[Vision2020] MSD Student-to-Teacher ratio

[Dale Courtney]

As always, I can count on Mike Curley to provide a reasoned response. Much
appreciated!

Mike pointed out the following considerations: 

> MSD has at least one teacher 
> performing administrative work (as previously noted); MSD has 
> gifted/talented coordinators who are reported to the state as 
> teachers, but who do not hold class; MSD has in many years a 
> teacher who is being paid (and counted for statistical 
> purposes) who is on medical leave at full pay. And, MSD has 
> the above-noted prep period. Not every district would have 
> all those situations OR in the same proportions as MSD. 

Mike is right about this. However, I would point out a few matters: 
1. The larger school districts typically *do* provide such services. That is
why their student/teacher ratios are higher than in the smaller school
districts.
2. Regardless of these considerations, the student-to-teacher ratio does a
good job of showing *overhead* of our programmatic decisions (full medical
leave; G&T; prep time; etc). IMO, *all* of these need to be on the table for
consideration in budget times. Let's kill the sacred budget cows and
reconsider our previous decisions. 

> The district's $17M budget is pretty complex. District 
> Business Manager (accountant) Sue Driskill has repeatedly won 
> state awards for her office's thorough, accurate, and timely 
> work on the budget and other financial matters. 

Across the board, I've heard nothing but *excellent* comments about Sue
Driskill and her work at MSD. I don't envy the position she is in. Can you
*imagine* being the business manager for MSD! Yikes!

> The numbers 
> are available in eye- glazing array for anyone who wants to 
> analyze them. 

Well, you would hope so. However, I have formally requested data from MSD;
they have not met the 10 day, legal deadline for providing the data that I
requested. 

If you would be interested in allowing me to peruse that data, I'd take you
up on that offer! I would like to know exactly what data *is* being tracked.


> To maintain services and pay increased salaries it is clear 
> that MSD will be back for a levy increase at some future 
> date, perhaps as early as next year. It is unfortunate that 
> we don't get answers to questions and statistics like those 
> presented by Mr. Courtney directly from the district. 

Also note that we have MSD school board members who are subscribed to this
list (Tim Kinkeade, etc). They have been notoriously silent to these
objections. You would think that those in positions of responsibility and
with inside knowledge would be willing to answer these objections.

> Superintendent Donicht promised better communication from 
> that office. I think this listserve deserves an occasional 
> answer from her, but as her first year draws to a close, I 
> don't recall seeing anything responsive from her on this 
> list. For $91,000 per year I hoped for better. 

Agreed!  Yet to be answered -- why, with the ever *decreasing* student
numbers in MSD (3 percent per year) do we need an additional levy? You
cannot have the students disappearing at a rate faster than the downsizing
of faculty/admin, and say that we need a revenue increase!  Please answer me
that one!

Lastly, as of this coming school year, size-wise MSD falls into the Tier 3
school district. There's a mentality change that must also occur -- we are
no longer the large school district that we were 7 years ago; and there is
no sign that we will be anywhere in the near future
(http://www.sd281.k12.id.us/GeneralInformation/files/Enrollment.pdf). 

Best,
Dale Courtney
Moscow, Idaho