Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 22 comments | Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Schools bracing for major cuts
Published Monday, December 15, 2008
The Chilton County Board of Education is bracing for proration after Gov. Bob Riley announced a 12.5-percent education budget cut for the upcoming year on Monday.
The proposed budget cut is the worst proration in 48 years when the education budget was cut by 14.1 in 1961.
School Superintendent Keith Moore was surprised to hear the budget cut was so large.
“We were hoping for only a budget cut of 6 percent, but this is much more than that,” Moore said. “We haven’t been able to figure out just how much that is for us.”
Moore plans to sit down with Chief Financial Officer Steve Yeargan to determine what the school system is going to do. Proration should also be one of the topics discussed during today’s Board of Education meeting at 4 p.m.
Riley is withdrawing half of the education Rainy Day Fund, which is $218 million, to lessen the impact of proration. The withdrawal will result in an effective proration rate of 9 percent.
“The second half of the Rainy Day Fund will be distributed during the remainder of the fiscal year,” Riley said. “Based on all the economic forecasts I have, I believe this is the wisest course of action. Doing this allows us to responsibly manage the disbursement of the Rainy Day Fund and also meet the needs of our schools.”
Riley made the announcement about proration while he was unveiling his Deficit Prevention Plan that includes a hiring freeze on state workers, a freeze on state employee merit pay raises, stopping the purchase of new state vehicles and other measures.
The plan includes cuts of 10 percent in the current fiscal year to state agencies.
“Because of the national economic slowdown, if we remain on our current course, Alabama will finish this fiscal year with a budget deficit. That is unacceptable, not only because the state has a legal obligation to operate with a balanced budget, we also have a moral obligation to put Alabama’s fiscal house in order,” Riley said during a press conference at the State Capitol. “This Deficit Prevention Plan requires state government to do what Alabamians are having to do: figure out how to get by with less during these tough times.”
The state is reducing its spending by 10 percent in state agencies funded out of the General Fund. This will reduce spending in these agencies by about $200 million in the current fiscal year.
The hiring freeze will reduce the number of state employees by about 3,000 over the next year.
– Brent Maze can be reached at brent.maze@clantonadvertiser.com.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by amrybnu333 (anonymous) on December 16, 2008 at 3:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Since there is a budget deficit,i wonder if our elected officials will give up the huge increase that THEY voted for themselves?That would go a long way in convincing myself and other Alabamians that they truely care about helping lower operating costs,mabey we could even lay off some of the bloated job rolls and take back all the cars and trucks AND gas cards of those that take state vehicles home with them.And of coarse they would give up their health care so that medicare and medicaid would have enough money to take careof those whom really need it. NOT!!! Guess they don`t care after all. DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Posted by TheDude (Michael Wells) on December 16, 2008 at 7:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
kw, somehow I knew you were related to Riley ...
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on December 16, 2008 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sounds good to me.
Posted by REK1138 (anonymous) on December 16, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah, thanks Governor Bob for having the guts to actually live within a budget. What a radical concept, we don't spend money we don't have! After all, throwing billions at our public school system has had such wonderful results - we've managed to stay ahead of Louisiana and Mississippi anyway! I just can't figure how the real governor of Alabama, union boss Paul Hubbard, allowed this to happen.
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on December 16, 2008 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
REK1138: Well said! I'm no fan of the guv, but he did the right thing here. If he wasn't throwing our savings account into a black hole I would actually sing his praises.
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on December 16, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
kw: You are absolutely right that the buck stops with the Governor because that's his job. He should have been able to see last year that with the economy already going down the tubes then, that revenues would be declining and should have lowered all stste budgets then instead of sitting pretty and just hoping things worked out.
Paul Hubbard indeed is not in the classroom. His job is to stay behind the scenes to protect bad teachers through tenure and to make for certain that no system of testing to determine if teachers actually know enough to teach anybody anything is ever put in place. If he was interested in what is best for the students, and the tax payers, he would be looking for ways of weeding out bad teachers instead of protecting them.
Posted by steve42 (anonymous) on December 16, 2008 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The quality of Alabama's education system is questionable, from K5 all the way to the post-secondary levels, and Paul Hubbard and his cronies are only a [significant] part of the problem.
I truly believe there are good teachers in the school systems who really try to work with their limited resources to educate the kids. Unfortunately, our society's unwillingness to discipline children and the continued lower of the bar for educational expectations conitues to erode the core of the system.
Parents who can't believe their kids aren't behaving and aren't studying will fight the school to avoid a failing grade, and the PTA programs in most schools have nearly disappeared.
I believe it is possible to get a good education in nearly any school system, but it takes a special sort of student to pull it off. If the student has no self-worth and the parents don't encourage achievement, then he or she will never rise above the level of the teacher. If the teacher is there to collect an abeit meager paycheck and to fill in the checkboxes to move the kids along, the kids will continue to suffer.
I've seen the numbers, though we had to go to the Birmingham News to find them. Our county schools, even the one that is touted as the "good school", have fared poorly in comparison to other systems in the state and region.
When the teachers are supplementing supplies from their own pockets and the top brass and union bosses are earning 6 figures, there's a problem. Denying it don't make it untrue.
Posted by callitwhatitis (anonymous) on December 16, 2008 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The teacher's education is not the question, it is what has happened to parenting! BUT, just because someone gets a degree in education does NOT mean they are mentally stable for a classroom!
If you truely want to see changes in students it STARTS AT HOME! These are teachers there to educate, not parent your children for 8 hours a day, then take papers home to grade and work on lesson plans for the next day or week for the little pay they do receive.
As long as teachers have to spend part of their time on dicipline instead of education, test scores will continue to fall. Why not hold the parents responsible for the students attitude in the classroom like they do attendance?
Posted by PhilBurnette (anonymous) on December 16, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
callitwhatitis....then arrange for DHR and others to butt out when parents try to discipline their kids. Everyone blames the parents but then won't allow parents to do their job!
Posted by chiltontransplant (anonymous) on December 16, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"...........to make for certain that no system of testing to determine if teachers actually know enough to teach anybody anything is ever put in place."
Oh that's brilliant Nov162!! Ever heard of the ATTP for prospective teachers trying to earn state certification? Ever heard of the Praxis and Praxis II for already certified teachers to keep their certification and jobs? No, I'm not a teacher, just make it a point to be informed before I speak. You should try it some time.
Posted by chiltontransplant (anonymous) on December 16, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok, I'll play along........What does Bob Riley have to do with a decline in tax revenues? He's not standing in front of corporate Al. doors preventing consumers from entering in and purchasing goods and services. Has he stopped the construction of new homes, which is a huge determinant of Al.'s GDP; has he stopped the sale of automobiles; did he create email and caused a huge decline in the production of paper in our International Paper plants; raised food prices and caused a dramatic decline in disposable incomes? I got it, he is responsible for big oil and pump gouging. That commi!!
Posted by REK1138 (anonymous) on December 16, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Again, if you wish for less government, you're getting your wish!"
That's a fallacy. Proration has nothing to do with the size of government and government funding is not equally proportional to an actual or perceived size of government. This is nothing more than a veiled attempt to make the argument that "big" government (meaning more government intervention in terms of government dollars) is the answer to all of our problems. If throwing money at our education system was the answer then why are we still in the bottom five of everything?
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on December 16, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
chiltontransplant: Spoken like a true teacher's union wannabe. Or could you not pass the test? By the way, that's APTTP. And yes, I have heard of Praxis. This testing program was a compromise between certain minority prospective teachers, ASU, (with AEA holding their hand all the way) and the state board of education after the afore mentioned minorities complained that the originally proposed subject matter testing was "racially biased", which, of course, was a total load of bovine scatology. There's you a little more infomation.
Posted by heathermc (anonymous) on December 16, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
excuse me but i don't believe anyone wishes for less government but for less idiots. that is what is running our country. yeah no child left behind, all that means is lower the standards a little more all the way down to the bottom. Lord forbid a child fails honestly. Why is it all these parents pay for sports like football but not help out with teacher salaries or supplies for the class. i send things for my daughters class all the time and i fully understand that not everyone can but some parents should match donations to the school for all they spend on sports. chilton county schools would be rich
Posted by NoSugar (anonymous) on December 16, 2008 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I must say I have never heard the word "scatology" but will have to remember it for future use.
Posted by chiltontransplant (anonymous) on December 16, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Very good Nov162, you know how to Google. If you knew all of this to begin with you wouldn't have made the statement about no testing ("...........to make for certain that no system of testing to determine if teachers actually know enough to teach anybody anything is ever put in place."), now would you??
Teacher's Union wannabe.......That's good! You are impressive!!!!
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on December 16, 2008 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with your statement heathermc, except I, for one, DO wish for less government. Unfortunately, the republican party which campaigned over the last couple of decades on the partial platform of less government, gave us the exact opposit and handed the democrats the presidency and congress in the process.
You are right about the No Child Left Behind program. What a crock that is.
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on December 16, 2008 at 4:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
chiltontransplant: I stand by my statement. I didn't have to Google anything to remember the debacle from just a few years ago of the lawsuits and threatened lawsuits from ASU and some of their alumni over the idea that teachers might have to actually pass tests in the subjects that they were wanting to teach. AEA was against the testing, too. Lots of unions have training and testing programs and career progression programs for their members to keep them on top of their game, but not the teacher's union. Why would the union be against ensuring that their members are completely qualified to do their jobs? I can only think of one reason. As informed as you like to fancy yourself I'm sure you'll have an answer for me.
Posted by chiltontransplant (anonymous) on December 16, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What does ASU and AEA have to do with testing for teachers (Praxis) and prospective teachers (APTTP) that is mandated by the federal government (No Child Left Behind). So ASU and AEA were against teacher testing, so were the millions of certified teachers across our state and nation who had been teaching for a number of years, yet had to make a passing score on a federally mandated test to keep their jobs. Bottom line is; there is teacher testing in the state of Alabama regardless of your accusation that Hubbard is making ("certain that no system of testing to determine if teachers actually know enough to teach anybody anything is ever put in place.").
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on December 16, 2008 at 5:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
chiltontransplant:
Do a little Googleing and you'll get your answer.
Why shoud any teacher be afraid to, or not want to, take a test to show that they are qualified to teach the subjects that they are hired to teach? When the Feds first started talking about putting in place some sort of program to test for teacher competency, Alabama proposed a testing program for that very thing and ASU and some of their alumni, and Hubbard, started screaming like little children about "racially biased" testing, and "unfairness to minorities" and other such nonsense. A compromise was reached, with the above parties kicking and screaming all the way, and we have the program that we have now. And test scores have not appreciably improved, and in some places have declined. If Hubbard had his way, his members wouldn't have to pass any test that required them to know much more than their name. So, I'll stand by my premise that Hubbard's job is to prevent his members from having to prove their competency, even if he was only partially successful in this particular case.
Posted by chiltontransplant (anonymous) on December 16, 2008 at 6:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nov162...........I now have no idea what you're even talking about. I never said testing should not be done - Don't put words in my keyboard.....I simply said testing was already in place, in response to the comment you made ("...........to make for certain that no system of testing to determine if teachers actually know enough to teach anybody anything is ever put in place."). Now I'm bored so I will digress to Andy Griffith. I bid you ado!!
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on December 16, 2008 at 6:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm bored too, otherwise I wouldn't be arguing about something that has nothing to do with the original story. I didn't say that you said that testing shouldn't be done. You blew off that ASU and AEA were against competency testing, which was the crux of my statement, and then added that "...so were millions of other teachers...". So, now I don't know what you're talking about. Since neither of us knows what the other is talking about, and I'm sure that the other people reading this are convinced that neither of us do, I suppose we should just let it go or rejoin the original story. Andy Griffith sounds pretty good to me. Nip it, nip it in the bud! :)
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)