The Board of Education approved Monday cutting about 10 more full-time, certified staff members for the 2011-12 school year to reduce expenditures in the next fiscal year.
Those cuts will include two administrators, six tenured teachers and 2.5 non-tenured teachers.
At Monday's meeting, board members voted 6-1 in favor of the administration’s recommendation, with Janet Hughes casting the lone vote against the measure.
According to district documents, the reduction would result in a total savings of approximately $695,329.
“It’s with deep regret we have to do this,” District 113A Superintendent Tim Ricker said.
The cuts will likely include teachers in specialty areas, including those in music, art, physical education, psychologists, social workers, counselors, special education and school counselors.
Under the financial plan approved by the Illinois State Board of Education, District 113A is required to eliminate borrowing and build fund balances over the next two years by reducing expenditures and/or increasing revenue. The district has been operating under the plan since it was certified in financial difficulty by the state in December.
Additionally, the state currently owes District 113A about $1.3 million in categorical funding, an issue district officials are "deeply concerned" about heading into budget season, Ricker said prior to the meeting.
"If we do not receive that money from the state by the end of the year, our fund balances will be at $400,000," he said. "That concerns us."
Ricker said the timing of the cuts had nothing to do with the April 5 election. According to state law, tenured teachers must be notified of their dismissal at least 60 days prior to the end of the current school year, while non-tenured teachers must receive 45 days notice. Had the district waited until after the election, it would have been too late, Ricker said.
During the public hearing held before the vote, resident Dave Maher asked school board members to reconsider making the cuts, saying fewer teachers mean more students in each classroom.
“I do not feel 40 kids in a classroom is acceptable,” he said. “I feel at this time we’re not doing our students justice if we support teacher layoffs.”
Maher instead urged the community to support the upcoming referendum.
“I’m committed to the referendum and to getting it passed,” he said. “In my opinion, keep the teachers that are here and if the referendum fails, so be it.”
Maher specifically addressed board member Janet Hughes, saying he has sent her numerous e-mails, questioning her reasons for voting against the last referendum and plans to vote against the next one.
“Mrs. Hughes, I’m holding you accountable,” he said. “My children have 40 kids in their classes. I’ve heard you vote no for the referendum and you vote no for teacher lay-offs. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.”
According to the state financial plan, the board is to consider an . However, the district's plans could change depending on the outcome of the.
Last year, District 113A eliminated 42 certified staff members, 12 paraprofessionals, 12 buildings/grounds staff members and four administrators for a total savings of $3.17 million for the current fiscal year.
Just wanted to clarify. Thank you.
Anyone else out there think this referendum isn't political?
Anyone out there think that $60,938 or $118,910 is a less than outstanding amount of compensation? Those dollar amounts are the average annual cash compensation of 113a's teachers and administrators, respectively. This does not include bennies. Outstanding indeed.
Regardless. No pussycats on the Board, please. Tigers!
I have already responded to the problems with this idea. That issue was discussed at the Mayor’s Forum on Public education, and here what was brought up on consolidating 113A and 210: http://lemont.patch.com/articles/town-hall-meeting-on-public-education-live-blog. See comment at 8:45PM by Mrs. Doebert. The districts not being coterminous would cost the consolidated district $500,000 in revenue per year, teacher salary alignment another $1.5 Million per year. What this means is, you are willing to lose $2 million dollars a year in revenue for the "combined" district, and, SD 113A would still be responsible for its own debt. How is that being fiscally responsible?
The last few days have been quite busy. Additionally, with the week of Spring Break upon us, has made it even more busy. I have responded to your Email. Thanks for your questions.
If I captured the true cost it appears if the teachers/staff contributed just 25% toward the cost identified we reduce cost $572,000. Simple math indicates that would be enough to keep/hire 9 teacher at $60K, or 11 at $50k each. However, Dr. Ricker did provide this information. “Your assumption of $50 K a teacher to be restored is an inaccurate picture of the cost of the teachers we will be reinstating based upon School Code and Illinois Statutes. Since we cut tenured teachers both last year and this year, we will have to offer tenured teachers positions first for any position for which they are qualified if positions are reinstated. If and when those teachers either take another job or refuse it would the district be in a position to be able to offer positions to less expensive/non-tenured teachers. This is the law for reduction in force and part of the Teacher Tenure Act.” Folks, this is just one opportunity to begin the end, of business as usual. We must have the staff contribute more to the benefits they receive to save teacher positions. Its good business. Continued…
My response was “How could we not be expecting them to contribute more for benefits with plans to cut additional teachers and a referendum for $20m on the table. As I said in my initial email it looks to me as if an additional 25% contribution could save 9-11 teachers positions. I'm pretty sure you heard loud and clear the community wants to keep our teachers. In order to do so you had no fear in asking for $20m. You should have no fear in asking the teacher to help as well. I would hope and expect the teachers would welcome the opportunity to save positions to prevent classes from becoming even larger. I encourage you to contact Dr. Ricker and the negotiations’ team to share your thoughts. Let’s demand no more business as usual.
Also, has anyone explored if there would be any cost savings by 113a contracting out its admin functions to 210? There should be savings there, even without a physical consolidation.