What do you suppose will happen when the state revokes the Q.E.O. as it is most likely to do with the new majority in the assembly. Class sizes are going to have to rise while teacher positions will have to be cut, Tom or tax rates will rise intolerably. Do you really think that the voters are going to stand for large tax increases at a time when their incomes and home values are declining? Should they? That would be a tough case to make, wouldn't you say? One could opine that maintaining employment levels and raises is pandering as well, pandering to the districts employees that is. After all, increasing spending and taxes mainly benefit the employees, it does little and may actually be detrimental for the child whose family has less food and clothing due to increasing rents paid out of decreasing income. And of course it totally ignores the effects to those on fixed incomes who struggle every year to adjust budgets for increased taxes or rents. Are we to tolerate an increase in malnutrition among the poor and elderly for the benefit of our public servants, the school district employees who insist on their raises without lay offs?

I wasn't going to do this but since you get to make statements without facts I am inclined to reply. First, it is yet to be determined the decline in enrollment if any. Secondly if the QEO is at 4% let's say, the increase to salary and benefits to the JEA alone is at least 2.5 million dollars. If your suggestion is to balance the budget(or have no increase) by reducing staff then just to off-set a JEA QEO minimum it would be approximately 50 teachers. Since any enrollment drop, again if any, would be accross the spectrum of k-12(one here, one there, etc) it would be highly unlikely there would be any teaching lay-offs. So then to offset a QEO increase of $2,500,000 it would have to come from the remainder of staff. Bottom line I don't believe this board will offset a QEO increase to teachers by laying off non teaching staff to the tune of $2,500,000. And that is only a QEO increase to teachers. If any other costs go up, WP&L, books, supplies etc, then it would take additional staff to be laid off to offset those costs.

To have a zero budget increase sounds good, and is somewhat pandering in my opinion, but not practical and not achievable, again in my opinion. Tom Wolfe

There is one way to cut spending Tom, reduce staff. Since the school system is shrinking, this should be very possible.

Billnewbie, if you read my post I was speaking to Bill Sodemann about his "pay freeze for administrators". I certainly am aware of contracts since I negotiated several with the JEA while I was on the board. By law the JEA is guaranteed a 3.8% QEO package, which equates to over 4%, with lane movements, so I don't know how the board could make a zero percent increase in the budget when nearly 900 people are guaranteed an increase of over 4% collectively. Notice I say "collectively" since some get more and some get less depending on tenure, education etc.

We've been shoveling ever increasing amounts of money into this enterprise called public education for decades with ever diminishing returns in educational value for the students. If more money equals better educational results then why have we experienced the opposite? Isn't it true that a great many new college students need remedial classes to make them college ready? Was that true 50 years ago? or even 25 years ago? Doesn't it typically take longer than 4 years for a college student to acquire a 4 year diploma? Was that typical 50 years ago? or even 25 years ago? Some believe, and with some justification, that the typical high school and college graduate is more indoctrinated than educated Our schools don't need more money they need a new philosophy which includes discipline at its forefront as well as a return to an emphasis on "hard studies" with a rapid de-emphasis on social engineering. We need to quit trying to indoctrinate these kids into living an approved creed while exposing them to many such creeds and teaching well so that they can choose one for themselves.

"I'm all for a total wage freeze, Tom but be realistic. Contracts cannot just be broken.. . . Besides, the political reality is that the party in power (the Democrats) at both the state and federal level owe a lot to public service and teachers unions."

I gather from your statement Bill that you understand that funding for schools has become a party issue. Gee, if future employers are going to emerge from our population or come to our area, do you think that the quality of local public schools would be a factor??? Public schools are the foundation of our democratic system. The JSB & Admin tout the great schools we have here in Janesville, but your statement minimizes funding to a political party issue. That perspective could blind some Board members to the possibilities these challenging times present. Open your eyes to the bigger, non-partisan picture of the value for our schools. Thank the hard working people who see beyond the immediate dollar. This community saw fit to invest in their public schools as part of the infrastructure to bring employers to J'lle in the early 1900's. A century later that vision is no less important. We need believers and visionaries now.

I'm all for a total wage freeze, Tom but be realistic. Contracts cannot just be broken. Labor law is clear on that particularly with a public entity such as a school district. The only way to circumvent the labor contracts is through bankruptcy and I doubt a case can be made for that any time soon. Besides, the political reality is that the party in power (the Democrats) at both the state and federal level owe a lot to public service and teachers unions.

With Janesville's economy the way it is, I hope there are no immediate plans on school renovations. If there are, how will this get paid?

maybe a stop to all the uneccessary overtime i see in the district could go towards other things needed.

Bill, I know you read these blogs from time to time. Even though I don't have an opinion right now on a pay freeze, but why signal out just administrators vs. other categories? I assume it is because they aren't represented by a bargaining unit. If that is the criteria then why not include all employees that are not represented? And why not represented employees as well? Lastly the district is currently recruiting for top administrators, would this be a tactic that these prospects would find inviting? Thanks for your service to the district and the community.

Tom

Election years are wonderful for budgetary constraint.

How will the district get an accurate account of students returning next year when high school students tell the teacher they are moving for sure and they are instructed to fill out a schedule anyway thus appearing to be returning in the fall? Just wondering . . .

Thank you, Mr. Sodemann. An administrative pay freeze would be an effective cost-saving tool, and a wonderful gesture to the taxpayers of Janesville.

I think the school employees should take a 5% salary reduction, and a suspension of their retirement 401K employer match like I had to. Giving them any kind of raise would raise my ire greatly.