Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2006 > November > 13 > Entry
The Stivers dilemma
(Stivers freshman Danielle Snyder pickets Wednesday’s board meeting)
At Wednesday’s school board meeting, a group of Stivers School for the Arts students came out to protest the board’s proposal to cut hours for adjunct faculty who teach private music lessons at the school.
This proposed cut is a good example of the difficult choices faced by the board, and Mary McCarty’s Sunday column did a nice job of capturing the view of students and their concerns about how such a cut would affect their learning.
Stivers is one of Dayton’s highest performing schools, with test scores that rival well-regarded suburban high schools. Under the dual leadership of Liz Whipps, who runs the arts programs, and Principal Erin Dooley, Stivers marries academic and arts instruction together.
Arts students there can take private one-on-one lessons from their instrument teachers, who usually are professionals who teach as adjunct faculty. In the proposed cuts for January, the board tentatively plans to eliminate those lessons.
Cutting adjuncts is a tough call, but they ended up on the list of reductions in part because those one-on-one lessons are viewed as essentially “extras.” In looking for places to cut, administrators sought to avoid reductions that would affect the academic classroom. Music lessons traditionally are arranged/paid for by families outside of school. The same rationale was behind the elimination of sports like soccer and swimming — activities that kids can still get elsewhere on their own dime.
Those ultimately were viewed as extras when compared with, say, assistant principals and reading and math coaches, both of which administrators fought hard to save. The priority was on the general classroom. Next year’s proposed reduction for Stivers —- another 25 percent of adjuncts — is a much deeper cut that I’m told the board has more qualms about. But that decision can be avoided if the levy passes.
The counter argument on the private lessons is that they are part of what makes Stivers great and unique and that messing with the district’s most successful academic program could be a very bad idea. Plus, the estimated $100,000 cost savings is pretty small (Cutting 10 elementary school assistant principals, by comparison, would save nine times as much). And, whether its music lessons or soccer or swimming, the simple reality is many Dayton kids can’t afford to do it own their own.
In Mary’s column, Superintendent Percy Mack said everything possible has been done to avoid cutting the classroom. What’s your view? Do private music lessons qualify as “classroom” cuts or are they, in fact, “extras?”
(Image credit: Ron Alvey, DDN)
Permalink | Comments (58) | Categories: Dayton Public Schools, My Favorite Posts
Comments
By Stiver's Mom
November 20, 2006 10:20 PM | Link to this
It is my understanding that on the evening of Nov. 21 Stiver’s students will be protesting cuts to their school. Hope a lot of people come down to support them. Take a walk around the 2 Board of Education buildings and see which is more helpful to students, adjunct or administrative buildings. I believe they will be showing off their talents during their protest. Go students you are a wonderful example of what DPS has to offer.By Jacob
November 18, 2006 5:51 PM | Link to this
Not a huge number, but a considerable presence. I couldn’t come up with a number off the top of my head.By Mary
November 17, 2006 11:19 PM | Link to this
Jacob, early on, I implied you have a good argument about funding arts programs, especially if the same school district forks over money for football at the other schools. Stivers is still probably getting the short end of the stick regarding the “discretionary” dollars spent per student. I guess I am confused why the adjunct instruction is not incorporated into the day to day classroom function more, and why the adjunct instruction is even under question, especially since it is a magnet school for the arts. It would be interesting if you could compare funding per student overall by the district -comparing Stivers per student funding to other schools in the district. Stivers might actually be the bargain store and you might not be getting your equitable share of the budget. Do you have many special ed students which usually require more funding?By Jacob
November 17, 2006 4:37 PM | Link to this
Mary, Stivers does not have a football program, and in exchange we reciece that money for our atrs program. You still can’t seem to grasp the fact that it’s not just private lessons, but adjuncts teach photography, cermaics, song writing, and a wide variety of other electives that are part of the arts magnet core. To take away adjucnt at our school (which would be cathastrophic for the magnet teachers) would be akin to removing funding for football or basketball throughout the rest of the DPS- but, unlike those sports, the adjunct are strongly interwoven into acdemics, and the school (as a whole) benefits more widely than studnts participating in football and bastketball. STIVERS AS AN ARTS SCHOOL CANNOT FUNCTION WITHOUT ITS ADJUNCTS. If you disagree, come visit the school- Dr. Mack and possibly Joe Lacy will be there Monday. Until you visit Stivers and understand why it attracts students from all over the area (at least half of the visual arts applicants this past year came from outside the DPS), you shouldn’t argue that Stivers isn’t worth the fee (even if football at struggling schools is). And, yes, a large number of students take part in the PSEO program, and allways have.By Mary
November 17, 2006 1:57 PM | Link to this
Keith, I have not heard that PSEO students can be prohibited from attending colleges fall quarter. My son attended fall quarter for four years, but not at OSU. I did not want him there during football orgy season. He went spring, summer and winter to OSU. PSEO does not pay for summers. If a student wants credits to count both for high school and college, they have to let the state pay (Option B). If you want the credits for college only, the family pays, although I think summer credits at your expense can be tranferred to a high school diploma if you wish.By Keith
November 17, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this
Oldprof: PSEO. Are these paid for by the school district or by the “state”? and does having a high school diploma from an Ohio-accedited high school still guarantee admission to an Ohio-funded place of higher learning, although perhaps not for Fall quarter and not at main branch? Was that changed? I.e., Stivers kids still aren’t entitled to pay for lessons in lieu of driving to Cincy to get lessons? (Nothing closer you can pay for yourself?) I’d like the school to pay for my son’s lessons. And the marching band doesn’t get school funding in our district; why does Mary think it does in Dayton?By stephen
November 16, 2006 11:00 PM | Link to this
The adjunct system has been in place since the school became a high school in the years building up to its first graduating class (2000), and has brought huge amounts of success. It has withstood budget crunches and academic emergencies in the past. Of course there’s going to be entitlement when the very identity of a strong school is being taken from it, yet other schools face sports cuts of teams they don’t have. Does proven success get disregarded because of a pseudo idealistic attitude towards (still) clearly ambiguous cuts?By Mary
November 16, 2006 7:13 PM | Link to this
Stephen, where did you locate the 25% acceptance rate for OSU? Sounds very low to me. Does that include out of state or just in-state students? Does that include just the Columbus campus or other OSU campuses? My son transferred Sinclair, WSU, OSU and Wittenberg PSEO credits into OSU and graduated the same week he graduated high school. Maybe some of the Stivers arts students could benefit from the arts programs at local colleges by using PSEO. The state pays for the classes. The credits transfer into high school for a diploma, as well as provide college credits. Talk to your counselor about PSEO opportunities or do a search for the program in Ohio Revised Code Section 3365. The magnet fee you mention is likely only a token amount similar to pay for play for sports. These fees rarely pay full costs. I am not anti-arts or anti-sports. However, there have to be priorities and limits when using public funds. I think things have got completely out of hand and people look upon too many activities as a right or an entitlement and show the finger to the people paying the bills.By Jacob
November 16, 2006 6:23 PM | Link to this
And don’t forget that many students from Stivers pursue their arts magnet profesionally as well.By Stephen
November 16, 2006 5:39 PM | Link to this
Mary, Ohio State is far from snooty or private, yet has a 25.4% acceptance rate. And a tuition within $1,000 of Wright State’s tuition. And the bottom line is that if students are willing to work and achieve in their magnet area (as shown by the payment of a magnet fee in the first place) it should be treated no differently than a student working to achieve academically. After all, the two have been linked in innumerable studies. It seems you are missing the whole point of arts education. It is not to be accepted into a liberal arts college, but to receive a different understanding of the core subjects-to see the mathematics of acoustics and the symbolism in paintings, and to let that further your education. If you don’t believe in concentrated arts education in public schools, and you think team sports only lead to “elitism, greed, a sense of entitlement, materialism, hiring cliques, and special privileges”, you are disregarding vast numbers of students who truly succeed in those areas.By Jacob
November 16, 2006 4:07 PM | Link to this
The point many of you are missing is the correlation between the arts (and to a minor extent, sports) and academic peformance at Stivers. Because we have students who are motivated to pursue challening futures, rather than attend a community college and ‘get-by’, our students come to school more readily and perform exceptionally. The numbers and test scores don’t lie. The connection between the arts and academics is what make Stivers a ‘gem’. Our Theater dept. is one of the top in the country, and our jazz band was judged best in the nation two years ago, among numerous other accomplishments. Do you think this came about without the almost daily invidualized practice from adjucnt? No. My family, which is under the federal poverty line, can’t afford to send me to Cinncinatti every other day. And I never would have discovered how to play and listen to jazz so aptly withour Stivers. The school offers a unique setting for creative students from Dayton to discover and make something out of themsevles- to take it away will definitely be the beginning of the end of the school. If you don’t believe me (or you see me as a radical, biased student incapable if rational thought), perhaps you could come visit Stivers and then comment on how the cuts will affect our situation. I don’t say this to belittle anyone, but to offer a glance into the unique atomsphere of our school.By Mary
November 16, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this
“gth7”, I think your observations are accurate about tactics used to manipulate parents and levies. The districts seem to make backroom deals with their favorite parents - athletic and band boosters - to protect their spoils and extracurriulars and many times the principals’ favorite part of education. In fact, in many districts it seems people from those groups are specifically recruited to run for school board. Superintendents and principals will glad hand and back slap them at sporting events and band events where trophies are accumulated for school bragging rights . At academic activities - there is not so much of this intermingling. The vast majority of naive parents who look to the school for better academic and school day programs, smaller class sizes, etc will be easily tweaked through emotional and doom and gloom pleas like “for the children”, foreign languages, arts and music will be cut, gifted intervention specialists will be cut, class sizes will grow, bus transportation to school will be cut (but never cuts to bus transportation to away games on weeknights and weekends), etc. These parents are rarely encouraged to organize and confront the district on the educational priorities. As pointed out in the book “Cheating our kids - how politics and greed ruin education”, the PTO’s worry about feel good activities such as raising funds for a school door mat. (That actually happened in my district. My husband and I were very confused why the school board could afford to transport the football and basketball teams to all their away games but not buy doormats.) You’ll find when the levy passes, the funds will be scarfed up by athletic boosters, show choirs, band boosters and the teachers’ unions. Very rarely are academic pprograms positively affected or enriched in any way.By Oldprof
November 16, 2006 9:09 AM | Link to this
Stephen—the benefits of tennis and trombone are undisputed but you can get into college without them. Sinclair will always take you, as will most state schools if your GPA is decent and you’ve completed the academic core. Now if you want to get into an ELITE college, maybe important—but be advised that the long-term benefits of attending, say, UD instead of Sinclair/Wright State are questionable, especially if you go way in debt with student loans. Don’t misunderstand—I’m not coming down one way or the other, go ahead and pursue your own dreams—but I don’t want you doing it based on outdated notions of college admissions standards.By Oldprof
November 16, 2006 9:01 AM | Link to this
Terri, the DBoE didn’t anticipate the millions of lost revenue because they were retroactive. The state gaveth and the state tooketh away. Other districts got [ahem] robbed as well, Cincinnati has sued, if they win then Dayton gets the money back again. Or maybe not, considering the current composition of the Ohio Supreme Court. [Yes, if you ran your business that way you’d be in trouble. Want to join me in calling for Susan Zellman’s head on a plate?)By Mary
November 16, 2006 7:16 AM | Link to this
Stephen, I think just about anyone can go to just about any college. It is not as competitive as it is hyped. I believe the vast majority of colleges - I have seen a breakdown of the statistics in a USA Today editorial - has a very high acceptance rate. I am not sympathetic to grooming small numbers of public high school students at the taxpayers’ expense for the superficial qualifications of the private, snooty, prestigious liberal arts colleges whose education programs are vastly overrated by marketing hype. I think you can get just as good an education elsewhere and have less in student loans. College rankings are a controverisal issue in themselves. As one recent column in USA Today (I think it was in the Money Section) pointed out, more students are and should start out at community colleges to save money. I know with Ohio’s Board of Regents transfer module the first two years of college are much more affordable that way. For one thing, you are not paying for losses in the athletics department of big time sports colleges and universities. See today’s USA Today cover story about the million dollar salaries of coaches including OSU’s. As pointed out in the article 80-95% of Division I-A colleges end up financing the costs of their athletic departments with money from general funds and student fees. I wonder how many parents and students immersed in student loans approaching home mortgages know that.By gth7
November 16, 2006 2:29 AM | Link to this
Here’s the one thing that everyone seems to be missing. I think they targeted Stivers precisely because it IS a better performing school with engaged and concerned students and parents. I know that will come across as cynical, but the Board has to get the community to commit to take ACTION! (and pass the levy) So far, that’s what’s happened.By Stephen
November 15, 2006 10:34 PM | Link to this
I understand that, as a high school student, this is slightly biased, but Mary, I don’t think anyone would say education today is anywhere close to what it was, fifteen, twenty, thirty years ago. Admission to college has become extremely competitive, and the arts and sports were offering many DPS students a much needed edge, particularly coming from a district that top tier colleges don’t exactly look to for strong applicants. Public secondary school education, and certainly private, has become centered around going on to further education in college, whether we like it or not. What college will want a student who has completed driver’s ed over a student who played in the DPYO?By Keith
November 15, 2006 9:55 PM | Link to this
It’s ironic that DPS maintains a school where the students feel everything should be paid for that supports the school and its arts and music focus when other schools in the district have such “needy” children when it comes to discipline and control. The cost of lessons it he family obligation. I worked with someone whose kids both went through Patternson. I wonder if he would have kept his kids in DPS if they were in Colonel White at the time instead of receiving special nurturing with the then superintendent’s child at Stivers.By Mary
November 15, 2006 7:39 PM | Link to this
Jacob, I enjoy reading your comments and those of the other students. However, I, like many others, went to college without tennis and trombone lessons. My not rich parents with ten kids paid for my piano lessons. I am not rich and I paid for my childrens’ jujitsu, tennis, piano, violin, and saxophone lessons. Scott, I personally think the automotive course is possibly more related to public education than either sports or music. I read the letter in today’s paper. In fact, maybe drivers ed, home maintenance, and home economics including cooking and child care classes are also more critical to public education than sports or music opportunities.By Jacob Foskuhl
November 15, 2006 5:28 PM | Link to this
From what I’ve collected, the Board will save anwhere from $50,000 to $75,000 a year by cutting adnuct, electives, and some sports. The DPS is in the position of hiring up to four ASSITANT administrators at Ludlow, starting at $60,000 a year. As a student at Stivers who keeps being assured by Dr. Mack (who I know personally) and the Board that everything possible is being done to save our schools programs, I begin to question how the top-heavy administration will really handle this. Cut one or two assiatant administrators, and that will directly benefit our school’s situation. Please don’t become obssessed with which program is better, arts of sports- I play trombone and I play tennis. I need them both for college and beyond. The bottom line is that the administration could take cuts from their salaries or their assiatants if they really valued the education being provided in our schools.By Mary
November 15, 2006 2:40 PM | Link to this
Dave, the topic Scott “posed” is our view on activities outside the classroom and whether they are extra or fluff to the education mission. It appears we are on topic. My points pertain to relative values and inconsistency in how we approach these things - i.e, “football and sports more relevant to education than private music lessons when it comes to cuts and priroities”. Who says? Also, what is the educational priority list for cuts? Is there even one established? What is the upper limit of how, what, when, where educational funds and tax dollars should be used? Do people out there even comprehend the need for an upper limit? Some vocal taxpayers, including me, see the need for an upper limit. Another issue, is what about serving musically gifted students? Why do athletically gifted students receive special training and musically and academically gifted students do not receive as much? Where are the highest societal needs - academics, athletics or the arts. Instead of the three R’s, we now have the three A’s and the price tag has mushroomed for the taxpayer.By Dave
November 15, 2006 1:24 PM | Link to this
Mary, your difficulty in accepting that there can be any value to sports and teamwork has nothing to do with your engineering degree. And if you had bothered to read my post, you would know that I agree with a lot of the complaints about big time sports. Now can we PLEASE get back to the topic Scott posed?By Mary
November 15, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this
Dave, I am having a hard time swallowing your “team concept” propaganda and its ties to the real world, and I don’t think it is because I am an engineer. I am so sick of people spinning that all the costs of big time sports teams are justified because it teaches teamwork,leadership and yadda yadda. Seems to me it mainly teaches elitism, greed, a sense of entitlement, materialism, hiring cliques, and special privileges. Where is the payback to the vast majority of students and society not on the team?By Scott Elliott
November 15, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this
I really appreciate coach’s comments. Athletics is a tough issue. I’m an ex-high school athlete and still a sports fan, but I have mixed feelings about the value of sports as part of a school program. There is no doubt that many kids learn important lessons from sports, the same way many kids learn important lessons from music, art, chess club or debate team. These activities are outside of what we think of as the “core” mission of schools. And yet, they can be very important to learning. On the other hand, Mary is right that in many cases sports are way overvalued and the investment in sports in some parts of our education system are completely out of whack. I think even many sports fans and athletic boosters would acknowledge that. I read a recent study that showed coaching in the U.S. is very effective because of some of the things pointed out here — the kids work closely with coaches in small groups and get immediate, individual feedback on what they are doing right and wrong. This is a very effective instructional method. The same approach also certainly works at Stivers with music lessons. In a way, these things are supplimental — “extras” — but in another way, for many kids they are the key to inspiring an interest in learning and they provide role models and learning experiences that benefit them, sometimes as much as the best classroom instruction. That’s why these sorts of cuts are so painful. Who’s to say one kid’s football practice is less important to them than another kid’s trombone lessons? We had a letter to the editor today from a parent of one of the 15 kids in Patterson’s automotive program that was cut. From one point of view, automotive is as far away from the “core” education mission of schools as you can get. From another, kids there are learning the most practical and useful skills possible — perhaps far more immediate valuabe to the kid’s future than learning how to play a solo or throw a spiral. Mack touched on this when he asked that people not try to pit one program against another. In his view, it creates false choices — all these programs matter to somebody and the depth of the cuts the district faces means there will be pain everywhere, he told me.By Dave
November 15, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this
We seem to be ganging up on Coach here, and getting completely off-topic. It is easy to point out the abuses in sports programs. There are a lot, and they are very visible. It wouldn’t be much of a headline if the secretary of the science club would be caught shoplifting, would it? But a quarterback? And I agree with a lot of the criticism of sports (especially “big time” sports). But in fairness, we should also recognize two major strengths of sports. First, sport coaches are frequently great motivators. I literally have known hundreds of young men who stayed in school ONLY BECAUSE they promised their coach they would graduate. Second, a good coach teaches teamwork, self-discipline, and the value of hard work. The teamwork component of this is almost entirely missing from our school curricula. The few attempts at group projects are laughable at best. One of the toughest tasks in industry is to teach a young engineer or scientist WITHOUT a sports background, to work as part of a team. And if one of these individuals is promoted to manager, they frequently become the “boss from H_”. So let’s get back to the point of this thread — the value of arts in the schools.By Oldprof
November 15, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this
Coach, you’re defending your turf with erroneous data and false allegations. I’m basing my opinions on the hard data. Among college male athletes, there’s a much higher rate of abusive behavior than among non-athlete males. Look at http://www.jhu.edu/hurj/Issue3/spotlight-mak.html and see that there are several studies supporting the conclusion. Crime statistics show that over 20% of NFL players and about 40% of NBA players have been arrested for serious offenses. Now, you can try to compare them with, say, underprivileged inner-city youth—or you could make the equally valid comparison with young multi-millionaires. But compared to the general population, male athletes in the big-time prep sports programs behave MUCH worse. Now, OK, you have 60 kids on your football team. That’s the same number as are in the orchestra—and the orchestra gets one director at a time. With one head coach and five assistants, you’ve got a 12 to 1 student-“teacher” ratio on a regular basis. That’s far better than the smallest classrooms in the district; it’s not anti-sport to say that some cuts could be made. Maybe enough to save tennis, swimming, and some adjuncts. Sorry to threaten your perceptions of reality.By Coach
November 15, 2006 9:42 AM | Link to this
Mary, You hit it right on the head. “Young men should be growing up to assume leadership, family, and societal roles, rather than expectations of entertainment at the taxpayers’ expense.” We are in the business of teaching these boys these aspects of life. The things they are not getting at home. The things we do not have the time to teach them in a regular school day. They are extracurriculars. If a child goes to College because of it, Great! It’s the values that we try to mold. This is my last post on this subject. It’s gotten away from the article. And that is the fact that students are going to suffer from the proposed cuts be it at Stivers, Colonel White or any other school. Maybe Scott will write some time the benefits or the trials of athletics. Then we can continue on this. Have a great day.By Keith
November 15, 2006 8:29 AM | Link to this
Coach, I’m with Oldprof on the sports being a giant sucking sound. If kids need sports as reason to come to school, they’ve been conditioned to think that way by their parents, peers, and coaches. Otherwise the schools were built for education meaning the three R’s, not sports for parents and coaches to feel good about themselves by doing “fun” things and calling it education. This problem is perpetuated because too many administrators are past coaches and push their values onto the school system from higher up.By Terri
November 15, 2006 8:23 AM | Link to this
“Sudden million dollar adjustments?” How can the BoE not anticipate students leaving for charters when that has been the trend for several years? Why did the board expect to win in the courts and spend as if they already had? If I worked my budget that way I would be in serious trouble.By Mary
November 15, 2006 7:54 AM | Link to this
Coach, I am sort of looking for other “inventions” out of the education system, not the forward pass. Quite frankly, that is not on my list of priorities for tax dollars. Teach the kids how to balance check books, eat right, exercise healthy (physical education), read interest rates, withstand predatory lending, vote in an informed manner, and maybe find a cure for cancer and war. Pretty soon, you will expect the taxpayers to also pay for steroid testing for athletes - see today’s USA Today on the opinion pages. Young men should be growing up to assume leadership, family, and societal roles, rather than expectations of entertainment at the taxpayers’ expense.By Coach
November 14, 2006 11:36 PM | Link to this
Well OLD Prof, first of all I wish you had read my post completly. I was standing up for ALL athletics (as well as the arts) not just football. You attacked athletics. Secondly football does teach life skills as I gave examples before. I didn’t read the Sports illustrated article but I do read the paper and watch the news each day and see our young people in trouble with the law. I’d wager a bet that a higher rate of those kids did not play athletics. Yes football is a costly sport with equipment the top priority for safety. What is the cost of instruments? I know a new flute is $800.00. You have hall rentals, custodial staff, transportation, private lessons. Name a disability or death in the Dayton area. I can tell you of a student that had to set out of the band for a couple of weeks because he reached back and grabbed a bare wire burning his playing hand. There are hazards everywhere. Career building? What better way than going to college. How can you say they are getting gouged? How can you justify one on one lessons at $18.00 an hour when there are classes with 30-35 if not more? (My daughter took lessons at $15.00 an hour that came out of my over paid pockets.) Then you turn around and say that one coach is enough for 45 to 65 boys. Your still trying to compare apples to oranges. We have two completely different types of kids. Very few and far between do we have an athlete that excells in the arts. We are in the business of educating kids. If it takes a football, basketball or tennis raquet to get them to school so be it. If it takes a trumpet, painting or school play to get to them so be it. Everyone is different. THAT is what makes the world go around. I know that probably what I have said is beneath your intellect. So maybe I can explain one thing that maybe you might understand. When you went to school the forward pass had not been invented yet which is why only one coach was needed. He only had to teach running, blocking and tackling. Athletic bashers……just doesn’t make sense to this old coach.By Oldprof
November 14, 2006 10:58 PM | Link to this
Katie—I’m confident that the board wouldn’t choose cuts, and genuinely wants to give the staff a nice raise in recognition of their efforts. But the state is so incompetent at school funding that there’s no way for the board to anticipate sudden million-dollar “adjustments” nor to find creative ways to balance a budget. If you’d like to protest somewhere that REALLY counts, go to Columbus and make an appointment with Susan Zellman; then visit John Husted, and while you’re at it drop in on the Fordham Foundation and tell Mr. Ryan that you don’t appreciate the hash he’s made. Take your friends, too. The problem comes from on high, not in the trenches.By katie foskuhl
November 14, 2006 9:35 PM | Link to this
I will just say one thing as a student from stivers who has protested. We are not doing this just for Stivers. It may only be Stivers students that are protesting but we feel that if the Board Members cut in the DPS Schools that it would effect all schools not just ours. We as students feel that taking away from any school could make the students not want to be there any more with or without the arts. We feel that if we can do our part from stivers that maybe it can help the other schools too. Stivers students in this situation don’t want any special attention or help. They want what’s best for the whole DPS school district.By Oldprof
November 14, 2006 8:35 PM | Link to this
Well, coach, first of all: there is no proof that sports teaches any life skils, and the sad fact—acknowledged by Sports Illustrated and other inside sources—is that male collegiate athletes, in particular football players, have a far higher rate of arrest and conviction than the norm. Football is one of the more costly operations, considering equipment, facilities, size of coaching staff, transportation, training facilities, and medical costs (let’s not forget the higher incident of death and disability arising from football injuries). When I attended high school, we managed to field a football team with just one coach; sorry you and yours can’t manage to attain the same level of productivity. Look, I am not seriously anti-sport; play football if you want to. But if cuts have to be made, why should an expensive, injurious activity be immune when less expensive, productive and potentially career-building activites get gouged? And why are the other sports going down the drain while yours is sacrosanct? Doesn’t make sense to this old professor.By Caroline
November 14, 2006 8:16 PM | Link to this
Stivers and DECA get to choose who enters their school. This makes a big difference in scores and attendance. We don’t want to lose our crown jewel, but how can we cut from lower performing schools? Don’t they need the help just as much—if not more? Regarding athletics, some of our students are in school only because they want to participate in athletics. I agree that this shouldn’t be our priority, but at least those kids are in school.By Terri
November 14, 2006 8:03 PM | Link to this
How would the proposed cuts effect DECA?By null
November 14, 2006 5:14 PM | Link to this
To be honest Stivers is not THE highest performing school in the District That would be DECA. Stivers is a great school as is DECA, Patterson is a close third. Cuts in any school scare me.By Coach
November 14, 2006 4:38 PM | Link to this
Old Prof, First of all I’m all for the arts. I’m all for Stivers and the benefits to the DPS community. I am not writing to put down the arts (which I would never do) but defend the benefits of athletics. This is the wrong forum for this but your letter had to have a response. How can you come on here and denounce the benefits of athletic programs. DPS football and basketball programs have sent plenty of student athletes to college. Some on scholarship some not. (how do you come up with the number zero that will play after high school). This is another vehicle to get our students to take ownership in their education and look to a future after athletics. They are taking a different type of talent and using it to help finance college. We as coaches do so many more things than just teach football. We teach life skills such as working together for a common cause. We teach them that hard work does not always pay off so we must work harder. We teach them that no matter what the odds against us are that we never quit or give up. Ask Dr Mack how important athletics were to him. You are comparing apples to oranges when you talk of cuts in the arts and athletics. They are two different types of students. Both need their programs in tact. If you knew anything about football you would know that a football team could not be run by one person without assistants. On the subject of paying the adjuncts $18.00. It would be nice to pay coaches by the hour. After you figure the hours put in by most coaches it comes out well, well, well under minimum wage. This is not a defense of football, but all athletics. They have as much a place in these young peoples lives as playing in the band or in the school play. They are experiences that shape the lives and help mold the future of the next generation of tax paying citizens. Ps. For proof of benefits read the letter from Barb above.By Terri
November 14, 2006 2:51 PM | Link to this
Not only are the scores on standardized tests higher at Stivers but attendance surpasses the state’s requirements. Something I think is directly linked to the arts program. Students know that they can do what they love with others in the same discipline once a day at Stivers.By Matt
November 14, 2006 2:27 PM | Link to this
As an attendee of Stivers and Colonel White and as past adjunct teacher, I will state the obvious. If you cut the programs that make Stivers special, it will become just another school. It is sad that public education is always aimed at the underachieving students. To create excellence, students need avenues to excel in.By Terri
November 14, 2006 1:46 PM | Link to this
One thing not yet mentioned is the fact that Stivers students pay a $100 per year magnet fee. So they are in fact already “paying to play”.By lou
November 14, 2006 1:36 PM | Link to this
We need extra curriculars in schools. If funding is needed pay to play works. We do not have enough electives in schools as it is. Electives keep some kids in school and allow them to be a positive part of the school. We are loosing good kids because of this.By Angelle
November 14, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this
Looking back my time at Colonel White under the very early days of the magnet program, I can clearly see the difference these adjuncts made in an underpriviledged urban school. They were often the first to identify students with serious difficulties, at home and in school, and usually were the only teachers with any time to follow up and do something about it. I saw an adjunct who brought in lunches for students whose home cupboards were bare and another who drove a student two hours each way on one Sunday a month to visit his mom in prison. You can’t put a price on that kind of devotion. These adjuncts are an investment in the kind of individual attention that countless studies show is crucial to student success. Instead of cutting this program, the district should make administrative cuts and expand the adjunct program to other disciplines and schools, drawing on the wider community and getting more people invested in our schools’ success. But since it is administrators who will decide on cuts, the chances of that seem slim. Okay, putting away my soapbox now.By Barb
November 14, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this
Mary, I do not agree with how students are accepted to college I just realize that is the way it is. My son was very strong academically,the valedictorian of his class. His test scores were in the upper 5% of the nation in many areas. The swimming gave him the foot in the door, the swim coach wanted him so pushed for his finacial aid and admission to the school. He has actually left the team because he wants to focus on his academics. I do not set the way students are accepted to college. He was not admitted on just academics. If the BoE starts to lessen the emphasis on the Arts at Stivers it just becomes another DPS middle and high school and people start to look else where. I know I would have. The students at Stiver’s receive quite a bit of money from colleges. How many of our football and basketball players are receiving substantial money from colleges?By Oldprof
November 14, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this
Save Ohio’s schools—root for Michigan!By Homeschool mom
November 14, 2006 9:58 AM | Link to this
I looked at Stivers test scores (and compared them to the other high schools in the district) and I see what has been known for years. It has always been said that children that participate in the arts have higher IQ’s and test scores. We see a school that puts focus on the arts and the children are obviously doing well. Why would the district want to mess around with a program that is working? It just doesn’t make sense. It bothers me that football and basketball are going to be kept in failing schools, while important lessons for kids that are working hard and doing what they are supposed to be doing are being cut. It’s not fair to the kids, and teachers in that school, that have worked hard to achieve what they have achieved.By Oldprof
November 14, 2006 8:02 AM | Link to this
I like to look at the numbers, so I dug through the fall hiring proposals for DPS (available at http://www.dps.k12.oh.us/calendars/recommendations/br20060919.pdf). Football coaching alone costs DPS about $120K per year, about double that of all other sports and cheerleading combined. That doesn’t include each school’s athletic director, which each come in at around $8500 per year for their supplemental contracts. Each HS football team has five assistant coaches, and the MS teams have two. Looks to me like the district could save nearly $100K per year simply by eliminating assistant coaching positions in all sports. Now, it looks to me like an adjunct instructor costs a bit over $18.00 per hour, which, over an academic year at, say, 25 hours weekly, comes to maybe $12K. So, there’s a basis for cost comparison, salary-wise (no figures on costs of facilities, training, gear, etc.)—now: back to the debate about the relative benefits of several dozen football players (of which approximately zero will play organized football after high school) vs. an arts program that generates academic success and several national prize-winners. If there’s a trade-off to be made, I know which one I’d favor.By Mary
November 14, 2006 7:48 AM | Link to this
Barb,I find it very intersting you say your son got into a very prestigious school because of his swimming ability. Do you think that is really good for the education system to work that way? I appreciate your comment about his academics. A few years ago, the New York Times Sunday Magazine had a big story about how prestigious colleges (even those that do not award “athletic scholarships”) take in less qualified students and offer them scholarships, and turn away more qualified students simply because of athletics. Do you think this bias of educational institutions is in the best interest of our culture and students in general?By Scott Elliott
November 13, 2006 10:44 PM | Link to this
Yes, they saved the reading and math coaches by moving them to grant funding under Title 1. The coaches had been in the general fund before.By Barb
November 13, 2006 10:29 PM | Link to this
I have had 2 children that have graduated from Stivers. I have one that will graduate this year. One had a full ceramics scholarship to the sixth top Ceramics school in the nation. I know that between her art teachers and especially the adjunct she was able to get that scholarship. The adjunct only get paid for a certain amount of hours per week yet most of them work many more on their own time. I know the night before Scholastics you will find them there all night. My son, a swimmer is now in a very prestigious college out east. He was able to get into the school because of his swimming ability. He has been able to remain at the school because of his academic ability. Much of this helped by the excellent and caring staff at the school. Imagine, the loss of one top paid administrator above the school level could keep these programs that benefit the kids up and running. You might check with Mrs. Littlejohn or Dr. Mack but it is my understanding that the Math and Reading coaches are paid out of Title I money and not school funds. You might want to check this out Scott. I am one of those parents that would not have allowed my children to attend DPS for middle or high school if it was not for Stivers. I think the BoE needs to listen well and think about the students they will potentially lose if they do not have the arts in this school and maintain it the way it has been built up all these years. Kudos to Liz and Erin and all the excellent staff who did make a difference to my 3 children.By Katie Foskuhl
November 13, 2006 9:36 PM | Link to this
I’m also a junior at stivers. Though many people feel like stivers gets special attention and funding that is not always true. For most of the events that Stivers puts on the students themselves have to help fundraise. Otherwise it wouldn’t be possible. And not all of the students can afford privte lessons outside of school. I know that I can’t comming from a family of five kids. So it makes things difficult to go and cut privite lessons teachers for the students in band that can’t afford lessons outside of school. If they end up cutting our adjuncts the creative writing program would suffer. Because that’s what it is made up of. Adjuncts. So to take away adjuncts from the program that would leave one teacher for at least a hundred or more students. you can not ask a teacher to teach like that. So We are trying to do our part not just for Stivers, but for all of the Dayton public schools.By Jacob Foskuhl
November 13, 2006 8:59 PM | Link to this
—Reduce adjunct staff at Stivers and Colonel White high schools by 25 percent, affecting about 28 adjuncts. Rationale: Saving can be made by cutting specialized arts services, like one-on-one lessons. This was from your article, Mr. Elliot; as far as any updates are concerned, I can’t say- every oppurtunity that has arisen to learn more about the situation has either been cancelled or the times changed. As another junior at Stivers, I feel similarly as Stephen does regarding the proposed cuts. What frustrates me is the lack of awareness with which the Board of education views Stivers. They do not understand how integral and critical adjunct’s role are in deveolping not only course material and test scores, but post-high school careers as well. The chance to focus on an art (which may be offered little elsewhere) with assistance and personal development has changed the lives of so many students. The rationale for these cuts is trivial, and does not aptly relect the impact that would be made on our educational system. I have offered to the Board members a chance to tour Stivers, and to see some of the electives/adjuncts/sports in action. Perhaps then they will understand how these necessities (not luxuries) make Stivers the wonderous and diverse school that it is.By Stephen Jones
November 13, 2006 7:50 PM | Link to this
Cutting lessons exclusively doesn’t seem like an option. As far as I know, adjuncts are paid by the hour, not by lesson. Also, magnets like Creative Writing and Visual Arts simply don’t have private instruction (as in a full 45 minutes spent with a single student). Orchestra is a magnet with private instruction as described above, however, most of the adjunct staff’s time is spent working with ensembles and/or sections of the orchestra at a time. I would imagine hourly pay is the only fair way to compensate adjuncts.By Scott Elliott
November 13, 2006 7:35 PM | Link to this
I really appreciate Stephen’s thoughtful comments. He represents his school and the district well. I wish more students would post here as he has. One thing that is not completely clear, and my calls to Stivers have so far gone unanswered on this question — what all would the cut for Stivers for January mean exactly? The district has said we’re mostly (maybe only?) talking about cutting the lessons. But I don’t know if they’ve actually sketched out exactly what that cut will mean.By Stephen Jones
November 13, 2006 7:08 PM | Link to this
I am a junior at Stivers, and while I am aware that the view of the Stivers student body has been expressed through the protests and Mary McCarty’s article, I would like to point out a few points that are seemingly being overlooked. First, Stivers adjuncts do not simply give private instruction (“one on one lessons” as defined by the blog). There are many classes being taught by adjunct staff at Stivers. I know that the Creative Writing, Visual Arts, Theater, and Dance magnets all have adjunct-taught classes. This takes some of the strain off of magnet directors who, along with their leadership of the magnet, also teach classes. If those classes are cut, the students will have to go somewhere. Either the magnet directors will be asked to teach 6 or 7 classes in a day, along with their after school rehearsals, and leading the magnet, or Stivers will face a huge scheduling crunch, trying to fit the students into classes. But don’t expect those classes to be electives, as electives are facing cuts as well. Also, swimming, soccer, cross country, tennis, and golf team cuts will save the board just over $50,000. I know, because I play on the tennis team, that Stivers was the only school in the DPS to feature a boys tennis team this past year. Stivers is the only school in the Dayton Public Schools to have a swimming team. Stivers is the only DPS school, other than Belmont, to have a girls tennis team. To top all of that off, Stivers does not have a football team, one of the few sports being spared by the cuts. The sports cuts, as clearly shown, take a huge blow at Stivers. Mr. Elliot states in his blog that $100,000 dollars is relatively small, and the sports cuts save little more than half of that (around $50,000). Why is the board seemingly disregarding Stivers, a school that outperforms its Dayton Public Schools counterparts by far? (Please view school report cards or OGT test scores if that fact is in question.) I have heard many parents say if their student were not at Stivers, they would not be in the district, so rather than try to conserve their “gem”, as named by the Dayton Daily News, and keep students in the district, the board takes heavy handed swipes at the identity of the school with adjunct and sports cuts? Aside from this, the board did not speak to a single Stivers student after the meeting, except for Clayton Luckie who arrived late (apparently not hearing the time had been changed, just like the Stivers students who were there). The nature of the cuts has been more than ambiguous, yet, board president, Gail Littlejohn, claimed that the cuts would be clearly defined by Thanksgiving. As Stivers students were planning to have speakers at the next scheduled board meeting (days before Thanksgiving break), the board cancels the meeting. That is no attitude to extend toward voters who could possibly pass your levee in the spring. Yet, seemingly the board hasn’t been thinking in the best interests of its customers recently either.By Mary
November 13, 2006 6:43 PM | Link to this
Scott, I am not so sure I buy the criteria being used - whether or not such services are readily available in the private sector or through alternative sources - i.e. music, soccer, swimming. Essentially, everything public schools do can be acquired in the private sector through home schooling, on-line schools, private schools, etc. To me, the responsible criteria has to be priorities for public education based on a working definition of what public education is really for and what the priorities and tradeoffs should be fro tax dollars. The public education system does not establish true education priorities. Therefore, they are using a phony priority that football and basketball are more important than music education simply because currently, the music and some sports can more readily be acquired privately. Public schools have traditionally gone out of their way to subsidize football and basketball and there was no encouragement or reason to develop private sources for these activities. The public picked up the tab whether they wanted to or not. Speaking of costs, does it cost more to outfit a student football player, pay supplemental coaching salaries for coaches, drive students to away games, purchase additional liability insurance, etc - or provide private music lessons for a student. I’ll bet I know the answer and I dare the Dayton Daily News to do a cost comparison. Plus ask how many principals are music oriented or sports oriented. I’ll bet I know the answer to that one as well, and I’ll bet that is why these solutions are being pushed. Who said there were no sacred cows?By Caroline
November 13, 2006 6:23 PM | Link to this
I feel sorry for the kids, but Stivers always gets more than their share of funds. I don’t think that private music lessons are classroom cuts. The students will have to get their own private lessons, or learn in a class setting. Also, I personally wouldn’t see a problem with cutting math or reading coaches. At my school, they do not appear to help the classroom teacher and do not work directly with the students.By Rickl
November 13, 2006 5:46 PM | Link to this
You are right, this is truly a dilemma. On the one hand, Stivers is the crown jewel of the Dayton Public Schools. On the other hand cuts have to be made. If these cuts would only save $100,000, then I would recommend keeping the adjunct faculty. On a cost-benefit analysis, it worth the money.