Laserfiche WebLink
92 <br /> <br />additional aids or reading programs or otherwise redirect <br />funds to children at risk. Mr. Vandever criticized the <br />School Board regarding their propoposed budget. <br /> Mr. Cliff Bennett, School Board member, stated that he <br />felt the proposed budget was tremendous and requested that <br />Mr. Vandever be more specific. <br /> Mr. Vandever recommended that the student/teacher ratio <br />be reduced in the first and possibly second grades. <br /> Mr. Smith stated that it was not the School Board's <br />policy to split classes until the number of students reach <br />26. <br /> <br /> Ms. Linda Seaman, School Board member, stated that the <br /> School Board has discussed the student/teacher ratio issue at <br /> length and has concerns about applying the label "at risk" to <br /> children or certain schools. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters recommended that Councilors identify <br /> questions they may have with regard to school priorities <br /> for the School Board to discuss. <br /> Ms. Seaman noted that the list of priorities included in <br /> the School Board's budget were not in order of priority or <br /> all inclusive. <br /> <br /> Responding to questions from Ms. Slaughter, Dr. <br /> McGeehan stated that the reading recovery program was an <br /> approach to achieving literacy in all children and involved <br /> identifying and working with the lowest level children, and <br /> explained that all school personnel would be getting at least <br /> a 3% salary increase except for those positions which have <br /> been frozen. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Ms. Slaughter about <br /> administration salary increases, Dr. McGeehan stated that the <br /> increases were based on comparable salaries in the area. <br /> Ms. Waters questioned whether over time it would make <br /> sense to have comparable teacher salaries in adjacent <br /> localities and Dr. McGeehan replied that there are <br /> significant differences between the City and County schools <br /> which would make it difficult to make them comparable. <br /> Mr. Atwood recommended that the schools could reach a <br /> point where the rules are changed for new employees. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bennett noted that he felt there were significant <br /> philosophical differences in approaches to rewarding teachers <br /> in the City and County which would make such a change <br /> difficult. <br /> <br /> Ms. Seaman stated that she felt working towards <br /> comparable salaries would be a useful goai. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter questioned whether administrative <br /> functions for City and County schools could be consolidated, <br /> noting that she has the same concerns about administrative <br /> salaries in the schools as she does with the City. <br /> Mr. Toscano questioned what the process will be should <br /> the Schools receive additional state funds. <br /> Mr. Hendrix stated'that State funds for the Schools do <br /> not need to be appropriated by the Council. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever stated that if extra funds come to replace <br /> school programs currently funded by the City the Council <br /> needed to consider priorities across the City and the <br /> possibility of returning funds currently proposed to go to <br /> the Schools to the City's General Fund. <br /> <br /> <br />