NEWS ANALYSIS: School Budget Cuts Are Not Sustainable; Just 'Window Dressing' [with video]
There have been a lot of reports of cuts to the schools budget - apparent cuts of $740,000. But, without context, without an informed view, these reports can appear like progress toward a solution when, in fact, there is a lot of motion, but no real movement. This news analysis is an attempt to go beyond a simple recording of the school budget deliberations, to understand the implications of the school committees decisions on budget cuts.
The School Committee voted unanimously, by a 7-0 vote, to approve FY '15 spending of $35.6 million. Like an exhausted, dehydrated marathon runner, the Groton-Dunstable School Committee managed to fall across the budget finish line with just enough apparent cuts - $740,000 - to avoid needing to ask voters for a general override this year. But analysis shows that about half the approved cuts are temporary, one-time cuts, really just 'window dressing', not sustainable for the long-term - leaving a gaping budget hole to be filled in near-term budgets, most likely by the towns.
The largest of the school committee's so-called cuts - $250,000 - is really accounting sleight of hand, moving money from a 'rainy day' fund to the operating budget. The second largest cut, $100,000, is based on an agreement with school principals to forego money for certain expenses this year with the understanding that the funds will be reinstated next year. Separately, with the school administration moving out of the town-owned Prescott School, the schools reduce their expenses by $40,000, but in the process place an equivalent burden on the town of Groton.
Despite repeated requests by Selectmen and the Groton Finance Committee for a comprehensive analysis of the budget 'burn rate' and implications for schools spending in the near term, the school committee and administration have been unable or unwilling to provide such an analysis or even to come to terms with the need for such estimates. The nature of the proposed cuts and their unwillinness to provide the town a comprehensive view of budget implications for the future suggests a lack of seriousness on the part of the School committee.
Of the $35.6 million approved schools budget, approximately $22.8 million is supplied by the towns of Groton and Dunstable with Massachusetts picking up $12.8 million, or roughly 36% of total schools spending. Groton's portion of the $22.8 million supplied by the towns is $17.7 million, representing roughly 77% of the funding supplied by Groton and Dunstable.
Approximately 80% of the $35.6 million schools budget goes toward salaries and benefits. Without dealing with this reality, it will be very difficult to bring the school budget under control for the mid ofterm. Since state funding for the schools has been flat for years and is likely to remain so, especially since Groton is considered a 'wealthy' town, the incremental costs of salary increases at the schools will need to come from the towns. Such increases will likely put pressure on municipal spending, requiring tough choices.
Whenever the subject of salary costs are broached, there is a reluctance to enter into a discussion because, apparently, the assumption is that educational quality will suffer. But, it seems clear, based on the huge proportion of salary costs in the schools budget, that the only way a sustainable schools budget can be reached is by examining how teaching resources can be deployed more effectively.
In order to make the school budget 'sustainable', the school committee and new superintendent need to rethink how the schools uses its teaching resources to make more effective and productive use teaching resources and all personnel.
