The SWL Mission Statement is Meaningless

Mission Statement of the Southwest Licking Local School district

"The mission of the Southwest Licking School District is to assure that all students are prepared to be lifelong learners who possess a sense of self-worth, critical thinking ability, and necessary life skills enabling them to solve problems, adapt to change, value beauty, diversity, and cooperation, and be productive citizens. The mission will be accomplished by a skilled and dedicated staff providing personalized instruction with family and community support and participation by students in safe, modern facilities where quality educational and technological materials are the standard.." - Reference http://www.swl.k12.oh.us/

In 1993, I lead the "Critical Thinking Objective" action plan team for the Strategic Plannong group. Our group included 11 teachers, ex-board members, administrators and parents. There were similar Action Teams for other objectives. Today, the objectives are no where to be found. There are no measures to indicate the mission is being fulfilled. None have ever been collected. In other words, the foundation statement for the organization called the Southwest Licking Local School District, has nothing to do with the District or reality. I am convinced the Board and Administration do not know why the organization exists other than providing employment to people and as a place for children to stay while the parents are at work.

I have highlighted the buzz word terms. The first one I will address is "Critical Thinking". The purpose of my Action Team was to draft the action plan related to "Critical Thinking". I would like to know what the District thinks "Critical Thinking" is; why it is in the Mission statement; and how it is being applied in the District.

The confusion over the "Critical Thinking" term could possibly invalidate the whole Mission statement and thus the organization that is based on it. What this means is that the organization's espoused values as expressed to the community in such statements have no effect on the internal deeply help beliefs that really drive the organization.

Letter to Treasurer - Local vs State SWL Money

The first step in my school reform plan is to find out if the District can account for how Local verses State money is spent. In the text of the following letter to Southwest Licking Local School Distrcit treasurer I try to define Local and State money and make the request for accounting.

* * * * * * * * * *

February 28, 2006
SWL Local School District Treasurer,

I am concerned by the use of money to fund State requirements and the use of money to fund the Local supplemental activities.

QUESTION 1 - How much did SWL spend in FY2005 to fund just the State requirements?

QUESTION 2 - How much did SWL spend in FY2005 to fund just the Local supplement: In other words, fund activities over and above State requirements?

QUESTION 3 - Can you account that Local money goes to fund only Local resources and activities? And that State money goes to fund only State activities? Given many resources are shared and each funding component contributes a percentage of the funding.

Why this is important to me:

If I am to support ideas like full state funding, I need to be able to separate State and Local funding. I do not want one school district paying for another's swimming pool, etc.

When I vote for Bond issues and Levies for SWL it would be nice to know what our local supplemental money is supporting and that we are funding State requirement completely.

First some numbers. Please correct or restate if you see where I am leading:

Southwest Licking Local School District FY2005 Local VS State Funding

A Local Share (23 Mils) = $9,683,381.43
B Total State Share = $10,912,132.37
C Total State Requirement funding (A+B) = $20,595,513.80
D ADM (iLRC Data FY2005) = 3,502.00
E Expenditure per Student (IRL Data FY2005) = $7,335.00
F EFM Total Expenditure (D*E) = $25,687,170.00
G Total Local (F-C) = $5,091,656.20

o I contend that SWL should be able to fulfill State requirements with item "C".

o I contend that SWL should then be able to fulfill "Local" activities, or those over and above State requirements, with item "G".

If SWL is spending State money "C" to achieve Local activities or If SWL is spending Local money "G" to fund State activities, something is wrong.

I realize there are shared resources but every organization has shared resources and can account to separate types of activities.

Thank you

* * * * * * * * * *

References:

FY2005 SF3 Report - OHIO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION-DIVISION OF SCHOOL FINANCE DATE 03/03/2006 (FY 2005 FINAL SF3 VERSION 1, EMIS DATA 03/18/2005)

Foundation Settlement Report - SCHOOL FOUNDATION STATEMENT OF SETTLEMENT FOR MONTH OF JUNE NO 2 2005 NAME OF DISTRICT - SOUTHWEST LICKING LOCAL S.D. LICKING COUNTY

EFM Total Expenditure (Excel spreadsheet) Get MS Excel viewer

iLRC Districts Home