Board Discussion on Warrington Middle School Contract--Stay the Course Is the Message

As I said I would do, I brought the contract for professional development, coaching, and support that was approved last month for Warrington Middle School back to the board this month for a discussion among the full board.

The contract was approved last month with two board members not present for the discussion.

I laid out the argument for pulling back the contract and taking a different approach, however all of my fellow board members and the Superintendent support going ahead with the contract as written, convinced it is the right support for Warrington Middle School.  They all voiced this strongly at the meeting.

The board based their decision to support this strategy on the strong recommendation of the incoming principal, who has stated she feels this support is essential to making the school successful.  Additionally, some of the board members have met with the personnel from this vendor and feel they will be successful.

So after hearing from the board members and realizing I was the only one with continuing reservations about this tactic at Warrington, I ended the discussion on the topic.

I can count to three and there are no shortages of other issues to move on to....

Warrington Middle School Educational Consultant Contract: I Can't Understand the Voodoo Math....

When I first voiced my concerns about the costs of the contract for educational consulting/coaching at Warrington MS in June-I was told immediately that the cost of the contract was about what we had been spending at Warrington MS, probably a lot less, and we would not be spending “About $450,000.00 that we spent last year.”

 “This was spent last year but won’t be spent this year, Mr. Bergosh” was what I had been told. 

So I recently asked for the specifics.

This list of positions and costs was provided to me today.

Now, as I go back and look at the board approved staffing grid for 2013-2014, and compare this grid to how Warrington was actually staffed for 2013-2014—It appears that Warrington was WAY overstaffed last year, as their student count began at 705 in June, fell to 674 on 8-19-13, fell to 662 on 8-21-2013, and eventually dipped to 627 students on 8-30-2013.  So the school rated, according to the grid approved by the board-- a Principal, one AP, one guidance counselor, and no dean.  (See chart below)

The reality? 

Warrington spent 2013-2014 with a principal, plus two AP’s, Two guidance counselors (and a third added after Christmas), and a dean.  So Warrington went through last year with significant levels of extra administrative support (3 + positions) that the school did not rate per its population;

 The scaling back of some of these positions for this year, i'M TOLD,  is the “savings” we are realizing to justify the consulting contract of $375,000 for 3 part time consultants-this year.  Understood? 

But wait---Does that even make sense?

 

The total positions from last year (including the ones the school did not rate based upon its FTE in the first place) that will not be here at WMS this year total out at $376,000.  See chart at top of page).

So I don’t see how matching costs realized last year, resulting from what appears to be a huge OVERSPEND at WMS , to anticipated costs this year with a contractor --makes sense. 

 I certainly don’t see this as justifiable when the contracted cost is essentially the same as what was over- spent last year ----and provides significantly fewer personnel.

I don’t understand this voodoo math.