This year's budget

I hope to have a report after every meeting of the School Board, but there are fewer meetings in the summer, and action on the key issue of the last two meetings, that of leasing computers for the middle and elementary schools, is still pending.  Instead, I will take this opportunity to talk about the budget the majority enacted last June.

To give you some perspective, the Board could have increased taxes by about 2.9% without going to a referendum.  Taxes could have gone even higher if exceptions were granted for increases in pension or special education expenses.  The administration prepared a budget that would have allowed all current programs to continue, but require a tax increase of 2%.  This was unacceptable to the majority of the Board.  Not only did they demand no tax increase, they refused to use our “fund balance” – think of it as unused money from previous taxes, much of the surplus from this year’s budget, or any of the money saved by abandoning the building project.  (I’ll have more on that later.)  The budget passed over my and Mrs. Stevens dissent did not replace the four teachers who retired.  Three of these are at the High School where enrollment will be essentially unchanged next year.  At some point in the debate a Board member asked, “Why not no tax increase?”  Here is an answer to that question.

One of the positions not being replaced is a full time Business teacher.  As a result:

The full year courses that will not be offered next year are:

A second section of accounting I

A section of advanced accounting (2nd level)

A section of accelerated accounting (3rd level)

The semester courses that will not be offered next year are:

3 sections of Desktop Publishing

3 sections of Web Page Design 

            Another position not being replaced is a full time Language Arts teacher.  To fill this void, teacher assignments are being shuffled – moving an English as a Second Language teacher into Language Arts. This transfer involves moving three teachers to positions where, while they may be certified, they will not be teaching in areas where they have had experience and been able to develop their expertise.

            Of greater concern is that we are also expanding the Language Arts program so that next year it will include:

4 sections of Read 180

3 electives -- yearbook, newspaper and creative writing

These courses effectively make up the load of the full time teacher we are not replacing.  As a result, class size will increase beyond the ability of teachers to effectively teach writing in the manner they have shown to be most effective.  There will no longer be time to conference with students about their writing.  Without conferencing, it will impossible to continue the program as it now exits.  In effect, we must choose between an effective writing program, or an improved reading program. Without the cut we could have had both.

We are reducing a full time position by 20% by no longer offering classroom instruction in driver education.  Several insurance companies have determined that this instruction makes kids safer drivers, thus putting the entire community, who will share the road with these young people, at greater risk. 

Combined with the loss of business electives these reductions will vastly increase the population in our study halls.  However, at the same time, we are not continuing to employ an aide as our study hall monitor.  Teachers will have to assume that duty, replacing a person whose hourly rate is somewhere around $10 per hour with teachers who are paid considerably more.  Admittedly, we will not be “out of pocket” for teachers’ salary, but for much of the time in a study hall, those teachers will not be available for conferencing, tutoring, or classroom preparation -- the job they are actually being paid to do. 

We are not replacing a middle school science teacher, but instead are transferring a Special Education teacher into that position.  This cut will increase the number of students in Special Education classes by about 2 students.  While not an overwhelming number, these are the children of greatest need, and will put us perilously close to the limit on the teaching load we are permitted by the state.

Last but far from least we are arbitrarily cutting $5000 from the library budget.  I have trouble coming up with a cut this small that would have a larger adverse impact on our kids.  At some point students will need a resource that is not available as a result of this reduction.

It is one thing to say that we can no longer afford to give our children the same quality of education as students were provided it the past.  Although I vehemently disagree, it might be a tenable position in this economy.  However, to maintain that this budget will not have an adverse effect on our children’s education is delusional at best and fraudulent at worst.