Has anybody read the 2018 audit? I couldn't find it, just some reporting around it.
It is strange to me that the 2 audits seem pretty opposed to one another. The things that stick out to me are the ed centre cost, which is an old story, but seeing the numbers associated with it is as bad as imagined.
The reserve fund is troubling. Is this something that has happened year after year, or was this a one off?
The infighting is ridiculous to me. Very strange to see it spelled out in a document like that. I still don't quite understand the request for legal counsel to be present at the audit. It makes it seem like this audit was perceived as an attack. I sort of get that considering the time frame of the 2 audits and the political climate that lead to the 2nd audit, but it was obviously handled poorly.
The number of non teaching teachers needs to be regulated. Obviously there is a number since this includes principals and APs, but 22% is high. The board has elevated many specialists to help fulfill their 3 year educational development plans, but it seems every year there is a change either to the plan or to the budget, and some of these non teaching roles are just floating in no man's land, so to speak. I would say that if teachers have a leadership or coaching role, they should also be in front of kids.
The report also suggests that salaries are too high across the board. It seems like they lump teachers into that, which would be a useless comment in a report to do with a school board that doesn't control the pay of the vast majority of their employees. Maybe I misunderstood that though...
|