Wondering if our school board and administrators have looked into the Lakeland School in Elkhorn. It is a cost efficient Special Education facility. Of course our administrators are looking into three new "charter" schools. This requires an entourage of "educators" to go out of state and attend conventions that explain these "charter" schools. Hmmmmm

I've read many good idea's on this blog and I hope that Rocksolid actually opens this up to see them. I would agree that most could afford an additional $30 for enrollment so that should definitely be considered. I would also like to see higher fees for athletics. I also think that more administration cuts need to come before teacher cuts. The teachers are fundamental in the fight for this city to survive. If we start undercutting that foundation the rest of the city will sure crumble. When business look to relocate or start up they look at school districts so wouldn't we want ours to be the best it can be?

*

I also think we need to look at how we make cuts. Cuts based on seniority alone will not make us a better district. We need to find a way to grade teachers on performance. I would think the only teachers that have a problem with this would be the ones in fear of what might come out of this. I realize that is easier said than done since the teacher is only one part of a students life and that there are many other forces working against the teachers. It is unfortunate that many exceptional younger teachers will be losing their jobs because of seniority. It's not like they have a choice to avoid the union.

BCP
You can find that employee travel is budgeted at $2,132 in 2010-11 for Undifferentiated Curriculum (function 100000) and at $16,280 fot Regular Curriculum (function 120000) and the amounts for other areas are there too.
Its not easy to find but the Budget Report is on the School Finance Reporting Portal at:
http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/sfs/safrlinks...
You might have to spend some time with WUFAR to understand the codes:
http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/sfs/pdf/wufar...

"Billy Clyde Puckett / Moo Shoo
Janesville's budget report (and past annual reports) are readily available to the public on DPI's web site."

Perhaps I just don't know where to look but what I find is not what I am talking about. I can look at the 10-11 budget and see that employee travel is budgeted at $593.244 for the year (up over 25% from two years ago) but I can't seem to find out what that money is being spent on. I am talking about being able to see the exact breakdown of what these pools of money are going to be spent on during the year as well as what they were spent on in the previous year. If this piece of the budget was able to be trimmed to 08-09 levels it would fund one teaching position. Work through the entire budget this way with teaching cuts and tax increases being determined only after all the other costs have been trimmed.
If this breakdown exists and I am just missing it let me know where

NL. I choose:

2. The teacher pay system really does reward better performance as indicated by years of service, and we are purposely paying our best teachers to retire at the expense of instructional quality.

----

I advocate the idea of early retirement benefits only as a concession to budget woes. It is not in the best interest of the students, but few choices are at this point. Less experienced staff and higher class sizes do hurt instructional quality, something I am loathe to accept.

"Funding teacher health benefits after retirement is a net savings to the district, because they can get older, highly paid teachers off the payroll and hire younger, cheaper labor."

Well, if this is true, it poses an intersting choice for the union. Either

1. The younger cheaper teachers are doing as good a job as the older teachers, so we have to pay older teachers not to work to save money, or

2. The teacher pay system really does reward better performance as indicated by years of service, and we are purposely paying our best teachers to retire at the expense of instructional quality.

Put more simply:

1. The current way we pay teachers is an absolute joke as evidenced by the fact that we have to pay employees out of instructional funds not to work in order to work around the screwed up system

Or

2. We are paying outrageous retirement benefits and raising class sizes in order to lower instructional quality.

Which is it?

BillyClyde- I've actually run the numbers on the post-retirment benefits including your assumptions. The savings when a high salary individual retires aren't just on salary, they are also on FICA, WRS and other expenses scaled to salary. It is true that they are paying benefits on two instead of one, but the new, right-out-of-college teacher usually takes a "single" plan versus the "family" plan for the retiree. Net savings that first year is about $30k. Second year that savings diminishes and, assuming that the new teacher gets married and switches to family benefits after 3 or 4 years, the savings seems to be a push at about year 5. In years 6 + (not sure how many years of benefits J'vlle offers) there is a slightly higher cost to the district, but even assuming a max of 8 years paid benefits for the retiree and regular salary advancement for the new teacher (like MS degree after 5 years), there is still a significant net savings for the district over the period.

Billy Clyde Puckett / Moo Shoo
Janesville's budget report (and past annual reports) are readily available to the public on DPI's web site.

"Noleftist - the post-retirement benefits are a red herring argument. Funding teacher health benefits after retirement is a net savings to the district, because they can get older, highly paid teachers off the payroll and hire younger, cheaper labor."

This argument denies simple economics. If an older teacher retires it is true that they can bring a younger teacher in at a lower salary. However, benfit costs remain nearly the same for that new teacher and now the system must pay for the new teacher plus the full package offered for the newly retired teacher. This package is in excess of the 30k a year savings you reference and will continue to be paid as the new teachers salary escalates.

MooShoo has an excellent point. Gov. Walker's budget could mean major changes to school funding and generate whole new problems to solve at the local level. I'm afraid the $10m in needed cuts may even double.

----

The "penny-wise, pound-foolish" ideas like "cut 4k" and "cut athletics" really aren't helping. Saving a few bucks today only to see even lower enrollments simply compounds things. There will need to be some painful changes at all levels, including money from the taxpayers, of which I am one. Some say we can't afford to fund our schools, when the reality is we can't afford NOT to fund them.

----

Noleftist - the post-retirement benefits are a red herring argument. Funding teacher health benefits after retirement is a net savings to the district, because they can get older, highly paid teachers off the payroll and hire younger, cheaper labor. The cost of the continued insurance for the teacher is not $100k/year, it may be $100k over 6-8 years. In the meantime the district saves $30k/year on the lower salary they pay the new teacher. Early retirement incentives are part of the package that the board should be considering as an overall cost savings.

Absolutely no mention of teacher health retirement benefits that total over $100k per teacher which rise every year and come out of instructional funds.

Is that because the district and Gazette don't know about the costs, or because they don't want anyone else to know about them?

Mouse.....It all comes down to being financially responsible and living within our means. Asking the taxpayers to spend $2,000,000 on an ice rink that 95% of them will never use is not a good idea. A passenger train that will add a minimum of $5,000,000 each year, every year to a state budget that taxpayers are already struggling to cover is not a good idea. Teachers receiving $3,000,000 in raises in the midst of the worst recession/depression of our lifetimes is not a good idea. Obama's HCR--and expecting the taxpayers to front a minimum of $1,000,000,000,000 to implement it, when the government has proven over and over again it is completely unable to run any program effectively and efficiently is not a good idea. While I admire your optimism and your desire to provide everyone with whatever they ask for, we have to come to terms with reality here. I realize that this will come as a shock to many, but money really does not grow on trees. In this day and age we have to be responsible with what we have.........

One of the least painful cut may come from taking 4 year olds out of the school system for now.

The people of Janesville supported $70M for the high schools and funding for 4 year olds in our schools. We do care about the children and we also have to care about the people that can't afford more taxes. If TAX TO THE MAX catches on the city and county may make it our new mantra. As Paul Ryan says tough decisions have to be made at all levels of government.

And another thing, have other parents or grandparents noticed that their kids/grandkids are getting discouraged with school? It seems to me like the teachers are feeling threatened and it is rubbing off on our kids. Please stop the nonsense before we have a couple generations of nimrods!

The 800+ teachers we have now cannot handle the students, we are looking at a big disaster in education in Janesville. For goodness sakes, my grandson got suspended for 3 days for hitting another kid while playing football, now that is stupid. Why did the teacher not handle it like in the good ole days? Instead they send them home for a vacation!

8bit_glory
give me a break, dude, i am using a pentium 2 with dialup!

tpaine09 and others like you: either you're a comment troll, or you really believe what you're saying. Just because you want to go back to Europe, 600 A.D., doesn't mean the rest of us want to come with you. I enjoy running water and electricity and medicine and reading and writing. From your statements, you seem almost hypocritical using such a high-falutin' technologico-thingamajig like them Internets series of tubes. That's why I think you're fake ;)

tpain - There are many many people giving time and money out of pocket to the schools. The kids are getting more than a little extra from many people. I'm glad you pay school taxes and then home school, thanks for your contribution.

Mouse - It's not all doom in gloom in Janesville. There are still many great companies (and surrounding areas) and many still employed. GM and related companies leaving is the main reason for this towns issues. That in itself is a separate beast. Try dreaming a little bigger yourself. The outcome might surprise you.

futurerichguy,
not sure your point. are you saying home schooled students don't (or don't have the chops to) attend "tier one" colleges?
i know of several -- some of whom have full-ride scholarships.

billyclyde had some interesting points on those who receive free stuff and wear $160 shoes.
moosoo- states it well too. It isn't the extra $100 it is the whole amount they get an cannot budget correctly!
8bitofglory- she also stated it well you don't pay her taxes.
When incomes go down and all that money isn't there we deal with it and budget accordingly. We don't go to the neighbor and ask for money- well I don't. We continually cut this and cut that so the bills get paid yet no more money is coming in. THEY need to do the same . Figure it out.

Lets do this to satisfy the teacher and union greed. 1)a 1/2% city tax on all purchases,everybody pays,not just property owners.2)Eliminate 30 teacher and administrative positions.Trim athletics. Who needs volley ball, swimming etc. Cuts must be made !!!
Cuts must be Made !! Do you hear us ?

I do feel it is very interesting that they b#$%% and b#$%ed for a raise and got it now they want to let a bunch go.
Also maybe 70 MILLION for improvements was a bit much!!!!!?????? Cullen did this work. It seems they inflate the price when they do work in certain places because they ASSUME the place will feel obligated to have them do the work and sometimes it is quite inferior!

simon

"I, too, think the time has come to raise taxes. Football66 is correct. If people consider their "latte" factor and could reduce spending by even a dollar a day, a tax increase wouldn't hurt so much."
OK let's start with you, tomorrow when you go to the court house to pay the 1st installment of your r.e. taxes add a little extra FOR THE KIDS...

Why can't Paul Ryan get us an increase in education funds from the Federal Government? Why didn’t the Redneck Fest organizers have a school fundraiser? Why do I feel like South Central Wisconsin is going to be known as the Appalachia of the Midwest? Maybe it’s time to move back to Madison.

booch11, other than Tim Tebow, can you name a single person who was home schooled who received a Tier 1 college degree (and not in Home Ec like Tebow)?

How about making sports self sufficient. I am certain that if an appeal were made to businesses in t he area (or those wealthy you want to tax into oblivion) you will find a generous soul that would help out. (uniforms, expenses, something).

If the majority of Seniors can graduate after the first semester of their senior year; what are they still doing in school?
How much are we paying all the coachs on the bench of every sporting event?
How come the majority of Validictorians come from parochial schools?
The mindset of everyone deserves an education needs to be replaced with; those who want an education deserve one. Cut alternative schools.
Tough choices to make but throwing more money at the problem is not the answer!

mouse,
put your money where your mouth is!
to assume home schooled kids lack social skills is idiotic.
to say so assumes:
they have no friends
they stay in the house 24/7
they are not socially active in their church, clubs or community
have no interactions with adults
*******
frankly, some of the most well-mannered, socially relevant young adults i've ever met have been home schooled.

"But I would add that if you qualify for reduced lunch fees you automatically qualify for reduced enrollment fees. I could see paying $250 a kid for enrollment, but only maybe $40 if you qualify, and nothing if your income is below the poverty line for your family size. A larger athletic fee (currently $50) for sports would be OK with me also, but only if there is a mechanism so no child is left out for lack of ability to pay that fee"

Interesting idea and one I could support when someone finds a way to make sure that the kid getting the free lunch stops checking their Twitter account on their new I-Phone every couple of minutes and the kid who gets the athletic fees paid for quits showing up for tryouts in a new $165 pair of Nike's. The willingness to continue to put the burden on the working families in places like Janesville amazes me.

tpaine~ After reading your posts I can only come to the conclusion that you are trying to stir the pot. Either that or you are smoking too much of it. Anyone who knows anything about this mess knows that cutting teachers is not the answer. This whole issue is a vicious cycle. I suggest tpaine move to another community or support the one you live in.

I, too, think the time has come to raise taxes. Football66 is correct. If people consider their "latte" factor and could reduce spending by even a dollar a day, a tax increase wouldn't hurt so much.

Mouse.......Yes, big, bad corporate America is the root of all evil and should be forced to pay for everything!!!!! Seriously--get a life:)

"Do you also know that every time the district does not "tax to the max" (a horrible phrase) the state gives us less money the next year?"
LESS IS more..
home school IS the answer to this bloated bureaucracy.
let us put these whiney,job fearing teachers on the soup line...before they tax you there...

I would not mind paying more for enrollment as frogger suggested. But I would add that if you qualify for reduced lunch fees you automatically qualify for reduced enrollment fees. I could see paying $250 a kid for enrollment, but only maybe $40 if you qualify, and nothing if your income is below the poverty line for your family size. A larger athletic fee (currently $50) for sports would be OK with me also, but only if there is a mechanism so no child is left out for lack of ability to pay that fee. Cutting 120 teachers should not even be brought up for discussion, let alone considered as a solution.

It is less money to get a proper education in high school than it is to do an extra semester in college to make up for a poor primary education. Do we not have the responsibility to our children to give them the best upbringing we can, and is an education not part of that? Once they’re adults they need to stand on their own two feet, but until then it is society’s duty to provide for children’s needs.

None of us have the perfect answer or we would not be in this position. I don't know the amount of taxes Janesville lost when GM went vacant, but we can be sure it was oodles of bucks. I agree with frogger on one idea....increase the yearly registration fee. I have 2 kids at Parker and 3 step kids at Hononegah in Rockton and it costs alot more to register there. It's approx $150 to $175 a child to register....that's no yearbook, athletics, parking, etc....just registration. Maybe a bit of a hike would help there.

Before raising taxes or cutting teachers how about posting a line item budget for the district for 2011 on line? Athletics are wonderful but do you really need to pay a freshman golf coach or have multiple volleyball teams with paid coaches at each middle school? Continuing education is a great thing but are there travel, hotel costs, etc that could be pulled out of the budget by identifying local options? When Milwaukee had the budget for their public school system posted on line (it was quickly taken down because of the outrage it sparked) the amoung of waste was staggering. Cutting teachers and raising taxes should boht be last resorts. Eliminating much of the waste that occurs in the public education system might not get you to the full amount needed but every teachers job it saves and every dollar it leaves in the pocket of Janesville tax payers is a start.

I think a combination of these solutions is in order. Athletics are a wonderful thing for kids for many reasons but I believe charging them a usage fee is the best solution for that, not dropping the programs all together. The $50 or $75 usage fee now is not enough. My kid plays hockey and we pay around $1000 per season for all the things needed. In addition, close one of the elementary schools and then relocate the ESC and the charter schools to that building, saving tons in monthly rents for building the JSD doesn't own. That'd be a start. Raising taxes is a good option too, but maybe going for a 5% increase would be more palatable to the community. We need a place to begin, folks.

huntfish1: Very well said! I'm not sure I want to send my son to the Janesville Schools either.

fbcoach66: We can all afford to give up a diet pepsi a week....and we should have been doing that in years past! Our taxes have not be touched in years, and now the District is paying for it.

seems like the people on here only want more taxes, bigger athletic programs and more teachers to teach less students. Isn't this the type of thinking that got us here in the first place. I thinks it's time to slim down, adjust and do more with less. It might meen some jobs, and little johnny might have to put up with more classmates but let's just call it getting ready for the real world and college size classes

I think the school board needs a lesson in accounting. How did it get this bad? It should never have gotten this bad.

What if the kids that go to school actually pay to go to school. What is the yearly fee for one kid to go to school $30? Double that. How much would that equal so we can keep the teachers?

Are the teachers being given an opportunity to help control their own destiny? Given the grim financial realities we are facing, what might the people in the trenches suggest to help control spending and save jobs? Is it possible the people most affected by this big problem might bring forth some creative and caring solutions?

If district raises taxes by the maximum amount set by the state (so there are already controls). It would mean $112 per year for the average Janesville house, which also holds 1.6 adults. So $112/1.6/52weeks = $1.35 PER WEEK. I spent $1.59 last night on a diet pepsi, I can give up one diet pepsi a week for the kids of Janesville. And it is for the kids, the JEA contract is already less than the state average for the 4 year deal.

So are the kids of Janesville worth a soda a week???

Do you also know that every time the district does not "tax to the max" (a horrible phrase) the state gives us less money the next year? This causes a horrible downward spiral.

10% is not a total property tax increase it is just the schools portion of your bill not the city, county etc. I have three kids about to start school. Milton district now but were thinking of school choicing to Janesville. Wow not now. Can't imagine having kids in elementary schools with the class sizes they will be and sharing principals. School board screwed this up by not taxing in years past.

BRAVO! WELL SAID 8bit_glory, Stubby and abluedevil

Cut the co-curriculars and see where our state aid goes then!!! People like eatless should have to pay double the taxes for thinking the way they do!

@mooshoo: If you can afford your house, you can afford a meager 10% property tax increase. What *none* of us can afford is to cut teaching positions and athletics. What our society needs is for our young generation to grow up smart and strong. By cutting teaching positions now, we're sqandering our future. I plan on being around for awhile, so if it comes to it, I would gladly take the property tax hike since it's more than worth it. Besides, the R.O.I. has to be better than my 401K's... so much for the "magic of the market."

eatlessmovemore:
Maybe consider postlessresearchmore as a moniker if you believe the District is spending anything close to $9.8 million dollars on athletics.
In 2009-10 the total spent for all co-curricular activities AND athletics in the District was less than $1.4 million (out of a total budget just north of $105 million).

Cut athletics? Sure...and watch the families run, not walk, to neighboring districts via school choice, making the problem worse.

---

In fact, cutting at all just amplifies the problem for the same reason. Education is a competitive marketplace these days, and the district that can offer the most will recruit the most students. Large class sizes and low services lead to students going elsewhere and their state aid dollars going with them. Then the problems just snowball. Janseville's only real choice is to fund the schools, painful as that may be.

Cut the administrative jobs. Why does a school need 1 principal and 4 asst principals? What happened to 1 principal and a vice principal for a school?

I see the board is not willing to rein in spending in their final proposals. Nice going school board. I now know who not to vote for, next time around.

sandman, dump "special ed"? Do you want a federal lawsuit placed on the district? Are you aware that the district gets millions of federal and state dollars for special ed students that does directly to the schools, but not special ed? If everyone pushes to discriminate against special ed by dumping the programs, the district will have close all the schools because of little to no money coming in.

1. Dump the metastasizing funding of "special ed," and make the "parents" fiscally responsible for the added necessities of tutoring and warehousing their their little gems (oh, would that we could!).

2. Leave a few children behind (the polar bears are hungry!).

3. Cut the required number of teaching positions and close some schools.

Sorry, but taxpayers are tired of funding this endless string of needs, wants and cyclical educational pipe dreams that will never replace parenting and motivation.

We can thank in part our government for some of the money short falls in our school districts and even in our cities. With regards to the schools they will hang a carrot in front of the school districts to start up programs with grants. The problem with the grant it is only for a set period of time. Once the grant is gone then the districts must find money else where in the budget to continue the "program". Well now we have people hired (social workers as an example) but the funding that started the "program" is gone. So guess what? The citizens of the community now must pay for this by way of increased taxes. There are more programs that have been adopted due to "grants" in our district and when that funding is gone from the government the citizens get to keep it going by way of you guessed it... raise the taxes... Well I guess you see the cycle... To the school district PLEASE stop with all the extra programs that begin with a grant and end up by my taxes going up.... The grants are making me go broke....!

How can cutting athletics be a simple solution. Athletics cost about $1.3 million or less. That does NOT include what athletics bring in from gate receipts and participation fees. That is still $8.7 million short.

Simple solution, cut athletics.

Wow. Cutting 120 teachers positions would mean a loss of at least 5 teachers at every school on average. In elementary schools, that could mean that class size increases by 50% or more. Do you really want your young child to go from a class of 24 to a class of 36? Will 36 desks even fit in some of the classrooms? And you thought test results were bad now!

I know that we need to look at cutting costs, but look beyond the dollars and understand the short- and long-term implications of what you choose to do, JSB.

Teachers fault! They took that raise so now the district can't manage thier checkbook. If you believe that the district wouldn't be laying people off if the JEA would have agreed to a 4 year pay freeze you need to pay better attention to the way this district/board operates. Many of you don't realize that because the board has failed to tax it now recieves less from the state. I wish the gazette would report that minor detail of the fiscal problems the district faces in an article.

I can't believe they would even consider laying off this many teachers. I know from experience how difficult it is to teach a class of 30+ students. None of them receive the education they need and deserve. I moved back to Janesville because I wanted any children I had to get a good education, but if this is the direction the district is headed, I have no reason to stay.

Wow, in a personal interview with Dr. Kim Ehrhardt,he said that all the high school teacher cuts are based on the new scheduling currently going on at the schools. We have expanded all the high schools with tax money, and now their saying that we have to cut teachers making some of the expansions unneeded? Can the school board and the city make up their mind? Their making it seem like teachers are unnecessary in this city. So let's cut 120 teachers and end up loosing half the families and students who actually want an education.

I guess they should reopen the contract and rescind the raises. WI teachers are the 8th highest paid in the country (yet our kid's test scores keep going down).
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article...

Someone should be asking why the teachers got raises in the recent contract with this sort of budget crisis. We could have saved more teachers' jobs had the raises not been conceded in contract negotiations. And before anyone starts commenting with the tired phrase "we need to keep the best and brightest" with more money, know there are many talented, skilled, and energetic certified teachers ready to take any possible openings.

WOW, nice mindset tpaine. I am sure you are a great asset to our community. Citizens like you are why people call Janesville the armpit of Wisconsin

Cutting teachers is NOT the way to balance the budget. If cuts must be made, they should come far away from the classroom. For example, how much does the district spend on the Educational Services Center? What could be eliminated there? What about administrators' salaries? In such a dire situation as this one, seemingly, those amounts could be trimmed back for a savings. But please, please don't start firing teachers!

And in the long run, we are punishing children from the rite to quality education. While I have "mixed" opinions about public schools... most of my concerns are directly related to budget cuts. How is it that we even arrived at this point in the first place? I really do not believe it is the teachers... who "eek" out a living to educate our children/grandchildren.
When class sizes push 25 in the primary years, we DO have children that pay the penalty. When I moved to Milton in 1985, the education my children received was exemplary! The classes were small and the teachers had the tools they NEEDED to educate them.
I don't have any answers, but if we rip the "proverbial rug" out from underneath our kids, the future is bleak, to say the least!

"Board member Lori Stottler said she didn't think the community would support cutting that deep"
WRONG, cut all 120 send 'em packing..

I don't understand why in the world anyone would even THINK of cutting teaching positions.. I understand the money is a problem; however, cutting teaching positions will make it worse. Why are we punishing those who TEACH kids? It's ridiculous.