In this guest commentary:
- The Lake County, FL School Board seems to be forgetting an earlier promise to "Pay as you go" for new schools and are planning to float bonds once again for capital projects like new school construction.
- The Board earlier voted 3 to 2 to study and implement an IB (International Baccalaureate) program that would compete with AP programs. As Jim describes below, they did a study and decided 3 to 1 to instead expand the "AP Capstone" program, which was apparently started up by AP to offset IB costs and offerings. (Note: This sounds much better than the costly and controversial United Nations supported IB programs - Vance Jochim).
=================================
My Comments / Observation – Recent School Board Meetings
August 4, 2016
(Jim Krakowski 8/4/16)
Remember when just a few months ago those advocating for the extension of the 1% sales tax
“promised” that the District would move forward with no more bonding for capital expansion(s)?
Well …. The presentation made by District staff to the SB focused on bonding for capital
projects. Specifically, they presented four scenarios:
• Bond $25 million for 5 years;;
• Bond $25 million for 10 years;;
• Bond $50 million for 5 years;;
• Bond $50 million for 10 years.
I will not go into the detail as to how the funds would be used … you can listen to the
presentations for the details by going to LCSD website and “click: on LCSD-TV.
The SB members positions:
• Those that seem to advocate for the disregarding of the “pay-as-you-go” and believe
the District must use new bonds… Debbie Stivender
• Those “on-the-fence” … Marc Dodd and Stephanie Luke
• Those still advocating for the “pay-as-you-go” model … Bill Mathias
• Not present … Rosanne Brandeburg
My Comments:
• I understand that circumstances change, but in just a few months?
For example, the District purchased property near the Four Corners area for a new K-8 school (one
structure), but a few months later the need is now for two separate buildings … one
for elementary school students and one for middle school students at a cost of several
million more dollars. This was done after the SB approved the purchase of the land.
Today some on the SB are considering bonding and discarding their earlier
commitments just a few months after making the “no more bonding” promise … do I
detect a pattern? Do circumstances change that quickly or is the staff presenting
“selected” information that will allow the District to move closer to their agenda?
• Have any of the District staff or SB members considered Charter Schools as an
alternative to building new schools?
• Was any consideration given to the increase in Impact Fees … especially in the South
Lake area?
The capital needs for the District are always going to exceed revenues generated.
However, just a few months ago the SB developed a plan that would have “short- term”
pain but “long-term” benefits … i.e. to substantially reduce (if not eliminate) the current
$32 million per year the District is paying.
I would hope that this SB would follow the direction they had committed when advocating for the continuance of the 1% sales tax.
===================================
Strategic Financial Plan (EngageLCS) appears to be working. For those who do not
commit my C & O’s to memory, let me do a refresh. The Strategic Financial Plan (SFP) is a
process developed by the District using a grant from the Gates Foundation. The SFP measures the costs vs. benefits for all aspects of the District (programs, capital assets, new positions, etc.) and quantifying by measuring the Return On Investment (ROI) … cost expended and value received for those dollars. Based on this analysis, does the investment make sense?
At the July 25th workshop meeting, the staff presented a cost / benefit analysis of four
programs for benefiting students who are within the upper academic percentile …
- Advance Placement(AP);
- Advance Placement Capstone(APC);
- International Bachelorette(IB); and
- AICE.
The District currently provides AP courses. The question asked by the SB was, is
there another program that would be more cost effective and at the same time provide more
rigor for the students who chose that path in order to help with college entrance?
By using the SFP process it was determined that the best “value” for the District was AP Capstone
that could be implemented in the District’s 8 high schools by the 2017/18 school year. The
only SB member for the IB program was Marc Dodd … a product of that program.
My Comments:
I was pleased when the SFP was first presented, but skeptical as to
whether it would be implemented and effective … this was a major cultural change for the
District. It is heartening to see the process work and be effective. FYI … I am not an
advocate for the IB program for a number of reasons. One key reason is that the costs are
significant vs. the number of potential students who would participate.
Submitted by James Krakowski - james krakowski [[email protected]]
Inserted adsense initial code below on Aug. 7, 2016 -->
