, not as general staff help for the administrators, can make all the difference. In fact, an good teacher teamed with a good parapro can be more effective than expensive private schools or tutoring. But CSD has to make those choices. Parapros aren’t as glamorous or as easy to sell to the Board as new programs, new testing, or new facilities. But the benefit to cost ratio is so high that we ought to be using them more. And they benefit all the kids, not just the kids who qualify for one special program or another (e.g. gifted or special ed or whatever).
I’m with ya on that. A lot of our problems could be solved by having a parapro in every class K-5. That’s a pipe dream, of course.
Frankly, I’d like to see them in 6-8 too… but folks would think I was wacky on the junk if I even brought that up…
Oh, wait, I already did.
I agree with grades 6-8 having parapros too. My child’s favorite classes at RMS have been those that just happened to be smaller. Hey, I enjoyed smaller classes in college too–who wouldn’t? Smaller classes mean getting to know the teacher better, more personal feedback, more individualized attention. Given cost pressures, I understand that CSD has to look at where things are most needed and I don’t know about RMS’s needs with respect to parapros. But I DO know they are needed in greater numbers at the elementary schools. IMHO, we’ve should have looked at every other expense in CSD, including high end administrator salaries, even programs and supplies, before cutting face time with children. The best curriculum and computers and shiny trailers can’t benefit kids if we don’t have the staff to provide those resources to children properly.
From the School board agenda:
The staff request $75,000 for the addition of a full-time Facility Manager to solicit and manage events for spaces such as the new high school auditorium and gymnasium. Additionally, staff recommend up to $50,000 for event scheduling and facility maintenance software.
Yikes. Since I know nothing about this, I need more information before having a knee-jerk negative reaction. But $75,000 Facility Manager position could fund 2.5 paraprofessionals to be in the classrooms. I need a whole lot of convincing information to support this. Could this maybe be a contract position? My understanding is that stimulus infusion funding is one-time only so it can’t be used for permanent positions. I’ve got problems creating a permanent Facility Manager position instead of at least two paraprofessional positions unless that position also has some direct student responsibilities. When is the next Board meeting?
Who should run the facility then?
Maybe this gets back to our discussion the other day about increased community access to and use of our school facilities. If a Facilities Manager wouldn’t just manage internal use but also serve as a liaison with neighborhood and community groups, performing arts organizations, the city, etc. to make an easy process of their scheduling, use and clean up, that would provide some pretty substantial value with an easily quantified return (for those focused on that end of value).
I hope Pete’s right and this is the direction CSD is headed in. We — including if not dominated by residents without kids — paid a lot for the DHS addition (which I toured yesterday — spectacular). It would be great to push it to its maximum potential.
OK. So I posted this wondering what it meant. My take with the high salary and $50,000 for software was that the school system was intending to make money off the facilities. But if that were true, the salary shouldn’t start off so high. It should be a low base, with the rest of percent of the sales.
But, if it is for Scott’s idea – increasing access to all Decatur facilities – then I understand it more and the position makes sense. But, the high salary still doesn’t work. I would think the salary would be more comparable to a rec center “scheduler” salary.
I wonder if that $75,000 includes FICA/benefits (usually around 40%), then the salary’s not as high, more like $45,000. If a facilities manager is doing a lot of citywide scheduling/advertising etc., perhaps the cost could be split with the city. Don’t disagree that facilities should be shared with community, in fact it’s a shame that they haven’t been more, especially unused, functional Westchester gym, cafeteria, and other spaces. But spending on more administrative personnel when administrative personnel costs at the central office have been rising over the years, and we’ve got staffing needs in classrooms to the point that parents are being asked to volunteer to help with math groups, worries me. I would prefer that a scheduler position be covered by existing Central Office staff or be a cheaper position as suggested by Scott.
Re software: Maybe I’m naive but isn’t $50,000 alot, especially since CSD email system, the eBoard software, and the school websites all have calendar functions? I’m sure that there’s some nifty stuff out there for $50,000 but I hope it can be justifed as more needed than something like 2 paraprofessional positions or more Active boards for classrooms, or professional training for the teachers, or classroom coverage so teachers can attend training.
These are the kinds of questions that either the incumbent or newly elected School Board members need to ask of CSD Central Office more, out in the open at Board meetings.