I’m still struggling with the way that we approached the current budget problems and the mental model that we created for some with the potential deficit with and without the projected state cuts. This mental model was shared by one of the speakers at Tuesday’s board meeting. The question being asked by many is how could we be $2 – 2.5 million in the hole without cuts from the state? This then leads to other questions and concerns with the district’ leadership. Who is responsible for creating this situation and what are we doing to make sure this doesn’t continue?
If I could start over I would create a different and more accurate context for consideration that would include the following information.
Every budget process starts with a gap between revenue and expenditures. For the past few years, this gap has been in the range of $1.5 - 2 million. During the process we have been able to balance the budget with adjustments that have for the most part not been felt by most staff and community members. It isn’t a situation where we went from no problems to a potential $2+ million gap in one year. Sharing this information may have influenced people’s mental models about the current situation. With this being the case, then why the big deal now?
A number of factors have contributed to the current situation that makes the process of balancing the budget no longer possible without more visible adjustments. These include:
· The state funding formulas for non-employee related costs (NERC’s) do not keep up with the increased costs for these products and services. NERC’s include all expenditures not related to salary such as energy costs, insurance, instructional materials, and the basic day-to-day operational costs. Over the last few years we have made adjustments in building and department NERC budgets to the point where the budget committee did not make recommendations for additional adjustments to the Board. They did, however, make recommendations for adjustments in Central Office departments on top of the previous year’s adjustments. Because of these previous adjustments, this is no longer an area where we will be able to significantly reduce expenditures to help in balancing the budget.
· We are in the third year of a commitment the district made with TEA to bring salaries to the average of surrounding districts. For the coming school year this commitment adds approximately $580,000 in expenditures and for the three years approximately $1.5 million. This is being done with no new revenue source to balance these expenditures. Adjustments were and will continue to be necessary to make up the gap between revenue and expenditures that result from this commitment.
· Our fund balance has been another source used to balance the budget. Once again, this is not something that is visible to those not directly engaged in the process. For the current year $805,000 was used in the balancing process thus eliminating the need to make adjustments in that amount. The use of these funds is problematic as we need a reasonable reserve and in any given year it may not be possible to draw from this source. In the current process, the Board may choose to once again use this source to negate the need for some adjustments. It is, however, in some way putting off adjustments that will be necessary to balance revenue and expenditures in the future.
· A slowdown in enrollment growth has added to this problem because enrollment is the main driver of state revenue which influences the amount that can be collected in local revenue. With increasing enrollment, the gap between state funding formulas and escalating expenditures was partially made up through this increased revenue. The slowdown in revenue growth is making it more difficult to make up this difference between revenue and expenditures resulting from the comprehensive program we offer today.
There are others, but hopefully this creates a different context. This deficit has increased because of the state budget deficit and the potential to add $2+ million more in cuts to state revenue. The big cut at this time is to I-728 with the Senate cutting $2.7 million and the House $1.9 million. This is partially offset in some way that we do not yet know through stimulus funds. It is this I-728 cut that has placed us in the position of needing to look at staffing adjustments to certified staff at the level included in the recommendations before the board. We can’t make up this amount of lost revenue through adjustments to NERC’s or other programs.
Well, if you were able to persevere you may have a better understanding of why this budget process differs from previous years and that the difference when starting the process wasn’t at the $2 – 2.5 million at the local level. It was $.5 – 1 million more than in the past few years, a number driven by the use of fund balance in the previous year and year three of the TEA commitment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Sorry Mike, I am getting tired of the blame game here. The pitiful raise offered to us, that does not make us equal to other districts if not the problem. Thank you for making sure the public is well aware of our sad little raise, so you all can cry wolf, again. You have made it perfectly clear, in the Reporter and all over your Budget Recommendations that our raise is the problem. Yes, you did mention other things, but you were in the hole LAST YEAR! I am not buying your reasonings. You made poor decisions, period. You agreed to the contract, which now you regret. Shame on you!
I would like to make the comment that just because the certified teachers in this district did not cause the budget deficit, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't all work together to help the situation. In fact, some of us are involuntary helping to bridge the budget by getting RIFed. It just makes more sense to me that if teachers are losing jobs, then the right thing to do is give a little something up in order to prevent that from happening. In fact, just by not taking next year's pay increase, we could save half of the positions being lost to RIFing. That is nine more teachers working directly with students on a daily basis. Just think: smaller class sizes (than the ones proposed), more small group and one-on one attention for our learners, and nine well-trained and passionate teachers who will not be lost to other districts (or worse, other professions entirely).
No one wanted to be in the situation we are in today, but here we are. Rather than pointing fingers, how can we make this work?
Our funding system is definately archaic-causing this animosity and misplaced anger between two entities that always preach that they ARE doing what is best for kids. I do not believe that any of the decisions are malicisous in intent; whether by TEA or by Tahoma School District. It does seem that reaching out and placing blame is easy when faced with decisions that MUST be made because the funding ISN'T here.
As a parent in the district and a teacher here as well, I am affected not only by the cuts that cause me a difference in my job, but also how these affect my own children and family.Pay to play sports, zero hours, larger class sizes are just a few that affect my family--larger classes affect my teaching to reach every kid, ever day--as well as building a bridge of trust with our parents as I not only educate their children, but I establish a relationship their family.
I also see that there is already teachers taking a pay cut to avoid additonal RIF-ing which includes LID days AND the COLA going away. This IS a cut in pay. It is more than above a 2.5% decrease if we give up the raise. Oh, and this "raise" is not a raise when it brings teacher to an "average" salary of neighboring districts... remember those high test scores, quality of teaching, classroom 10 implementation? Yes, average is deserved for those that are working to achieve these high standards and I am disoppointed that we would continue to call the salary a raise and use this as a crutch to explain the budget crisis.
I have read the budget proposal and I am disoppointed in some aspects and relieved in others. I look at the budget amounts and still wonder if we could cut some areas for ONE year and maintain... as well as creating a ratio of administrators to certifed teachers (or even students). Does eliminating teacher positions for the time being and creating larger class sizes fix anything? OR does it create a larger problem to FIX later? Can we opt to minimize some of the other line items or categories that do not directly impact those students THIS year and play catch up with those later so that we do not lose the support of our families as they might not feel the impact of what we are doing this year--the precipice is not quite evident as the impact is currently so ambigous unless you can SEE what you are losing (gifted program, Camp Casey).
My worry is not for next year--as we can all rise to the occassion and do what we do best--and yes, my own children will rise to the expecations and changes in their larger classes or even, or family will find a way for my daughters to play sports. But more than that, I look at how many students MIGHT not get to play, how many MIGHT slip through the cracks; creating only a vortex of issues for us to deal with this time NEXT year when we really do come to the precipice of change--and seeing the impact of the decisions we are making today--both as a parent, as a student, and as a teacher.
I wonder if we could have a truly balanced team assessing the areas for cuts (including a certified and classified), could the budget proposal be something that we could all agree with instead of poking fingers at each other as to WHY we are still in the crisis?
Post a Comment