The ASD is concerned with its budget shortfall. According to most estimates, ASD will have to cut $49 Million over the next two years unless the State provides a miraculous bail out. This year the district has chosen to cut approximately $25 Million by deleting teaching positions. And… Not… Much.. Else.
Why?
The argument is that teaching staff salaries and benefits are about 85% of the entire district budget. There is no disputing this. As one would guess, and hope, most of the district money should be spent on teachers.
Now I could get into a huge argument about how this is merely the operating budget and not the capital budget, or how grant money is not included, etc etc. But that would be smoke and mirrors and I won’t resort to ASD tactics to convince you of something. The reality is… the school district spends MOST of its money on teachers, supplies and building upkeep. And that is a good thing.
But “MOST” is a relative term. What is the PROPER expenditure? Is 85% too much? Too little? What about how much is spent on Administration?
If you wade through the more than 600 pages of the 2012-2013 Budget proposal from the district http://www.asdk12.org/media/anchorage/globalmedia/documents/budget/12-13/12_13_Preliminary_FinancialPlan.pdf you will find a chart on page 43 showing that the General Budget is hovering right around $565 Million and increasing (probably closer to $570 Million by now.) About half of that money comes from the State, the rest coming from local and Federal sources (pg. 44.) On page 82 is a great chart showing numbers of personnel and their cost. Look at the line with teachers and principals. You will notice in 2010 there were 3385.58 teachers at just over $231 Million, or an average of about $68K per teacher. In 2013 this has gone to 3271.62 at nearly $233 Million or an average of $71K per teacher. Principals at the same time have been 149.3 principals at $15 Million for an average of $100K in 2010, to 148.8 Principals at almost $16 Million or an average of $105 K. Notice something. Principal salaries have increased by 5K while teacher salaries only increased by 3K. Furthermore, 113.96 (3%) teachers dropped off the rolls, while only .5 (.3%)Principals did. By percentage, 10 times as many teachers were eliminated as Principals over the same period.
Surely, if we need to cut the budget so much, everyone should share the pain. But teachers are clearly taking more of a hit than anyone. The numbers prove it. And for anyone in Admin to say that this year it’s the teacher’s turn haven’t looked at their own documents. And while there has been a minor effort to cut some minor budget areas, the vast majority of planned cuts are from teachers.
But why not other areas?
- If numbers are going down in certain schools resulting in reduced FTE for those buildings in terms of teachers, why isn’t there also a commensurate cut in Principals of those schools. For example if one school has 2000 students and 5 principals, shouldn’t a school that has 1500 students only have 4 principals? But look around the district and you will see this is not the case. WHY NOT CUT HERE?
- A school (call it X) in our district is WELL under capacity and has much space. There is a small program in our district which is housed in a building with its own staff. There is plenty of room in X to house the program. Why not move it to X, reduce or eliminate the staff, get rid of the building and its maintenance. WHY NOT CUT HERE?
- We have a department whose sole purpose is to set up rental agreements with schools. Typically a community user will contact this department to rent a classroom or auditorium. The department will call the school to check for availability. Then the department will follow up with the community member, whereupon all further contact is done with the school (for keys, etc.) Why not just let the school manage the whole thing since they already do most of it anyway? Doesn’t it make more sense for the user to call the school directly anyway? WHY NOT CUT HERE?
- We have numerous ASD properties which are empty, underused or undeveloped. Yet they are all maintained to some degree. Population trends, land availability, etc., all seem to indicate there will not be any massive growth in Anchorage any time soon. So why are we paying for empty space. WHY NOT CUT HERE?
- Legislators are considering dropping the HSGQE as a required test. http://juneauempire.com/local/2014-02-10/bill-could-cut-high-school-exit-exam#.UwHxBc76SRM and replacing it with the WorkKeys or other tests which are already in place. This could be a good savings in time as well as money. But there is a rumor that the ASD is already working on a test to replace the HSGQE and have already paid a large sum to have this test developed. A test which is allegedly in line with COMMON CORE standards which the State of Alaska has refused to comply with. Why is ASD paying for a test we may not need? Why are they paying for one that fits standards the State has declined? And why are they doing so before HB278 is even out of committee? WHY NOT CUT HERE?
- Zangle, implemented in 2009-2010 at a cost of over $200K http://www.asdk12.org/school_board/archives/2008-2009/20080811/H04M007.pdf has been working like a lumbering dinosaur since day one. It is inflexible and subject to numerous hiccups. We’ve only had it for a couple of years really, even though the company went chapter 11 shortly after we implemented it (good job researching the company!) Now there are rumors we are going to bid Zangle adieu in 2015 and pay for another “Custom” software gadget. Are we throwing good money after bad? How about a nice gradebook program that ALREADY WORKS like “Easygrade Pro.” Or will we rather spend another quarter million on something we will throw away in 5 years. WHY NOT CUT HERE?
Have I come up to $25 Million yet?
(1934)