Printer-friendly version

Contributed by Bryan Blanchard 2008-06-08

Gardiner — Let’s Pay Attention to Both Family and Education Finances: The MSAD 11 Budget Proposal

Early Friday morning (June 6), I filled the tank of my Toyota. Fifty bucks. At precisely 8:30, I heard that our national unemployment rate had just spiked by half a percent . . . the highest monthly jump in over 22 years. But Friday was really remarkable for another event: At the close of the trading day, probably as a result of international demand, our weak currency, and a green light given to Big Investment Dollars by a Congressional committee which has been investigating commodities speculation (“You’re off the hook, guys”), money flooded into the oil market and the price of crude marked its steepest one day rise in the history of the world. And, oh yeah, the Dow tanked. I say all this as preface to a few comments I’d like to offer about our local school budget. I want to firmly fix in readers’ minds, six months prior to the start of Maine’s heating season, that these aren’t the best of financial times. Indeed, now may be an occasion for belt tightening and for us to remember our New England frugality.

On Tuesday, June 10, Gardiner area voters will consider a school district budget proposal for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2008. If approved, that budget will require a new tax levy, monies which will be collected during months of higher gas and heating oil prices, a deteriorating economy, and shaky employment conditions. Approval will require staggering increases in local property taxes to make up for shortfalls in state support and other revenue declines, and will authorize expenditures that even the school board and its superintendent did not recommend. All this will also be accompanied by a major property revaluation in Gardiner. My view is that the voters should consider not just their own willingness to support the district’s budget but also their neighbors’ ability to pay. We all want to help the children but sometimes we do that best by supporting their families.

The proposed district budget is just shy of $100k more than last year and at first glance seems reasonable. It includes enhanced funding for staff salaries and benefits and for energy increases. What is not immediately apparent is that state support for MSAD 11 is dropping by over $450k and other revenues by over $300k. The difference, says the school board and it recent “public meeting”, is to be made up by the local taxpayers, to the tune of an additional $854,590.90 or 13.7% over what everybody paid this year. (The actual amount varies by municipality. Just wait until West Gardiner sees its bill.)

How should taxpayers look at their school district budget and make judgments on funding? Maine has actually been hard at work on this question for some time. The Department of Education has developed a sophisctated method of determining what is reasonable in light of the learning goals which are set, the facilities available, the staffing already in place, and what local valuations exist to support education. The calculation, termed “Essential Programs and Services” or EPS, is not an estimate in the abstract. It is, rather, “real world” and a most reasonable assessment of what schools actually need and what is fair from a valuation standpoint. The model takes into account staff on board, their credentials and their length of service. It considers numbers of students, year to year enrollment changes, special education and gifted/talented allocations, costs for technology resources and learning assessment, the needs of disadvantaged and limited English students, equipment replacement and even debt service obligations. For 2008-09, the state calculates that MSAD 11 ought to do just fine on $17,526,395.98, thank you. That’s $3,439,273.89 less than what is being proposed. Questions anybody?

In the ten years from 1997 to 2007, MSAD 11 lost 295 students. Between 2007 and 2008, enrollment declined by another 38 students (although other reports indicate higher losses). This year the projection is also for 14 fewer “tuition” (or out of district) students and there appears to be a real problem with retention. Fewer students of all kinds means lessened revenues and, unless staffing is reduced, smaller classes and correspondingly higher costs per student. We ought to be lowering costs and building more efficient budgets but our education decision makers seem headed in the opposite direction.

When news of the steep decline in state funding arrived in March, the superintendent suggested quite a number of budget cuts, including eliminating elementary guidance, reducing teaching and teaching aide positions, thinning the administration, decreasing the “transportation radius” (i.e. making more kids walk), reducing tutoring, and imposing “Extra Curriculum User” fees. Most of these ideas were rejected. When the school board met with representatives of the participating municipalities, other possible cuts were discussed but never made. And when the public meeting was held on May 17, the 120 people in attendance added $100,000 to the budget for fuel costs and another $95,000 to reinstate staff the board actually intended to cut. Even the board chairman disagreed with that action: “It’s unfair a turnout of 120 people can decide for 13,000 people,” he said. “That’s just not right.”

I doubt many of the 13,000 are against education. But a few of us certainly have questions. Why have staff reductions not kept pace with enrollment declines. Why is the budget sought so far in excess of what the EPS deems to be fair? Why has MSAD expanded its kindergarten to “full day” (at a cost of an extra $160k) and instituted a program for 4 years old at a cost of over $200k (there are 60 of them now and plans for 30 more)? Why are there so many low enrollment classes? And why have costly new programs not been cut back in a time when so many families are struggling to pay their own bills?

Education and the economy go through cycles and, yes, we can always do more. But some years are more propitious than others and occasionally you just have to tread water. By my lights, this is one of those bleak years. MSAD 11 could think of many ways of reducing its budget and the board should go back to the drawing board and come up with a few good ideas. They already have $150k in “contingency funds” currently in the budget and they just got another block of money returned by the state for retirement overpayment. They should commit those funds. Perhaps they could also emulate Augusta’s self-supporting school lunch program. Exactly what are the costs involved with the MSAD 11 lunch subsidy anyway? There are 28 people employed in the cafeterias. And how bad would prices get if they had to cover the actual costs? One thing is certain though: If prices rose too high, kids wouldn’t starve. Moms would just have to pack a few sandwiches. I remember eating more than a few. But if we pass this budget, some moms will be hard pressed to buy the bread.

Bryan K. Blanchard, PhD., Gardiner

(The writer is a former college and university president and a former fifth grade teacher)