This blog features observations from Randy Turner, a former teacher, newspaper reporter and editor. Send news items or comments to rturner229@hotmail.com
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Watch the Joplin R-8 Board of Education live at 7 p.m.
The powerpoint for Bright Futures reveals 51% of funds are used for overhead and only 49% of the funds are used for "Student needs" (11%) and "School programs and services" (38%)---this is vulgar misuse of benevolent/charitable funds. Most nonprofits operate with a 5-10% overhead expense range.
WOW - Bet that's not what the generous donors had in mind! Money was sent to R8 at a time of need, not to fund a whole new organization's overhead. Use the money. Forget the fat salaries and plans to grab/grow more. Remember "teachers and counselors don't need to outsource compassion." (Great comment from another contributor.) They've been at this for years! AND there's the confidentiality issue to remember.
From tonight's on line Globe: "Bright Futures Joplin’s mission is to support students and instructional programs within the district," said Paul Barr .... This sums up where this project went off the rails, and it explains the absolutely horrible use of funds that 6:45 PM mentions. Only 11%--11%!--of all the money goes directly to students in need. Considering the number of children in the district who live in poverty, I think that's obscene. Donations should directly support students' needs, not school programs, and the amount of overhead is indefensible. I remember years ago visiting a district Facebook page where student needs were posted--a child needs a coat, a family needs beds for their children, etc.--and by the next day, those needs had been met. And from that, we now have this debacle. 11%! I can't get over that.
According to the Globe, Winston said that 520 kids had been served by Bright Futures in 2014-15 and that 319 from "food-insecure households" got snackpacks. How many kids in the district qualify for free lunch, surely an indicator of poverty? How does the number of kids actually receiving help stack up against that figure?
I've been paying attention to the controversies surrounding Bright Futures as it is being operated in Joplin Schools, but the situation is far worse than I realized. This is truly awful. Why would anyone wanting to help children in need contribute money to Bright Futures, knowing that 89% of it will be going somewhere else? I can't think of a single reason. And what's most awful, and infuriating, is that Bright Futures as it now exists is standing in the way between the kids who desperately need help and the generous people out there who really want to help them.
The powerpoint for Bright Futures reveals 51% of funds are used for overhead and only 49% of the funds are used for "Student needs" (11%) and "School programs and services" (38%)---this is vulgar misuse of benevolent/charitable funds. Most nonprofits operate with a 5-10% overhead expense range.
ReplyDeleteWOW - Bet that's not what the generous donors had in mind! Money was sent to R8 at a time of need, not to fund a whole new organization's overhead. Use the money. Forget the fat salaries and plans to grab/grow more. Remember "teachers and counselors don't need to outsource compassion." (Great comment from another contributor.) They've been at this for years! AND there's the confidentiality issue to remember.
ReplyDeleteFrom tonight's on line Globe: "Bright Futures Joplin’s mission is to support students and instructional programs within the district," said Paul Barr .... This sums up where this project went off the rails, and it explains the absolutely horrible use of funds that 6:45 PM mentions. Only 11%--11%!--of all the money goes directly to students in need. Considering the number of children in the district who live in poverty, I think that's obscene. Donations should directly support students' needs, not school programs, and the amount of overhead is indefensible. I remember years ago visiting a district Facebook page where student needs were posted--a child needs a coat, a family needs beds for their children, etc.--and by the next day, those needs had been met. And from that, we now have this debacle. 11%! I can't get over that.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Globe, Winston said that 520 kids had been served by Bright Futures in 2014-15 and that 319 from "food-insecure households" got snackpacks. How many kids in the district qualify for free lunch, surely an indicator of poverty? How does the number of kids actually receiving help stack up against that figure?
I've been paying attention to the controversies surrounding Bright Futures as it is being operated in Joplin Schools, but the situation is far worse than I realized. This is truly awful. Why would anyone wanting to help children in need contribute money to Bright Futures, knowing that 89% of it will be going somewhere else? I can't think of a single reason. And what's most awful, and infuriating, is that Bright Futures as it now exists is standing in the way between the kids who desperately need help and the generous people out there who really want to help them.
All for the kids?
ReplyDeleteNeedy vs greedy.
Follow the money.
Honey that ain't no mud pit, you already in a pit latrine!