I am a long-term Brighton resident with an M.A. in Education.  I strongly value our good schools, and appreciate living in an educationally minded community. That said, I had a strong reaction when I read the Brighton School District’s Preliminary Budget for 2009/10. If you would like a preview of what’s in store for school spending, the Preliminary 2009/10 school budget document is now available at the BCSD website (http://www.bcsd.org/district.cfm?subpage=1145). Take a few minutes to look it over, and share your reactions.  I’d like to know what you think! -cmjones

Formatted in big print and pretty colors, the document is easy on my old eyes, if wasteful to print.  I study the graph on page 3, which shows that  Brighton’s budget increases are in the middle of the pack when compared against other Monroe County districts.  The catch?  Every single Monroe County district spends at the very top of the nation’s rankings.  I simply don’t understand what this graph is meant to convey.  Is the District saying that because our neighbors all do it, we also should be increasing our spending at the breakneck rate of 6.6% a year?

The list of per-pupil spending on page 5 gives me no consolation.  No matter where we stand in this ranking, our current $16,310 per pupil is approaching double that of elite private school tuition and is about 1.6 times the national average of public school per-pupil spending. Across the  country, students are receiving excellent education for a significantly lower cost. On page 12, incredibly, the district announces a proposed 4.1%, 2.4 million dollar increase in spending for 09/10.

Depressed by the possible 4.1% hike and its implication for our property tax or rent burden in this economic climate, I gratefully read, starting on page 19, a detailed list of offsetting “potential” reductions totaling $717,799.00.  Painful-looking staff and program reductions give me pause. On the district’s part, this is tried-and-true psychological strategy: I am horrified by the initial 2.4 million dollar proposal, but also dismayed, as we all are, by the human cost of cuts that would “reduce” the increase to “only” 1.7 million.

But in fact I am being offered 2 spending increase alternatives, one bigger than the other. What happened to other possible options : A freeze?  A zero budget increase?  An across the board non-essential spending cut? Why is an increase in spending and in our taxes, particularly in this economic climate, mandatory?

Having been given no composite data with which to judge the overall size of the programs that may be affected,  I  go to the library to take a look at this year’s line-by-line school budget.  If you would like to study the detailed budget, ask for it at the Reference Center at the Brighton Library.  It is a big grey binder. Beware, it makes for a dizzying read.

Here are some highlights: With respect to the staff reductions proposed for the central office and schools, did you know that in addition to the full complement of regular classroom teachers including  special education, media, guidance and health teachers, we currently also employ as many or more non-teaching professionals including speech therapists, psychologists, counselors, nurses and doctors and, in addition, a regiment of clerical and administrative staff who support the non-teaching staff?  Amongst this host of teachers’ helpers there are 28 tutors and 107 teaching assistants. The building cuts propose eliminating 1.5 tutors and one teaching assistant. This can’t be serious.

Our Interscholastic Sports program costs us, with coaching salaries included, almost a million dollars a year. The $14,000, 1.5% cut proposed for this lavish program seems primarily strategic.  As much as we all want a vast array of choices and the best of everything, it bears remembering at this point that the big-picture scenario offered in the “reduced” budget entails a whopping annual expense of $17,314 per pupil, and at this price, each child will require $225,082 for their 13 years (k-12) of education.

I notice that the district spends close to $300,000.00 a year on maintenance and cleaning supplies (not equipment) used by the custodial and grounds staff, and another $83,000.00 just on supplies for the functioning of the central office. This spending is not challenged. Momentarily forgetting my budget concerns, I wonder what happened to all the talk about reducing our carbon footprint.  In the context of overall spending at the 60 million mark, the district’s reduction proposals are at best, lame.

Realize that Brighton’s school spending increases above CPI have been compounding year after year for a decade now and that any school budget increase is funded by increases in your property taxes or rents.

See:  http://www.asibrighton.org/our-overspending-problem

Given that a great many Brighton residents are currently facing salary freezes, layoffs, and declines in retirement savings in the 30% range and worsening, I find the School Board’s proposal unconscionable.

Our current hardship is potentially an opportunity for serious change in longstanding spendthrift habits, but with our school board unwilling or unable to reverse the trend, even in this dire economic climate, I fear that those of our residents that can will be moving to other communities in other states; locations with reasonable state taxes, reasonable property taxes, and excellent schools.  There are plenty of options.

I don’t know anyone who isn’t cutting expenses right now. Some are digging into savings or going into debt just to meet monthly bills. I simply don’t believe our community can bear any additional spending this year. Companies and households are finding ways to cut upwards of 10% in budgets that have fattened over the last decade: Why on earth can’t our capable, hard-working School Board do the same?