| Observer; 11/9/06 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 9 2006, 07:10 AM (1,315 Views) | |
| ILIkeLI | Nov 9 2006, 09:31 AM Post #16 |
|
Principal
|
Best Observer coverage of a LI-related issue in a very long time. Great quotes that really highlighted the hipocracy of the administration. Great letters also. Doesn't Mr. Bailey feel like a fool at this point? Wasn't the LI all about "fixing the hole"" Oh, that's right, they led him to believe there was a hole when there really wasn't. But now we do have a hole. Did they play him or what? I always felt that the admin. was taking full advantage of a BOE that were known rubber stampers . Major budget cuts Mr. Bailey? The kids of LPS are first burdened with the LI and now they get budget cuts? Well, I guess that supporters can go back to saying "something needs to be done..." It will actually be true this time. |
![]() |
|
| Momforone | Nov 9 2006, 09:50 AM Post #17 |
|
Principal
|
Maybe we need some cabinet cleaning??????? It all starts from the top and should work it's way down. I don't know how they wake up everyday and go to work thinking that they did such a great thing. |
![]() |
|
| ILIkeLI | Nov 9 2006, 10:07 AM Post #18 |
|
Principal
|
"LPS uses an enrollment model developed by a former school district employee to determine enrollment projections. Liepa said last spring's enrollment projections did not take into account the Legacy Initiative, a controversial plan which closed seven schools to save money" First I've heard that the enrollment guru was a former LPS employee. Makes sense. How could they ignore the LI as a factor that would effect enrollment? That is just purposeful negligence because they knew the affect would be huge or the enrollment guy is incompetent. Funny how we always seem to have those exact 2 choices with all of the decisions LPS makes. It always seems to always come down to either deception or incompetence. |
![]() |
|
| f11 | Nov 9 2006, 10:10 AM Post #19 |
|
LPS, transportation for all
|
Is it time for that person to be fired? |
![]() |
|
| Grant1 | Nov 9 2006, 10:14 AM Post #20 |
|
We have just begun to fight!
|
Think of it this way. IF they had used estimated losses from the LIe in the enrollment projections last spring, the information would have disclosed that there would be a huge budget loss as a direct result of the LIe. They did not want to convey that message to the employees or the public, so they disregarded that number in favor of projected enrollment losses based soley on the standard demographics and data used year after year. Unfortunately, to not project the losses from the LIe in some manner into the budget has left them exactly where they are now, with a huge funding drop, and an seemingly incompetent administration trying to cover the truth from thier employees and customers |
![]() |
|
| NFarquharson | Nov 9 2006, 10:19 AM Post #21 |
|
Principal
|
The math is more complex than that. Let me give it a try and correct me if I am wrong. Dr. Liepa said 160 was the difference in blended count. 520 was the loss in actual students, so you can't do the math by subtracting 160 from 520. The actual count for all funds from last fall (not blended) was 18,132 per WCRESA. I do not have the spring count number, but would assume that it is pretty close to the same number. If they planned for a loss of 251 for this fall as Dr. Liepa stated, the 06/07 blended count would be [0.25 x 18,132] + [0.75 x (18132- 251)] = 17,944 if we only lost 251. Last year's blended count for all funds was 18,145 per LPS web site. If they expected to lose 251, they should have budgeted for a blended count loss of 18,145 - 17,944 = 201. NOT 160. The actual loss of students for all funds was 520, so the actual number of students this year would be 18,132 - 520 = 17,612. This year's blended count would be (0.25 x 18,132) + (0.75 x 17,612) = 17,742. The difference between this year and last year's blended count is 18,145 - 17,742 = 403 They budgeted for a difference of 160. They were off by 403 - 160 = 243 The loss of revenue for the additional student loss is 243 x $8490 = $2,063,0770 The bottom line is that we will lose $2 million more than we planned to lose because of declining enrollment, assuming that the spring count was about the same as the fall count last year and the $210 increase in the foundation allowance materializes. If we don;t get the extra $210, then obviously the loss is a little less but the overall incoming revenue will also be lower. Either way, I agree that the headline, which technically accurate, is somewhat misleading. The bottom line is that they will be more than $2 million behind where they thought they would be due to an unanticipated loss of students. |
![]() |
|
| Grant1 | Nov 9 2006, 10:26 AM Post #22 |
|
We have just begun to fight!
|
And lets not forget the cost of implementing the LIe
|
![]() |
|
| f11 | Nov 9 2006, 10:28 AM Post #23 |
|
LPS, transportation for all
|
And guaranteed next year, even if enrollment stays exactly the same..the blended count will be down by 130 students=$1mill gone |
![]() |
|
| ILIkeLI | Nov 9 2006, 10:41 AM Post #24 |
|
Principal
|
You're right. The blended count consists of 25% of last year's numbers. The community needs to understand the reaching impact this will have. Could be even more substantial next year (if this isn't reversed) when they have to blend LI with LI numbers. They were sort of buoyed a bit with the 25% this year coming from pre-LI, neighborhood school numbers. |
![]() |
|
| NFarquharson | Nov 9 2006, 10:53 AM Post #25 |
|
Principal
|
You are absolutely right, f11. The effects of a loss in enrollment are not felt only in the first year. Grant1 is also correct that these numbers are only about the enrollment projections. The money spent to implement a plan that will now be a complete wash at best is all lost. If the additional $2 million lost is due to the LI, which I believe it is, then the projected $1.9 million in savings is gone and we are only left with what we spent to put this in place, with is a significant net loss to the budget and a greater loss to the community as a whole. |
![]() |
|
| fyi | Nov 9 2006, 11:46 AM Post #26 |
|
Principal
|
Thanks for clearing that up NF..... While surrounding districts are "projecting" gains in enrollment, LPS continues to "project" losses. LPS was so confident that their plan would improve student achievement that "Liepa said last spring's enrollment projections did not take into account the Legacy Initiative." The LI was supposed to save the district from receivership......but now "Unless we start making major budget cuts, we're not going to dig ourselves out of this hole," Bailey said. While other districts (Plymouth/Canton), as Dr Liepa pointed out, are not gaining as many students as they hoped for, LPS is losing more students than they anticipated. |
![]() |
|
| 2tots | Nov 9 2006, 12:34 PM Post #27 |
|
Principal
|
Trying to digest all this information is making me sick to my stomach and very, very frightened. And incredibly sad. |
![]() |
|
| cat | Nov 9 2006, 12:53 PM Post #28 |
|
Principal
|
Oh I am right with you 2tots
|
![]() |
|
| cat | Nov 9 2006, 01:13 PM Post #29 |
|
Principal
|
The paper should have been on top of this from the beginning---Like last year or so or when the demo committee was happening..A bunch of crock reporting!!! |
![]() |
|
| Anna Krome | Nov 9 2006, 01:21 PM Post #30 |
|
Principal
|
Finally, a more accurate representation of the situation. I DO agree, however, that the "2 mil quoted loss" will give the public the impression that only 2 mil has been lost--whatever their projections. Projections do not matter here--that's old news and has no revelence to the current. Mr. Liepa could have said that the moon is made of green cheese, but now, 1-year later, he sees that it is made of yellow cheese. The reality is that 4 million is lost. Thanks Mr. Varga, but please be more accurate with the wording. So much for "specials" and "programs." AK |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Archive · Next Topic » |






9:10 AM Jul 11