The Reserve Fund Story

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?

If you watch the popular TV show “LOST”, then you know that “The Others” is the name given to a band of individuals that live outside of the group of core characters.  “The Others” are somewhat sinister and must be avoided.

There are two distinct Brighton communities:

• The Brighton School District Community (admin, teachers, parents of students and students) - the core group.
• The remaining general Brighton residents not included in the above core group - “The Others”.

Monday, January 26, the BCSD Board held an open meeting with a committee that will help guide the selection process for our new Superintendent.

The Committee composition is:

2 parents selected by the PTSA;

4 teachers selected by the Teachers Union;

3 administrators selected by the Administrators Union;

2 students selected by the Student Senate.

2 central office staff selected by Assistant Superintendents

General Brighton taxpayer representation on this Committee?  None.  Nada.  Zero. “The Others” must be avoided.

The general Brighton taxpayer population that provides BCSD property taxes was NOT EVEN ASKED to participate on this superintendent selection committee.

This is a recurring theme.  This same exclusion of “The Others” occurred last fall when the Board elected to evaluate the effectiveness of technology expenditures.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to believe the Board’s statements claiming it wants community participation when those of us who are “The Others” are not even considered for participation in these committees.

Martha Sciremammano, BCSD Board Member, asked ASI to let everyone know about BCSD e-News.

e-News is an e-mail system that allows the District to send information to anyone interested.  The sign-up process is easy and can be done via the www.BCSD.org web site.  e-News does not overload your inbox with e-mails.

ASI suggests that anyone that wants notification of meetings that would be of interest to the general Brighton community sign-up for e-News.

The following was e-mailed via the BCSD E-News on January 13th:

The community is invited to an open forum with the members of the Brighton Board of Education on Tuesday, January 20, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room, Administration Building, 2035 Monroe Avenue, Rochester, N.Y. There is no specific agenda for the forum, just an opportunity for residents to have some informal open conversation with the members of the Board of Education. For more information, contact Marvin Sachs, President, Board of Education at 473-9731.

ASI Commentary:  Scheduling an open forum with the Board is, of course, a very worthwhile action.  However, ASI is extremely concerned with the timing and publicity.

#1.  Why are we only getting 7 days notice?

#2.  Since this announcement was sent only via the BCSD E-News, the BCSD Community (admin, teachers, and Parents of students) ALONE will know that this meeting is scheduled.  The larger Brighton Community will not be aware of this opportunity.

If the BCSD Board really wants to get input from the larger Brighton Community, then it must make a greater effort to publicize the event.  For example:  Post it on the electronic signs at the High School, the Library and the Fire Station;  Put up a banner at the TCMS corner; Post colorful flyers at 12 Corners businesses; Post an announcement in the local community newspapers (assumes more than 7 days notice).

This lack of notifying the greater Brighton Community is a re-occurring issue.  It happened with the budget vote.  It happened with the Superintendent Survey.  The BCSD Board seems to believe that an E-News blast is sufficient to “get the word out”.  They do not seem to understand that E-News only goes to the School Community.  Maybe that’s the intent(?).

Again, if the BCSD Board is honestly interested in input from the Brighton Community (Vs. simply the School Community), then it will make the effort to more aggressively publicize events that effect all Brighton residents and schedule the events with reasonable advanced notification.

Marvin Sachs, our School Board Chairman, has invited all Brighton stakeholders to participate in a survey regarding characteristics desirable in a new superintendent.

Unless you check the Brighton Schools web site regularly, are a PTSA member, or have children in the schools, you probably won’t know about this survey. So, even though you are an important stakeholder, i.e. A TAXPAYER WHO FUNDS THE BRIGHTON SCHOOLS, your voice will not be heard.

If you are reading this, I urge you to go now to the Brighton Central Schools web site, and fill out the survey.

In the space for comments, tell the school board how important it is that we hire a superintendent capable of achieving fiscal restraint in our district.  All of the characteristics listed are great, but unless our district can curtail its budget, population loss will continue to erode the tax base and our town, and its excellent schools will continue to deteriorate.

The BCSD has invested between $750,000 and $1,000,000 each year for the last 10 years on technology related expenditures. As a Brighton taxpayer, I have a keen interest in the 2008/09 Brighton School Board’s objective to “Assess the effectiveness of the technology investment.”

From my perspective, the central question is:  How will the District tie improved educational outcomes to the $750,000+ being spent each year on technology?

Look at the Tech. Eval. Diary Page on the sidebar to read about my efforts to become involved in the assessment process.

A number of important topics were discussed at the August 12, 2008 School Board Meeting that Hein and I attended.  Topics included:

• Disposition of the Fair Plan revenue being returned to the district
• Unappropriated Fund Balance increase
• Approach to new superintendent search
• Board objectives for 2008/09

Fair Plan Revenue

Approximately $590,000 in sales tax revenue, that was going to be lost with the FAIR Plan, and was not budgeted for 2008/09, will now be received.

The options for this revenue are legally limited.  Generally, it must be used to reduce the TAX LEVY.  The tax levy is the TOTAL property tax required to meet the budget.

The tax levy INCREASE will become 2.7% vs. the originally budgeted 3.9% increase.  NOTE:  The effect on your individual property tax depends on your assessment.

Unappropriated Fund Balance

Legally, each school district may maintain up to 4% of their total budget in a “contingency” fund.  Brighton maintained a 3% balance.  But due to an anticipated year-end surplus, this fund balance is being increased to 4%.

Is this a good financial decision from the taxpayers’ perspective?  Could this surplus be used to further reduce the tax levy?

Finding a New Superintendent

The Board discussed options on how to proceed with the search for a new Superintendent.  Should a search consulting firm be hired?  Should the Board take on the task themselves?

As I listened to this discussion, I was concerned that the Board, with potential community input, did not consider setting some broad parameters on the search?  For example:

• Greater Rochester area or Upstate NY or all NY or a national search?
• Salary range?
• School size and type background?
• Years as a Superintendent or Assistant Superintendent?

When you consider the purchase of a new car, you don’t start with ALL cars.  You decide you want to first look at (say) SUVs, under $30,000, from Toyota, Honda and GMC.  If you then do not find a vehicle that satisfies you, you broaden your search.  But you start with some general parameters.

Board Objectives 2008/09

One of the objectives will be evaluation of the technology program.  Brighton has spent approximately $1 million annually for the last 10 years on technology.  I have personally been critical of this expenditure level.  I frequently have asked how do we relate educational outcomes to this $1 million expense?

It will be extremely interesting to see how this evaluation proceeds.

USAToday, July 17, 2008, published an editorial titled “Teacher protection racket.” The editorial stated that in New York City, 8 teachers were fired for incompetence in 2006-07. That’s one tenth of one percent of the 55,000 NYC public school teachers.

The cost to get rid of each of these teachers was $225,000 and required 150 hours of principal time. That’s why most NY State school districts (including those in Monroe County) don’t even bother to eliminate incompetent teachers.

In Chicago, only 3 out of every 1,000 teachers received an unsatisfactory rating. 90% got top ratings! Yet Chicago is one of the most troubled urban districts.

Why does this situation exist? Largely because of the power of teacher’s unions.

Per the editorial: “Unions have to realize that educating kids is more important than protecting inept members.”

You can read the full editorial at:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/07/our-view-on-edu.html

How does this editorial relate to Brighton? We certainly have an excellent school district.  And I’m sure the majority of our teachers are excellent.  But:

• It would be interesting to know the statistics related to our teacher evaluations.
• It would be interesting to know if Brighton has ever fired an incompetent teacher.

Our teacher salaries and benefits certainly are competitive with any other school district.  Are we getting the best teachers and eliminating those that are not competent?

And the next time you hear that the Teacher Union is ONLY concerned “about the kids”, read this USAToday editorial.