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.
IU faced a choice: It could suspend Alford for the next game — just happened that it was the annual Kentucky showdown — or wait and take the matter to the NCAA infractions committee, where something along the lines of a three-game suspension was possible. Knight chose the one-game option, and the Hoosiers lost to Kentucky. Johnny Football’s autographsThere was nothing dull about Johnny Manziel’s career as the quarterback at Texas A&M. The 2012 Heisman Trophy winner got into hot water with the NCAA for allegedly being paid a “five-figure flat fee” for signing merchandise before the 2013 BCS title game in Miami. And several other reports circulated about similar “scandals,” but there was no proof found. There was no incentive for anyone to talk with the NCAA, and, basically, no paper trail meant no way to severely punish Manziel. He was suspended for the first half of A&M’s 2013 season-opening home game against Rice. But the basics are this: Players will be allowed to make money for product endorsements, social media content and autographs. That’s a massive change. And it’s a frustrating change for certain fan bases that have seen their favorite programs dragged through the NCAA mud for violations that were ridiculous when they happened and would be fully legal and above board now. Here are four examples. It’s not a comprehensive list, of course — for example, we’re not diving into Georgia’s A.J. Green being suspended four games for selling his bowl-game jersey for $1,000 in 2010 — but just some high-profile examples. Ohio State’s Tattoo GateFive Ohio State players, including star quarterback Terrelle Pryor, were suspended for the first five games of the 2011 season for selling merchandise and receiving “improper benefits” from a tattoo parlor. The players sold Big Ten championship rings — from teams they played on — and their own football jerseys/pants/shoes, and Pryor sold a sportsmanship award he received after the 2008 Fiesta Bowl. In addition to the five-game suspension, players had to repay various amounts based on what they’d sold. The scandal ultimately led to the resignation of head coach Jim Tressel. The discount at the tattoo parlor was what seized the headlines, though, partially because it was such a stupid thing to have a rule against. “As a student-athlete,” Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith said at the time, “you’re not allowed to use your persona to get discounted services.”But starting in 2021-22? Use all the “persona” you want to get tattoos (or anything else), athletes. And Gene Smith, by the way, is co-chair of the NIL committee.Alabama’s T-Town scandalThis one never resulted in actual NCAA punishments — a source of frustration for everyone other than Alabama fans — but it dominated the headlines for several months in 2011 (and again in 2014). There was a shop in Tuscaloosa, T-Town Menswear, that had a massive collection of items autographed by former and current Alabama football players. The “current players” part was the sticky issue. There were also plenty of photos with the current football players posing with the shop’s owner, Tom Albetar, and while wearing merchandise that was available for purchase in the store. The questions were obvious: What were the players getting in exchange for all the autographs and pictures? That question was never officially answered, which was part of the reason for a lack of punishment. Alabama sent a cease-and-desist letter to Albetar and disassociated him from the program. But, if nothing else, the photos of the current players were on display at the store, and they were pretty clearly being used to promote the store. That’s a violation, too. It was a silly violation then, and starting in the 2021-22 school year, it won’t be a violation at all. Steve Alford’s charity calendarThis “violation” drove Indiana fans crazy at the time and it still gets their Hoosier blood boiling, as it rightly should. Steve Alford was their home-grown superstar in the middle of a legendary career in Bloomington. He’d represented the school in the 1984 Olympic Games and would lead the Hoosiers to the 1987 National Championship. He averaged nearly 17 points per game his first two seasons at IU, but he was forced to miss his team’s December 1985 rivalry game against Kentucky, in his junior season, because of a violation of NCAA rules. What did Alford do? He posed for a charity calendar for the Gamma Phi Beta sorority. Yep. He wasn’t paid for the appearance, and the calendar raised money for charity. But because the calendar was used to make money — didn’t matter how the money was used — that was a violation. When IU coach Bobby Knight heard about the calendar, he immediately self-reported the violation to the NCAA. The NCAA announced its intention to start allowing its student-athletes to make money off their name, image and likeness on Wednesday morning. It’s a decision that’s been long awaited, and is certainly long overdue. There are still questions, though, because there are always questions with complicated issues. What is permissible and what is not permissible — and exactly how those hairs are going to be split — will have to be seen. The Board of Governors approved the NIL proposals, and a vote is expected to be taken in January 2021 for adoption for the 2021-22 academic year.
New Delhi, Mar 4 (PTI) Former Lok Sabha Speaker P A Sangma, who had a chequered political career in which he constantly shifted allegiance in the last two decades, died here today following a massive heart attack.68-year-old Sangma, who was elected nine times to Lok Sabha from Tura in Meghalaya and who became the first Speaker from the North East, breathed his last here this morning. The news of his death was broken by Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan, who made obituary reference to him and adjourned the house for the day as a mark of respect. Later setting aside protocol, the Rajya Sabha also adjourned after lunch for members to pay homage to Sangma, whose body will be taken to his home in Meghalaya. Sangma leaves his wife Sorodini, two sons–Conrad, a former finance minister in Meghalaya, James, a sitting MLA, and daughter Agatha, who was the youngest minister in Manmohan Singhs ministry when she was inducted in 2009.In the 11th Lok Sabha, shortage of numbers forced the BJP to accept Congress candidate Sangma as Speaker after Atal Bihari Vajpayee was sworn-in as Prime Minister at the head of a short-lived 13 day government. An affable and convivial personality, Sangma had friends across parties. After a long stint in the Congress when he became a minister of state in the Rajiv Gandhi government in 1984, he later rose to become the Labour minister in Narasimha Raos Cabinet. Sangma was among those who rose in revolt against Sonia Gandhis foreign origins in 1999 along with Sharad Pawar and Tariq Anwar to form the Nationalist Congress Party, which he left to join Trinamool Congress.advertisementLater, he split with the TMC and formed his own National Peoples Party on whose ticket he was elected to the current 16th Lok Sabha.In 2012, Sangma exited from NCP to become the official candidate of BJP against Pranab Mukherjee in the Presidential elections.He was also the Chief Minister of Meghalaya from 1988 to 1990 and Leader of Opposition in the assembly from 1990 to 1991.While expressing deep grief over Sangmas passing away, Mahajan said he knew how to run the House with a smile and “I learnt this from him.””A man of masses, Sangma strove relentlessly for the amelioration of the marginalised sections,” the Speaker said. (More) PTI NAB ARC JOP VMN VSC VSC