| Board of Education Meeting; Monday, October 30, 2006 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 30 2006, 01:59 PM (2,788 Views) | |
| bmom | Oct 31 2006, 05:41 PM Post #61 |
|
Principal
|
The smoke and mirrors are back. Just more smoke to block the view even more. I'm with you Jimid, I was a wait and see person as well. Not anymore. |
![]() |
|
| cat | Oct 31 2006, 07:44 PM Post #62 |
|
Principal
|
I to was on the fence hoping....Count out 2 more.. |
![]() |
|
| ILIkeLI | Oct 31 2006, 07:55 PM Post #63 |
|
Principal
|
Can you elaborate on that comment? I understand that the blended count is 75% of the 9-27 count and 25% of the count from Feb. Your comment baffles me. I think that the blended number will help them out (if that is even possible at this point) becasue it is a portion of pre-LI numbers. Can you imagine what it will look like next year when they "blend" LI with LI? Maybe Mike can comment on this, it would seem that the second year of this kind of change is when the real devastating numbers show up, correct? |
![]() |
|
| Grant1 | Oct 31 2006, 08:30 PM Post #64 |
|
We have just begun to fight!
|
162 is exactly what they budgeted for a loss in the 2006/2007 budget as a student count loss. The reality of the actual student count loss is what LPS has been hiding since the beginning of the school year. Realize this...they have been taking attendance since day one... They know how many kids are in each classroom at each grade level in each school. This would easily give the district the preliminary numbers by mid September. The required count days are just a state mandated directive and are a matter of formality only. We all know that the district knows exactly how many students are attending what classes at each grade level and at every school It's not rocket science...it's reality, data and numbers do not lie...they tell the truth. Give it up Dr. Liepa...you know the numbers...you have for quite some time...and you know what it really means to funding and the reality of the impact of the LIe to this community. All of this is public information that should be readily accessible and provided to the constituents of the district as part of the required duties of the Administration and the BOE. Why has it been denied at every request? Why is it being held hostage? What is there to hide? What is it that you do not want the public to know? The ultimate responsibilty for this lies upon the publicly elected BOE. Freedom of Information Act Requests enacted by the citizens of this district that are not responded to with full disclosure and are further proof that the district is hiding the truth within the data. The public OWNS THIS INFORMATION and it is the constitutional right for anyone to view any public information as requested by any taxpaying citizen of this district. If the district is operating in accordance with all appilicable laws and regulations what is there to hide? Open the books, publish them on-line, make them available to every taxpaying citizen and LPS constituent as required by the law. If everything is done in accordance with all applicable requiremnts...what is there to hide? The obvious answer is..."nothing" Sooooooooooooooooo...................? |
![]() |
|
| Zeke | Oct 31 2006, 08:58 PM Post #65 |
|
Principal
|
Mega, your exactly right. The LI didn't have anything to do with the student loss. It was those dang graduating seniors. I can solve this whole thing. Lets hold back 450 seniors from graduating this year. PROBLEM SOLVED! I am now qualified to be a consultant for LPS. If Liepa would please contact me I'll tell him where to send the check. |
![]() |
|
| mikefromholland | Oct 31 2006, 11:11 PM Post #66 |
|
Principal
|
Thanks for the invitation, ILikeLI ... wow, this is a busy thread ... My opinion for the purpose of the blended count ... the state implemented these percentages to assist districts that were losing enrollment. One of the major criticisms of Proposal A is that it selectively hurts districts with declining enrollment. By averaging back in time, these districts receive funding for students that are no longer there, thus reducing the blow of foundation grant losses. But as some comments have pointed out, the effect of the blended count is not to eliminate the effect of the losses, but rather to delay its major impact to the following year. It insulates districts (somewhat) from having to make abrupt budget cuts during the year if they experience unexpected fall enrollment losses after their annual budgets are adopted in May or June. Now ... all you good people on both sides of this issue in Livonia can do like we did in Holland ... and spend the next 2+ years debating with each other on why the losses occurred ... and on how to best quantify the enrollment losses that were associated with the LI. (Actually we only debated for 1 1/2 years ... at which point the administration and board either concluded or conceded that our focus schools had to be changed ... but then it took another 1 1/2 years to determine the replacement system and implement it.) I will explain the first method I used to quantify how much of Holland's enrollment losses were due to focus schools. I used two of the district's own reported numbers -- the expected enrollment (in grades K-5) used in planning and budgeting for the 1st year of focus schools, and the actual enrollment in those grades on count day. I attributed the difference between those two numbers, 158 students which was about 3% of total enrollment and 6% of K-5 enrollment, to be associated with unanticipated losses from the focus school implementation. Back to Livonia ... 2.5% is a substantial loss but not unprecedented. By comparison, Holland lost about 4 to 5% during each of the three years of the focus schools. This compared to losses of about 1 to 1.5% in six of the seven years prior to the adoption of the focus schools. (We gained about 1% in the other year during those seven.) After reversing the focus schools this year, our losses were back down to between 1 and 1.5%. I have not fact checked what your district's recent history shows, but from data I've seen posted on this site, it appears that the trend in the last 10 years has been relatively flat. That being the case, a loss of 2.5% would appear to be grounds for some concern. But I would reserve drawing specific inferences until I have time to do a more complete analysis of the data. Incoming kindergarteners vs graduating 12th graders has little to do with effects associated with any district reorganization. It has mainly to do with (1) long term slow variations in the age distribution of the population; and (2) how successfully the district retains its students to graduation mainly by minimizing dropout rates. For this reason, total enrollment is not a sensitive or completely accurate indicator of the effect of the LI on enrollment. It is better than no measurement, but a better measurement would be grade-by-grade enrollment changes, or cohort survival rates. For example, how many 5th graders are there this year compared to the number of 4th graders last year? Look at the grades affected by the LI (K-6) and see whether these CSRs changed a lot this year. In Holland, we saw some wild results when the data were studied in this way. Starting with the 2002 kindergarten enrollment and going forward two years to the 2004 2nd grade enrollment, there was an enrollment loss of just over 25% in two years time. (These were the first 2 years of the focus schools.) This compared to enrollment losses of 4 to 5% for two year periods in the same grade levels during the three years just prior to the focus school implementation. I would claim that a district which loses over a quarter of its kindergarten enrollment by 2nd grade has some serious issues impacting its long-term viability and survival. Evidently the board and administration in Holland came to the same conclusion and reversed the focus school system as quickly as they could. I will be happy to provide a copy of the 40-page report I wrote on Holland's enrollment trends and the effect of various factors (economy, charter schools, and the focus school reorganization) for posting on the CFLF website, if one of the webmasters would tell me where to send it. |
![]() |
|
| Anna Krome | Nov 1 2006, 01:01 PM Post #67 |
|
Principal
|
I'd like to see that report, Mike. Numbers lie or mislead when manipulated. Mr. Liepa certainly understands numbers, as he is an accountant--seemingly mostly concerned w/his determination of the "bottom line." Education falls under "liberal arts or humanities," meaning "having to do w/PEOPLE." Mr. Liepa's credentials have absolutely NOTHING to do w/this discipline. And, as such, he is an inappropriate individual to lead LPS. This has been the case since his hiring. As such, I state his hiring was wrong-minded, shrouded in mystery and inappropriate. Schools must operate effectively in relation to funds, but the decisions of Mr. Liepa are consistently out of sync with the educational needs of our community. He has proven time and again that he cannot handle the pressure of his position, nor heed the outcries of the LPS community. He has failed to lead; and hence, he should be fired. I call for his resignation immediately. Anna Krome |
![]() |
|
| Hullparent | Nov 1 2006, 07:27 PM Post #68 |
|
Principal
|
O.K. trying to follow this makes my head swim. So let's assume 425 kindergarteners left and they were only expecting 160 to leave. That's a difference of about 265 kindergarteners. Wouldn't anyone notice that ten classes didn't show up on the first day of school? Good Try LI lovers. |
![]() |
|
| fyi | Nov 2 2006, 07:59 AM Post #69 |
|
Principal
|
The larger figure (400+) includes all grades not just kindergartners. LPS may have only budgeted for the loss of incoming kindergartners(160)......not the district as a whole.....their figure is most likely based on a future trend not the loss of those leaving due to the LI..... It's called DENIAL. |
![]() |
|
| f11 | Nov 2 2006, 10:32 AM Post #70 |
|
LPS, transportation for all
|
Heads need to roll because an over $3.6 million dollar mistake was made... ....The LIe Nuff said. |
![]() |
|
| Livonia Voter | Nov 2 2006, 01:21 PM Post #71 |
|
Principal
|
I did. |
![]() |
|
| Livonia Voter | Nov 2 2006, 01:42 PM Post #72 |
|
Principal
|
Then lets keep it simple. Tell me the number of kids enrolled on last years count day, and the exact number enrolled on this one. Why is this such a secret? What are they hiding?
|
![]() |
|
| Livonia Voter | Nov 2 2006, 01:46 PM Post #73 |
|
Principal
|
Nope, because only 2 board members were present. This was a community event, rather than a formal board/committee meeting. I was intending on posting that after the meeting, but I came home to find out my wifes water had broken during the meeting. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Just a tad more important than writing abount LPS. |
![]() |
|
| Recalla | Nov 2 2006, 02:12 PM Post #74 |
|
Principal
|
Congrats Livonia Voter! |
![]() |
|
| Grant1 | Nov 2 2006, 02:50 PM Post #75 |
|
We have just begun to fight!
|
Sounds like that will be 1 less attending LPS when they come of age...too bad for LPS Congratulations Livonia Voter! |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Archive · Next Topic » |






9:09 AM Jul 11