| Pulling kids out of the LPS; Pulling kids out of the LPS | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 20 2005, 07:53 PM (2,874 Views) | |
| MichiganMom | Dec 20 2005, 07:53 PM Post #1 |
|
2nd Grade
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
How many parents are serious about pulling their kids out of the LPS if the Legacy Program is not scrapped ??? And how many kids do you have?? I have 4 total, currently 3 are school age and in the LPS. I have every intention of taking all 4 to another district if this plan goes in to effect. |
![]() |
|
| c3hull | Dec 20 2005, 11:30 PM Post #2 |
|
Principal
|
You can add my 1 child to the list. |
![]() |
|
| Michelebel | Dec 21 2005, 07:40 AM Post #3 |
|
Principal
|
I have 2 kids; a 4th grader and a 1st grader. I can't afford to and do not want to send my kids to Catholic schools. I do not want to move as I love my house, my neighborhood/neighbors and Livonia. Moving or private schools would be MUCH more of a transitional shock to my kids than a long bus ride............ So I will stay where I am and send my kids to where they are supposed to go. I have volunteered to be a part of the transition process. My son is going to Johnson next year; I am worried and afraid of what that will entail, but if I am involved in what's going on between now and then, pehaps my fears will be alleviated and the transition will be easier for my family. As much as we don't like what's going on, and will continue to seek all avenues to get this thing stopped, I also have to be realistic about what's going to happen. At some point I need to "get on board" and do what I can to make this thing work. Someone earlier made an analogy about a freight train; at this point I feel I can either be run over by it, or hop on and try to steer it in the right direction and make it a semi-enjoyable ride, in spite of the fact that I don't like the destination. |
![]() |
|
| for our kids | Dec 21 2005, 10:04 AM Post #4 |
|
Principal
|
I currently have a 1st, and 4t grader, and both will be in Catholic school next year, that's approx $16k taken away from the annual budget. |
![]() |
|
| Elisa | Dec 21 2005, 10:48 AM Post #5 |
![]()
Principal
|
Michelebel, I am glad that you have volunteered to work on the transition. I think that you will be a tenacious rep. for the kids. We are moving in June. In the middle of this process my husband was oferred a wonderful job in Chicago. Mrs. Hughes knows we are leaving and I made sure to let her know the plan did have an impact on our decision. I did sign up to work on the transition, either in a focus group or at the district level. I do not believe that I will be chosen but I want to continue to support those who will be selected to do that work. I think that 2 issues are key: Teaming, it is a crucial element to the success of such a large school. everyone involed at the focus and district levels needs to be armed with the research in this area. I would be glad to help you gather it. The research needs to be very public, let everyone know you are advocating for it and if the district rejects it, make sure everyone knows that they have again chosen to pass on a concept that has wonderful educational and social benefits. Continue to follow the money. And by this I mean that prop. A has become a scapegoat, a convenient and well accepted excuse for the continued cutting of programs. At $8,200, Michigan is in the top quarter of states for highest per pupil funding. Yes, there are districts that spend much more, but does money =educational success?, You be the judge, D.C. spends almost $17,000 per student. Their educational record is dismal. There are states that spend, on average, thousands less and in some cases outperform our state. Prop. A has NOT left our state in educational poverty. But it has allowed our administrators a place to lay all of their troubles. Many would also be willing to believe that additional money is the solution. I would assert that they have plenty of money (comparatively) and they simlpy need to manage it better. Our community needs to look deeply into successful districts that are operating on less per pupil expenditure. We need to look at their practices, their policies. I truly believe, that if LPS can't operate on $8,200 per pupil, that there could be a number of things going on, from mismangaement, to an admin. heavy district, to outdated practices and so on. In any event, their fiscal responsibilty needs to be challenged. It is much to easy for them to continue to place all of the blame with prop. A, especially when 2/3 of the states are running on much less of a per pupil expenditure and are doing fine. I think that the additional money they continue to say that they need, is to preserve their own large, archaic administrative structure and salaries. I wouldn't believe them when they say they have trimmed as much as they can around themselves. If we do so research, I am quite certain we can find examples of very lean, efficient models of district administration as well as many cost cutting solutions that do not effect the education of the children. |
![]() |
|
| Elisa | Dec 21 2005, 11:05 AM Post #6 |
![]()
Principal
|
Just one of the many that contradict the idea that throwing money at an educational system is the answer: From The Hoover Digest. Hanna Skandera and Richard Sousa "Is spending more money the way to improve our public schools? In a word, no. Hanna Skandera is a research fellow and Richard Sousa is an associate director at the Hoover Institution. There is a common perception that the way to improve our failing public schools is to spend more money on them. According to many public school administrators, the amount we spend per pupil is an excellent way to affect student performance. Yet a review of the data over the past 80 years shows that this is not necessarily the case. In fact, increases in per-pupil expenditures in the past have often not been matched by increased student performance. In short, the evidence suggests that we cannot simply buy better schools. Spending per student has increased markedly over time. According to the U.S. Department of Education, in the 1919–20 school year, expenditures per pupil (in constant 2000–2001 dollars) were $367. By 1960, real expenditures had more than quintupled. In the 2000–2001 school year, per-pupil expenditures were approximately $7,000—nearly 20 times as high as in the 1919–20 school year. Three additional factors have contributed to increased expenditures: (1) falling pupil-teacher ratios (i.e., more teachers); (2) rising teacher salaries; and (3) growth in expenditures for things other than instructional salaries. Between 1970 and 1995, per-pupil expenditures increased by more than 75 percent. During that time period, the pupil-teacher ratio decreased by 25 percent, the percentage of teachers with advanced degrees doubled, and median teacher experience nearly doubled. With more teachers in the system, and with teacher pay linked to increases in credentials and experience, higher per-pupil spending resulted. Furthermore, between the 1969–70 and 1995–96 school years, “administration expenditures” increased by more than 80 percent and “other school services” accounted for nearly 18 percent of total public education expenditures, an increase of almost 200 percent (see table 1). More teachers with advanced degrees and more experience, and more teachers per student, should lead to better educational outcomes. The evidence, however, does not support that conclusion. During the same quarter-century that these educational resources were being increased, student achievement remained flat, as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (see table 2). The contradiction of increased resources and flat achievement suggests that resource shortages may not be the sole culprit for low levels of student performance. This is not to say that resources do not matter but that there is no simple cause-and-effect relationship. Recent studies reinforce the disconnect between spending and achievement. For example, the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) “Report Card on American Education, a State-by-State Analysis 1976– 2000” concluded that “it is clear after studying the data and results that the policies of the past have failed to meet the educational needs of our country’s children. If we continue to spend more money on the existing educational system in an attempt to buy our way to better student achievement, we will condemn another generation of students to mediocrity.” The ALEC study showed no correlation between conventional measures of educational inputs (such as expenditures per pupil and teacher salaries) and educational outputs (such as scores on standardized tests). Simply stated, increased funding does not translate into improved achievement. An analysis of per-pupil expenditures on a state-by-state basis is illuminating. For example, in the 1998–99 school year, Utah spent $3,807 per pupil whereas Maryland spent $7,059. There is little evidence to suggest that equalizing resources between the two states would equalize achievement. In the 1998 NAEP, 31 percent of eighth graders in both Utah and Maryland scored at proficient or better in reading, despite the large discrepancy in per-pupil expenditures. Also, based on several standardized tests, the ALEC report rated Iowa (ranked 32d in per-pupil expenditures) as having the top-performing public elementary and secondary schools in the nation, followed by Minnesota (14th in spending) and Wisconsin (9th). At the bottom of the achievement ratings were Mississippi (50th in spending), the District of Columbia (5th), and Louisiana (39th). Expenditures per student have increased over time, and the distribution of the expenditures has been according to popular emphasis: The level of teacher education has increased, teacher experience has increased, and student-teacher ratios have fallen. But the desired outcome—student achievement—has remained flat. " |
![]() |
|
| Elisa | Dec 21 2005, 11:16 AM Post #7 |
![]()
Principal
|
ERIC Identifier: ED350717 Publication Date: 1992-12-00 Author: Renchler, Ron Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management Eugene OR. Financial Equity in the Schools. ERIC Digest, Number 76. IS THERE A LINK BETWEEN PER-PUPIL EXPENDITURES AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT? One central premise in litigation challenging the fairness of school finance systems is that equalization of funding will lead to equalization of educational opportunity, which, in turn, will lead to improved academic performance of students in lower funded districts. Research into the relationship between school expenditures and student achievement has not yet provided us with a clear understanding of where we can most effectively invest our educational dollars. Should educational funds be invested in smaller class size, staff development, improved instructional materials, or teacher compensation? Hanushek (1989) reviewed 187 studies and found that school expenditures per se were not generally related to improved student performance. As Odden and Picus (1992) point out, such findings do not negate the importance of financial equity; they indicate that certain types of investment of educational funds have not been shown to lead to higher levels of student achievement. "The important message from this research," Odden and Picus say, "is that if additional education revenues are spent in the same way as current education revenues, student performance increases are unlikely to emerge. The message is that the way money is used matters. New revenues need to support new strategies in order to produce significant student achievement gains." Is LPS using money in ways that matter? Where are our "new strategies"? The 5/6 is a new configuration but not a new strategy since it will continue as an elementary without the teaming concept. Just some further thought as how to pose some new, challenging questions to LPS. |
![]() |
|
| Elisa | Dec 21 2005, 12:23 PM Post #8 |
![]()
Principal
|
U.S. Education Gets Low Grade on ALEC Report Card Written By: Krista Kafer Published In: School Reform News Publication Date: November 1, 2004 Publisher: The Heartland Institute -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Overall, the facts presented by this year's Report Card on American Education give us no cause for celebration. In fact, they confirm the same trend presented in past years' reports: increased spending without corresponding improvement in student performance. Over ten years have passed since the Goals 2000 agenda was proposed, and America has failed to reach these goals, despite increasing per-pupil expenditures by more than 50 percent over the past twenty years." Report author Andrew T. LeFevre analyzed student achievement and per-pupil spending but found no correlation between education inputs, such as per-pupil spending and teacher salaries, and education outputs, such as achievement on standardized tests. The only inputs he found that correlated with higher student achievement were higher pupil-teacher ratios, fewer students per school, and state budgets with a smaller proportion of federal dollars. The correlation, however, was weak and not consistent over the two decades examined. Education Expenditures States with the highest per-pupil expenditures in the 2001-2002 school year were New York ($11,029), the District of Columbia (11,009), Connecticut ($10,528), and Rhode Island ($10,193). The states that spent the least were Utah ($4,769), Mississippi ($5,229), Arizona ($5,373), and Tennessee ($5,653). During the same year, average teacher salaries were highest in New Jersey ($54,575), Connecticut ($54,300), and California ($53,870). Average teacher salaries were lowest in South Dakota ($31,295), North Dakota ($31,709), and Mississippi ($32,800). Student Performance The report ranks states according to the performance of their students on the 2003 Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT) or the ACT assessment and the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) eighth-grade reading assessment. Combining all test scores, the top three states or jurisdictions were Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts. The bottom three were New Mexico, Mississippi, and the District of Columbia. Nearly half of high school graduates (48 percent) took the SAT in 2003, with a national average score of 1026. In the 24 states and the District of Columbia where the SAT is the primary college aptitude test, Wisconsin (1062), Oregon (1053), Arizona (1049), and New Jersey (1043) had the highest average scores. South Carolina students' average score improved the most over the past two decades, rising from 896 in 1983 to 989 in 2003. The ACT is the primary college aptitude test in 25 states with a 2003 national average score of 20.8. Three states had higher than average scores--Wisconsin (22.2), Minnesota (22.0), and Iowa (22.0). Lack of Correlation The stagnation in student achievement over the past two decades took place during a period that also saw massive increases in spending, a rise in teacher salaries, and a reduction of the student-teacher ratio. From 1981-82 to 2001-02, per-pupil expenditures grew 53 percent in constant dollars, from $4,924 to $7,557. During the same period, the pupil-teacher ratio dropped from 19-1 to 16-1. The top 10 states in terms of increased per-pupil spending in the past two decades were Georgia (+109 percent), Maine, South Carolina, Indiana, Rhode Island, Kentucky, Vermont, West Virginia, Ohio, and New Hampshire (+83 percent). Only two of those states, Vermont and New Hampshire, ranked in the top 10 in academic achievement. Similarly, of the 10 states that reduced student-teacher ratios the most since 1981--New York (-29 percent), Virginia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Vermont, the District of Columbia, Rhode Island, Alabama, Ohio, and Arkansas (-23 percent)--only Vermont is one of the top 10 in terms of achievement. "We simply cannot spend our way to better grades," notes ALEC Executive Director Duane A. Parde in the report's foreword, "but must make sure that we are making the right kinds of investments in our schools to promote high student achievement." Expanding Accountability and Choice In looking for ways to improve student achievement, lawmakers and policymakers are increasingly embracing accountability policies such as merit pay and parental choice reforms. Charter schools, tuition vouchers, and tuition tax credits or deductions make it possible for parents of public school children to choose the best schools for their children. "Instituting strong accountability measures that hold both students and teachers responsible for learning will help schools to focus resources where they are most needed," writes LeFevre. "Increasing parental involvement in the process by giving them a greater say in determining which educational choice best meets the needs of their child guarantees that a child's educational future is determined on the most local level possible--their parents." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Krista Kafer (krista.kafer@heritage.org) is senior policy analyst for education at The Heritage Foundation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For more information ... The American Legislative Exchange Council's September 2004 Report Card on American Education: A State by State Analysis: 1981-2003, by Andrew T. LeFevre, is available online at www.alec.org/meSWFiles/pdf/2004_Report_Card_on_Education.pdf. |
![]() |
|
| Elisa | Dec 21 2005, 01:11 PM Post #9 |
![]()
Principal
|
LPS has played victim to prop. A for too long. It is an easy role to play and they have gained sympathy from many. Other districts have taken on the victim role as well. It is easier to complain and lay blame elsewhere than it is to be proactive, creative and innovative with the resources you have. The truth of the matter is that our funding is among the highest in the country. States with lower per pupil funding are exceeding our achievement. LPS needs to be held accountable. Let's put an end to their shifting of the responsibility to the state. It is their responsibility to effectively manage that $8,200. I suspect that much of their budgetary crisis is in maintaining their own administrative structure. If Dr. Liepa and Ms. Levesque don't know how to manage that per pupil amount in a manner that is beneficial to the children of LPS maybe they need to look to districts that are doing just that on less money. |
![]() |
|
| NFarquharson | Dec 21 2005, 01:30 PM Post #10 |
|
Principal
|
Unfortunately, it appears that they (the BOE) only look to other districts in order to gain examples in an attempt support the plans that have been decided upon prior to gathering input from the community. If they are incapable of learning from all of the information, concerns, questions and educational research presented to them by the parents in this community, why should we think they are capable of learning from the successes or ideas that have been implemented in other communities? One has to have an open mind in order to continue learning...if you think you know everything, then that is all that you know. |
![]() |
|
| Rose | Dec 21 2005, 02:25 PM Post #11 |
|
Principal
|
Well said, Ladies! If they can't manage the budget, then they need to find another job! |
![]() |
|
| NFarquharson | Dec 21 2005, 03:00 PM Post #12 |
|
Principal
|
Just like Michelebel and for our kids above, I have a 1st grader and a 4th grader. I have not made any final decision but am most immediately concerned about my 4th grader who would go to Cooper under this plan. My husband and I have been discussing applying at Webster, moving, and are still weighing all the options. Personally, I don't really want to send my kids to parochial schools, as I am not convinced that they provide a better education. The social environment would clearly be better than a 900+ student school. Some of the Catholic schools have much larger class sizes and, with all of the additional people considering enrolling their children in these schools, that may only get worse. Most seem to have a significantly less diverse student population from the information I have gathered...just at a time when the Livonia Schools (at least in my area) seem to be making progress. I have been unable to find any information about academic achievement from the Catholic and Lutheran schools, so if anyone knows of a way to get a comparison of their results (much like we can compare MEAP scores, AYP and other indicators for public schools,) please share that info. |
![]() |
|
| Cindi | Dec 21 2005, 04:35 PM Post #13 |
|
Principal
|
I agree with Elisa. I have read a whole lot in the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. I have a strong feeling that LPS money is mis-managed. How many admistrators does it take to teach our children? How many busses leased will impact our childrens education? How many chicken nuggets have too be sold (and thrown out into the garbage) in order to pay for books in the classroom? The answer is 0. All of these items cost the district........and does not enhance our childrens education. There are still a lot of unanswered questions. Does anyone know how much Dr. Liepa makes? I would think this would be public information. The Superintendent of Oakland Schools who just lost his job was making $275,000 a year. LPS is not innovative anymore, they have lost their touch. They do not think outside the box. I once thought that my children would attend LPS through high-school...we have since had a change of mind. I'm afraid many people will be leaving the Legacy behind and it's too bad that one school board and their superintendent can have such a dramatic change on our community and the rest of the 100,000 plus residents don't have a vote. Shame on LPS BOE! |
![]() |
|
| TAB | Dec 21 2005, 05:06 PM Post #14 |
|
Principal
|
I'm leaving work now and I'll try to look for some exact figures......it's not private info but I do have the actual numbers someplace in my records.....please don't quote me yet but of the $8,280 dollars.......somewhere between 80% and 90% of this figure is used for teacher saleries, retirement benefits and healthcare. I'll post here again when I get the final numbers. Tom |
![]() |
|
| Cindi | Dec 21 2005, 06:05 PM Post #15 |
|
Principal
|
Tom: I know I read somewhere.......and for the life of me I can't find it. (I believe it was posted in the district annual report, that ended up damaged on the LPS website and a new one is in it's place)...anyway, I read that the audit performed by Plante & Moran said that 89% was salaries and benefits. Am I correct? How can I find the final audit for last year and Plante & Morans comments? Thank you, Cindi |
![]() |
|
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Archive · Next Topic » |




![]](http://z2.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




3:38 AM Jul 11