School Spending Part 2 of 4

Recently the NASD released the 2007-2008 Budget Proposal (read it here). I created a post on this budget (read it here) and noted I'd address three issues. This second article is focused on the first issue I raised: increasing the efficiency of non-instructional spending.

The intent here is to find places where spending might be reduced in order to lower the overall expenditures and increase the percentage spent on classroom instruction. The reason for this is that classroom instruction as a percent of total expenditures has been down the past several years (below 42%), while the 2007-2008 proposed budget represents an increase of $10,000,000 over the 2005-2006 actual expenditures (student enrollment rose by 214 students during this time).

In short, careful examination of these areas is needed to ensure costs are being managed as best as possible. These areas represent roughly 1/3 of the budgeted expenditures. A 5% reduction in expenses would save about $1,000,000, while maximizing the transportation reimbursement would additionally increase revenues.


Here is what I considered for non-instructional spending:

By Function $21,586,000 or 36.35% of the total school expenditures, $59,380,798:

• Debt Service (to be discussed in Part 4 of 4): $8,537,000
• Operation & Maintenance of Plant Services: $5,366,000
• Administration: $3,131,000
• Transportation: $3,001,000
• Support Service - Business: $598,000
• Support Services - Central: $808,000
• Community Services: $145,000

By Department $19,736,015 or 33.24% of all expenditures, excluding all salaries & benefits:

• Other: $ 12,975,423
• Transportation: $2,970,191
• Buildings and Grounds: $2,006,852
• Technology (Info and Instruct): $1,213,082
• Asst. Superintendent: $417,274
• Business Office: $113,725
• Superintendent: $39,468

Note: you can't add these two areas because monies overlap, but its safe to say that 1/3 of the budget as indicated by function and by department is not directly related to classroom instruction and could be more closely examined.

For each area below I've considered these areas (remember that department figures do not include salary & benefits).

Transportation: For only the second time in the past eight years, the percent of transportation reimbursed by the state will fall below 40% as projected in the 2007-2008 budget. Between 2000-01 and 2004-05 school years only once was it below 41%, every other year it was between 43% and 46%. Further, while NASD enrollment has grown by 763 students from 1998-99 to 2007-08, the students transported (includes non-public) have increased by 1229 and the cost per student transported during that time has risen from $495 to $627.

The reimbursement rate is to an extent based on efficiency. It is calculated by considering each bus (call it 1 for this example). Bus 1 records mileage with and mileage without students for a single day from the time it leaves the garage in the morning until it returns at the end of the day. It then takes the miles with and miles without and considers the highest daily ridership. This figure is the highest number assigned to any run for that bus during the day. For instance if there is an elementary and secondary bus run for Bus 1 with 65 and 30 students riding respectively, the 65 is used to calculate reimbursement. These numbers are entered into a formula and a rate per day is established. This rate is then multiplied by 180 school days. Each bus goes through this process and the total of all vehicles determines the reimbursement. (please note this is from memory of when I was responsible for this function and it may have changed to some extent during the past six years, but it provides an understanding of how this is determined).

The increase in cost per student coupled with the decrease in reimbursement seems to indicate an area not related to education where expenses could be saved and revenues increased.

Administration: For this area I've considered from Departments the business office, superintendent, asst. super, and from Functions admin, business and central.

* Function - $4,537,000 (+ $844,000 over 2005-06 actual)
* Department - $ 570,467 (+ $184,869 over 2005-2006 actual)

The growth of administration over the past 10 years has represented almost one new administrator per year and a cost increase to the department per administrator from $117,389 to $164,982. The 1998-99 (10 years ago) budget indicated 18 administrators with a Department cost of $2,113,000 compared to 27.5 administrators with a Dept. cost of $ 4,537,000.

The rate of growth is significant and the question then becomes what role are each of these new administrators playing in the education of students, how can it be done more efficiently (to off-set future additional administrators), and which if any positions can be eliminated. Similarly, some accounting regarding the increased costs of administration outside salary & benefits should be conducted considering the almost $50,000 per administrator increase (based on department spending).

Buildings & Grounds: The recently constructed new facility for Buildings and Grounds and the new administrative position overseeing this area (Assistant Superintendent for Support Services) and its previous positions of Supervisor and Asst. Supervisor will lead to future increases that were not previously incurred by the district and these are included in the 2007-2008 budget.

The Function budget has increased nearly $1M to $5,366,000 in the 2007-08 budget from the 2005-06 actual of $4,484,000 (while teamster staffing increased from 54.9 to 54.8). Further it has increased by $2M since the 2001-02 actual ($3,334,000, while teamster staffing increased from 53 to 54.9).

The Department budget (again without salaries) has increased to $2,006,852. This figure has nearly doubled since the 2003-04 actual ($1,117,239) and reflects an increase of $0.5 million from the 2005-06 actual ($1,562,066)

Technology: This area is not indicated as Function, but only as a Department and for these purposes I've combined the Informational and Instructional Technology. The proposed budget is $1,213,082 an increase of $319,684 over the 2005-06 actual expenditures and an increase of $707,778 over 2003-04 actual. This area has also seen significant growth. Technology in general is rife with over-runs, delays, increased cost, and failures. It will be critical to monitor which projects have been implemented on-time and what return the district is receiving.

A lot of emphasis is on technology in the schools, but if students don't have core learning (and typing), the technology is not going to be very helpful. It is also important that we don't simply transfer worksheets from paper to monitors. This would be an incredible waste of money.

Each of these areas has shown significant increases in expenditures to the NASD. The recent discussion following the fact finder's report noted that certain classroom necessities are not being filled. The 2007-08 budget has areas that were declared "Essential" that really are not. If ever there was a time that the School Board took a close look at the budget and examined it in its entirety and didn't simply tack on new spending, this is the year.


What do you think? Is it time for NASD to more closely examine these non-educational areas to create a leaner budget? Is the growth in expenditures reasonable given cost of living and enrollment? What steps can be taken to ensure that every dollar spent is providing the best return? What percent of these expenditures should be the goal for instructional spending?