The situation in Kansas is dire. Please read below.
Nearly 1,300 School Jobs Eliminated as Districts Struggle to Meet Budget Reductions
Speaker:
John Heim, Emporia Superintendent of Schools
Today, May 1, is the day school boards must notify teachers if they will not have a job next year. Nearly 1,300 school employees have already been told that they will not be coming back.
USA|Kansas Survey
A survey taken of Kansas school districts shows that districts across the state are reeling from the impact of cuts already made. While the cuts to the 2009 budgets have been absorbed by reducing supplies, delaying purchases, and even eliminating days from the calendar, the cuts in 2010 have already resulted in cuts to both student programs and personnel.
Examples of student programs that have been reduced or eliminated by school districts across Kansas include music and other fine arts, vocational classes such as family and consumer sciences, library-media services, summer and after-school programs, and new textbook purchases. Each district has made decisions in these areas with great anxiety and much debate. These are painful decisions.
The survey, conducted by United School Administrators of Kansas, has found that as of yesterday (with about two-thirds of districts reporting), 1,292 positions have been cut from Kansas school districts. This number includes 90 administrative positions, 516 teachers, and 686 support positions. Many more reductions in workforce are being accomplished through attrition. What is the impact on the Kansas economy of cuts this deep? In many Kansas counties our public schools account for as much as 25% of total payroll. Calculating the 516 teaching positions alone, this results in taking $24,252,000 out of the Kansas economy. This number does not include the administrative or support positions.
Dollars invested in public schools have a ripple effect throughout the economy as school employees spend their incomes in local stores and restaurants.
Why is this happening?
First, because the Legislature has eliminated over $80 million in promised funding for next year. Secondly, because the Legislature has already cut $42 million in base state aid and $4.5 million in special education funding below the current year’s budget.
And now because the Legislature is considering between $86 million and $114 million in further cuts.
In total school districts are faced with the possibility of reductions of as much as $300 million below what they were promised for next year.
Budget discussions in this economic atmosphere must be about shared sacrifice. It is completely unrealistic and inappropriate to ask that the Legislature fulfill every promise ever made when Kansans are suffering.
The education community is not asking the Legislature to fulfill the promises made in 2008 Legislature for school funding. Funding rescissions made this year have caused districts to cut millions of dollars from current budgets.
We worry that further cuts will jeopardize the academic progress our schools have been making. Kansas is consistently rated among the top states in the nation for educational outcomes. In the past eight years, student proficiency in math has increased by 30 percent and reading proficiency has increased by 25 percent. Kansas educators are investing resources in people and programs that make a positive difference for Kansas kids. This will pay off economically for our state and nation in the future.
Schools have been cut by millions of dollars in the current year. The Legislature has already made additional cuts to schools for 2010. And in the bill adopted by the House Appropriations Committee, schools are faced with an additional $142.8 million in cuts. The result is that, under the House plan, base state aid per pupil will fall below the 2006 level. We emphasize base state aid because it is the primary source of operating budgets for school districts. It is also the number against which all student weightings are measured. As the base drops, so drops funding for children with exceptional needs.
Last night Governor Parkinson asked the corporate business community in Kansas to delay further tax cuts. In his statement he said, “Fortunately there is middle ground. We need to share the sacrifice and address the deficit with both responsible budget cuts and revenue enhancements.”
Tax cuts would be delayed but no business or person would see their taxes increase.
While this $96 million delay will not stop additional cuts to education and other vital services, it will soften them. It is in the spirit of shared sacrifice for the benefit of all Kansans that we ask the Legislature to enact these small revenue changes. Within the context of a legislative research analysis that shows the impact of tax cuts initiated over the last four years to have taken $143 million out of the state treasury in 2009 and an additional $180 million in 2010, it seems a small sacrifice. In fact, Legislative Research estimates the cumulative effect of these tax cuts to be $1.135 billion.
We call upon the corporate community to stand shoulder to shoulder with state agencies to bring economic recovery to Kansas. As Governor Parkinson said yesterday, this is the time for shared sacrifice to protect our schools, our universities, and state services to our most vulnerable citizens.
In closing, I return to the 1,300 jobs that have already been eliminated in Kansas school districts and the possibility of more to come. I would like us to think about this in a different way – from the point of view of economic development. I wonder what sort of incentives and sacrifices our state would be willing to make to bring this many professional jobs to Kansas.
We are asking that the legislature support the Governor and ask everyone to share the sacrifice.
Additional Contacts:
Mark Desetti, Kansas NEA - 785-766-1866
Cheryl Semmel, United School Administrators of Kansas - 785-224-1377
Mark Tallman, Kansas Association of School Boards - 785-608-4506
May 1, 2009
April 28, 2009
Twitter and School Supplies Spending
Twitter:
I encourage any of you who use Twitter to follow my Twitter updates as an additional tool with which you may receive daily updates and sales leads from me. My address is http://twitter.com/BradStefanoni.
Several Greenbush business partner representatives are already following my site. This is simply another way, along with the business partners blog (http://greenbushpartners.blogspot.com), to increase both the frequency and effectiveness of communication regarding the needs of school districts in Kansas.
School Supplies:
I have seen multiple newspaper columns in the last week that articulate schools cutting back on classroom supplies as a way of saving money. The bottom line is students still need supplies to ensure learning occurs in the classroom. Now is a great time for School Specialty and Corporate Express to target market directly to teachers and principals to inform them of how they can save upwards of at least 30% on classroom supplies by utilizing AEPA contracts.
I'm happy to assist, just say the word.
I encourage any of you who use Twitter to follow my Twitter updates as an additional tool with which you may receive daily updates and sales leads from me. My address is http://twitter.com/BradStefanoni.
Several Greenbush business partner representatives are already following my site. This is simply another way, along with the business partners blog (http://greenbushpartners.blogspot.com), to increase both the frequency and effectiveness of communication regarding the needs of school districts in Kansas.
School Supplies:
I have seen multiple newspaper columns in the last week that articulate schools cutting back on classroom supplies as a way of saving money. The bottom line is students still need supplies to ensure learning occurs in the classroom. Now is a great time for School Specialty and Corporate Express to target market directly to teachers and principals to inform them of how they can save upwards of at least 30% on classroom supplies by utilizing AEPA contracts.
I'm happy to assist, just say the word.
April 2, 2009
New Kansas Website for Stimulus
The Kansas State Department of Education will provide a website with information on the Recovery Act for Kansas school districts. The new website can be accessed from the main KSDE homepage: www.ksde.org - scroll down and select: Recovery Act (ARRA).
The website will provide the latest information available and contact information for each program. As new guidance from the U.S. Department of Education becomes available, we will update the website. We are expecting detailed guidance on specific programs later this week. When the department staff reviews the guidance, we will post the updates. Please feel free to contact KSDE staff with specific questions.
The website will provide the latest information available and contact information for each program. As new guidance from the U.S. Department of Education becomes available, we will update the website. We are expecting detailed guidance on specific programs later this week. When the department staff reviews the guidance, we will post the updates. Please feel free to contact KSDE staff with specific questions.
March 19, 2009
Stimulus Update
In summary, the approach taken by the US Department of Education (USDE) is to harmonize and implement the following multiple purposes of the law:
* Spend funds quickly to save and create jobs.
* Improve student achievement through school improvement and reform.
* Ensure transparency, reporting and accountability.
* Invest one-time ARRA funds thoughtfully to minimize the "funding cliff."
To these ends, the guidance provides for funding in two stages for the largest programs in the law; with initial awards based on previously submitted applications (in the case of Part A of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)) or on initial simplified applications (in the case of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF); and with subsequent applications under these programs required with more substantial information related to state education reform efforts and the uses of these funds for those purposes, particularly in the areas of ARRA assurances. In addition, the guidance provides for competitive grants that recognize progress in key reform areas and support expansion of that progress to be awarded between Fall 2009 and Spring 2010, following development of applications and criteria by the Department. These programs include The "Race to the Top" State Incentive Grants; the "What Works and Innovation Fund;" the Teacher Incentive Fund; the State Data Systems grant program; and Teacher Quality Enhancement grants. The guidance also indicates that USDE will announce opportunities to compete for non-ARRA programs in the coming months and that the priorities for these programs will be aligned with the reform goals of the Race to the Top grants and will recognize states and local educational agencies that optimize the use of ARRA funding streams.
More specifically:
SFSF Funds ($48.6B):
* By late March 2009, USDE will provide states a simplified application that must include statutory assurances, baseline data related to the assurances, and basic information on how the funds will be USDE for submission by the Governors. USDE will release 67% of SFSF funding to the state within two weeks after receiving a completed application.
* If a state demonstrates that the 67% phase 1 level is insufficient to prevent the immediate layoff of personnel by school districts, public institutions of higher education, or state or local agencies, USDE will award the state up to 90% of its SFSF funding in phase 1.
* The remainder of SFSF funds ("Phase 2") will be provided to states on a rolling basis during the period July 1 to September 30, 2009, based on the submission of a plan detailing the state's strategies for addressing the education reform objectives described in the required assurances included in the initial application, including developing college and career ready standards and aligned assessments; data systems that include the required elements in the America Competes Act; improving teacher effectiveness and equitably assigning effective and experienced teachers; and providing required supports and interventions to schools identified for corrective action or restructuring. The plan also must describe how the state and its LEAs will use SFSF funds and other funding in a fiscally prudent way that substantially improves teaching and learning.
* The guidance encourages Governors and Chief State School Officers to work closely with other state and local officials in planning how SFSF funds will be USDE and reporting systems.
* USDE expects to issue guidance shortly on the specific requirements to receive these phase 2 SFSF funds.
* SFSF funds are available for obligation at the state and local levels through September 30, 2011, although under the law, the Governor must return funds to the Secretary that are not awarded as subgrants or otherwise committed within two years of receipt from USDE, and the guidance encourages the Governors to award subgrants or otherwise commit the funds as soon as possible
* The guidance provides that to the extent local educational agencies use SFSF funds for modernization, renovation, or repairs, they should consider use of facilities for early childhood education and for the community and the creation of green buildings.
Part A of Title I, ESEA ($10B) and Part B, IDEA ($11.7B):
* By late March, 2009, USDE will release 50% of funds under Part A of Title I, ESEA and under Part B, IDEA to state educational agencies, based on previously submitted and approved state applications.
* The remainder of these funds will be awarded during the period July 1 to October 1, 2009, based on amendments that the state will be required to make to its Consolidated State application (for Title I funds) and its FY 2009 IDEA, Part B application (for IDEA, Part B funds) that address how the state will meet the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the ARRA.
* The initial and phase 2 Title I awards, together with the regular FY 2009 Title I awards to be made July 1 and October 1, 2009, will constitute the state's FY 2009 allocation. Absent a waiver, 85% of these funds must be obligated by each LEA by September 30, 2010, and the remaining funds must be obligated by September 30, 2011. The guidance indicates that IDEA, Part B funds should be awarded to LEAs by the end of April 2009, and will remain available for obligation at the state and local levels through September 30, 2011.
* Four percent of the Title I funds are reserved for school improvement activities under section 1003(a) of ESEA. These are in addition to the separate school improvement program authorized under section 1003(g), for which $3B are appropriated in the ARRA.
* Although funds generally are not provided under the ARRA for state administrative expenses in administering these increased appropriations for Title I and IDEA, the guidance indicates the possibility of waivers to increase use of Title I funds for state administration, and also expresses an intent to issue regulations to permit reasonable adjustments to limitations on state administrative costs in both Title I and IDEA to defray the costs of ARRA data collection requirements.
* The guidance stresses that funds provided for Part A of Title I, ESEA and Part B of IDEA are an excellent opportunity to improve education for at risk students and close achievement gaps and to improve outcomes for infants, toddlers, children, and youths with disabilities.
* The guidance notes congressional intent that some Title I funds be USDE for early childhood education programs and indicates that additional guidance will be provided in the coming weeks on these opportunities.
* The guidance encourages LEAs to focus use of these funds on short-term investments with the potential for long-term benefits, rather than making unsustainable, ongoing commitments, and provides examples of appropriate short-term investments for both Title I-A, ESEA and Part B of IDEA.
The Title I examples include establishing a system for identifying and training highly effective teachers to serve as instructional leaders in Title I schoolwide programs and modifying the school schedule to facilitate collaboration among instructional staff; year-long training for all teachers and the principal in a Title I school in corrective action or restructuring focused on an intensive academic instructional program or building teachers' capacity to address academic achievement problems that caused the school to be identified; providing resources to align early childhood education with elementary school standards and, subject to a plan for sustainability, expanding Title I early childhood education programs; developing core infrastructure in technology in Title I schoolwide programs, including obtaining software and equipment and providing teacher training in the use of technology; providing opportunities for Title I secondary school programs to use high quality on-line coursework as supplemental learning materials for meeting math and science curriculum requirements; using longitudinal data systems to drive continuous improvement efforts focused on achievement in Title I schools and training teachers in Title I schools on the use of data to inform and improve instruction for Title I eligible students; using reading or math coaches to provide professional development for teachers in Title I schools; and establishing or expanding extended learning activities for Title I eligible students, including before or after school, summer, and extended school years, with consideration of how to sustain these activities beyond the two years of ARRA funding.
The IDEA examples include hiring transition coordinators to work with employers to develop job placements for youth with disabilities; obtaining state-of-the-art assistive technology devices, and training in their use, to enhance access of students with disabilities to the general curriculum; intensive district-wide professional development for special education and regular education teachers that focuses on scaling up, through replication, innovative, evidence-based strategies in academic subjects and behavioral supports to improve outcomes for students with disabilities; improving capacity for collecting and using data to improve teaching and learning; and expanding inclusive placement options for preschool children with disabilities by developing the capacity of public and private preschool programs to serve them.
* With regard to the Title I funds, the guidance indicates that the Secretary will consider requests for waivers relating to the use of ARRA Title I funds concerning set-asides in Title I; per pupil amounts for supplemental educational services; the limit on how often a state may grant a waiver of the carryover limit; and the maintenance of effort requirement.
State Incentive Grants ("Race to the Top" Program) ($4.35B):
* The guidance indicates that these competitive grants to states will be made in two rounds: the fall of 2009 and the spring of 2010.
* Guidelines and applications for the competition will be developed by USDE and posted on its website.
* The program will reward states that have made the most progress toward the standards and assessments, data systems, teacher quality, and school support goals addressed in the SFSF assurances taking into consideration use of ARRA funds by the state.
Innovation Fund ("What Works Innovation Fund") ($650M):
* The guidance indicates that these competitive grants to local educational agencies, or partnerships of non-profit agencies and LEAs or school consortia, with a strong record of education results will be made in two rounds: the fall of 2009 and the spring of 2010.
* Guidelines and applications for the competition will be developed by USDE and posted on its website.
Teacher Incentive Fund ($200M):
* Competitive grants will be awarded in fall 2009.
* Guidelines for this competition will be posted shortly by USDE.
Statewide Data Systems ($250M):
* Competitive grants will be awarded in fall 2009.
* Guidelines for this competition will be posted shortly by USDE.
Pell Grants ($17B):
* The guidance indicates that these funds will be available beginning July 1.
* The funds increase the maximum Pell Grant from $4,850 to $5,350.
Other Programs: The USDE guidance does not provide specific information on other education programs funded by the ARRA, apart from indicating timing for the availability of funds.
Other Core ARRA Principles
The guidance also stresses two other core principles in the ARRA:
* transparency as to how funds are USDE under the Act, including extensive reporting requirements for fund recipients. The guidance indicates that the Administration will post reports on ARRA expenditures on the Recovery.gov website;
* the need to invest ARRA funds thoughtfully so as not to create unsustainable continuing commitments after ARRA funding expires.
* Spend funds quickly to save and create jobs.
* Improve student achievement through school improvement and reform.
* Ensure transparency, reporting and accountability.
* Invest one-time ARRA funds thoughtfully to minimize the "funding cliff."
To these ends, the guidance provides for funding in two stages for the largest programs in the law; with initial awards based on previously submitted applications (in the case of Part A of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)) or on initial simplified applications (in the case of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF); and with subsequent applications under these programs required with more substantial information related to state education reform efforts and the uses of these funds for those purposes, particularly in the areas of ARRA assurances. In addition, the guidance provides for competitive grants that recognize progress in key reform areas and support expansion of that progress to be awarded between Fall 2009 and Spring 2010, following development of applications and criteria by the Department. These programs include The "Race to the Top" State Incentive Grants; the "What Works and Innovation Fund;" the Teacher Incentive Fund; the State Data Systems grant program; and Teacher Quality Enhancement grants. The guidance also indicates that USDE will announce opportunities to compete for non-ARRA programs in the coming months and that the priorities for these programs will be aligned with the reform goals of the Race to the Top grants and will recognize states and local educational agencies that optimize the use of ARRA funding streams.
More specifically:
SFSF Funds ($48.6B):
* By late March 2009, USDE will provide states a simplified application that must include statutory assurances, baseline data related to the assurances, and basic information on how the funds will be USDE for submission by the Governors. USDE will release 67% of SFSF funding to the state within two weeks after receiving a completed application.
* If a state demonstrates that the 67% phase 1 level is insufficient to prevent the immediate layoff of personnel by school districts, public institutions of higher education, or state or local agencies, USDE will award the state up to 90% of its SFSF funding in phase 1.
* The remainder of SFSF funds ("Phase 2") will be provided to states on a rolling basis during the period July 1 to September 30, 2009, based on the submission of a plan detailing the state's strategies for addressing the education reform objectives described in the required assurances included in the initial application, including developing college and career ready standards and aligned assessments; data systems that include the required elements in the America Competes Act; improving teacher effectiveness and equitably assigning effective and experienced teachers; and providing required supports and interventions to schools identified for corrective action or restructuring. The plan also must describe how the state and its LEAs will use SFSF funds and other funding in a fiscally prudent way that substantially improves teaching and learning.
* The guidance encourages Governors and Chief State School Officers to work closely with other state and local officials in planning how SFSF funds will be USDE and reporting systems.
* USDE expects to issue guidance shortly on the specific requirements to receive these phase 2 SFSF funds.
* SFSF funds are available for obligation at the state and local levels through September 30, 2011, although under the law, the Governor must return funds to the Secretary that are not awarded as subgrants or otherwise committed within two years of receipt from USDE, and the guidance encourages the Governors to award subgrants or otherwise commit the funds as soon as possible
* The guidance provides that to the extent local educational agencies use SFSF funds for modernization, renovation, or repairs, they should consider use of facilities for early childhood education and for the community and the creation of green buildings.
Part A of Title I, ESEA ($10B) and Part B, IDEA ($11.7B):
* By late March, 2009, USDE will release 50% of funds under Part A of Title I, ESEA and under Part B, IDEA to state educational agencies, based on previously submitted and approved state applications.
* The remainder of these funds will be awarded during the period July 1 to October 1, 2009, based on amendments that the state will be required to make to its Consolidated State application (for Title I funds) and its FY 2009 IDEA, Part B application (for IDEA, Part B funds) that address how the state will meet the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the ARRA.
* The initial and phase 2 Title I awards, together with the regular FY 2009 Title I awards to be made July 1 and October 1, 2009, will constitute the state's FY 2009 allocation. Absent a waiver, 85% of these funds must be obligated by each LEA by September 30, 2010, and the remaining funds must be obligated by September 30, 2011. The guidance indicates that IDEA, Part B funds should be awarded to LEAs by the end of April 2009, and will remain available for obligation at the state and local levels through September 30, 2011.
* Four percent of the Title I funds are reserved for school improvement activities under section 1003(a) of ESEA. These are in addition to the separate school improvement program authorized under section 1003(g), for which $3B are appropriated in the ARRA.
* Although funds generally are not provided under the ARRA for state administrative expenses in administering these increased appropriations for Title I and IDEA, the guidance indicates the possibility of waivers to increase use of Title I funds for state administration, and also expresses an intent to issue regulations to permit reasonable adjustments to limitations on state administrative costs in both Title I and IDEA to defray the costs of ARRA data collection requirements.
* The guidance stresses that funds provided for Part A of Title I, ESEA and Part B of IDEA are an excellent opportunity to improve education for at risk students and close achievement gaps and to improve outcomes for infants, toddlers, children, and youths with disabilities.
* The guidance notes congressional intent that some Title I funds be USDE for early childhood education programs and indicates that additional guidance will be provided in the coming weeks on these opportunities.
* The guidance encourages LEAs to focus use of these funds on short-term investments with the potential for long-term benefits, rather than making unsustainable, ongoing commitments, and provides examples of appropriate short-term investments for both Title I-A, ESEA and Part B of IDEA.
The Title I examples include establishing a system for identifying and training highly effective teachers to serve as instructional leaders in Title I schoolwide programs and modifying the school schedule to facilitate collaboration among instructional staff; year-long training for all teachers and the principal in a Title I school in corrective action or restructuring focused on an intensive academic instructional program or building teachers' capacity to address academic achievement problems that caused the school to be identified; providing resources to align early childhood education with elementary school standards and, subject to a plan for sustainability, expanding Title I early childhood education programs; developing core infrastructure in technology in Title I schoolwide programs, including obtaining software and equipment and providing teacher training in the use of technology; providing opportunities for Title I secondary school programs to use high quality on-line coursework as supplemental learning materials for meeting math and science curriculum requirements; using longitudinal data systems to drive continuous improvement efforts focused on achievement in Title I schools and training teachers in Title I schools on the use of data to inform and improve instruction for Title I eligible students; using reading or math coaches to provide professional development for teachers in Title I schools; and establishing or expanding extended learning activities for Title I eligible students, including before or after school, summer, and extended school years, with consideration of how to sustain these activities beyond the two years of ARRA funding.
The IDEA examples include hiring transition coordinators to work with employers to develop job placements for youth with disabilities; obtaining state-of-the-art assistive technology devices, and training in their use, to enhance access of students with disabilities to the general curriculum; intensive district-wide professional development for special education and regular education teachers that focuses on scaling up, through replication, innovative, evidence-based strategies in academic subjects and behavioral supports to improve outcomes for students with disabilities; improving capacity for collecting and using data to improve teaching and learning; and expanding inclusive placement options for preschool children with disabilities by developing the capacity of public and private preschool programs to serve them.
* With regard to the Title I funds, the guidance indicates that the Secretary will consider requests for waivers relating to the use of ARRA Title I funds concerning set-asides in Title I; per pupil amounts for supplemental educational services; the limit on how often a state may grant a waiver of the carryover limit; and the maintenance of effort requirement.
State Incentive Grants ("Race to the Top" Program) ($4.35B):
* The guidance indicates that these competitive grants to states will be made in two rounds: the fall of 2009 and the spring of 2010.
* Guidelines and applications for the competition will be developed by USDE and posted on its website.
* The program will reward states that have made the most progress toward the standards and assessments, data systems, teacher quality, and school support goals addressed in the SFSF assurances taking into consideration use of ARRA funds by the state.
Innovation Fund ("What Works Innovation Fund") ($650M):
* The guidance indicates that these competitive grants to local educational agencies, or partnerships of non-profit agencies and LEAs or school consortia, with a strong record of education results will be made in two rounds: the fall of 2009 and the spring of 2010.
* Guidelines and applications for the competition will be developed by USDE and posted on its website.
Teacher Incentive Fund ($200M):
* Competitive grants will be awarded in fall 2009.
* Guidelines for this competition will be posted shortly by USDE.
Statewide Data Systems ($250M):
* Competitive grants will be awarded in fall 2009.
* Guidelines for this competition will be posted shortly by USDE.
Pell Grants ($17B):
* The guidance indicates that these funds will be available beginning July 1.
* The funds increase the maximum Pell Grant from $4,850 to $5,350.
Other Programs: The USDE guidance does not provide specific information on other education programs funded by the ARRA, apart from indicating timing for the availability of funds.
Other Core ARRA Principles
The guidance also stresses two other core principles in the ARRA:
* transparency as to how funds are USDE under the Act, including extensive reporting requirements for fund recipients. The guidance indicates that the Administration will post reports on ARRA expenditures on the Recovery.gov website;
* the need to invest ARRA funds thoughtfully so as not to create unsustainable continuing commitments after ARRA funding expires.
February 17, 2009
Kansas Suspends Tax Refunds and May Miss Payroll
The state of Kansas has suspended tax refunds and may miss payroll this week to state employees due to lack of cash in the state's main bank account. Click here to view the AP article.
This will ultimately impact K-12 school district in Kansas as well. Now is the time when school districts in Kansas need Greenbush's business partners more than ever in order to weather this financial storm.
This will ultimately impact K-12 school district in Kansas as well. Now is the time when school districts in Kansas need Greenbush's business partners more than ever in order to weather this financial storm.
February 13, 2009
Federal Stimulus Package Update
Greenbush received the following correspondence today from Kansas' Commissioner of Education.
To: Superintendents
From: Alexa Posny, Commissioner of Education
Re: Federal Stimulus Package
As most of you are aware, the federal House and Senate completed negotiations yesterday on a compromise $789 billion economic recovery package that includes approximately $100 billion for education. The House is expected to approve the measure later today, followed by final Senate action today or tomorrow, and present it to the White House by Monday. The legislation provides funding for key state priorities, including Title I ($10 billion) and IDEA ($12.2 billion), the state longitudinal data systems program ($250 million), school improvement programs ($3 billion), and state fiscal stabilization ($53.6 billion which includes $5 billion for state innovation and incentive grants).
On a conference call this noon with other Chief State School Officers, information was shared regarding the stimulus package as well as questions that remain to be answered. The following highlights are areas that I thought might be of interest to you:
· Proposed guidance in terms of the use of these dollars is to be coming out as soon as possible, part of it as soon as next week.
· States and districts must be prepared to spend the money now.
· Discretionary dollars are targeted to keeping teachers employed.
· The greatest concern is under IDEA in terms of the maintenance of effort and supplement vs. supplant; it appears that these dollars are far more restricted than other areas.
· Charter school enhancement grants, teacher quality partnerships, K-12 modernization, renovation and repair grants, and Perkins loan cancellations were removed as separate appropriations.
· The state fiscal stability fund now includes the state innovation and incentive grants and school renovation and rehabilitation grants, however these dollars are not for new construction.
Questions that remain:
As a final note, Arne and general counsel staff have been working on the regulations that were promulgated in October (e.g., graduation rates). We were informed that the latter part of next week, we can anticipate new guidance.
To: Superintendents
From: Alexa Posny, Commissioner of Education
Re: Federal Stimulus Package
As most of you are aware, the federal House and Senate completed negotiations yesterday on a compromise $789 billion economic recovery package that includes approximately $100 billion for education. The House is expected to approve the measure later today, followed by final Senate action today or tomorrow, and present it to the White House by Monday. The legislation provides funding for key state priorities, including Title I ($10 billion) and IDEA ($12.2 billion), the state longitudinal data systems program ($250 million), school improvement programs ($3 billion), and state fiscal stabilization ($53.6 billion which includes $5 billion for state innovation and incentive grants).
On a conference call this noon with other Chief State School Officers, information was shared regarding the stimulus package as well as questions that remain to be answered. The following highlights are areas that I thought might be of interest to you:
· Proposed guidance in terms of the use of these dollars is to be coming out as soon as possible, part of it as soon as next week.
· States and districts must be prepared to spend the money now.
· Discretionary dollars are targeted to keeping teachers employed.
· The greatest concern is under IDEA in terms of the maintenance of effort and supplement vs. supplant; it appears that these dollars are far more restricted than other areas.
· Charter school enhancement grants, teacher quality partnerships, K-12 modernization, renovation and repair grants, and Perkins loan cancellations were removed as separate appropriations.
· The state fiscal stability fund now includes the state innovation and incentive grants and school renovation and rehabilitation grants, however these dollars are not for new construction.
Questions that remain:
- How/what dollars will be allocated to administer these funds/programs/grants at the state level?
- What are the accountability requirements for the use of these dollars? What degree of change/reform is envisioned to be accomplished in this short period of time? What criteria will be used—an increase in the number of teachers employed; student achievement will rise—to determine that the additional dollars had a positive impact on education and the economy?
- What dollars are to be used for stabilization (retaining current staff) vs. reform (innovation)?
- Which dollars are flow-through, which are competitive grants, which come through the SEA, which go through the Governor?
- Under the state stabilization dollars, maintenance of effort can be waived (this has not been determined to be part of IDEA); what criteria will be used to establish economic hardship for individual states?
- What is meant by the primary formula? Does the state need to reapply for the funds or can the current application hold? Must they be used under existing formula grants or is there some flexibility?
- Will all dollars be for 2009 and 2010? (There is some talk that a few of the dollars might be available this fiscal year)
As a final note, Arne and general counsel staff have been working on the regulations that were promulgated in October (e.g., graduation rates). We were informed that the latter part of next week, we can anticipate new guidance.
February 4, 2009
K-12 School Budgets
Following is an interesting article on how school districts in Kansas are responding to possible budget cuts. I have highlighted comments that are especially pertinent to Greenbush business partners.
Schools brace for deep budget cuts in state aid this year
By Sally Gray
Published:
Wednesday, January 28, 2009 3:05 PM CST
The state’s budget problems are beginning to hit schools, and it’s not a pretty picture.
Some potential casualties here might include the activity bus route, which takes rural students home after sports practices; the world language programs of Chinese and Arabic; any courses with low enrollment; and driver’s education.
Depending on how deep the cuts go, the remainder of this year’s winter athletic events and spring sports also are in danger, and a reduction in staff might be necessary.
Marysville schools Superintendent Doug Powers froze all district budgets on Tuesday.
“This is the most dire thing I think I’ve seen in my career,” Powers said.
Budget cuts proposed earlier this month by Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius do not include schools, but many Republican legislators don’t agree and are seeking immediate cuts to this year’s school budget, as well as next year’s.
On Monday the Senate Ways and Means Committee approved a bill with reductions to school districts for the current school year, and the bill was to go to the full Senate for debate Wednesday.
Sen. Mark Taddiken, Clifton Republican, is a member of the committee.
“We are in a very difficult, trying situation,” Taddiken said from the Statehouse Wednesday morning. “We’re trying to balance our budget and we’re asking everyone to help.”
Taddiken said the bill would cut school district budgets by 3.4 percent and other state agencies by 6.5 percent
“That’s a significant cut for schools,” he said, “but it probably allows us to get out of the 2009 (fiscal year) and balance our budget.”
The federal government’s economic stimulus package could perhaps carry money for schools, which might make up for cuts.
The senator said he is hearing from many constituents on proposed cuts to schools as well as other state programs.
“We hear people say, ‘Please cut other budgets, not ours.’”
Powers said the proposal would mean a total reduction of $226,168 in state aid to USD 364 for this budget year.
He said a House version of the bill is similar to the Senate bill.
“These cuts will impact current budgets,” Powers said in an e-mail to staff members this week.
Powers’ staff is discussing what cuts the district could make to the current budget. Reductions ultimately will be made by the Board of Education with recommendations from administrators and staff members. He offered a quick list of ideas to start with:
Powers said people could e-mail ideas to him at dpowers@marysvilleschools.org.
“You need to call your legislators and let them know your opinion of the cuts and how these cuts will impact USD 364, you and your students,” he wrote in his e-mail to staff members.
Rep. Sharon Schwartz, Washington Republican, is this area’s House member. Her email is sharon.schwartz@house.ks.gov. Taddiken’s email is mark.taddiken@senate.ks.gov.
Powers said superintendents learned Jan. 13 that under the governor’s proposal, schools would receive a $22 cut in the base state aid per pupil for the 2008-2009 school year and a $66 cut in the base state aid per pupil for the 2009-2010 school year.
“Driver’s education and professional development were cut completely out of next year’s budget — zero dollars,” he said.
The state Council of Superintendents met Jan. 14 in Topeka, Powers said, and there was significant discussion about what to do.
“There are no answers yet,” he said. “We are dependent on the actions of the Legislature. The governor was there to address the group. She is a strong supporter of schools and school funding not being reduced. A major battle is shaping up between the legislative branch and the executive branch of state government.”
For now in Marysville, he said, purchases are frozen.
“We are reducing where we can now to conserve,” Powers said.
He said the future of the distance-learning lab where Mandarin Chinese and Arabic are taught “is all but gone.”
Driver’s education will be fully funded by parents, “if we even offer it,” he said. The cost will exceed $400 per person for 30 students, just to break even, he said.
“Courses with low enrollments will not be offered, and the cost of lunches will go up for all students,” he said. “Supply budgets for teachers, sponsors and coaches will be reduced. Salaries will be frozen, and no adjustment of salaries will be made for any employee. Reductions in staff will be discussed. Hopefully those reductions will be handled through attrition. But if not, the reduction-in-force policy may be put into effect, and fewer teachers will be employed.”
The outlook overall is bleak, he said, and the gains that have been made could well be lost.
“The kids who can least afford to see school budgets cut will be the ones who suffer the most,” Powers said. “Over the last three to five years, huge advances in the achievement of special education and at-risk students have been made. My fear is that as districts tighten their belts, those programs will get cut or eliminated.”
He said it would be easy to be overcome by the whole process.
“The thing for every one of us to remember is that kids are still going to come to school until we are finished in May, and they are going to return to us in August expecting to be taught,” Powers said. “We owe it to our kids to give them the best we have to offer.”
Schools brace for deep budget cuts in state aid this year
By Sally Gray
Published:
Wednesday, January 28, 2009 3:05 PM CST
The state’s budget problems are beginning to hit schools, and it’s not a pretty picture.
Some potential casualties here might include the activity bus route, which takes rural students home after sports practices; the world language programs of Chinese and Arabic; any courses with low enrollment; and driver’s education.
Depending on how deep the cuts go, the remainder of this year’s winter athletic events and spring sports also are in danger, and a reduction in staff might be necessary.
Marysville schools Superintendent Doug Powers froze all district budgets on Tuesday.
“This is the most dire thing I think I’ve seen in my career,” Powers said.
Budget cuts proposed earlier this month by Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius do not include schools, but many Republican legislators don’t agree and are seeking immediate cuts to this year’s school budget, as well as next year’s.
On Monday the Senate Ways and Means Committee approved a bill with reductions to school districts for the current school year, and the bill was to go to the full Senate for debate Wednesday.
Sen. Mark Taddiken, Clifton Republican, is a member of the committee.
“We are in a very difficult, trying situation,” Taddiken said from the Statehouse Wednesday morning. “We’re trying to balance our budget and we’re asking everyone to help.”
Taddiken said the bill would cut school district budgets by 3.4 percent and other state agencies by 6.5 percent
“That’s a significant cut for schools,” he said, “but it probably allows us to get out of the 2009 (fiscal year) and balance our budget.”
The federal government’s economic stimulus package could perhaps carry money for schools, which might make up for cuts.
The senator said he is hearing from many constituents on proposed cuts to schools as well as other state programs.
“We hear people say, ‘Please cut other budgets, not ours.’”
Powers said the proposal would mean a total reduction of $226,168 in state aid to USD 364 for this budget year.
He said a House version of the bill is similar to the Senate bill.
“These cuts will impact current budgets,” Powers said in an e-mail to staff members this week.
Powers’ staff is discussing what cuts the district could make to the current budget. Reductions ultimately will be made by the Board of Education with recommendations from administrators and staff members. He offered a quick list of ideas to start with:
- Cut activity bus routes immediately.
- Cut remaining winter and spring sports.
- Cut free teacher lunches. (Teachers who supervise in the lunchroom)
- Cut or eliminate classified staff contracts.
- Eliminate after-hours use of buildings by all groups.
- Eliminate professional leave for the remainder of the year.
- Eliminate field trips.
- Eliminate cheerleaders’ trips to away events.
- Eliminate FFA trips.
- Reduce the number of paraprofessionals and aides by restructuring student placement.
Powers said people could e-mail ideas to him at dpowers@marysvilleschools.org.
“You need to call your legislators and let them know your opinion of the cuts and how these cuts will impact USD 364, you and your students,” he wrote in his e-mail to staff members.
Rep. Sharon Schwartz, Washington Republican, is this area’s House member. Her email is sharon.schwartz@house.ks.gov. Taddiken’s email is mark.taddiken@senate.ks.gov.
Powers said superintendents learned Jan. 13 that under the governor’s proposal, schools would receive a $22 cut in the base state aid per pupil for the 2008-2009 school year and a $66 cut in the base state aid per pupil for the 2009-2010 school year.
“Driver’s education and professional development were cut completely out of next year’s budget — zero dollars,” he said.
The state Council of Superintendents met Jan. 14 in Topeka, Powers said, and there was significant discussion about what to do.
“There are no answers yet,” he said. “We are dependent on the actions of the Legislature. The governor was there to address the group. She is a strong supporter of schools and school funding not being reduced. A major battle is shaping up between the legislative branch and the executive branch of state government.”
For now in Marysville, he said, purchases are frozen.
“We are reducing where we can now to conserve,” Powers said.
He said the future of the distance-learning lab where Mandarin Chinese and Arabic are taught “is all but gone.”
Driver’s education will be fully funded by parents, “if we even offer it,” he said. The cost will exceed $400 per person for 30 students, just to break even, he said.
“Courses with low enrollments will not be offered, and the cost of lunches will go up for all students,” he said. “Supply budgets for teachers, sponsors and coaches will be reduced. Salaries will be frozen, and no adjustment of salaries will be made for any employee. Reductions in staff will be discussed. Hopefully those reductions will be handled through attrition. But if not, the reduction-in-force policy may be put into effect, and fewer teachers will be employed.”
The outlook overall is bleak, he said, and the gains that have been made could well be lost.
“The kids who can least afford to see school budgets cut will be the ones who suffer the most,” Powers said. “Over the last three to five years, huge advances in the achievement of special education and at-risk students have been made. My fear is that as districts tighten their belts, those programs will get cut or eliminated.”
He said it would be easy to be overcome by the whole process.
“The thing for every one of us to remember is that kids are still going to come to school until we are finished in May, and they are going to return to us in August expecting to be taught,” Powers said. “We owe it to our kids to give them the best we have to offer.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
