[Vision2020] MSD financial condition
Mike Curley
curley@turbonet.com
Thu, 27 Mar 2003 09:02:33 -0800
<color><param>0100,0100,0100</param>Dale, and others:
Just a couple of points of information for what they are
worth:
1. There are two significant voter-determined reasons
why more cost savings have not been realized by MSD as
enrollment has declined: neighborhood schools and class
sizes. Parents have voted extra money (by levies) to keep
4 elementary schools open and to hold class sizes in
elementary classes and secondary "core" classes in the
range of 20 - 23 students (average). There are, of course,
other economic and political reasons why costs have
been reduced relatively (in constant dollars) but they
usually have had less to do with voter decision-making.
Last year, in order to reduce costs and lower the proposed
levy, MSD "consolidated" West Park and Russell
elementary schools into a single K-6 program. No one
particularly wanted to do that from either an educational
or community perspective. Parents, teachers,
administrators, and the school board were reluctant to
make that move. There were those who said voters
would have supported a larger levy to allow both to
remain K-6 schools. Some said an elementary school
should have been closed altogether and the 4 elementary
schools consolidated into 3. In the long run, enrollment,
state funding levels and perhaps another levy will
determine whether MSD moves back to 4 elementaries
(K-6) or whether further consolidation is necessary.
2. One can say "you cannot askMoscow taxpayers to
increase property taxes" but the comment contains its
own contradiction. It is the Moscow taxpayers (at least
50% of those who have voted in the past) who have put
the tax level where it is. As taxpayers we are an unruly
bunch. There are those who believe that there should be
no public education system (notwithstanding the Idaho
Constitution's requirement), so they will always vote
against a levy; there are those who will vote for nearly
any levy MSD proposes; and there are a majority who fall
somewhere between those extremes. It is very difficult
for a school board and administration to know what the
majority will pay to run the district, particularly when the
multitude may be screaming "I'll vote to fund this
program, but not that one."
3. Donovan may have engaged in a little hyperbole when
he said the district's buildings are falling apart. That is not
true as I understand "falling apart" even when it is used
figuratively. They are not in a state of significant disrepair
even individually. Money IS needed to maintain the
community's investment in them. As with most any
capital asset the cost of repair can multiply when
maintenance is ignored. The motor oil commercial that
ends with "pay me now or pay me later" can aptly be
applied to the situation. Every year budgets for
maintenance, technology (increasingly expensive and
necessary), and curriculum (books, educational materials,
staff training to maintain an educational continuum from
grade to grade) take a hit at the expense of other
programs. Sooner or later on of those chickens may
come home to roost if appropriate funding is not
maintained.
4. The district is already looking at the possibility of staff
reductions for next year. Programs may find themselves
with less money, or a few might be cut altogether. Of
course, the district could propose another levy and a
group (as Citizens for Quality Education) may demand
that one be put on the ballot.
5. Salaries and benefits. Add to point 1 above that staff
has received salary and benefit increases annually and
you have a big part of the funding equation. If the annual
operating budget is $16M, salary and benefits account for
about $13.6M of that. Inflation only applies to the other
$2.4M. A 1% s & b increase costs $136,000, which means
the loss of about 2.3 teaching positions or cuts somewhere
else in the budget. Last night's Daily News said that the
superintendent "warned there also may be a freeze on
salaries...." The article wasn't clear whether she was
referring only to district salaries or to a mandate that may
come out of Boise. One thing we know is that if s & b
increases that money isn't being spent somewhere else.
Either teaching positions have to be lost (result: increased
class size &/or more students moved to other buildings) or
programs have to be cut or operated on less funding.
Nothing pretty about any of it.
Mike Curley
On 27 Mar 03, at 5:27, Dale Courtney wrote:
</color>From: <color><param>0000,0000,8000</param>"Dale Courtney" <<dale@courtneys.us></color>
To: <color><param>0000,0000,8000</param><<vision2020@moscow.com></color>
<bold>Subject: <color><param>0000,0000,8000</param>RE: [Vision2020] MSD financial condition</bold></color>
Date sent: <color><param>0000,0000,8000</param>Thu, 27 Mar 2003 05:27:12 -0800</color>
<underline><color><param>0000,8000,0000</param>[ Double-click this line for list subscription options ]</underline></color>
Donovan,
A couple comments:
* State funding for education has not, not, not been
drastically cut. That's a lie that someone has been feeding
you. State Funding has increased every year since 1989,
and
is now at 170% of the 1989 funding level.
* However, our student enrollment at MSD has been on
a sharp
decline (390 students; 13% in 5 years). State funding is
linked to the number of students (duh!).
* Why has the cost of education significantly in creased
over the last 10 years? Was it to increase our test scores?
The test scores have decreased every year for the last 13
years. In fact, it's down 7 percent.
* Can you tell me why total staff has increased 52%
while
the enrollment in Idaho has only increased 16 percent?
* Do you know why the buildings/facilities at MSD are
falling apart? Could it be that MSD slashed that part of the
budget (by 86.2%) while increasing support services 4
percent? What MSD did was to shift out $1,062,259 from
facilities into instruction/support costs. Playing a cup
game by shifting funds doesn't put the blame on the tax
payers?
* Riddle me this: Are buildings/facilities fixed costs or
variable costs? Are students fixed costs or variable costs?
More to ponder.
I'd like to ask the local liberals to think out of the box
for a while. Look at the numbers and deal with reality. You
cannot ask the Moscow taxpayers to continue to increase
property taxes (mine right at 50% for government school
support) when the enrollment continues to decrease.
Best,
Dale
-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-admin@moscow.com
[mailto:vision2020-admin@moscow.com] On Behalf Of
Donovan
Arnold Sent: Wednesday, 26 March, 2003 22:44 To:
dale@courtneys.us; vision2020@moscow.com Subject: RE:
[Vision2020] MSD financial condition
Dale,
The reason why education is hurting, regardless of the 5-10
students less per grade between K-12 is four fold:
1) The state funding for education has been drastically
cut. This means that the local area governments must
make
for this difference. That means the property owner.
2) The cost of education has significatly increased over the
last ten years, about 100-200%
3) Often times the number of students helps, not hurts, the
education districts because the state divides the amount of
state aid according to the population. If Moscow has a
decrease in population and CD'A, Boise, Eagle, and Sandpoint
have an increase, Moscow get an even smaller percentage of
the state funding pie, this pie is also smaller.
4) The buildings and facilities are falling apart, it costs
a great deal to rebuild and maintain them.
I really think you need to do more research then looking at
just government documents that are often misleading or
broken up into pieces that don't always seem how they look.
UI books are the worst, but Moscow does not keep the
greatest of records either. Budgets are tricky and
complicated and other only projected costs, a best guess so
to speak. The only numbers that are usually reliable and
understandable are the ones that definitions and are two or
three years. Do you really think we have any idea as to how
many students there will be MSD in 2005 or 2006?
Donovan Arnold