Gary Bowman writes; >I realize the value of spending a little now if it saves more later and the value of quality products (in this case, a quality leader for Minneapolis Public Schools). However, even with that consideration, I must confess that I am immensely hard-pressed to justify a $30,000 raise to $190,000 in my mind. Let's keep in mind of an expected, what is the amount, $30 million shortfall? How do we say to parents that their children will have to settle for less when a person who was already making more than likely 95% of these parents is now getting a $30,000 raise?
AJ: At our meeting last night, the Board voted to amend the Superintendent's contract that had been agreed upon last July. The Board had offered a $15 thousand raise in Nov. of 2000, Dr. Johnson turned it down. When the Minneapolis Public Schools almost lost Dr. Johnson as Superintendent last summer, the Board looked at every option available and contingency plans to operate the district. We decided that the students and families of this town would be better off with Dr. Johnson at this time than any other alternative. She is recognized locally and nationally as one of the top administrators. Incidentally, she has, through her efforts, brought in over $8 million in private donations for the schools this year alone. (from a recent post that I submitted, I offered the following explanation) In a recent comparsion done by one of the major TV news channels, a comparable business the size of MPS pays its CEO over $1 million. Private schools in the area, such as Blake or Breck, pay their top directors more than $190,000. and they have far less students, no special education and no unfunded state or federal mandates. In the most recent audit received from Deloitte Touche last night, MPS is running very lean on administration, the district admin costs are at a little over 4% of expenses. Deloitte Touche, McKinsey Group and EDS are all outside business consultants, 2 of which have provided analysis of finances for MPS pro bono (for free). All 3 firms have stated emphatically that the district is running too lean in this area. Most non-profots run at 8-15%, privates schools in the area at about 8%. >Furthermore, when Minneapolis taxpayers voted YES FOR SCHOOLS, I really don't think it was the intent of the taxpayers to pay for administrative pay raises (the article also mentions another $125,000/year for a COO, adding insult to injury) AJ: The money that is raised by the referendum does not pay for administrative costs. That revenue is put into a separate account which is called fund 96. It specifically pays for teachers so we can have smaller class sizes. >In conclusion, it's these antics that leave many people with the belief that money is being misappropiated and tax increases are unjustified. I would openly challenge Carol Johnson to return her pay raise to either the district or some school related charity (PTA?) and, of course, remain Superintendent of Minneapolis Public Schools. Would this return of $30,000 to an immense budget be largely symbolic vs. of practical use? Yes, but it would demonstrate Carol Johnson's desire to run a good school system not only in letter but in spirit also. AJ: Point well taken and it is already so, however this was not reported by the media in the article yesterday. Dr. Johnson is contributing half the salary increase, $15,000 a year, to the Minneapolis Public Schools Foundation, a non-profit organization that raises money privately for such items as high school reform, Arts in Academics, etc... As to accountability, there is more information available on the school district's spending than most governmental entities. Certainly the state and federal govt. is no where near what is expected or delivered from this school district. Loki Anderson writes: I have a question about this pay hike. Were annual pay raises a part of her contract and was the amount specified in the contract, tied to performance standards, or was there a COLA? The Board is operating under a governance called a modified Carver model, otherwise known as policy governance. The Board established a set of prioities called the District Improvment Agenda, which is available thorugh the school district's web page. It has three Goals: Accelerate academic achievment for all students, Welcome and engage students. families, and community in education, implement accountablility systems for providing, assessing and supporting quality instruction. Under these are several results and points which the Board considers in making an evaluation. The full evaluation is a 4 page document which spells out the accomplishments of the Superintendent and the areas were improvement is needed. I don't want to overload people's boxes, but I will try to find out during the day if the evaluation would be available through the web page. The district has one of, if not the top, Research, Evaluation and Assessment departments in the country. Dr. David Heistad is recognized nationally and has advised states and federal govt. on the topic. He prepares a district achievement report every year which is also available through the district. It is on these indicators as well as student and family surveys, that the Board looks at in evaluation of the Superintendent. The Board hires one person only, that is the Superintendent. From there, all day to day operations are the Superintendent's responsibility. Otherwise, a Board can get mired in micromanagment, and that truly undermines the Superintendent's role. About that $30 million deficit, I must comment on the recently passed ESEA (elementary and secondary education act) bill. MPS along with hundreds of nation wide school districts, lobbied to have the Federal Govt. pick up the cost of Special Ed promised 27 years ago, and make it mandatory. All school districts, large and small, have to cover the cost of mandates not funded or underfunded by the federal govt. Here in Mpls. we are paying out an unreimbursed $28 million in this fiscal year. If the federal govt. would see fit to fulfill their promise, our deficit would be about $2 million, quite a difference! This bill calls for more testing, Wellstone recently remarked that he thought the testing was to measure the reform, not to be the reform. Our state will not receive the full amount for added testing and so there is another underfunded mandate passed on to the taxpayers at the state and local level. Title 1 funds, money targeted to poor and at risk children, only funds about 1/3 of the children it should in Minneapolis. This bill is slightly better for Minneapolis than the original only because of the difficult fight put up by Sen. Wellstone and Dayton. Bush's "leave no child behind" sentiment(a phrase lifted from the 1980's head of children's defense fund Hilary Rodham Clinton), is, in my opinion, more political platitudes; sounds cute but this bill is sorely lacking and Minneapolis, as well as the state, will stand to loose from it. Audrey Johnson 10th ward MPS BOE member _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
