In response to Benjamin Martin (letter, May 26), I agree with him that the Lewiston School Department needs to be transparent, showing administration and management-type jobs in the budget.
There has been an ever-increasing amount of administration/management type positions — jobs that are not directly teaching students (unlike teachers and educational technicians). In the budget, those jobs are often put under the regular instruction lines with classroom teachers and educational technicians.
The large increase in assistant principals can be seen in the budget, but the many increases in ”mystery positions” of coordinators, assistant coordinators, directors, assistant directors, specialists of all types, deans, coaches (math, literacy, ELL, etc.), facilitators, interventionists, supervisors, reading recovery, technology integrator, analyst, new positions at the central office and other positions that do not directly educate students are just about impossible to locate or understand in the budget.
Which of these jobs directly teach a student? How many are administrative (management) in function?
Research shows that student achievement is most impacted by having great teachers. A list of all “mystery positions” by title, job description, salary plus benefits and how many there are of each position, is needed for transparency. The School Committee’s priority should be making sure there is a teacher/ed tech working directly with students long before more “mystery positions” are made.
By keeping many of these positions in the regular instruction line in the budget, figuring out what is really being expensed on administration/management jobs is impossible.
Crystal Ward, Lewiston
Send questions/comments to the editors.
