LCS Meeting- Kelly Boyer Sagert

October 21, 2010 at 1:37 am 7 comments

Tonight’s school board meeting was all about the numbers, including some specifics about what cuts will be made to make up the $10.3 million deficit if the levy does not pass in November. They are, as follows:

•$535,000 by reducing Charleston staff

•$500,000 by eliminating 5 elementary principal jobs

•$208,000 by reducing the number of kindergarten aides

•$300,000 by eliminating 3 middle school administrators

•$350,000 by eliminating 4 high school administrators

•$100,000 by eliminating 3 high school secretaries

•$23,000 by eliminating the swimming program

•$19,000 by eliminating the bowling program

•$9,000 by eliminating JV cheerleading

•$100,000 by eliminating middle school athletics

•$15,000 by eliminating elementary school athletics

•$91,000 by reducing miscellaneous supplies

•$600,000 by cutting custodial staff and overtime

•$693,000 by cleaning every other day

•$300,000 by reducing busing to state minimums

•$414,000 by reducing athletic supplementals

•$192,000 by reducing academic supplementals, including PSEO

•$51,000 by reducing special education supplementals

•$350,000 by outsourcing psychological services

•$300,000 by outsourcing security services

•$1,800,000 by eliminating 21 fine arts staff in elementary schools and middle schools

•$3,313,803 by eliminating 86 other positions, which are largely but possibly not entirely teaching positions

A couple of notes: under this system, a principal would be responsible for 2 or possibly 3 schools and would presumably travel between or among them.

Pay to play for athletics would cost $300 per child per sport; children wishing to participate in a school club would pay $100 per child per club.

As a third note, under this system, the Lorain City Schools would not meet the class sizes mandated by the state.

The other piece of big news is that the school board voted, 4-1, to sign a lease with the Lorain Port Authority to place the new high school on the riverfront property. Jim Smith was the lone “no” vote, citing multiple reasons.

These reasons include that it will cost approximately $2.1 million to overcome soil issues. The state will pay 81% of the cost (although that money will therefore not be available for the actual building), with the Lorain School District needing to raise 19% – or approximately $399,000.
Securing access to utilities and attending to other pre-building issues will cost approximately $3.4 million with the Lorain School District needing to fund these expenses, as well. It is advised, according to Smith, that the school district also set aside a contingency fund for any overages.

Yes. It was a night for numbers . . .

Advertisements

Entry filed under: city of lorain, education. Tags: .

Blogger’s Question A Ghost of a Chance- Moore House-

7 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Don Killinger  |  October 21, 2010 at 2:17 am

    Thanks for taking the detailed minutes, Kelly. Not necessarily good news. But it needs to be told should the Issue 8 fail on 11/2/2010. We hope people will reaaly weigh this out and not vote based upon emotions or selfishness. Lorain desparately needs a solid school system.

  • 2. Paula Tobias  |  October 21, 2010 at 10:01 am

    ….”•$3,313,803 by eliminating 86 other positions, which are largely but possibly not entirely teaching positions”….

    Ummm…… wonder what those are…..

    Even with these cuts isn’t it still possible the State may have to take over?

  • 3. Lisa  |  October 21, 2010 at 11:13 am

    Kelly – thank you for the detailed report.

    The state isn’t going to come in the day after the levy fails.
    There is quite a process that has to be followed before the state takes over. An important part of that process is the recovery plan that the district has to submit to the state if this levy fails.

    I spoke to Treasurer Dale Weber about the state takeover scenario the other day and he said that anybody can call him anytime and he would be happy to talk with them about it.
    If anyone out there has questions, I encourage them to take advantage of this opportunity to get answers.
    His office number is 233-2239.

  • 4. Loraine Ritchey  |  October 21, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    Failing that if readers have questions they want to submit annoymously I will be only to happy to be the conduit
    lorritch7@gmail.com

  • 5. Kelly Boyer Sagert  |  October 21, 2010 at 1:12 pm

    Sure thing, Don!

    Paula – I’m getting mixed answers, re: when the state would come in. I actually covered the Vermilion school board for the MJ, back in the 90s, when they faced a similar situation — obviously on a smaller scale — but I had moved to a magazine job by the time the state actually came in, so I missed the specifics. But I do remember that it was a step by step process and moved more slowly than what I would have guessed.

    Thanks, Lisa, for the info!

  • 6. kendra  |  October 21, 2010 at 1:28 pm

    A nice summary.

    http://wwwstatic.teh.k12.ca.us/gems/teh/WhatStateReceivershipMeansan.pdf

  • 7. Peter Potamus  |  October 21, 2010 at 7:21 pm

    In essence, they have been forced to gut everything that makes a school a “school”

    This is terrible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Categories

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 183 other followers

October 2010
M T W T F S S
« Sep   Nov »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031