jackiedoherty.org

There are currently 8 responses to “As we slash school resources, does anyone care?”

Why not let us know what you think by adding your own comment! Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses, so come on... let us know what you think.

1. 1 On May 26th, 2009, kad barma said:

   The way I read Dr. Chris Scott’s FY10 budget proposal, Bernie Lynch is proposing a 2010 budget figure of $132,940,089, combined with the federal stimulus funds offset of $4,719,256, for a total of $137,659,345 for FY10. By coincidence, our FY09 school spending is cited to be $137,950,089. Am I wrong, or is the difference between those two figures $290,744, and not $9,452,261 (rounded up to 9.5M) as claimed in your headline?

   The way I understand your reasoning, because Dr. Scott has asked for $147 million dollars, anything granted less than that amount represents a “cut”. (Of course, by that reasoning, if Dr. Scott had asked for $157 million, then the “cut” would be almost $20 million).

   Just a suggestion, but do you think it would be possible to compare apples-to-apples when talking about school budgets, and not last year’s apples to next year’s rutabagas?

2. 2 On May 27th, 2009, Jackie said:

   Thanks for your comments but what’s missing from your math is the fact that what our funds bought in 08-09 won’t cover the same services next year. A level service budget would cost $147 million due to a number of factors: health insurance has gone up 19% and will cost an additional $3 million; salary adjustments negotiated with our unions call for a one percent increase on June 30, 2009 which will cost an additional $3.15 million including step and lane increases as staff move up in seniority; out-of-district tuition for special education students has increased by $1 million. Also not included in this number is the Circuit Breaker account which reimburses districts for special education costs over a certain threshold per student. For the current fiscal year, the state reiumbursed us at 72%, but the percentage going forward was cut to 30%, which represents $1.5 million less (although today the senate moved that reiumbursement up to 42%–still a significant loss from previous state relief toward special education expenses). Include Manager Lynch’s prediction of $5 million less from the city’s contribution last year, and I think that covers our major budget busters. Hope this was helpful.

3. 3 On May 27th, 2009, kad barma said:

   So we agree that there’s math missing from these simplistic “headline” claims. The simple truth is that the school budget is NOT being cut, but, rather, the city manager is proposing it to be level-funded. Yes, this creates difficulties due to unavoidable cost increases which require decreases in other areas. But it’s not a budget “cut”, and by calling it that you’re inviting the frustration and scorn of voters who I’m sure you would prefer would support quality education for the children of Lowell. As for your numbers above, I certainly respect the “budget buster” logic. Perhaps if these were the figures in the headlines, and not the chicken little claim of a “budget cut”, it would be easier for everyone to have a meaningful discussion on whatever will be the right number for the city.

4. 4 On May 28th, 2009, Jackie said:

   I certainly never intended to mislead anyone but the truth is we must come up with $9.5 million in cuts–mostly from staff and programs, which is all we have to cut–to meet the proposed revenue stream. I get your point regarding semantics–that even though we’re cutting the budget, it’s not a budget cut when compared to last year’s funding because it costs more to deliver those same services, but that’s just semantics which as you note: “creates difficulties due to unavoidable cost increases” (an understatement). When I read back what I wrote: “the school department is facing cuts of $9.5 million to its budget for next year,” it is the reality we’re facing. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I had added “due to increased costs for delivering the same services”? And my headline about “slashing school resources” is EXACTLY what we’re doing. No matter how you word it, the end result is the same.

5. 5 On May 28th, 2009, kad barma said:

   It’s not semantics when city property tax bills have to be raised to cover spending increases. Most taxpayers are likely in exactly the same position now faced by the schools–income (e.g. the city manager-proposed school budget) may be no different than last year, but expenses (e.g. property tax bills and contracted salary step increases) are higher. Something needs to give. For the schools, it may be a lunch program or an elementary school or individual teaching jobs. For the taxpayers, it may be groceries or home heat.

   What I feel is important is that ALL sides of this argument receive the same respect. In the case of the schools, an honest admission that, yes, we are asking for MORE money next year, not less, as might be implied when emphasizing the word “cuts”. The reasons for needing more money are extremely clear and compelling, which makes it all the more ironic that we can’t just come right out and put it that way.

   I think that school budget boosters need to respect that the consequence of needing MORE money for the schools is that we will likely have fewer police officers and face other cutbacks in city services that will directly impact the taxpayers who are themselves having to cut back in order to afford to pay for all this. Nobody wants to shortchange our children. Neither do we want to do without essential police and fire protection. The goal should be a balanced discussion that puts the school spending increases into context with what we can afford to pay, and what we will be forced to forego in order to support them. Just doing the chicken little thing and railing against “cuts” is not constructive.

6. 6 On May 28th, 2009, Jackie said:

   I am one of those taxpayers and I pay more for property taxes, a loaf of bread, and a gallon of milk just as you do. I’ve seen family members lose jobs and friends lose their homes. But that doesn’t change my perspective or my responsibility re the education of our children: What do we need to maintain the quality of our schools, and how might we deliver those services more efficiently without damaging the system? Like you, I know the inherent value of police and fire services which are also essential to our community. And I take offense to your repeated use of “the chicken little thing” as if reductions this deep YES, DUE TO COST INCREASES will not harm the quality of eduction our children receive.

7. 7 On May 28th, 2009, kad barma said:

   Let’s all face realities: The quality of education our children receive, and the quality of the police and fire protection services we enjoy, are already harmed by our current economic situation. City revenues are down. Those overseeing our city’s largest budget item, our schools, are insisting that the drop in revenues be compounded by close to fifteen million in additional spending to support education. This means that those overseeing our city’s largest budget item are deigning to decide for the rest of us that even more catastrophic (i.e. ACTUAL cuts) are necessary across all other city services, from police, to fire, to services for the homeless and the elderly. I am not here to disagree that this may, indeed, be the right course of action. But am insisting that “offense” taken against others objecting to the tone of entitlement that “cuts” represent, when used to describe a level-funded budget and out of complete disrespect for all the other departments then required to make ACTUAL cuts, is counter-product and, ironically, the least likely way that the schools will earn the public support necessary to achieve their funding and service goals.

8. 8 On May 29th, 2009, Jackie said:

   My offense is with your tone that we’re making a big deal out of nothing–these are not minor cuts. And perhaps I do feel “entitled” to the resources to run a quality school system because I believe that is extremely important to the health and future of our entire community. I haven’t seen how much more revenue the police or fire will need to maintain level services, but I’m willing to bet, like us, it would be a substantial increase. And if they are fortunate enough to be level funded, they will be facing serious cuts of their own. Also, since the city manager has told us to expect $5 million less than the $19 million the city appropriated for the schools last year out of its local budget (the rest of that $137 million was state funds) that represents about a 28% cut in the city’s contribution to its schools. Is that the percentage the city will be slicing its budget? I don’t know.