The Vermont Department of Education mailed FY2012 individualized education spending reduction targets Monday to each supervisory union, supervisory district, and the three technical center districts across the state, as required by Act 146 of the 2010 Legislative session. Overall the recommendations are for a 2.34 percent reduction across the state in education spending in order to meet the goal of saving $23.2 million dollars. District-level recommendations range from a 0.5 percent reduction to a 2.68 percent reduction.The determinations were made at the district levels, but aggregated to the supervisory union level as the law requires. The determinations considered factors outlined in the law, such as per pupil spending, student-to-staff ratios and demonstrated fiscal restraint. The department examined data from the past four budget cycles on· total education spending,· spending per equalized pupil,· student enrollment to direct instruction staff,· direct instruction staff to administrative staff,· and student enrollment to administrative staff. ‘We expect most school districts and supervisory unions to take these recommendations seriously,’ said Commissioner Vilaseca. ‘And they will do their best to meet them, just as they responsibly reduced spending last year. This is new territory, both for our department and for local school districts.’The boards of each supervisory union and district shall notify the commissioner on or before December 15, 2010 whether their combined budgets will meet the recommended reductions. By January 15, 2011, the commissioner shall report to the legislative education committees the total projected amount of FY2012 budgets, with a detailed proposal by which the Legislature can ensure the targets will be met.See Page 76, sections E1 and E2, for this specific requirement at http://www.leg.state.vt.us/DOCS/2010/ACTS/ACT146.PDF(link is external). A complete explanation of the formula begins on the following page.Challenges for Change School Budget Reduction Targets Calculations Brief overview of methodologyFor any given data element, the percent change between any two consecutive years was calculated (i.e., the percent change in netted education spending from FY2010 to FY2011). Percent changes were capped at plus or minus 50 percent to compensate for very large percentage changes resulting from small changes in very small districts. Additionally, some data were either clearly entered incorrectly or not entered at all, resulting in very large or low percentage changes.The four years of data resulted in three percentage changes. Those three changes were averaged for a district. Again, to accommodate small districts, the averages were capped at plus or minus one standard deviation from the mean. As supervisory unions are different from school districts and perform different functions, a separate mean and standard deviation was calculated and used for supervisory unions and supervisory districts. School districts and the three technical center school districts used a mean and a standard deviation based on their combined data.The resulting average (capped if necessary) was divided by the relevant group mean to normalize the data. This figure became the weight for any given factor. The exception was the factor for direct instruction FTEs per administration and support staff FTEs. That factor had a low mean for the school district and technical center (0.15%), resulting in disproportionately large weights for a modest average (e.g., with a mean of 0.15%, an average of 10% results in a weight of 67). Therefore, the DI per Admin & Support weight was decreased by a factor of 0.50 to mitigate the effect of the small mean.Weights from the various factors were aggregated. To account for the varying magnitudes of education spending (Burlington versus Eden, for example), the total weights for a district were multiplied by the ratio of the district’s netted education spending to the netted education spending as a whole.Some districts had a negative total weight, resulting in a negative factor after applying the relative netted education spending factor. Statistically, it is valid to add a constant to transform the negative values to positive. This was done by adding a constant of 1 to all weighted totals. This result was then multiplied against the ratio of the required $23,200,000 reduction versus the netted education spending total (2.348%), to give a weighted percentage for reduction.That weighted percentage was multiplied by the netted education spending for all districts, SUs, SDs, and technical center districts. The aggregated targets for the State exceeded the $23,200,000, so a reduction factor of the legislated target divided by the calculated target state total was applied to each district, bringing the targets to the $23,200,000 figure.Source: Vermont DOE. 8.4.2010http://education.vermont.gov/new/html/dept/press_releases.html(link is external) OverviewSection E2 of Act 146 of the 2010 Legislative session specifies that FY2012 education spending will be reduced by $23,200,000 from the FY2011 level, while achieving the outcomes for education listed in section E1. The commissioner of education is directed to develop reduction targets for each supervisory union and technical center school district.These targets were developed by looking at the member districts of supervisory unions, the supervisory unions themselves, and the three technical center school districts. Additionally, supervisory costs for Supervisory Districts were removed from the school costs (e.g., supervisory costs for the Montpelier Supervisory District were removed from the Montpelier School District costs).Entities excludedSchool districts excluded from these targets were districts that:did not operate a school and tuitioned all grades;belonged to a union school and tuitioned all other grades;were members of two unions offering combined grades K ‘ 12;were members of joint school agreements as individuals but data were aggregated to the joint school level and were included; andunorganized towns and gores.Data elementsData used were the most recent available for the following elements and are as reported by the districts:education spending (FY08-FY11);equalized pupils as calculated with the maximum allowable 3.5% loss (FY08-FY11);enrollments (FY07-FY10); andteacher / staff data (FY07-FY10)direct instruction ‘ all licensed teachers in the classroom;administrative and support staff ‘ central office staff personnel for both school and general administration, including paid teachers aides.Education spending for school districts was decreased by supervisory union assessments, costs for grades tuitioned, capital debt, and costs for technical center students.Factors usedThe above data elements were used in the following six factors:netted education spending (after removal of aforementioned costs);netted education spending per equalized pupil;enrollment per direct instruction staff FTEs;enrollment per administration and support staff FTEs;direct instruction FTEs per administration and support staff FTEs; andnetted education spending as a percent of total netted education spending, applied to the aggregated weights from 10 – 14.
Recently, a colleague shared with me a TED Talk by Bill Gross, Founder, Chairman and CEO of Idealab, a business incubator in California that has started over 100 companies, including Citysearch, NetZero, PETsMart and Tickets.com. In his talk, Gross shares the results of his research regarding what factors matter most for a company’s success. Specifically, he explores the product/service ideas, team, business model, funding and timing of both Idealab companies and high profile non-Idealab companies that have succeeded and faltered.Spoiler alert: If you would like to hear the results from Mr. Gross before I reveal them here, you can easily find the video through an online search. Otherwise, let’s move on…The number one factor in success for the companies studied was timing, followed by the team and execution around the idea. The idea itself ranked as the 3rd most important factor. This means that business model and funding were the bottom 2 factors.What?! The business model is 4th? I know, right?!Funding, I understand. But as leaders we spend a significant amount of time thinking about our business model, crafting strategy, designing 90- and 180-day project plans, forecasting and analyzing data.And, of course, there’s the team. You have to have a good team and with that, I’d say an equally positive culture. But even the idea is 3rd! That’s another big thing we spend time on… thinking of, vetting and promoting our ideas.Perhaps time for a deep breath?Maybe it’s not so shocking, as many business books discuss timing as important, at least in some degree, to the success of most enterprises. That’s where terms like bleeding edge, leading edge and fast follower come into play. Depending on the product, service, and other specifics relative to the business, any or all of those approaches may come into play through an organization’s lifespan.I also think this breaks down further to leadership success. Two of the books I’ve read somewhat recently come to mind when thinking of the importance of timing in leadership.In The First 90 Days, by Michael Watkins, which was recommended by a friend and sent to me by another shortly after my arrival at the New Jersey Credit Union League, there is indeed a focus on having a plan. In this case, not a business plan per se, but a personal plan of action in transitional periods. There are windows, of course, where one may aspire for x, y, and/or z by day 30, 60, etc. However, there is a constant undertone that deals with timing.Through learning, negotiation, team building, and more, a leader looks to move people towards the vision he or she has for the organization. The book also notes the importance of matching strategy to situation, which is also strongly relevant in this sense. While there may be a 90-day plan, as the book title suggests, making sure the team and operational environment is prepared for the steps that need to be taken to move towards the vision is essential. At times this will mean slowing down and veering from your plan to assess and advocate for your idea. In other instances, it may simply be time to move forward so that an opportunity is not missed. In either case there is importance on timing, and as the leader, it is of the utmost importance to be aware of this.Another friend from “credit union land” sent me the book It’s Your Ship, by Captain D. Michael Abrashoff, a retired Navy Captain. As a Naval Commander, Captain Abrashoff speaks to the necessity of accountability in his role and that of his team. There are deadlines to be met and long-held expectations and processes associated with military command and execution. At certain times he challenged the status quo in areas ranging from hierarchical expectations to onboarding procedures and even missile training activities. Most importantly, he says, he listened to his team to best understand the areas where his ship could improve.Throughout, Abrashoff references timing, both in the opportunities presented to him in his professional career and as it relates to the transformation of the ship under his command, the USS Benfold, from the bottom of the fleet to the Navy’s top performer. There were instances where he had thoughts on what may inspire his team or improve operations, yet he did not act until the appropriate opportunity arose to provide the highest likelihood of success. The Captain had an action plan which, in the traditional structure of the armed forces, was certainly significant. However, as a leader, he used timing and team, the same 2 elements found at the top of Bill Gross’s list, to drive success.The takeaway, I believe, is that you must have resources, ideas and, most certainly, sound planning to succeed in business. But to move an organization to a point of distinction, a strong team and culture blended with an astute sense of timing, is essential. 30SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr,Greg Michlig Greg Michlig joined the New Jersey Credit Union League as President/CEO in May of 2013. He has a strong background in the credit union, association and related financial services … Web: www.njcul.org Details
Updated Nov. 7, 2020, 7:37 p.m. ET And although it took days to learn who had won and the race was quite close, Pennsylvania indeed proved critical to the outcome. As expected, Mr. Trump jumped out to an early lead, thanks to ballots cast on Election Day, but Mr. Biden clawed back slowly and eventually overtook Mr. Trump as more and more absentee ballots were counted.- Advertisement – Florida (29 Electoral College votes)Perhaps no state was more closely watched this cycle than Florida, and the results there almost immediately dashed Democrats’ hopes of a blue landslide. Mr. Trump won the state by a significantly wider margin than he did in 2016, despite polling averages that showed him trailing before Election Day.More than half of the counties in Florida swung further right than they did four years ago. And although Mr. Biden did make gains in some areas of the state, he vastly underperformed in Florida’s most populous county, Miami-Dade, especially in precincts with a majority Hispanic population.Iowa (six votes), Ohio (18 votes) and Texas (38 votes)Optimistic Democrats hopeful for a blue wave saw Iowa, Ohio and Texas as potentially in play this cycle, but that proved to be wishful thinking. Mr. Trump thumped Mr. Biden by significant margins in all three conservative-leaning states, winning them for a second time.Of the three, Texas, where the president won by roughly six percentage points, ended up being the closest. Even as some white voters in urban and suburban areas moved in large numbers toward Democrats, many Hispanic voters in the Rio Grande Valley shifted decisively toward Mr. Trump.Nick Corasaniti and Reid J. Epstein contributed reporting. An initial look at county-level data suggests that Mr. Biden ran ahead of Mrs. Clinton’s performance in 2016 in most parts of the state. He showed particular strength in the suburbs around Philadelphia, an area that had been trending blue in 2016 and has only grown bluer since. He flipped the state back into the Democratic column with 37,000 more votes than Mr. Trump.Michigan (16 votes) and Wisconsin (10 votes)Four years ago, Mr. Trump became the first Republican presidential candidate to win either Michigan or Wisconsin in decades when he defeated Mrs. Clinton by roughly 33,000 votes in both states combined.From the start of Mr. Biden’s presidential campaign all the way to Election Day, he and his team believed that rebuilding the Democratic “blue wall” in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania would perhaps be the clearest and cleanest path to winning the White House. Mr. Biden also believed that the Democratic Party had to garner support from working-class and middle-class voters in Northern industrial states — those from families like the one he grew up in.- Advertisement – After days of vote counting, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. has amassed the 270 Electoral College votes he needed to secure the presidency.All along, it was clear that Mr. Biden’s path to victory involved flipping a handful of states that then-candidate Donald J. Trump won in 2016 while also retaining the states that Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee in 2016, won in that cycle.- Advertisement – In Michigan, a spike in turnout in Detroit and its wealthy suburbs, along with shrinking support for Mr. Trump among middle-class voters, helped secure the state for Mr. Biden. About two-thirds of the predominately white counties that backed Mr. Trump in 2016 moved somewhat left four years later, and a greater share of voters in those counties backed Mr. Biden than they supported Mrs. Clinton in 2016.Battleground States Biden Kept That strategy paid off, as Mr. Biden rode the support in Wisconsin’s cities and suburbs to victory. He was aided particularly by massive turnout in Dane County (home to Madison) and he ate into Mr. Trump’s margins in the Milwaukee suburbs. New Hampshire (14 votes)The Cook Political Report considered New Hampshire competitive with a Democratic lean, and it was tightly contested in 2016. But Mr. Biden won handily, by seven percentage points, and the race was called relatively quickly. Though there were many twists and turns, Mr. Biden appears to have done exactly that. Here is a quick look at the key states he won, and what we know about why he won them.States Biden FlippedPennsylvania (20 Electoral College votes)Pennsylvania has been in the spotlight for months, and it was long considered a potential “tipping-point state” — the state where victory could determine the outcome of the entire presidential contest. Elections officials had signaled all along that it would take time to count the votes there, and that a final tally would not be available on election night. Mr. Trump won the state by less than one percentage point in 2016, but polls had Mr. Biden ahead in the run-up to Election Day. Noteworthy States Biden Lost Minnesota (10 Electoral College votes)Mr. Trump came surprisingly close to a victory in Minnesota four years ago, and his campaign poured significant resources into the state this cycle in hopes of flipping it. Nonetheless, Mr. Biden maintained a comfortable if not insurmountable lead in Minnesota throughout much of the race, and polling there ended up being pretty spot on.Mr. Biden won comfortably, by about seven percentage points. He ran up the margins in densely populated urban counties and made significant inroads in the suburban counties that Mr. Trump won in 2016.Nevada (Six votes)Mr. Biden managed to hang onto Nevada, a state Mrs. Clinton won in 2016, but it was a nail-biter that took days to decide. Like Mrs. Clinton, he did it by winning Clark and Washoe Counties, home to Las Vegas and Reno, which account for over 85 percent of the state’s total votes. His margin of victory in Clark County was down slightly from the margin in 2016, but it was up in Washoe. – Advertisement –
“The situation is quite serious,” Jeong said.The two countries have significantly scaled back traditional joint military exercises so as to facilitate US nuclear talks with North Korea.This spring they planned to hold a command coordination exercise.Topics : The United States and South Korea said Monday they were considering scaling back a military exercise planned for this spring because of the coronavirus epidemic.The commander of US forces in South Korea, General Robert Abrams, and the head of that country’s joint chiefs of staff, General Park Han-ki, “are looking at scaling back the command post training due to concerns about the coronavirus,” US Defense Secretary Mark Esper said at a news conference.His South Korean counterpart, Jeong Kyeong-doo, said at the same briefing that 13 servicemen from his country have become infected with the virus and that all leave for the military has been cancelled nationwide so as to limit soldiers’ movements.
The Chief Executive Officer CEO) of Primeval Media, organizers of the Stephen Testimonial Match,Chief Larry Otoo, has called on the entire nation especially corporate bodies to join hands with his outfit to honour Stephen Tornado Appiah on June 27.The testimonial match which is expected to feature past and present Black Stars players and football stars around the globe will all grace the befitting sending off for the former Ghana captain.Appiah remains a cult figure in Ghana not only for his dedication to the Black Stars but also for his philanthropic deeds in several communities – especially in Chorkor and its environs.But Chief Larry, believes the time is right for the nation to show appreciation for Appiah’s immense contribution to the nation by offering massive support during his testimonial match especially corporate businesses.“Stephen Appiah’s contribution to football in Ghana can never be underestimated. He was an inspiration to many especially the youth in Ghana.“His contribution was not only limited to football, we all know the various philanthropic activities he undertook in Ghana and therefore worth celebrating”, he added. Participants in the testimonial game will be hosted to an A-listed dinner at the State Banquet Hall in Accra on the eve of the testimonial match.–
He led the major leagues with 25 wild pitches last year and allowed a career-high 31 homers.“I let a few too many people tinker with me, maybe,” Burnett said. “When you let that happen, you start doubting yourself sometimes. You wonder, ‘Am I doing it right? Is this how it’s supposed to feel?’ and things like that. In ‘09, nobody messed with me. I was able to do what I wanted to do on the mound, whether it was turn around, close my eyes and pitch upside down. Then you have a few bad games and you start changing and listening.”Pittsburgh is paying just $13 million of Burnett’s salary: $5 million this year and $8 million in 2013. The Yankees are paying the rest.In a smaller market with reduced expectations, there should be less pressure on the 35-year-old right-hander.“It’s going to be a fresh start,” Burnett said. “It’s going to be fun. I’m going back to the National League, where I can hit and bunt and get the joy back into the game.”A 13-year veteran, Burnett will move into the top spot in the Pirates’ starting rotation. General manager Neal Huntington thinks Burnett can return to his form of a few years ago.“Our scouts still saw very good stuff,” Huntington said. “They saw power to the fastball, although the velocity is down from four or five years ago. He’s still got good movement. He was still one of the better ground-ball pitchers in the American League last year, which is going to play well in our ballpark.”Burnett also will be expected to provide a leadership role for younger players.“Hopefully, I can just lead by example,” Burnett said. “I’ll take the ball every five days. I’m not going to make excuses. One thing I can take from my time in New York is I’ll never back down from anything. I’m not a cheerleader, shaking pom-poms. But I know right and wrong and, hopefully, I can share that with the younger players.”Notes: Burnett was scheduled to throw a bullpen session during Monday afternoon’s workout at Pirate City. …To clear a roster spot, INF Gustavo Nunez was placed on the 60-day DL to a right ankle injury. Two months ago, the Pirates claimed Nunez from the Tigers in the winter meeting draft. BRADENTON, Fla. (AP)—A.J. Burnett was happy to escape from New York.“It was fun the first couple of years. Then it got like, I’m never going to get out of this funk,” he said Monday, a day after the Yankees dealt him to the Pittsburgh Pirates for a pair of low-level prospects.After signing an $82.5 million, five-year contract, Burnett helped the Yankees to their 27th World Series title in 2009. Then he slumped to a 21-26 record with a 5.20 ERA over the following two seasons. NEW PIRATE ACE—Yankees pitcher A.J. Burnett throws in relief against the Tampa Bay Rays in St. Petersburg, Fla on Sept. 28, 2011. (AP Photo/Mike Carlson, File)