Division I regional track finals
Fenwick graduation 2012
Ponitz graduation 2012
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2007 > February > 19 > Entry
Percy Mack fires back
Percy Mack
Dayton Superintendent Percy Mack sounds pretty angry about Thomas Gunlock’s observations regarding Dayton’s school levy.
Editorial Page Editor Ellen Belcher was kind enough to allow me to publish Mack’s comments here first. They will appear on the DDN’s editorial page later this week. But for Get on the Bus readers, here is an early look at Mack’s response to Gunlock:
“Re: “Dayton schools still have a long way to go” on Feb. 16:
Tom Gunlock did a great disservice to the hard-working teachers, principals, students and support staff who have dedicated themselves to improving Dayton Public Schools. It is troubling that someone who served on the Ohio Board of Education five months would misrepresent what we have achieved during the past five years.
Gunlock’s article contains disturbing and inaccurate assertions:
—It is highly misleading to say that Dayton’s “continuous improvement” ranking on the Ohio Report Card was somehow the product of a fluke and is not likely to be duplicated. Dayton Public Schools earned its ranking through demonstrated growth on state tests — one of several valid measures established by the Ohio Department of Education.
—Growth of our students’ performance has outpaced state and national averages. In fact, while students across Ohio improved 11.8 percent on state tests during the last four years, Dayton Public Schools students improved 21.8 percent — a rate nearly twice that of the state.
—As for the cost per-student, an urban school system will spend more than a suburban district, because of the social and economic challenges our students face. The percentage of our general fund budget going to instruction, once 47 percent, is now about 64 percent and has been for years.
We have invested those dollars in individual student attention, placing a heavy emphasis on reading, math and science. The results speak for themselves in higher test scores and graduation rates.
—To compare an urban district like Dayton’s cost per-pupil with Miamisburg’s, as Gunlock did, is blatantly unfair. The fact is that our student needs are vastly different.
The number of special education students alone tips the scales dramatically. For instance, one of every five children in Dayton Public Schools is a special-needs student.
That fact greatly increases per-pupil spending averages because educating special needs children is extremely costly. One severely challenged child with multiple disabilities can easily cost as much as $50,000 a year in professional fees and care.
—It’s interesting that Gunlock didn’t say one word about the fiscal reforms we have implemented — reforms that have saved tens of millions of dollars. We are constantly searching for ways to cut costs without compromising instructional quality. We have reduced personnel, closed buildings, and saved millions by careful auditing of workers’ compensation and other expenses.
I invite Gunlock to pay a visit to our school district. I will be happy to walk him through the $40 million in cost reduction that we have achieved. Our financial statements are audited by the state auditor. I would welcome the opportunity to explain to him the special needs of our Dayton Public Schools population. I also would welcome the opportunity to show him the data from the State Department of Education that validates our academic progress.
Daytonians deserve to be proud of their schools. The 10-year school rebuilding program is well under way, with new facilities opening or under construction across the district. Most important, the district’s academic progress is real.
As I speak to citizens throughout Dayton, there is a growing awareness that good things are happening. Have we completed the journey? No, but the trend lines are positive. Reform is not an overnight achievement; it takes patience and commitment. The road ahead is long, but the goal is in sight.
Permalink | Comments (14) | Categories: Dayton Public Schools
Comments
By David
February 23, 2007 7:47 AM | Link to this
We’re back to the high administration costs. Shouldn’t the federal monies replace some of the cost of operating programs rather than be additional spending? Isn’t fedeeral money to go to things for the students rather than employing people to sit at a desk with secretaries and no student contact? I’d like to see Oldprof research the friends and relatives aspect of overemployment at higher levels as well as building level. How many unproductive employees should be let go but have an “inside track” to staying employed? I recall a superintendent’s comment in another district that they couldn’t get rid of many bad employees because they were all related to someone or friends of someone with power in the district or on the board…By charterschoolhater
February 22, 2007 1:49 PM | Link to this
I find Dr. Macks comments interesting. However, his assertion that urban districts need to spend more per pupil the suburban ones is misleading. What I really wnat to know Dr. Mack is why did you cut academic programs in favor of coninuing to employ layer after layer of admnistration help. The fact that many are funded required by federal grants and regs in ok. But what I as a dayton taxpayer want to know is why we cut these imnportant programs at Colonel White and Stvers and you Dr. Mackl continue to have a whole slew of assistants working in your office. Why can you not go with one secretary and put the money on all your other assitants salaries to use on retroing these vital programs. While your at it, why does operations and transportation have so many more supervisors and support persons employed when cuts could be made to restore these vital programs. Dr. Mack you owe us an answer on this one. I will continue to press you until you come clean. we are doing our children a real disservice on this one. Oldprof I beg you to ask the people on the inside I know you can talk to as to why this is going on. Do our children a real favor and help restore the cuts MAck made that really threten our childrens quality of education.By Scott Elliott
February 22, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this
I just wanted to note that over the next couple months, leading up to the levy, we’re planning to write about how the district spends its money, compares to other districts, etc.By Karen
February 22, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this
To add to what Wellwhynot posted, I would like to know exactly how much money is spent where. It may be piblic record, but I don’t know where to find it and would have to find the time to look for it. If the board were smart they would start publishing this information. How often has it been asked for here?By wellwhynot
February 21, 2007 9:49 PM | Link to this
There is a long way to go in Dayton. There are still a lot of children making little progress, but it is progress. Having taught in Dayton for nearly 30 years I can tell you that there have been some costs cut. Supplies for teachers are much harder to acquire. It is so hard to get copy paper that many teachers just give up and buy their own. One area that costs have not gone down is in purchase of textbooks. After many years of ridiculously outdated books, we have received new books in most subjects. Class sizes are comparable to the past, some smaller, some not. There is more teacher training than in the past, although most of it really isn’t any better. Teacher pay hasn’t really kept up with inflation, but neither have many other jobs (except actors, CEO’s and sports figures). Many people believe the districts administration is top-heavy. It has been said that a lot of them are paid for with federal funds and other sources. It would be interesting to know how many administrators are in that catagory and of the ones the district employs, how many are above what a similar district typically employs.By Anne
February 21, 2007 9:39 PM | Link to this
Rick, spending IS being reduced. Well - at least for instruction. If you want to work downtown, (esp. if you are related to/or used to coach with someone there) - good news! - they are hiring, just check their web site, or visit the board minutes if you want to verify this. But as far as teachers, vice principals, and those who actually work WITH children - well - cuts have been made and more are to come. Isn’t anyone else thinking that more than 64% of the money that is to educate children should maybe go to help them? Successful school districts are spending aprox. 73% on actual instruction. Maybe the board could hire a few more teachers to work with children instead of more staff for downtown. Just a thought.By Oldprof
February 21, 2007 6:03 PM | Link to this
Rick, DPS is smaller mainly due to charters, and charters are also public schools. DPS is required to provide transportation services to the charters, and also serves them indirectly by retaining the highly expensive special needs students that charters can’t serve. Certainly you realize how much more expensive transportation has become (i.e., cost of fuel). The levy proposal is less than 16 mills—that’s less than one mill per year since the last DPS operating levy. The levy is too small; 36 mills would be preferable.By Rick`
February 21, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this
dps teacher and others, I think you are being too harsh on Mr. Gunlock. Some of his remarks seem rather strident, but he makes some valid points. DPS has made significant progress, through the hardwork of everybody, from bus drivers, teachers aids, teachers, principals, staff, the superintendant, and the School Board. However, we still have a long way to go. In addition, recognizing the progress does not mean we should automatically approve this very large levy. Obviously, we need to approve some levy. The school enrollment has dropped from 28,000 in 1994 to 16,000 today. Shouldn’t that mean something, like reduced costs?By dps teacher
February 21, 2007 8:43 AM | Link to this
Mr. Gunlock and his ilk would not visit inner city schools because that would cause them to question their preconceived biases against urban public schools. Many of the harshest critics of DPS are suburban, middle class, white guys who are clueless and judgmental about inner city issues. I would call them elitist but they’re not that bright. I can say this because I came from that background.By wellwhynot
February 20, 2007 9:57 PM | Link to this
Having grown up in a relatively wealthy and influential family with all the opportunities that go along with it, I don’t think Mr. Gunlock has a clue what really goes on in an urban school. I think a visit to some Dayton schools would be a real eye-opener for him. Apparently he does, however, know how much (or how little) a teacher makes since he left the teaching field to work for his brother. I will eagerly watch for his comments after he visits a few DPS schools.By Mary
February 20, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this
To tie in with “oldprof’s” comments, I also thought the article about school choice had some interesting implications. Yesterday’s DDN Sports section also had an interesting commentary regarding a Sunday LA Times feature article on an ethics survey of school athletes and nonathletes as pertains to cheating, leadership, winning, competition, etc. It is interesting the Trotwood Madison student felt his main way to get to college was through football. Therein lies the problem.By Keith
February 20, 2007 6:48 AM | Link to this
The article was like the procharter and home-schooling articles which pick out one example to prove they’re the best over public. I was disappointed at the codewords used in the article for his expecting to be treated as special since he’s an athlete and not liking certain schools with stiff grade/behavior structures. We suffer the reporter’s articles in our neighborhood section on Thursdays where everything is Trotwood-centered to him, including liking their redlight/speed cameras for money making. I’ve complained before.By School Supporter
February 20, 2007 12:13 AM | Link to this
Mr. Gunlock is a nice buy, but he had that (and more) coming. State board members (past and present) need to take more responsibility for their, um, impact, on local districts. Dr. Mack and his board have the Council of Great City Schools vouching for their progress. While State Superintendent Zelman and her board can justly point to a number of accomplishments, I don’t know they have the same degree of independent validation for their efforts.By Oldprof
February 19, 2007 4:54 PM | Link to this
Unrelated, but Scott, why does Ryan Justin Fox think that “school choice” is a new thing for a star running back who can carry a high GPA? Byrd and students like him ALWAYS had the choice of football factories; he might have had a shot at Moeller or Masillon. I found Fox’s article today to be shallow and short-sighted; one student who did well in a charter school—how’s that compare to the dozens of students who went to one of the charters that closed in mid-year, disenfranchising the kids and dumping the costs on the public system while keeping the financial support? Can anyone talk sense to this (presumably) callow staff writer?