[Vision2020] MSD financial condition

[Mitch Parks]

Well, I don't want to enter the private vs. public debate AT ALL, but I
must point out that your UI numbers are incorrect. Primarily because the
numbers you listed are only per semester. Also, FY2002 is the same as the
2001-2002 school year, not FY2001. Current fees at UI for the year in
progress are in the FY2003 column.

The numbers listed by the financial aid office might better explain it:
http://www.finaid.uidaho.edu/cost.asp

If you took the total yearly UI budget divided by the number of students,
you might get a MUCH different number, as well.

Mitch Parks
Moscow, ID

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, Dale Courtney wrote:

> Mike Curley took the time to write and make some very helpful suggestions
> for my search into the current MSD budget woes. 
>  
> I took the time to go to MSD headquarters and get the financial data for
> last year (2001-2002). FYI, those expenditures were $19,050,079
>  
> I also gathered their enrollment data
> (http://www.sd281.k12.id.us/GeneralInformation/files/Enrollment.pdf) There
> were 2,365 students in 2001-2002. 
>  
> If you do the math, the total loaded (fully burdened) costs are $8,055 per
> student per year. 
>  
> I was really amazed by this number! I happen to pay $1,500 for my youngest
> to attend a private school (which may not be named) in Moscow. 
>  
> I was also amazed that out of state tuition at UI is $3,000/year; and
> instate (for 2001-2002) was $1,238
> (http://www.webs.uidaho.edu/ipb/Excel_files/STD_FEE.xls)
>  
> Can someone please tell me why the elementary/junior high/high school fees
> are nearly three times as much as for a bachelor's degree program? 
> 
> Dale
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vision2020-admin@moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-admin@moscow.com] On
> Behalf Of Mike Curley
> Sent: Friday, 07 March, 2003 10:14
> To: vision2020@moscow.com
> Subject: [Vision2020] MSD financial condition
> 
> 
> Mr. Courtney:
> Just to correct a couple of facts before you share your thoughts about the
> MSD budget:
> 1. The 2001 $1.1 M supplemental levy is also "indefinite" as were the
> earlier levies.
> 2. Unless you have seen something that I haven't, there has been no request
> for an increase to the levy (at least not yet).
> 3. Last year, teachers, administrators and all other staff members did
> indeed have a pay increase--even in the face of the district having to ask
> for a levy increase that did NOT include any announced "salary component;"
> and even in the face of having to reduce staff and consolidate West Park and
> Russell elementary schools into a single K- 6 program.
> 4. You asked the question: "... how you can have a decrease in
> 2.7%enrollment per year for 7 years (12.9% since 1996) and need to have a
> bloating budget?" Possible answers to investigate:
> a. bad management: failure to suck it up and do what needs to be done to
> reduce staff where necessary and deal with the wrath of the union, and
> parents, that is bound to follow.
> b. cost of services increase. The 15% of the budget that gets spent on
> curriculum (including books, worksheets, and other instructional materials),
> technology (computers, software, servers, security equipment), and buildings
> (vehicles to plow the snow, desk replacement, roof repairs, etc) suffers
> from cost of living increases over 7 years. If a vehicle wears out today it
> will cost more to replace it with a similar vehicle than it would have 7
> years ago.
> c. salary increases: note that salaries and benefits account for about 85%
> of the MSD budget. On a $17M budget, that's $14,620,000. That means of
> course that every 1% of salary and benefit increase costs the district
> $146,200. Check the salary and benefit increases per year over the 7 years
> you cited, apply 85% to each year's full budget, and add the annual results
> to figure out approximately how much increase is attributable to salary and
> benefit increases over the period. 
> 
> And, perhaps not "fact," it might nevertheless be useful to acknowledge some
> other considerations. Related to point c. above: of course, if the
> teacher/administrator/staff pool had declined over the period, the
> salaries-to-total-budget ratio would have been smaller. In fairness, one
> must note that since all the students are not in the same building and not
> in the same grade, it is not possible to automatically reduce staff
> proportionally with student population decreases. For example: let's say
> there are 125 classes in session at any given time in MSD. If student
> population declines in a perfectly random way (and I'm not suggesting it
> does), we lose one student per classroom. What teacher do we "cut" next
> year, and from which building. I am not suggesting that everything was done
> over the last 7 years (or any time period for that matter) that could have
> been to appropriately reduce staff. But it should be clear from the
> illustration that the problem is not as simple as it might seem. What may
> also be clear is that to cut staff and consolidate classes means larger
> class sizes and more children being moved from their attendance area
> elementary buildings each year, and more teachers being reassigned to new
> buildings. Teachers and parents don't like any of those results, they pound
> on the school board not to do that, and so the budget has to be larger to
> accommodate those desires. So far a majority of the voting community has
> supported that philosophy--or perhaps they created it. The school board is
> left in the position of going to voters and saying in effect: "if you want
> things to continue to run as they have in the past, we need more money." One
> can reasonably argue that the board would have abdicated their
> responsibilities had they cut staff in the face of voters continued funding
> of exisiting staff size. It is not yet clear either: 1. whether increased
> funding will be necessary to maintain current operations; and, 2. whether
> voters will continue to increase the levy to meet those needs.
> 
> Mike Curley
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _____________________________________________________ List services made
> available by First Step Internet, serving the communities of the Palouse
> since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// 
> 
>