Posted by The Unknown on February 02, 2005 at 02:58:34 (PST):
This press release issued by the Armstrong School District dated August 26,2002 is only one form of proof I can provide you in an attempt to prove I am correct when I state the top three media sources in this county have a bad habit of misleading the public. It also further goes to prove a part of my statement in some people would stop at nothing to make the entire school district appear bad only because some people have a very bad taste in their mouths for certain directors on the board. This bad taste they have has lead to an outlandish amount of not having a civil tongue as Carl put it. I hope the five directors I believe can save this school district if only you people hell bent againest them would get the Q-Tips to clean out your ears and pull your head out of your ass too please would then see that it isn't all so bad when we LISTEN to the entire facts first. Rather some wish to hear a part then add to it to twist and distort the entire truth.
PRESS RELEASE
Armstrong School District • 410 Main Street • Ford City, PA 16226
For Immediate Release
Date: 8/26/2002
Contact: Dr. William H. Kerr
Phone: 724-763-5269
Fax: 724-763-7295
The Armstrong School District desires to set the record straight regarding recent articles in the
Leader Times newspaper regarding budget, staffing and district operations. The purpose of this
press release is to make certain the general public and taxpaying citizens have the correct
information as it relates to the 2002-2003 Education Budget.
The Armstrong Board of School Directors was not pleased about having to impose a tax increase
on an already heavily taxed county and equally unhappy about the staffing and material cuts
made. However, the only other option would have been to further reduce an already depleted
fund balance and that would have been fiscally irresponsible.
The projected fund balance for the upcoming school year is in the 3% range and that is
dangerously low for a district of our size. After $3.7 million (eight mills) was eliminated from
the budget, the need for a six-mill tax increase -- the first real estate tax increase since 1996 --
was determined. Increased health care costs and significant reliance on use of the fund balance
in previous years were basic reasons for a tax increase.
The school district believes that the Leader Times reporter has consistently failed to convey the
most important aspects of the education budget in a number of news articles, especially the most
recent articles of July 23, 2002 and July 27, 2002 relating to the reopening of the 2002-2003
school budget. As approved by the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, all school districts
reopened budgets to make necessary adjustments based on additional funding.
The General Assembly announced additional funding in state subsidy for 2002-2003 in the
amount of $733,172 for the Armstrong School District. Based on the options provided by the
legislation, the school district decided to restore funding for educational programs and services
that were originally eliminated or reduced upon passage of the final budget on June 24, 2002.
The additional monies will support the educational goals and objectives of the Armstrong School
District. Restored funds for educatio nal programs and services will be used to purchase
secondary textbooks, enhance educational technology and recall furloughed support staff
personnel. Also, one administrative staff position will be restored.
Following are the correct figures for restoration of funding for educational programs in the
Armstrong School District budget, which were provided to the Leader Times reporter during the
public meeting on July 22, 2002, as well as each member of the public that attended the meeting:
INCREASE IN STATE SUBSIDY 2002-2003:
Original Basic Instruction Subsidy Budget $22,724,101
Final Estimated Basic Instruction Subsidy $23,376,194
Increase $652,093
Original Transportation Subsidy Budget $4,000,000
Final Estimated Transportation Subsidy $4,032,600
Increase $32,600
Original Charter School Reimbursement Budget $0
Final Estimated Charter School Reimbursement Subsidy $48,479
Increase $48,479
TOTAL SUBSIDY INCREASE $733,172
RECOMMENDED RESTORATION OF FUNDING TO THE FOLLOWING AREAS:
1. Secondary textbooks
Secondary Social Studies Textbooks $250,000
2. Personnel
Support Staff – Secretaries/Classified
Business Office (1/2) $14,443
Ford City HS (1/2) $16,384
Elderton HS (1/2) $16,384
Human Resources (1/2) $24,241
Superintendent Office (1/2) $24,242
Kittanning MS (1) $35,839
Support Staff – Custodians
Ford City HS (1) $40,602
Kittanning HS (1) $40,602
Administrative Staff – Principals
West Hills Assistant (1) $87,255
3. Educational Technology $183,180
Total Restoration $733,172
In preparation for the July 22, 2002 meeting, the administration provided the Board with a
proposal that illustrated a way to fund budgetary items that were eliminated or reduced in the
final adopted budget. The Board discussed all of the issues openly in great detail during the
previous months of budgetary preparation and adoption. Restoring these items to the budget
using the additional state funds was a non-issue, given that no Board member was very
comfortable with the cuts originally made. Hence, the reductions were made in the spirit of
compromise to hold the tax increase to six mills.
The primary frustration for Armstrong School District comes in the form of the reporter’s
account of the meeting in the July 23rd issue of the Leader Times. The reporter’s account of the
meeting was misleading because he failed to do his homework in terms of understanding and/or
verifying the numbers that he reported after the meeting. This resulted in an inaccurate account
of the $733,172 restored in the general operating budget. Then, the editor opted to use the same
data as the reporter to develop editorial opinions. The Leader Times editorial added further
insult to the inaccuracy of facts. The result is that the District’s reputation suffers significant
damage.
All budget figures provided within this release represent the additional cost to Armstrong School
District to restore the positions listed, including both salary and benefits. In some instances,
these figures differ from exact contracted salary rates for particular positions because
calculations were made to account for the current status of positions and level of service of
employees. The figures used by the Leader Times reporter in both recent articles were
inaccurate and misleading.
The Leader Times reporter has consistently failed in his efforts to convey the important aspects
of recent public meetings, even though an agenda packet is provided for review by the reporter
for each meeting. The reporter clearly draws attention to any negative aspects of a meeting,
rather than accentuating any positive discussions held by the Board of School Directors.
Even though a follow-up news article was written to clear miscommunications by the Leader
Times, the reporter did not state this, nor did the Leader Times make any apologies about the
original article or the editorial, which contained inaccurate information and figures.
As noted in the follow-up news article, school officials apologized for holding an extended
Executive Session to discuss personnel and legal matters. The apology was offered to the public,
with the understanding that pressing matters with school district operations were a priority for
discussion that evening. In the future, school officials will be conscientious about informing the
public of the potential length of an Executive Session and, when necessary, recess the Executive
Session and convene the public meeting to conduct business, then continue with the Executive
Session.
The Armstrong School District expects that the local media will perform its duties as a reporting
agency and a public watchdog and the district expects to draw criticism from time to time.
However, the Leader Times has consistently demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to
convey factual information about the district’s conduct and actions and these reports do the
district and the general public a grave disservice. Though it is the desire of the school district to
have a good working relationship with the news media, it is necessary to issue this independent
press release to finally “set the record straight.”
The Armstrong School District will continue in its efforts to have open and honest
communication with the public, taxpaying citize ns and the news media.
__________________________________________________________
This next piece of information for you to chew on is concerning studies and just what a study might contain. It also sheds some light on the direction this school district should go.
___________________________________________________________
Public Statement by William H. Kerr, Ed.D.
October 28, 2002
The purpose and intent of the original Armstrong School District building feasibility study was to focus on elementary education; therefore, the foundation of the district-wide feasibility study was the Elementary Education Plan, which is available on the district website. The primary goal of the building feasibility study was curriculum driven to create equal learning opportunities for all elementary students.
When the Board authorized HHSDR as the architectural firm in June 2000 to conduct the feasibility study, the Board at the time added the Elderton K-12 Complex. The dilemma for the Board and the administration always has been the fact that an elementary school was connected physically to a secondary school. The Board discussions about the Elderton attendance area went full circle and Option C appeared to be the best course of action.
When Hayes Large was named the new architect, the Board asked the firm to review the HHSDR feasibility study and offer some options that perhaps no one had explored previously. The Board continued to look for cost-effectiveness, higher state reimbursements and other renovation/construction options as a new architect reviewed data with a fresh look.
The district-wide feasibility study, with the intent of addressing elementary education, is now overshadowed by discussions about Elderton secondary needs. Discussions about Elderton 7-12 renovations and fear of closing the high school simply have drawn attention away from elementary education needs in the Elderton attendance area. The elementary education plan should be at the heart of any feasibility study discussions at this time.
The following comments are my opinion and made in the best interest of the school district:
The suggestion for a new, single school building that combines Elderton and Kittanning Township Elementary Schools provides average class sizes of 20 at the primary level and 25 at the intermediate level. Equally balanced class sizes, eligibility for Title I services, better utilization of itinerant services and enhanced opportunities for technology-based instruction are among the educationally sound aspects for 500 elementary students.
The K-6 proposal is fiscally responsible and the most cost-effective based on maximum available state reimbursement, long-term investment, operating costs and investment return for the taxpayer.
Construction of a K-6 facility, on a site yet to be determined, with occupancy by September 2005 is realistic.
Elderton 7-12 renovation discussions should continue in the context of proper planning and accountability. There are significant factors for future discussions including consideration for district-wide secondary education program offerings, enrollment projections, student transportation and costs per-pupil.
The Armstrong School District’s feasibility study of Lenape AVTS, which will determine if it can more efficiently deliver vocational-technical services and/or operate the Lenape program for the greater benefit of Armstrong and other member school districts, may produce recommendations that directly impact Armstrong’s district-wide secondary education program. Therefore, more time is needed to study the overall secondary education program throughout the district.
Setting priority goals and maximizing resources to produce a high quality K-12 education program are essential elements of the current planning process. A bilateral approach is needed to determine the best course of action for elementary and secondary program offerings and the number of school district buildings.
The greatest challenge facing the Armstrong School District is striking a balance between a quality educational program for all students and affordability for all taxpayers.