I have not posted anything for a while because the only controversial item discussed lately has been this blog. (More on this later.) The only vote of substance that was not unanimous occurred at the October 4 meeting when, over the dissent of Mrs. Faust and Mrs. Stevens, the Board voted to approve the purchase of 25 computers for the Middle School lab. Mrs. Stevens voted against the motion because it did not include the purchase of new computers for the Middle School library, or provide a software upgrade on older computers to make them compatible with our newer ones. A motion to include these items failed when the Majority block, except for Mrs. Sunday, voted against it. While I agreed in principle with Mrs. Stevens’ position, I believed replacing the computers at the Middle School lab was essential. I am not sure of the reason for Mrs. Faust’s negative vote. It would seem that she is either opposed to having computers in our schools, or she is particularly opposed to using Apples.
I expect that controversy will again erupt when we begin discussion of next year’s budget, but before the debate starts, I would like to explain my basic position.
Balancing the needs of our kids against what the taxpayers can afford should be the most difficult decision each School Director must make. Both factors need to be considered in finding that balance. In other words, both the cost of an item and its educational value must be taken into account. It is often difficult to judge educational value in monetary terms. What is the value, for example, of having a class size of sixteen instead of twenty-one, or instead of twenty-eight, or thirty-five? The value of the smaller class size compared to the expense of achieving it is a valid subject for debate. However, I will not accept the premise that there is no value. Nor will I accept a predetermined level of what the taxpayers can afford. While this determination is a subjective judgment based on personal circumstances and that of our neighbors and friends, it is not absolute. There are some obvious boundaries. Using class size as an example, I believe that regardless of its value, limiting the size of every class at every level to twelve or fewer students is not affordable. Similarly, a class size of thirty-five or more, especially in these days of “No Child Left Behind,” should be unacceptable regardless of its cost. The gray area in between is another subject for discussion. In these debates I admit to taking a position that leans more heavily to the side of educational need and less toward the side of limiting costs. It is a debate I have no trouble losing if the final result does in fact strike a balance between needs and costs, even if that balance is not at the point I initially felt it should be.
However, to assert, as the Majority did last year, that there should be no tax increase before looking at the cuts necessary to achieve this goal is completely irresponsible. In the debate over last year’s budget, the majority position seemed to be that reducing the number of teachers at the High School would have no effect on the educational program. In a past posting I outlined the negative impact the budget would have on the High School program. Events have shown that despite the efforts of our teachers to minimize that impact, some harm was inevitable. And yet the belief persists that the budget for our schools is full of waste, that, despite rising costs, we can refuse to raise taxes without harm to our kids’ education.
“Don’t raise taxes. Cut waste!” is a cry we here in every political debate. To their great credit, the Kutztown Taxpayer Watch Group did not just complain. Last year they apparently looked at the proposed budget line-by-line, and questioned possible sources of waste. Here are the expenses they questioned and the answers they received.
- $419,000 for Tech/Health Assistants. This turned out to be confusion over the way expenses were coded. The funds were actually for the salary of our secretaries.
- $264,000 for Technology Hardware Rental. The major portion of this expense was the lease of the one-to-one computers at the high school. A smaller portion was the lease of computers for student use at the Middle and Elementary Schools.
- $138,000 for Nurses Services. This was for the salary of our Nurses.
- $50,000 for purchased Technical Services for our principals’, superintendent’s and business offices. These funds were for services such as design and support of the district’s web sight; our automated phone notification system; hosting for various programs such as those for accounting and budgeting, student attendance, locating substitutes, etc.
- $67,000 for Maintenance Supplies. This was money set aside for the replacement of normal wear items such as valves, pumps, light bulbs, etc., as well as items needed to make repairs such as lumber, hardware, etc.
- $98,000 for General Custodial Supplies. This was for mop heads, cleaners, paper towels, toilet paper, etc.
Unlike the findings of the accountant in the movie Dave, all of the questioned expenses were accounted for. There seems to be little waste. The goal of a zero tax increase was achieved, but at the expense of the educational program at the High School. Some may believe that we cannot afford to continue to provide the same level of education as we have in the past. I disagree, but it is a belief that is worthy of serious debate. I cannot accept, however, the premise that cutting staff, increasing class size, and eliminating programs will not harm our kids. I expect the debate on next year’s budget to begin shortly.
At the Board’s last meeting several questions were asked of our solicitor attacking this blog. I prefer to believe that it was the presence of the solicitor rather than my absence that led to the timing of these questions. Like all public bodies the Board would prefer to make decisions in private, but, like all public bodies it should be prevented from doing so. This blog is intended to inform whoever reads it about actions the Board has taken. Admittedly, it expresses my point of view about those actions. Newspapers may present a less biased view, and we have had excellent reporters at our meetings, but their articles are limited by the size their editors allow. The best unbiased view would be your own. If you can afford the time, I would encourage anyone interested in the proceedings of the Board to attend its meetings. You should be aware, that in addition to the regular meetings on the first and third Mondays of each month, in meetings advertised as a “committee of the whole” the Board may take the same actions that it might at a regular meeting. As boring as these can sometimes be, public scrutiny is always a good idea.
