When Cutting Education Costs, Why Does It Always Have To Be At The Expense Of Kids? 

Our schools across the nation and here in Idaho are faced with doing their job with less money. The question posed most recently in this newspaper was about moving kindergarten from half days every day to alternate full days in order to save money. It seems that whenever there is a shortfall in money the solution is to always do away with or curtail some program that directly impacts kids and parents.  It does not have to be that way. There are a host of other possibilities but schools never want to impact the adults, the employees. School budgets are 85-90 percent employee salaries and fringe benefits. If you want to save money you have to look where most of the money is spent.  

If the classroom and the teaching of kids is the most important function of schools, and I am sure most would agree, then teacher assignments and teacher aide responsibilities must be of the highest priority. However, even these high priority positions will have to bear some of the brunt, but it can be done without impacting kids and parents. 

The school district has asked for patron input to determine how to cut approximately $5 million out of the budget.  The district does not provide much data for patrons to use when making those recommendations.  It would have been helpful if the patrons were aware of the district’s maintenance and operation budget which was in excess of $75 million 2 years ago, and that there are more than 50 administrators, and that the top administrators are paid over $140K. It would have also been helpful for the patrons if they had not only the current numbers to consider, but a host of other relevant data.  It is difficult to make recommendations without sufficient data.   

So, even without that current data I will make some recommendations that would NOT impact the kindergarten program or reduce the teaching staff, or in other words, would NOT hurt kids. 

An “across the board” reduction in salary of 8 percent would solve the current problem but that would not be fair to the teacher who makes $31,000 or the teacher aide, or custodian making substantially less in comparison to a top administrator who earns $140,000.  But to deal with the cut that the district says is necessary some salary reduction appears to be essential.  It is certainly better to deal with teachers earning a little less than having fewer teachers!  Perhaps a reasonable approach would be a tiered system, where the lower end salaries would be frozen at current levels, and an upward ratcheting of cuts of the higher salaries to achieve the desired level of savings to the school district and ultimately to the guy who pays the bills, the taxpayer. 

If this remedy gets some “traction” a possible response from affected employees is to reduce work if pay is reduced.  In other words shorten the school year. Bad idea! That certainly would negatively impact kids. 

Another area that should be examined for savings is the amount of money spent on the various fringe benefits such as a host of different insurance programs. It is customary in most government agencies, especially school districts, where ALL of the employee insurance and sometimes even the insurance for the family is paid by the taxpayer. Certainly some savings could be achieved in this area  Not only would some savings be achieved by having the employee assuming some of the cost of his or her insurance, the employee would have some ownership of their insurance program. Through such ownership, the employee would place more value and undoubtedly have a greater appreciation and would use it more wisely.   

Examination of the current non-teaching staff is essential in two ways.  First, any vacant non-teaching positions should not be filled and remaining personnel should be reassigned to fill any void.  Secondly, perhaps there are some non-teaching positions that should be eliminated.  There are a host of positions that may not have any impact on the mission of the school, “teaching and learning.”  I have never understood why a school district needs a public information officer.  Yet in this valley’s school districts, nearly a half million dollars is spent annually on this one position.  There are other non-teaching positions that are expendable, especially now as districts try to protect their primary function. 

The district could go to the property taxpayer and ask for more. Currently the supplemental tax levy is $1,600.000. The district could ask their Nampa voters to approve an additional amount to help cover the $5 million shortfall.   However to ask voters to approve an increase over the current level, and to ask voters to approve a greater tax load on themselves, when many are without jobs, or have had pay cuts, would be a colossal mistake! 

Already Nampa property owners are paying .0037% on their property value for schools, a significant property tax, so to attempt to increase that amount could create two potential problems. First, voters might turn down the entire levy, thus exacerbating the fiscal problem and secondly, by asking the property tax payers to solve the problem rather than solving it from within would certainly not help the districts perception in the “eyes” of the Nampa patrons.  

Another source of funds, which is always on the “front burner,” is the district’s  “rainy day account.  It is always prudent to have some “cushion”, but to use a portion of this account to soften the fiscal problem is always a possibility.  

Finally, there is an answer to the question posed at the onset.  “When Cutting Education Costs, Why Does It Always Have To Be At The Expense Of Kids?”  The answer; it doesn’t have to! 

For further data on the salaries of all employees of the Nampa school district please go to OURIDAHO.COM