I am very glad to report that Albany is not entering into a contract with Betty Webb of Webb & Associates to manage the studio classroom program this year. (In fact, it looks like the district might have even cut back the total number of studio classrooms from 10 to 7!) However, the vast difference in price between Webb and the new provider raise serious questions about why the district ever entered into the original contract with Webb: CEL will charge just over $50K to run each new studio classroom, while Webb charged over $90K for each studio classroom.
Last year, Webb subcontracted with University of Washington’s Center for Educational Leadership (CEL) to manage Albany’s studio classrooms; she did some coaching and “leadership training,” and made a lot of trips to Albany over the course of the year, but did she really add any value? Now that we have eliminated the middleman and are doing business directly with CEL, new studio classrooms are just over half the price Webb was charging the district. Where did the money go? And why did the Board agree to such an inflated contract in the first place? See the chart for a comparison of costs between Webb and CEL.
One indication her prices were inflated – when costs needed to be cut during the budget process this past winter, somehow it was always possible to reduce the cost of the studios somehow. Here’s a timeline:
February 6
Budget Presentation at February 6 Board Meeting
3 continuing studio classrooms + 4 new studio classrooms = total of 7 total studio classrooms
No cost breakdown provided.
[Based on February 27 reduction, was the original cost $1,188,000?]
Board approves raises for Bill Hogan and Kathleen Culligan during board meeting.
February 27
Budget Presentation at February 27 Board Meeting
1 grant sponsored continuing studio classroom – no cost listed
2 continuing studio classrooms coming off grants: $344,000
3 new studio classrooms: $516,000
Total of 6 studio classrooms at a cost of $860,000 (not including 1 grant funded classroom.)
Average price per studio = $143,333
“Estimate adjustment on Studio Classrooms” reduces total cost by $328,000. [Does this represent a real reduction in cost, or just a shift from the general fund to grant funding?]
March 6
Budget Presentation at March 6 Board Meeting
3 grant-funded studio classrooms, (2 new, 1 continuing): $247,300
2 general fund continuing studio classrooms: $75,230
5 general fund new studio classrooms: $536,391
Total of 10 studio classrooms at a cost of $858,921.
Average price per studio = $85,892
Reductions include “Studio Classrooms (adjustment to cost per classroom)” with “dollar impact” of $260,269. [I think this means the total reduction in studio classroom costs coming from the general fund as opposed to grant funding, but the numbers don’t quite add up.]
A parent complains about the recent raises for Bill Hogan and Kathleen Culligan during public comment at the end of the board meeting.
March 13
Times Union and WRGB run stories critical of the recent raises for Hogan and Culligan.
March 14
A parent emails the district a FOIL request asking for the RFP Webb responded to, all the other responses to the RFP, Webb’s proposal, and Webb’s contracts.
March 20
Budget Presentation at March 20 Board Meeting
Reductions include “Studio Classrooms (adjustment to cost per classroom)” with “dollar impact” of $73,195.
During public comment at the board meeting, 17 people express their concerns about the cost of high consultants and the lack of evidence that studio classrooms are successful.
March 25
Budget Presentation at March 25 Board Meeting
A reduction of 3 studio classrooms is added to the list of “Tier 1” cuts with anticipated savings of $242,239.
(Average price per studio now $80,746?)
During public comment at the board meeting, 22 people comment on proposed budget cuts, most of them emphasizing they prefer to continue current programming rather than increase spending on consultants and unproven initiatives such as studio classrooms.
April 3
Budget Presentation at April 3 Board Meeting
Due to unexpected extra state funding, the district announces no reductions in programming are necessary for 2014-15. The only cuts are administrative.
During public comment at the board meeting, 16 people comment about proposed budget cuts, most of them emphasizing they prefer to continue current programming rather than increase spending on consultants and unproven initiatives such as studio classrooms. (2-3 commenters, to the best of my recollection, are strongly in favor of Dr. V and studio classrooms.)
April 10
During public comment at the board meeting, 3 commenters express concern about spending on consultants and studio classrooms.
2 commenters are strongly in favor of Dr. V. and all of her proposed initiatives, including studio classrooms.
[I remember a discussion at this meeting about possibly reducing the number of new studio classrooms from 7 to 4 for a total of 7 studios instead of 10, as per the Tier 1 cut, but I am pretty sure the board did not agree to do this.]
May 20
Proposed budget including studio classrooms and a 0.87% tax levy passes 1,931/861 (69% in favor).
August 12
Karen Bechdol submits 3 contracts with CEL to the board for approval.
August 21
The board votes to authorize the district to enter into 3 contracts with CEL to provide studio classrooms for 2014-15.
According to the new contracts with CEL, studio classroom costs are as follows:
1 grant-funded new studio classroom for literacy: $39,312
2 grant-funded studio classrooms for math (1 new, 1 continuing): $50,232
2 general fund studio classrooms for literacy (1 new, 1 continuing): $41,496
2 general fund studio classrooms for math (1 new, 1 continuing): $41,496
Total of 7 studio classrooms (4 new, 3 continuing) at a cost of $172,536.
Average price per studio = $24,648
According to the 2014-15 District Comprehensive Improvement Plan, dated August 15 and approved by the board at this meeting, “Studio classrooms will occur in eight elementary and middle school buildings in the 2014-2015 school year. Thirteen of fifteen buildings will participate in studio classroom work.”
Assuming CEL is still managing all of the studio classrooms, and that schools are working together in pairs (no groups of 3), this can’t be true. CEL is only running studio classrooms in 5 schools and no more than 11 buildings could be participating.
(Also, how did they arrive at 15 buildings? The district only has 14, not counting Abrookin and the Alternative Learning Center, but these are both technically part of the high school. Did someone count NAA twice by mistake?)
No comments:
Post a Comment