I agree with the naming rights approach, I saw an article in the YDR about Eastern School District considering this.  I don’t mind offering other services, (i.e. classes over the summer, as long as ALL of the costs are covered by the participants.  We need to focus on ways to minimize the overall costs of the school system.  If the district wants a new stadium and lights, solicit the community for donations - it is not an education priority.

How about this approach with some examples of cost (not actual costs) or percentages:

Total Budget 40 Million
State Funding 22 Million
Local Funding 18 Million

1/2 Local Funding based on Income Tax 9 Million
Remaining Charged as Tuition to Families using the Schools (stager the tuition x dollars for elementary, y for middle, z for senior high)

Once families see the actual costs as a tuition bill, then there will be a call for real cost cutting approaches.

It is a public school system, something that we are required to offer equally to all without any discrimination. Just because you can’t pay your property tax does not mean you can’t get your child an education. Tuition would not be permitted by law for the academics.

Extracurricular activities are not required by law. This means band, sports, theater, etc. All of these could be eliminated as entitlements and paid for by those that participate. This is a large portion of the budget. I do realize the value of these programs in rounding out one’s education, but the reality is they often detract from the academics. Kids would rather “play” then apply themselves in school.

Food for thought.

I agree that extracur round out an education, but there is a limit.  Take the school budget and identify the “education costs” vs the “extra cur costs” and non-educational services (i.e. cost of after sports/activity buses).  The participants would either pay the costs or use fund raisers to cover the costs.

Alex,

When you say that extracurriculars are “a large portion of the budget”, exactly how much of the budget are they?  What percentage of the budget are Extracurriculars?  I don’t know the answer to that.  Do you know the answer?  Or is there a place where we can find it?  Just curious exactly what we are talking about here.

The budget is public information and can be reviewed at the administration office. I recall seeing it the other year and while I don’t recall the exact amounts, it was a large line item on the budget. Of course, you have to watch how they manipulate the numbers and make sure all extras are included there, not hidden elsewhere.

Here are some costs to consider:

1. Field maintenance
2. Uniforms
3. Busses and fuel
4. Insurance
5. Coaches salaries/fees
6. Referee fees
7. Playing equipment
8. League fees if any

It adds up. A few years ago I recall an arguement of books/teachers vs football. Football won. The budget item was about $450,000 that year. Who knows what that number included but it was substantial.

We can’t offer every sport or activity. What’s next? Swim teams? Ice hockey? Where does the madness end? We can’t afford our taxes so our school board, who is well aware of the problem, goes ahead and authorizes spending more money for another sport. Are they out of their minds?

The final 2008-2009 budget is on sesd’s website, however, it is very difficult to determine what is allocated for athletics.  This year’s budget (2007-2008) includes $534,168 for the Athletic Fund.  I don’t know if that is all inclusive.

So, if we use 534,168 as a number (because that’s the best one we have right now) and the current proposed budget I think I read in the paper is $42,000,000.00 we are talking about roughly 1.25% of the entire budget… So that would leave 98.75 % of the rest of the budget as fixed costs right?  So if we eliminated all extra-curriculars or made them pay for play that would bring our proposed budget down to $41,465,832.00.  So roughly how much tax money do you think we would save in tax dollers by eliminating all extra curriculars or making them pay for play?  It probably seems like I’m being agrumentative, but the truth is that I don’t think that extra curriculars are the problem here.  I think we live in an under funded district and since our industrial tax base isn’t going to change in the near future we are going to need more help from Harrisburg as to the dispersal of revenues within the commonwealth.  Just my opinion.

Anonymous1, you’ve hit the nail on the head.  I’ve argued at past board meetings that you could cut the entire extracurricular budget and have little to no effect on rising property taxes.  The line items that keep going up each year (personnel salaries, health insurance, etc.) will keep going up.  We’d be in the exact same situation only without extracurricular activities for the kids.  The bottom line problem is we are not adequately funded by the state.

I would not go by those numbers. I read the budget a few years ago and frankly I found the numbers a little lacking. There is very little detail and I think they are able to “hide” things in different areas. For example, where do they put coaches fees? Do they put that under payroll or extracurricular? What about transportation costs for these activities? Does it fall under normal transportation costs or is it included in the extracurricular activites? How about the insurance and field maintenance?

I do not know the answer. Just posing the question.

I do agree that the State is not holding up it’s end of the bargin. Philadelphia and Pittsburgh schools have more money then they know what to do with. The funding formula needs to change. Rendell needs to go and politicians need to quit pandering to the voters in those areas.

The Feds need to stop mandating things then not funding them as well. The school board needs to make responsible spending decisions. Funding new programs with limited audience when taxes are rising at record rates is not responsible. Make teachers pay more for their insurance in the next contract. If they strike, throw them out. There are plenty of people out there in need of teaching jobs. We need to stop the madness.

Without knowing the answer my guess would be that the $534,000 number does include all or most of those things, what else could it cover if not those things?  Even if it doesn’t and we add another $466,000 to that number (which I think is waaaaaaay high) to make it an even million dollars for all the things that you think might not be covered in there.  And we removed that 1 million dollars from the budget we would still have a proposed budget of $41,000,000.00.  Do you honestly feel like that $1,000,000.00 dollars would make a significant difference in our tax bill.  My guess is probably not.  So, again, I stand by my statement that extra curriculars are not the issue here. 

I would agree that the teachers have gotten a pretty good deal in the past with regards to their insurance and beneifts plan, my guess is that will be sticking point in the upcoming and current negotiations.  I also agree that our board needs to make responsible decisions regarding the spending of our tax dollars and that adding another 3 sports and a field may not be the best timed decision that they’ve ever made.  My last point on this is to be careful about just getting rid of all the existing teachers, if in fact there are plenty of people out there looking for teaching jobs they are probably looking for a reason.

Okay, so if you don’t cut the extracurricular stuff, what do you cut? Spending has to be controlled better. They can’t just keep spending without making some cuts. We all know the State needs to come to the table. Good luck in changing this - in the meantime, do something locally to ensure they still have a tax base. If the spending keeps spiraling out of control eventually the economy of this region will suffer tremendously and that has a ripple effect back to the schools.

If anyone has ever played SimCity before and played games with tax increases you see the results. Granted, this is a game but it is a very accurate simulation model. You have to find the right balance. SESD is no where near that balance right now.

When times are tough, you look to cut. Not in SESD… they just spend more and raise taxes more.

While 500K or 1M might not make much of a difference, you have to start somewhere. Whatever happened to the 3 R’s? Let’s go back to the basics of education and add programs that make academic sense for as many as possible, not just small groups of kids.

I’m not sure that I have an answer to that question Alex.  If you cut programs that affect the least amount of kids you would probably be cutting things like art, music, gifted programs and distance learning things.  I’m not sure that we want to get rid of them either.  And I’m not sure that any of them would fall under your definition of the three R’s and basic educational programs.  One thing is certain, the costs of goods and services are going to continue to rise, we have no control over that.  I would look closely at the benefit package that the teachers get right now.  My understanding is (and again, this is not first hand knowledge) that they pay VERY little for their health insurance and benefit plan, nothing anywhere close to what we pay in the private sector, and if they work for a certain number of years here and retire from here they get those paid for life.  If that is bad information, I really hope that someone will correct it.  If that is true I wonder what the price tag for that is per annum?

Also, as an aside here, based on the link that was at the top of the thread it doesn’t look like our taxes are out of wack with what other school districts similar in size to ours are paying.  I wonder if we as a district have ever spoken to them to find out how they control spending and what they do to make the most of the tax dollars that are brought in.

retire from here they get those paid for life

A common misconception.  They dont get benefits for life.  The retirement system is good, but not that good.  And given the economic instability lately, it wont get any better.  The PSERS system did very well last quarter, but that is due largely to oil company holdings.  Unfortunatly they are (or were) holding a lot of citicorp stock that had substantial exposure to the housing market downturn.

"I do agree that the State is not holding up it’s end of the bargin. Philadelphia and Pittsburgh schools have more money then they know what to do with. The funding formula needs to change. Rendell needs to go and politicians need to quit pandering to the voters in those areas.”

This is one of the reasons why I am against the property tax reform bill.  Why do people think it will be any different if the state handles the school tax?

“Make teachers pay more for their insurance in the next contract.”

Property tax reform isn’t going to change the way the school is spending money.  I think most of us find that every year we pay more of our insurance.  I think the teachers should pay a fair share of their insurance costs as well.

pbres - 07 May 2008 03:41 PM

Anonymous1, you’ve hit the nail on the head.  I’ve argued at past board meetings that you could cut the entire extracurricular budget and have little to no effect on rising property taxes.  The line items that keep going up each year (personnel salaries, health insurance, etc.) will keep going up.  We’d be in the exact same situation only without extracurricular activities for the kids.  The bottom line problem is we are not adequately funded by the state.

Exactly. Low haging fruit doesn’t really get you anywhere.