[Vision2020] MSD financial condition
Ron Force
rforce@moscow.com
Thu, 27 Mar 2003 11:00:59 -0800
Student fees at the University of Idaho cover 15-17% of the cost.
********************************************
Ron Force rforce@moscow.com
Moscow Idaho USA
********************************************
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vision2020-admin@moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-admin@moscow.com]On
> Behalf Of John Danahy
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 8:13 PM
> To: 'Mitch Parks'; 'Dale Courtney'
> Cc: vision2020@moscow.com
> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] MSD financial condition
>
>
> I just looked at the UI website for prospective students. Fees for full
> time undergraduate study for one year (thats 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
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> 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
>