Hi all-
It’s that time of year again when media outlets publish preview stories of the upcoming school year. Here’s ours: muskegnews.com/new-school-year
Ciao.
-Muskeg News
yawn
This story is was released three years ago.
Are we re-cycling?
[quote=“dailymews”]yawn
This story is was released three years ago.
Are we re-cycling?[/quote]
[size=1000][font=arial]…[/font][/size]
Seems kind of odd that the enrolment is down 500 from 7 years ago but the revenue is up by 2.5 million…and Tina sez that they simply can’t provide the same level of service. I think the middle school model is a good idea but wonder why the board always cries budgetary cutbacks. On paper it sure looks like more money per kid to me.
But what do I know…I ain’t no consultant.
Ah well, you have touched upon one of the fiscal drains for the district…consultant fees.
Hello-
Since everyone seems to like talking about school consultants, here’s a story on one: muskegnews.com/consultant-re-hir … ct-shuffle
Ciao.
-Muskeg News
As the district has not had an HR department prior to Ms Hauptmann, these duties were carried out (in a once larger district) by the superintendent and director of instruction. So yes, the re-hiring of Stignant is a reflection on the inability of Hauptmann.
Neither Hauptmann nor Stignant have held prior top senior positions so it is understandable that neither can complete the job and it sounds like the additional senior staff hired to carry out these functions cannot either. Central office is growing and the abilities of the senior personnel is diminishing, or so it would seem.
If it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck…it just may be a duck.
As far as getting our bang for the buck…a huge collection of senior administrators who cannot do their job description is the best way to get buck bang for the students?
It seems that Mr. Stigant has been re-hired to clean up the mess he has put the school district in. He consulted district administration to change the way they deal with human resource issues, and now they are unable to deal with the results.
Yes firing teachers for "CAUSE: and then having to rehire them with backpay ( and filling their posting as well with limted time posting with full benefits.) because the HR dept at school board made a personal decision not a contractual decision! Applying the language of the contract to suit the case in hand ( ie twisting the language to reflect the current scenario) yes I know that this is how contract language works there is more than one interpretation, but when the decisions being made are costing our board ( in effect us taxpayers and the result is less for our students) not only wages and benefits dollars but arbitration costs ( usually the loser at arbirtation has to pay the costs for the arbitrator) and it is happening again and again
its time to the piper to be paid.
I understand the low enrollment scenario and dollars per student but the amount of money paid for the “ADMIN” at the school board, and the $$ for “HR” mistakes is ridiculous. I think that we as parents need to start making our people accountable for their actions. If the student enrollment is down, why are the Admin - AKA managerial positions up, why our we continually having to pay for “HR” mistakes? Why is Stingant still here if someone cant do their job get rid of them! Happens in the real world all the time I think we should rename the School Board Office … Dreamland!
When is election time???
Might not be soon enough. It’s not taking the present leadership any time at all in the transformation of this district into a second-rate organization.
Will this make it easier to attract first-rate teachers to replace the soon to be retired?
Now wait a gall darn minute.
We have hired people to do senior jobs in our district and they freely admit that they can’t do their jobs? Then we re-hire a hack consultant who is part of the now disgraced team of Doi? And this hack and company follow some former superintendent’s plan to restructure this district, all the while creating a massive number of grievances?
Is this correct?