by folkbum
For everyone complaining about the $6 million in travel over the last four years--much of it not at taxpayer expense, and with not much attempt at divining which of those trips were frivolous--I have a question.
I rather inelegantly pointed out at the site of my new corporate masters that spending $6 million on such trips means that MPS literally spends 99.9% of its budget on things other than travel and out-of-state training for employees.
So what number would you prefer? How much--either in dollars or as a percentage--should MPS be spending on travel and training of this sort?*
--
Relatedly, a number of people seem most upset that the superindent and the school board president, when they had a camera shoved in their faces, didn't know the full total spent on such trips. At the same time, others are complaining about how a budget-conscious district--and one that has been tightening a variety of belts over the past decade--ought to be thinking long and hard over decisions like taking these trips. Rick Esenberg is one of those.
But the fact is that starting a decade ago, MPS has been turning over the lion's share of budgeting to schools in "site-based management," which was the conservative reform buzzword a while back. It means cutting central office "bloat" and putting parents in more direct control of what happens in a school. Ergo, your disconnection between the people at the top and every detail of what's been done in all 200+ schools at the bottom. There is a school governance board with parents and community members who oversee the budget, including travel, at each school--how much more oversight do we need? I guess the pendulum is now swinging back to more centralized authority.
* If you find yourself unable or unwilling to answer that question, go read this post and then wonder why you were so upset with me then.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment