Monday, October 05, 2009

Tit for Tat on School District Numbers

Opinion

Since I posted a link to Tom Gargus' "Voice of the Day" column, "Numbers don't back district's claims," as a recommended reading the day it came out in the "Springfield News-Leader," I feel I should also post President of the Springfield School Board Gerry Lee's response, "Numbers don't add up in criticism of district," of the same source. But, I have to tell you, since we all know numbers can be manipulated to make certain points, and since Tom Gargus spent over $100 in Sunshine Law requests and, more than likely, considerable time researching and analyzing the results of those requests, along with information available at the School District's Web site [according to the News-Leader], I think it might have been appropriate for Mr. Lee to explain why Gargus' numbers were wrong, instead of an equally appropriate exploration and interpretation.

Lee could have made his point in a more humble and respectful manner than he did, and Gargus, after spending considerable money and time in researching and analyzing the issue, was deserving of a more respectful attitude.

For instance, why would enrollment data present a more accurate picture than actual attendance data? Mr. Lee accuses Mr. Gargus of being deceitful for applying attendance data, but offers no explanation about why the use of attendance data offers an "inaccurate" and "deceitful picture," whereas Lee's choice of enrollment data would offer an accurate one.

I felt the president seemed to accuse, or imply that Mr. Gargus was intentionally providing misinformation, being purposely deceptive and simplistic.

I seem to remember, when the bond was passed for air-conditioning the schools, there was talk about all the schools being air-conditioned. My memory is certainly not perfect, but that is the way I remember it. I don't remember it as being a promise to air-condition a certain number of schools, rather I remember it as being a promise to air-condition all the schools. Now, if that isn't the case, I'll be happy to correct myself. I'm not posting such a comment as intentional misinformation, or a deception of the facts.

I'm not sure that Mr. Lee could have been more condescending and accusatory than he was in his rebuttal of Gargus' column. I can understand that Lee might have taken Gargus' accusations personally, however, they were not a personal attack on a person, they were, after monetary expense and sacrifice of time, an editorial commentary of Mr. Gargus' understanding of the issue. An issue, I might add, that involved considerable expenditure of tax-payer dollars.

I'm simply saying Mr. Lee's response could have been much more tactful and presented a better educational opportunity for all readers of the paper in the process, instead of seeming so adversarial and defensive.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

7 comments:

Stu Solomon said...

Dear Ms. Hammer:

I agree with your assessment of the contentious manner with which Mr. Lee responded to Mr. Gargus's opinion. However, the use of attendance records is probably inappropriate since nearly all fiduciary matters involving public schools and their funding, whether it be by tax levy, school bond, government grants or private contributions are almost always based upon enrollment figures. There may be some special "earmarked" funding sources that rely upon attendance figures, but, by and far, the bottom line numbers that funding for public schools is based upon are actual and projected enrollment.

Stu

Jackie Melton said...

Thanks for the comment, Stu.

I believe it would have been appropriate for Mr. Lee to have focused on sharing that sort of information rather than in discrediting Mr. Gargus.

AND, you can call me Jackie. :)

Fred B. Ellison said...

Stu,

Funding from the State of Missuori is based on Weighted Average Daily Attendance (WADA).

http://www.senate.mo.gov/05info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=10668

http://www.afftonacba.org/forms/feb_forum_ed_policy_explanation.pdf

Jackie Melton said...

So, then, based on the information shared by Fred, I'd be even more interested in Mr. Lee's explanation as to why enrollment data would supposedly present a more accurate picture than actual attendance data.

Jim Hornaday said...

Aha! The plot sickens.

It is obvious the school board uses whatever combination of numbers they wish to 'prove' a point. Especially when it comes to justifying a tax increase proposal.

Teresa Bledsoe said...

Jackie,
I wanted to respond on behalf of Springfield Public Schools to the question posed at the end of your post yesterday.
The installation of air conditioning in all schools has always been planned to occur in phases due to the large number of school buildings that needed to be air conditioned. Springfield Public Schools has been clear about this, and I would refer your readers to an article that appeared in the March 12, 2003, edition of the News-Leader listing the schools to be air conditioned by the 2003 bond.
With the no-tax-increase bond approved in April 2003, the district air conditioned 12 schools. Another 18 schools were air conditioned as part of the $96.5 million bond, overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2006. Wise investment and careful management of construction costs for the 2006 bond projects generated $16 million in additional funding, some of which was used to air condition three more schools. If approved in November, the proposed no-tax-increase $50-million bond would allow us to air condition the remaining eight schools, fulfilling the district’s promise to air condition every school building.
Air conditioning and facilities improvements have been consistently identified by parents and voters as one of their top priorities for the district. That is why Springfield Public Schools has made it a priority to air condition all district schools.
Let me also talk about the issue of enrollment data versus attendance data. In his letter, Mr. Gargus compares official SPS enrollment from the 1999-2000 school year to attendance data from one day in September of this year. That is an inaccurate comparison and an example of how Mr. Gargus misrepresented data; apples to oranges as they say. The more accurate comparison would have been to compare enrollment data from the 1999-2000 school year to enrollment data from the 2008-2009 school year. A more accurate statement would have been: “Elementary enrollment data has declined from 11,705 in the YR 2000 to 11,307 in the YR2009.” (Missouri schools take official enrollment counts on the last Wednesday of September every year; the 2009-2010 numbers will be reported to DESE by Oct. 15.
You and your readers may view the district’s 10-year enrollment history at the following link: http://springfieldpublicschoolsmo.org/accountability/documents/EnrollmentReportsCOMBO2008-2009.pdf.
When Mr. Gargus requested attendance data I provided it but cautioned him that it was "unofficial attendance information generated specifically for you.” It’s unfortunate Mr. Gargus declined to meet with the superintendent about his concerns and questions. This, among other things, could have been clarified for him.
We strive to provide accurate information to anyone who requests it. I would be happy to provide any information you or your readers might need to make informed decisions regarding the school district.
Teresa Bledsoe
Community Relations Manager
Springfield Public Schools

Jackie Melton said...

I appreciate you taking the time to comment, Teresa.