Cherry Hill Adds Extra Budget Work Session

Please note that the Cherry Hill Board of Education has added an extra budget work session on Monday, March 30 to discuss the proposed 2009-2010 budget. The meeting will be held at the Malberg Administration Building and will begin at 7 pm.

Many parents have emailed me to ask about the agenda for this meeting and if there will be an opportunity for public comment.

I have communicated with our Board of Education President, Mrs. Giaccio about this meeting. Mrs. Giaccio said, "The primary goal on Monday is to ensure that all questions raised by Board members and community members to date are addressed by administration."

The agenda will be that of a budget work session. They will begin with an update from administration followed by Board members questions to clarify that update. They will then open for public comment on the budget.

Following that, the Board will, if time permits, discuss where they stand on the budget proposals in preparation for Wednesday's public hearing and adoption.

It is entirely possible that the Board of Education may have been under the impression that the reductions and eliminations to Special Education were very benign. Parents have been asking questions and pointing out that the proposed reductions and eliminations will create inequity and may very well subject our school district to substantial legal fees for not providing the mandated education that our children are guaranteed by law.

Upon learning from parents that these proposed cuts would have such a negative impact on the education that our children receive, I think the Board of Education is acting very responsibly by allowing extra time for public discussion on these matters.

I have received emails from many township residents saying that they will be at Monday's meeting to support our children. While some have indicated that they are not comfortable with public speaking, they have offered to be there to show their support. As the parent of a child with special education requirements, I have to say THANK YOU to everyone that is standing up to support the 2,000 special needs children in our school district. Many of the people that emailed me do not have children with special education needs. It seems that families in Cherry Hill are coming together to support each other and this can only lead to a great outcome for ALL of our children.

Reductions will Directly Impact Classrooms

Many parents have expressed concerns regarding the proposed reduction of special education teachers in certain high school inclusion classrooms. One of the proposed changes in the school budget would involve decreasing the presence of a special education teacher in the co-teaching Humanities and Science classes, from every day, to an every other day schedule. This change would cut the number of days a special education teacher would be present in these inclusion classrooms by 50%. Parents feared that the elimination of the SE teachers in these two core curriculum classes would signal the beginning of a drastic change in how Special Education services are delivered within our high schools.

At the recent CHSEPTA meeting, Dr. Campbell spoke about the considerations in budget reductions. He explained to parents that budget reductions would take place as far away from the classrooms as possible. I believe that Dr. Campbell was trying to be open and honest in his explanations, so I can only assume that he was provided with misinformation regarding this particular budget reduction. This proposed reduction will take place in classrooms and will directly impact the education that certain students receive, putting them at a distinct disadvantage.

This plan holds the potential of impacting high school special education students in a variety of negative ways. The mere fact that this change will be implemented in the 9th grade is problematic. Ninth grade is a critical year for students receiving special education services. Many of these students have difficulty adapting to change and let's face it -- High School changes everything! Course content is delivered at a much more rapid pace in high school than in middle school, which poses difficulty in adapting to this format.

These students are already starting with a disadvantage, based on their disability. To reduce the amount of time that a special education teacher is in their classroom, helping them to adapt and overcome challenges to this new learning environment, could set the stage for failure. The foundation for success in High School is set during the Freshmen year. It is imperative that these students have the special education teacher in their classroom to provide adaptations in learning materials and instruction in order to ensure their success. To have that foundation rocked by the elimination of a special education teacher, who often is the critical support person, does nothing to assist student progress -- it only sets the stage for poor performance.

Adapting to the rigors of a high school curriculum is a challenge for any student, but it is especially difficult for a student with special education needs. To now increase the level of difficulty by cutting in half the amount of time they have access to a special education teacher, is creating a gross inequity for these students.

The current arrangement of having the special education teacher in the co-teaching inclusion model during class time, allowed for a certain continuity that will be lost with this proposed reduction. The special education teacher is currently able to follow the lessons and progress of each of the students and make any necessary adaptations immediately. The oversight and guidance provided to students by this special education teacher was a critical element to their overall success.

Special education teachers are highly trained and qualified to work with special needs students. It is through the expertise, experience and extensive knowledge of a highly qualified special education teacher that these students make progress. These special education teachers can often predict potential problems in learning and make instant adaptations that enable a student to make measurable progress. To cut them out of the equation, 50% of the time, undermines their ability to work with this segment of our student population.

Decreasing the presence of special education teachers in Humanities and Science would indicate that the school district now considers these two core subjects to be of lesser value than Language Arts and Mathematics. All four subjects are part of our Core Curriculum and each should be given equal value.

This is coming at a time when a great emphasis has been placed on the importance of Science education. Secretary Arne Duncan of the US Department of Education recently stated that he wants to "launch a new era of science education in America." He said nothing about putting a certain segment of our population at a disadvantage in Science education. In fact to the contrary, Secretary Duncan stated, "The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides swift aid to states that they can use to avoid teacher layoffs and other education program cuts, modernize school buildings, and provide programs that protect the needs of special education and disadvantaged students."

In his recent speech regarding Science education, Secretary Duncan went on to say that "a nation that does not benchmark its standards against the highest international standards is crippling our children in the competition for jobs." Having a special education teacher present on a daily basis to ensure that our special needs students may fully learn the material should be of the utmost importance, as it is more in line with the direction of the US Department of Education.

It is not clear why a successful Special Education program in our high schools warrants being changed this year. The cost of two special education teachers at the high school level is less than 0.1% of the overall school budget – a minimal amount. The impact of the loss of these teachers will ultimately cost the district much more, since the result will be lower grade scores and a decrease in the number of students who score proficient on standardized tests. The consequence of this decline in academic performance will be a drop in state and federal funding to our school district.

According to Secretary Duncan "many of the stimulus dollars will go to Science education." He pointed out that "there is a pot of $650 million for education technology grants" and that "Title I, special education, and school improvement funding will find their way into science classrooms."
"There is also a $5 Billion Race to the Top fund, which will reward the school districts doing the most to advance reforms and that includes Science education," according to Secretary Duncan. If the Cherry Hill Public School District has such little regard for Science education and our Special Education population, they are destroying any hope of gaining access to a large funding source.

In conclusion, it appears that our school district is being penny-wise and pound foolish and it is all being done at the expense of our special needs population. Very sad indeed.

IEP Preparation

Are you ready for your child's IEP Meeting?

To help you through the process I am offering this area of the blog for tips, strategies and even a few alerts to be familiar with, prior to your IEP Meeting.

Parents: Please feel free to keep us posted on your school districts newest strategies for denying students appropriate placement, support services, etc. Please also indicate the school district, whenever possible, so that parents in that particular town can be prepared.

To the attorneys and advocates that are following my blog -- as always, feel free to interject your comments!

Thanks!
Kathi

School Budget: Separating Wants and Needs

Our troubled economy is taking it's toll on everyone -- From families raising typical children, that have decided to cancel vacation plans; to families raising children with disabilities, who are making painful choices regarding the services and therapies they can no longer afford for their children. Somehow we are all surviving, albeit a significant challenge.

As we make adjustments in our spending habits and have been forced to choose between our wants and our needs, our town leaders have been doing the same. We witnessed our Mayor and Town Council take a 10% decrease in their salaries to help our community balance a budget, so that the needs could be met for Cherry Hill residents. At the same time our Police and Fire Officials balanced their budgets and found a way to meet the challenge without eliminating services to our community. These officials understand that when times are tough, you need to separate your wants and needs.

Needs: These are the essentials that absolutely cannot be cut. For a family budget this would include food, shelter, heating, etc. For the Township's budget this would include emergency services, trash collection, etc. Sure there are ways to cut those costs to allow for some of the "wants" but in difficult economic times we look to reduce costs to afford some of our other "needs."

Wants: These are the items that we like, but do not necessarily require. For a family this may be a vacation or a night out to a fancy restaurant. For a Township budget this may be anything from additional office supplies to non-essential staff.

Our school district is facing a budget crisis, as well. As many of you have heard, the Cherry Hill School District had to institute a spending freeze earlier this year, which impacted classrooms across the district. There will also be large cuts in the budget for the next school year.


Questions were flying around our town, such as: How will this impact teachers? How will this impact the quality of the education that our children receive? How will this impact extracurricular activities or late buses? What about Mt. Misery? Parents of children with special needs were concerned as well. They were asking questions, such as: How will this impact the availability of educational assistants? How will this impact special education programs or related services for our children?


All of these are legitimate questions that require thoughtful consideration. The most important thing we can do as a community is understand the difference between our "wants" and our "needs" and encourage our Board of Education and administrators to make decisions accordingly.


Last Thursday, the Cherry Hill Special Education PTA (CHSEPTA) held a special meeting, prior to their regular monthly meeting, that was devoted to the school budget. Dr. Campbell attended as a Guest Speaker. He did a wonderful job of discussing all that goes into preparing the budget and even went as far as explaining the questions that were discussed before any reductions were recommended.


First, he said that the Board of Education and the administration had a goal of preserving the quality of education in Cherry Hill while minimizing the tax impact. I think that was a terrific objective and the perfect mindset for reviewing the school budget, but obviously this is easier said than done.


Dr. Campbell pointed to several questions that were asked in an effort to keep reductions as far away from the classrooms as possible. Those questions were:

1) Is it mandated?
In other words, is it an item that we are required to provide by law?

2) Does it create inequity?
In other words, would cutting a particular item make it more advantageous for one group while putting another group at a disadvantage?

3) Is it a costly learning opportunity, program, or service that could be delivered in a more efficient manner?
In other words, are there ways to cutback expenses, while still providing the same learning opportunity, program or service.

With those three questions in mind I looked at the items in our budget that I was having difficulty with and the items that our school officials felt were worthy of putting on the "chopping block." This gives us some indication of what constitutes a "need" and what may be more reasonably viewed as a "want." Remember, we cannot afford all of our "wants" until all of our "needs" are met. (Please feel free to respond with any additional items that you feel should be more closely considered, as this list is not complete.)



Mt. Misery: I have to preface this as saying that I have mixed feelings on whether or not this was truly up for elimination. As I recall, there have been numerous times over the years when Mt. Misery was said to be on the "chopping block" only to be pulled from it's misery -- and thrown back into the budget. It appeared to have been done as a way to get parents upset over one issue so that they would not raise as much fuss over another. In the end, Mt. Misery always survives the budget cuts and usually some Board of Education member emerges as the big hero that saved Mt. Misery!

I understand that many parents, not realizing that this game plays out every couple of years, had attended last Tuesday's Board of Education meeting and expressed concerns over eliminating this adventure. The Mt. Misery trip has long been viewed as a right of passage for the 6th grade students in our school district. I can understand how parents are emotionally tied to this trip, but to be honest, I think the Mt. Misery trip may mean more to parents than their children and quite frankly, it is used as a pawn during budget season!


That is not to say that the Mt. Misery trip has not been a worthwhile opportunity for students in Cherry Hill. Through this 5 day trip to the Pinelands students learn valuable lessons. They learn wonderful things about the environment, preservation, conservation and learn the value of teamwork. While it is true that these lessons are best learned hands-on and going outside the classroom to a place like Mt. Misery can raise a student's interest -- it is also a costly endeavor.


Science is an exciting subject that can capture a student's interest like no other. Through Science we learn to consider a full range of possibilities and our creative energy begins to flow. Mt. Misery provided students with even more than that, they had the opportunity to learn the value of teamwork. There was even the added benefit of having our 6th grade students learn an unintended lesson -- the importance of home and family. When a child is away from home for 5 consecutive days they tend to appreciate mom and dad a little more and have a little more tolerance for their siblings!

Our 6th grade students should be entitled to this trip, if it is within our means to provide it. If not, than there are other measures that could be taken to make this trip a reality for 6th grade students. They could hold fundraisers or request donations from community businesses. This would also teach our students additional life skills, like economic planning, and would provide yet another opportunity to work as a team. Mt. Misery could, for all intent and purposes, be cut back to a shorter trip or could have easily involved several more affordable day trips.

Although the 5 day trip was a major "want" -- and may very well be placed at the top of the "want" list, it is in fact a "want" and not a "need." Whether you agree or disagree that this should be spared from the chopping block, it appears the trip will remain, because it always does!


Let's look at the 3 questions from above in regards to Mt. Misery and decided for sure if it is a "want" or a "need."

1) Is it mandated? No. There is no mandate for providing a 5 day trip to the Pinelands (or anywhere else for that matter.)
2) Does it create inequity? Yes, in that it takes budget dollars away from other programs and services that certain students require.
3) Is it a costly learning opportunity that could be delivered in a more efficient manner? Yes. While I agree that Mt. Misery may be a wonderful learning opportunity for some students, it is costly and the lessons could be achieved through a less expensive format or another type of outing.

While Mt. Misery appears to be a "want" and not a "need" -- I can see where some parents may want to place this trip at the top of their "Want List." Again, the "needs" would have to be met first.

Late Buses: The next item on the chopping block, High School Late Buses, are also an important "want." I have to classify them as a "want" and not a "need" because our children could still be afforded a quality education without a late bus.

My initial concern in regards to late buses was that not having them could be the difference between a star athlete participating in an after school sport or never realizing his full potential as an athlete. I have since learned that most of our athletes do not get to use the late bus because the timing of the conclusion of sporting events does not coincide with the timing of late buses. By the time the sporting event or practice has concluded, the late bus is long gone.

So who is utilizing the late bus service? It turns out that they are used primarily by students staying after school to participate in an extracurricular activity. I agree that no matter who is utilizing the late bus, it is an important component to support after school participation. However, there are other ways to provide this service that would not cut into an already stretched school budget.

There are a few neighboring school districts that have assessed an activities fee for participation in after school activities, such as: sports, publications, clubs. These activities fees are then utilized to offset the overall costs associated with these extracurricular activities. It would free up district funds so that we may maintain the quality of the educational services for all students.

Late buses are important and I can understand placing them at the top of the "want" list. If however, late buses come at a cost of losing essential educational services, than this is a "want" that we need to find a better way to afford. If it is deemed unaffordable, sad as it may be, it must be cut. After all, "wants" and "needs" are two very different things. We "want" our children to have every opportunity to shine, but we "need" our children to be educated above all else.

To be fair, let's consider the same 3 questions from above in regards to Late Buses:

1) Is it mandated? No. There is no mandate for providing late buses.

2) Does it create inequity? On the surface, no. Providing a late bus does not give any one group an advantage over another. However, if you look at the programs or services that may have to be cut in order to keep the late buses, it could actually create an inequity for another group of students. It could be construed as providing an advantage to a certain group (in this case those that use the late bus) over a group that cannot participate in after school activities, because their activities may have to be cut in order to provide the late buses. Tricky situation!

3) Is it a costly learning opportunity that could be delivered in a more efficient manner? Yes, it is costly to provide this service, however, it would not necessarily make after school sports or activities "unavailable." It may be more cost efficient to have parents set up carpools to transport our children home from an after school activity. It also may be a good time to consider assessing an activities fee, as mentioned above.

As difficult as this may be to realize, late buses do not meet the requirement as a "need." They are a "want" and unfortunately, we cannot afford them at this time. I agree that if other expenses could be trimmed, or if we could initiate a plan to assess an activities fee, late buses should be reconsidered.

Special Education Programs and Support Services: What many do not realize, unless they are raising a child with special education needs, is that certain items may not be put on the "chopping block" because they are mandated.

The laws governing the education of students that are classified as having a disability are complex. However, simply put, under Part B of the Individual Disabilities Education Act, any student with a disability is entitled to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). FAPE is an educational right of children with disabilities in the United States that is guaranteed by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

While it may be convenient to categorize Special Education programs or support services alongside privileges provided to all students, such as late buses, it is essentially comparing two very different things. Special Education Students "need" certain services to receive their mandated education. IDEA dictates that students classified as being eligible for special education services must be educated in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). For some children, the LRE may be a self-contained classroom, but for many it is in a classroom seated right beside a typical child.

This is why it is so important for everyone (teachers, parents, and taxpayers) to understand what we are talking about in terms of special education services. For teachers, many are already aware of the requirements if you have a special education student in your classroom, but it would serve you well to read up on IDEA and the myriad of services that your students may require to be in your classroom.

For parents, whether you have special needs children or not, you should also be aware of the IDEA. Your "typical" child may be receiving his education in a classroom along side a student with special needs. If the child with special needs is not receiving the appropriate support services, it may very well impact your own child's education.

For taxpayers, it would be beneficial for you to know how your tax dollars are being spent, especially when it comes to this complex area of the budget. To not provide the appropriate programs and services to a student with special education needs, could mean that your tax dollars will increase as a result of costly litigation!

In terms of their education, if our special needs students require a particular type of program to make measurable progress, then we need to have those programs available. That makes certain programs more of a "need" than a "want." If we do not have the financial resources to make a particular program available to a student that requires it, then we must, by law, provide this through out-of-district placement.

There are times when out-of-district placements are the most cost effective means of providing a program. It takes a great deal of planning to create programs to meet the needs of our students and even more funding to support and maintain that program long term. Some of our children have such unique individual needs that it simply would not be cost effective to have a program within district to meet their needs. These out-of-district placements are then considered mandated. They are not "wants" they are clearly "needs."

The same is true in terms of Support Services. If a child would be in a better position to make measurable progress in a mainstream environment, it is illegal to deny the support services that that child requires to be there. By law, you cannot deny a child access to the LRE based on his/her need for support services. In other words, if you have a student that is as intelligent as his grade level peers and could achieve academic progress in the mainstream setting, but has extreme difficulty with hand writing as a result of motor skill deficits; then you need to provide the child with a placement in the LRE (perhaps mainstream classroom) with the supports necessary to be there. Perhaps a scribe, or an Assistive Technology Device could be utilized to support this student in the LRE.


Educational Assistants: There are numerous situations where the appropriate supports (mandated under IDEA) may be required, such as an Educational Assistant. Maybe the child has a learning disability that requires directions be broken down to smaller more manageable instructions in order to be in a mainstream classroom. In that case an Educational Assistant may be required to have the child in the LRE. Perhaps the child has a tendency to become overwhelmed and frustrated, which could lead to behavioral issues if not attended to quickly -- then the child may require a 1:1 aide to help him/her better manage himself in this least restrictive environment.

In Cherry Hill many of our Educational Assistants have been specifically trained to work with a certain segment of the special needs population. These Educational Assistants should not be thought of as "clerks" or "teacher's aides" or any of the other less significant terms that have been thrown around. They are titled as "Educational Assistants" because they are there to assist a student in achieving their education. Often times they play a pivital role in maintaining a student in the LRE and enabling the student to achieve measurable progress.


Here are some additional examples of how our Educational Assistants may be utilized:

When there are a group of students in the same classroom that have disabilities, an Educational Assistant may be utilized in that program to break instructions down to smaller more manageable chunks. In these programs it is not uncommon to have several Educational Assistants working with children in small groups while the teacher is providing the more generalized instruction. The number of Educational Assistants required is usually based on the number of students in that particular program.

There are many mainstream classrooms where several of the students are classified as having special needs and may need occasional re-direction to keep them on task. In that case, it would be essential to have an Educational Assistant available to redirect those students. Without that Assistant, the teacher would have to stop teaching in order to redirect a student. When this happens, the education of every student in the classroom stops.

Eliminating Educational Assistants positions could be the difference between a teacher that spends his/her time teaching and a teacher that is interrupted frequently to redirect students. With pauses in the learning process, the grades of our typical students could be impacted.

There are also situations when a student's disability warrants that a 1:1 Educational Assistant is required. This may be because the child has been deemed a flight risk and requires one on one supervision at all times. It could also be because the child simply has an individual need for a 1:1 assistant in order to make measurable progress. For those that are unaware, our current Special Education leaders have misused certain terms in the IEPs of students and have intentionally played with the language of the IEP to read "assistance" rather than "assistant." So when they state that 1:1 Assistants are assigned when required in the IEP, you must realize that the language in many IEPs has been intentionally twisted to read "assistance." In that case, we may be in compliance with the IEP, but not necessarily in compliance with the law!

In considering Educational Assistants for the "chopping block" we have to realize that in many cases, such as those noted above, the Educational Assistants become a "need" and not a "want."

Let's review the 3 considerations in regards to Educational Assistants:

1) Is it mandated? Yes, it may be mandated in an individual IEP or mandated based on the program requirements. Educational Assistants may also be mandated in terms of the requirements of several students in a particular setting that could not otherwise be in the least restrictive environment without this essential support.


2) Does it create inequity? Yes, in terms of groups, in this case a particular group of students that have been classified as having special education needs, it most definitely creates inequity. Cutting Educational Assistants makes it more advantageous for one group (typical children) while putting another group at a disadvantage (special needs students).

3) Is it a costly learning opportunity that could be delivered in a more efficient manner? The 35 Educational Assistants that are on the chopping block, come at a cost of $826,525. While that figure may seem costly, if you compare it to the cost of litigation should a parent pursue their Due Process rights, the cost of the Educational Assistant suddenly pales in comparison. There is no way to provide "assistance" without an "Assistant."


Administrator Salary Increases: I know this is almost too unbelieavable to consider, but as we are cutting 35 Edcuational Assistants from our classrooms, we have administrators that will in fact receive salary increases next year.

At the CHSEPTA meeting, I specifically asked about this issue. Dr. Campbell, although very eloquent in his reply, pointed to the fact that this is a democratic society and that he firmly believes in upholding contractual agreements. While I too firmly believe that any agreement (be it verbal, written, etc) should be upheld, I have a serious problem with the manner in which some of these contracts are reviewed.


Just using one of the many administrative contracts that I personally read (most are available through an OPRA request) contractual salary increases are based on performance reviews. In other words, the person must meet certain goals before receiving the salary increase.

We have some district goals that were not exactly met and those accountable for reaching those goals should not be entitled to a salary increase. In some case, if most of the goals were met, perhaps consideration should be given to a partial salary increase. Just as the Board of Education is responsible for their end of the contract, which would be approving the increase; the employee is responsible for their part, which would include acheiving their goals. They were hired for a particular purpose and if they did not perform their job to the level stated in their contract, then the salary increase must be denied.

We also have several non-tenured admistrators that should be re-considered PRIOR to being granted tenure. If these folks did not live up to their expectations in terms of job performance and meeting their mandated goals, they should not receive tenure. Some of these non-tenured employees will have to be reconsidered for employment and in some cases we may be in a position to keep them on staff, either in another capacity or at a reduced salary, under a new contractual agreement.


Some, after thorough consideration, may not be offered another contract, which would result in a vacancy. This too, could result in a cost savings, as interim personnel will be required to fill the vacant position. That new contract should be negotiated at a lower rate to reduce our overall administrative costs.


While each administrator should be viewed individually and desicions should be made based on their tenure and their individual contract, we can still consider the 3 questions from above in more general terms:

1) Is it mandated? If the employee lived up to their contractual obligations, than yes this may be mandated per the contract. If however, their performance goals were not acheived, then NO, it is not mandated. If the employee is a non-tenured employee, their contractual agreement does not have to be renewed. They may be terminated at the end of their contract term.

2) Does it create inequity? This seems to be inapplicable as it does not create inequity for any particular group or make it more advantageous for one group over another. We should all hold ourselves accountable for reaching our goals and objectives.

3) Is it a costly learning opportunity that could be delivered in a more efficient manner? Although administrative salary increases do not necessarily provide learning opportunities, we do need administrators to oversee the management of our public school system. In some cases, employing a particular administrator may be more costly than our current budget may permit and in many cases there is room for greater efficiancy by restructuring administrative roles. There may also be options to consider such as, early retirement that would afford us an opportunity to benefit from the long term savings.

It is obvious that our Board of Education has a real challenge ahead of them and I do not envy their position at this time. I hope that this board is able to emerge as true leaders and reconsider certain aspects of the budget so that we may provide for the "needs" first and foremost.

I encourage all parents in Cherry Hill to remain involved in the budget process. Please email your thoughts, concerns and suggestions to our school administrators and Board of Education members. At last night's CHSEPTA meeting Dr. Campbell encouraged parents to email him with their questions or concerns. He does appear to be interested in hearing from us. Also, please remember that our Board of Education stayed until Midnight last Tuesday to hear public opinions on the budget. They are willing to listen to your concerns.

The Public Hearing and Final Budget Adoption will take place on Wednesday April 1st at 7pm at the Malberg Administration Building.