[Vision2020] MSD financial condition

[John Danahy]

I just looked at the UI website for prospective students.  Fees for full
time undergraduate study for one year (that’s two semesters) for the
2002-2003 school year are listed as $3044.  Books are estimated at
$1188, bringing the total cost per student for a year to $4232.  I read
it through several times to make sure.  If these numbers are wrong then
the UI web page is wrong.

I pay taxes to support the UI, and if I send my children there I pay the
fees too.  I also pay taxes to support the MSD.  If the cost of
educating a student at MSD can be reduced from the current $8000 per
year to the UI fee structure of $4232 per year, then isn't in everyone's
best interest to do this?  Obviously not all students could be educated
this way, but if even 100 students attended the UI for their Junior and
Senior years, paid for by the district, then the per year savings to the
district would exceed $700,000.

John 
Jdanahy@turbonet.com

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-admin@moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-admin@moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Mitch Parks
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 7:53 PM
To: Dale Courtney
Cc: vision2020@moscow.com
Subject: RE: [Vision2020] MSD financial condition

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
> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// 
> 
> 

_____________________________________________________
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ