FARMINGTON – A Mt. Blue Regional School District board meeting yielded significant discussion and $32,600 worth of cuts Tuesday evening, as the district looks ahead to new Maine Department of Education subsidy data following the Maine State Legislature passing a 2-year budget.
The 2-year, $6.7 billion budget, which was passed by two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate to override Gov. Paul LePage’s veto, includes an additional $80 million for the General Purpose Aid formula. Of that $80 million, Superintendent Thomas Ward told the board Tuesday, $25 million a year would go directly toward reducing the impact of school district assessments on property taxes. The educational mil rate, which determines how much towns must raise to earn their state subsidy, is expected to decrease from a projected 8.47 to 8.23.
Updated numbers on what each town would pay under the proposed budget are expected to be available soon.
Directors had previously cut $174,000 out of the $32.2 million budget rejected by voters at the budget validation referendum on June 9. Those expenditures, which were rejected in seven of 10 towns, would have represented an increase of 3.9 percent or $1.2 million more than the current fiscal year’s total.
Cuts implemented by directors included a world language position at Mt. Blue Middle School and half of the Volunteer Coordinator Program. Supply line reductions targeted the music program and library technology funds, as well as $28,000 removed from the heating oil lines due to projected savings. Other, smaller lines, such as $1,000 for administration technology supplies and a stipend relating to the Mt. Blue Middle School Show Choir, were cut due to disuse over the past few years. Another $10,000 was cut out of the Guidance budget, which is running a surplus at the end of the year.
Funds throughout the budget earmarked for substitute teacher pay were cut by $7,500. Ward said that administrators would work to try and reduce the use of substitute pay. One possibility would be including the costs of the subs for some field trips in the fundraising for those trips.
The contingency account for Special Education, a new item at $50,000, was cut in half to $25,000.
Another $13,300 will be removed from the locally-assessed budget by adding two items, 2 hours of daily custodial service around lunchtime and a contract to monitor the temperature of the lunch program freezer, to the school lunch budget. That budget runs in the black each year, without any contribution from the local assessment.
On Tuesday evening, directors cut a portion of the locally-funded School Health Coordinator position and half of a Math Interventionist. The coordinator position is funded partially through the regular budget and partially through the lunch program, while the Math Interventionist position is funded through a combination of local and federal Title 1 funding. The combined savings from both cuts would be $32,600.
The board discussed, but did not implement, cuts ranging from the assistant principal/teacher at W.G. Mallett School to reducing Ed Tech positions in the day treatment program to sports program stipends. Some of these were discarded as being unworkable, such as reducing contractual stipend pay, while others were deemed to important to the district’s day treatment program. The board is attempting to set up Medicare billing for the program, offsetting some costs, and staff associated with day treatment must thus meet certain training and supervision benchmarks.
Including Tuesday’s actions, the board has cut slightly more than $200,000 out of the 2015-16 budget. The board will be meeting on July 7, at which point it is expected to set a budget. The district-wide budget meeting vote would be on July 21 and the budget validation referendum would be on July 28.
If my math is right, they’ve cut out 6/10 of a percent. When you look at it that way that $200,000 sure doesn’t seem like it’s going to help remedy the problem, does it?
Enough is enough of this talk. Start cutting all of these useless positions both full and half time. Nothing less than a 2% increase in the overall budget will be accepted by those of us paying the bills. What don’t you understand. Live within your means!!
Still not enough cuts!!
I am sorry to hear about the cut to the math interventionist position. Though I certainly understand the obligation to make cuts, these positions have a direct impact on student learning. Math interventionists work with teachers through a coaching model as specialists in math instruction. We are fortunate to have a culture in which many teachers are willing to participate in order to improve what I call “the first line of defense”- classroom instruction. When teachers can substantially and continually improve, students win. Yes, teachers are expected to follow the EngageNY math curriculum which is scripted and sequentially mapped out for them; but what the interventionist provides the teacher is insight into possible student misconceptions and how to address them, modeling of lessons if desired, guidance to navigate the EngageNY curriculum, and, in some cases, small group support for students. The analogy that comes to mind is that of a primary care physician and a specialist. The PCP has core knowledge that allows for successful treatment of most maladies that come to the office. On the occasion that a patient’s symptoms are inconsistent or perhaps the diagnosis is something moderate to severe, the PCP conducts research on how to proceed and/or consults a specialist. Why? The specialist’s knowledge is deeply focused. The expectation is that they hold knowledge of the most current research and trends in medicine. This doesn’t make either professional more or less knowledgeable than the other necessarily, it only makes the application of knowledge different.
For so long, many in the educational community have held fast to the notion that the ONE teacher of a class has to be the only person instructing his/her students once the door is closed. I support the idea that our collective intelligence is much greater and more powerful.
Is there a reason to have one on one for most all of our special ed students (my observation when visiting the schools)? Can some of them be doubled up or are they paid from another source?
I’m asking, not attacking.
Mrs. Ladd, does EngageNY offer some type of program/specialist where you can reach out to the creators/supporters of the program for free? It was my understanding it was still in the beginning phases and support would be provided.
It appears as though we are on the road to, yet, another no vote by the taxpayers. The obvious question that everyone should be asking at this point, is exactly what is the process after another probable no vote??
If no substantial budget decrease in reached, dare I suggest a mass taxpayer, non payment of any proposed property tax increase this year?
Something has to give and it should not be the tax paying public. We have been doing our part, year after year and now it is up to the board to do the only thing that is fair.
Let me see….math is a problem (no pun intended) and interventionists are required. Why is that? Is it because kids don’t have parents at home who can figure out this new core math? What does that tell you? Maybe the old ways (and I don’t give a crap what the “Feds” say about this) aren’t so bad.
I was no math whiz…my kids were pretty good at it, tho. And guess what? they learned the “old” way.
However, once I’m given the formulas (old age and information overload), I can still do algebra. Oh, that
was 1965 algebra. It’s probably changed now.
There are many valuable and free online resources. I’m referring to the face to face coaching model interventionists provide. This type of mentoring, if you will, creates a learning experience for the teacher that is not filed away under a bookmark or stashed in a folder. It is a real-time, hands on engagement that allows the teacher to analyze and defend their choice of questions, activities, time management, etc. used during a lesson.
The system of Response to Intervention (RTI) certainly defines the need for interventionists – being that it is part of the school’s purpose and responsibility to see that each student meets the learning targets. To be sure, this “new math” has been a learning opportunity for all! Interventionists have been an integral part of our system for a very long time. I thank Mrs. Ames for taking the time with me during my elementary years so that I could (begin to!) master math back in the early ’80’s. Though the processes may continue to become more sophisticated in our eyes, we will always have an obligation to meet the needs of all learners.
I am in no way criticizing the work of the budget committee. The task at hand is a serious and daunting one. I know that they are doing their very best to weigh the needs of the students and the communities. I know that my comments would have been better served if I had attended the meeting. These are just my two cents. Thank you for your hard work.
Regarding the interventionists…… from the taxpayers viewpoint (outside looking in) we see that we are paying for teachers salaries which are higher than what most citizens get in this community, taxpayers then pay for every teacher to take classes to obtain their master degree, taxpayers then pay for the automatic raise that a teacher gets after obtaining their masters degree even though/and when their position has not changed, yet despite all of this … teachers apparently need interventionists to show them how to teach their students. Is there no point when the responsibility for keeping up on job/curriculum changes falls on the teacher (like most other jobs).
After attending this meeting on Tuesday, I have come to the conclusion that this Board is not capable of making substantial cuts to the budget. This is not because they are bad people, it is because it is extremely difficult for anyone to make cuts when they believe that the position, program, etc. is important. That being the case, why is cutting athletics not being considered. Athletics are not critical for education yet is a lot of money. Cuts to athletics was briefly brought up at the meeting but then pushed to the side mainly because (per the superintendent) they do not want to make cuts because it will overstretch the boosters (who are already overstretched). Instead the Board wasted 2.5 hours looking at nickel and dime programs and positions.
SO MUCH has changed in education that most of you can’t even imagine what is involved now if you have not experienced it! The “old ways” of teaching math no longer prepare students for the demands of the 21st century, where we have rapidly moved from being an industrial based economy to a technologically based one. Students need to be able to think creatively, deeply, and critically rather than memorize procedures and rules. I was initially a skeptic of the new math curriculum; however I have been very impressed that most students are able to explain their thinking and solve problems at a much higher level than when we used the “old ways.” As for the interventionist positions, schools have had intervention services for literacy for years for students who need this boost , and we are finally seeing the importance of doing the same for math. These are the 2 core areas all students need to be competent in. In addition, some form intervention is required as part of No Child Left Behind, which is a federal mandate, not a choice. Intervention provides many students the extra support they need to be successful at school and more importantly, in life. I totally understand the taxpayers’ concerns – I am a taxpayer too! But teachers are not the enemy. We are your neighbors and friends who care about our community and our children. I would urge you to get more involved in understanding what is required of schools these days, and to think about what skills are most important for our children to have in this fast changing world. We need to be able to work together to make these tough choices instead of creating “us vs. them” or complaining. The school board has put in many long hours and deserves a thank-you, whether you agree with all their decisions or not.
Suzanne, you are right, teachers are not the enemy, the system is. You speak of the demands of the 21st century as being different. I disagree. I just retired from a job (in the real world, not academia) where I used computers extensively all day. I also trained 20 something year old college graduates for positions where I worked and I regret to report; they can’t spell, they can’t write, and they have to use the calculator on the computer to do simple math. They lack the basics (but were very computer savvy in social media, though unfortunately not in computer repair or programming). And, you have to have a solid education at least in the basics in order to function even in this computerized world. If not, how are you going to know if the info the computer provides is reasonable? How can a person ‘think creatively, deeply, and critically’ if they don’t have in educated mind? You have to understand information to do all that, not just know where on the website you can get it. But, learning is hard work. You have to read and review and review again in order to learn. That is how our minds work and that is the old approach. And learning is memorizing! How is learning not memorizing? The more you know the better off you are dealing with everything you encounter in this life? There is no getting around that. If you think otherwise, then venture out into the real world. On the school website the proficiency test results are posted for 7th through 12th grade. How disappointing that in math, science, and reading 25-30+% of the students are in the lowest proficiency category and only a couple of % in the highest category. Clearly, our kids are coming up short. Doesn’t this seem to indicate that something isn’t working? But I am not out to revamp the school’s methods. All I ask is that the school make an honest effort to cut costs and get rid of excess so that I can afford to pay my taxes and keep my house and I know many people in my same situation. Why doesn’t that matter? If there are mandates, then I plead to the Board to meet those mandates by cutting what is not mandated. There is no more money out here.
What we give our children in education determines their future. Those who want to cut are willing to say that rural Maine kids aren’t worth it. Rather than a pay a few extra dollars for taxes many want our kids not to succeed. Put them in large classes, don’t do what is necessary to help especially those from poor families get a chance to succeed. Sad. Our teachers – the people we entrust with the our children’s future – get paid less than in any other industrialized state. We don’t take their job seriously, people idiotically dismiss them as having three month vacation or short hours, when they work long and hard – and are the most important link to our children’s future. Think about what our schools need to give our kids a real shot at success!
Have you ever seen a skinny person try to lose weight? If there is not a lot extra, it is hard to drop some. Most of the directors are trying very hard to look at all angles to cut from this budget. Dr. Tom described the initial budget as not a wish list, but a needs list. This budget is for ten towns, seven schools, and many, many hopeful students. They are hoping to be educated in a community which supports them, believes and them, and has a viable place for them when they are adults. This budget is thinking about the entire community. It is meeting the needs of the present and investing in the strength of the future. This community has been investing in the education of its teachers. Those teachers are advocating for services for the students. We want to see successful, strong citizens graduate from our schools. We want to see these students contribute to the community when they graduate. This budget is a step towards reducing taxes in the future by preventing more serious student problems in the future, by graduating more students who are able to join the workforce, by creating a community welcoming to new industry and ideas, and this budget is doing all this on one of the lowest costs per student ratios in the state.
With no change in my property assessment, compared to 2011 my 2014 property taxes had increased by $544. With the proposed budget it would go up another $318.00 in 2015. And, I do not have expensive property. I am on a fixed income and cannot keep absorbing these increases. Consider everyone else has experienced this same huge jump in property taxes these last few years. That’s what this is about. The taxpayers are the skinny people here.
RE: Lindy
Looking at my tax bills from 2010 to 2014…and with no change in my property assessment…my property taxes increased about the same amount ($500). When looking at the distribution across RSU9, Municipal, and County, however, the percentage allocated for RSU9 has decreased from 51.51% to 43.02%. So, at face value, I am led to believe that my tax contributions toward RSU9 have actually decreased, while my overall tax bill has increased. I know there must be more to it…as people are so upset about their tax bills increasing because of the “reckless” spending of the school district. But, honestly I am trying to make sense of it.
Re: Lindy,
I understand what you are saying and what you are feeling. My point is that the school budget is only providing items which are essential for today’s educational needs and tomorrow’s chance to have a lower tax burden. Taxpayers and the school district are not the cause of the budget issue; state funding formulas and past skimpy budgets are.
Indeed, with LePage, aid to education and revenue sharing to towns decreased. This has put more burden on property taxes. With that, the school district should expect that they would have to cut back on some spending. How can they expect property tax owners to just absorb all the shifts in costs? The proposed budget was voted down by 7 towns. That is the prompt for the school board to make cuts in school spending. Yet, minimal costs have been cut to date and it is highly unlikely that any cuts will be made on Tuesday. The heart of this Board is not in cutting back on school spending. It should be noted that the state budget that was recently passed included money for education which means a slightly lower state mil rate for towns (than what the original RSU 9 budget reflected) and an increase in the homestead exemption benefit that some taxpayers will qualify for. This automatically will bring lower costs for taxpayers. At this last meeting, the Board indicated that their hope is that taxpayers will now accept the budget when they see these lower costs along with the cuts (though minimal) that have been made to the budget. Isn’t this smoke and mirrors?
I’m sorry if I’m missing the information somewhere, but what was the reason that the board isn’t considering cutting any surplus in the athletic budget?
Regarding athletics, the superintendent said he did not want to put any more pressure on the boosters, they are already over stretched. The issue wasn’t entirely closed, however. They left it open for possible future discussion.
Another issue pertaining to athletics is that all of the stipends associated with the various sports and clubs are part of the teacher contract. There is an option to completely eliminate a sport/club but the board cannot raise or lower stipends because they are a contracted item. If this budget does not pass I have no doubt that things like athletics, music, theater, clubs etc will have to be gutted.