tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3947607097668387126.post3047878684231756708..comments2024-03-28T14:43:46.573-04:00Comments on Franklin Matters: Frequently asked questions: "Has Franklin really laid off any teachers?"Steve Sherlockhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13070688297607895943noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3947607097668387126.post-63185797379956121712010-06-05T06:50:18.620-04:002010-06-05T06:50:18.620-04:00I actually showed more lost in the period 2003-200...I actually showed more lost in the period 2003-2009 and you can see those numbers here:<br /><br />http://franklinmatters.blogspot.com/2008/04/franklin-ma-school-department-budget.html<br /><br />I'll ask the Schools to help reconcile the numbers.Steve Sherlockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13070688297607895943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3947607097668387126.post-63241918063748020462010-06-05T00:29:41.777-04:002010-06-05T00:29:41.777-04:00There is an error in the teacher graph. The last 3...There is an error in the teacher graph. The last 3 years only shows the number of teachers. All the years prior include teachers and teaching support personnel. So the last 3 years under counts the number of personnel. Missing is the support staff. So there is an apples to oranges comparison after 2006. The correct teacher only data shows 2003 - 408, 2004 - 459, 2005 - 449, 2006 - 466. (These numbers come from DOE and the School Blog you reference also confirms these numbers.) So the actual number lost since 2005 is 33 teachers, and 50 from the peak in 2006. <br /><br />Factoring the number of students and you get a ratio of 14.7 students to 1 teacher in 2009-2010 and 13.7 to 1 in 2005-2006, up one student per teacher. This ratio is a better unit of measurement as it takes into account changes in both students and teachers.<br /><br />It may be worth asking the Schools to confirm these numbers. But right now, I believe that saying that 100 teachers have been lost in the last 5 years is incorrect information.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14750314919229246990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3947607097668387126.post-37860471470217390212010-06-04T08:39:38.136-04:002010-06-04T08:39:38.136-04:00Geoff, as I understand it the 16 positions covered...Geoff, as I understand it the 16 positions covered by the stimulus funds were for a two year period so this current school year and next. The override affects another 15 teachers (7 elementary and 8 middle school). The details on what's in and out depending upon the override can be found here:<br /><br />http://franklinmatters.blogspot.com/2010/05/whats-in-whats-out-either-way-vote-june.html<br /><br />And yes, the chart could have been done differently. The Schools did this one, I simply leveraged it to post here.Steve Sherlockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13070688297607895943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3947607097668387126.post-68709925572406030262010-06-04T07:57:16.422-04:002010-06-04T07:57:16.422-04:00Am I right in assuming the teacher positions that ...Am I right in assuming the teacher positions that were funded by stimulus grants will not be funded for the new school year? So if we pass the override we still lose 16 positions or will the 16 positions be funded if the override passes?<br /><br />A stacked bar chart may have been a better way to show the "stimulus" positions, simply put 0 for the other years, and 16 for the final year...<br /><br />GeoffGeoff Zubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14703913214032270915noreply@blogger.com