(Note: This post was originally published in February 2012, and is republished here to provide some background on our prior exchanges with Rich Ellis, about which a new post will soon appear.)
Two days ago, we mentioned that The Forecaster had published our submittal on the Brunswick school budget on their web site. We’re expecting it to appear in the print edition tomorrow.
Yesterday, Rich Ellis, a member of the Brunswick School Board, posted a comment on the web site in response. You may have to register and log in to see the comment, which should appear here.
In case you’re unable to access the comment, we offer excerpts from it just as follows (lengthy discussions of the state EPS issue are omitted):
Dear Mr. Schaeffer:
As you seemed confused as to why people refer to a 55% state share as a mandate, choosing instead to describe it as a promise, let me introduce you to Maine Statute 20-A MRSA §15671, sub-§7-B, Essential Services and programs. It is not just a promise or a target, it is codified into Maine law.
This legislation was put into place after Maine voters passed ballot initiative 1 in 2004, which stated that, "the State shall pay at least 55% of the total costs of public education for kindergarten through grade 12, and 100% of the costs of special education services that are mandated by federal or state law."
You say in your letter that nothing in Brunswick was unpredictable, but I would have to say as someone who has made a living predicting numbers and building multi-year forecasts, you underestimate the complexity of this process and its influencing factors.
Now, in regards to the rest of your letter, there are several errors within your figures and/or assertions. I know the data is challenging to arrive at, and I am not going to go into a detailed response on each error, but basically:
• Brunswick has never spent the $13,559 you suggest per pupil. In FY11, the most recently reported year, we spent $29.6 million against a budget of 2,734 subsidizable resident pupils or $10,842 per pupil. If you base it on actual resident pupils that year, 2470.5, you get $11,998 per pupil, but that's not how budgets are planned.
• Brunswick's actual spending only exceeded State 100% EPS, a measure of adequacy which does not cover all programs, by about $474 per pupil in FY11. The gap has hovered in that range for each of the last six years. If you think the State's EPS calculation calculates a luxury school system, you just might be alone. The fact that we are so close to that figure would indicate that we are far too close to funding a purely "adequate" education in Brunswick.
• You are mixing residential pupil expenses in FY06 (apples) with total budget approved per pupil in FY12 (oranges)
• While you correctly identify enrollment as a driving factor, state property valuation is equally as important because it determines how much a town must pay before the State kicks in a penny. Between FY06 and FY12, Brunswick's town Valuation has increased 49.6% or 5.9% per year. Living in Brunswick, was it your perception that our property value had increased that much during this recession? I know it certainly didn't match my expectations. Anyhow, the result? The state expects the town share per pupil to increase by 70.5%, from $3,744 to $6,532 per pupil. Trying planning for that rate of increase.
Anyhow, while I am pretty sure our philosophies on local education are diametrically opposed, I would encourage you to get better informed and to contribute more productively by helping to find actual solutions instead of just complaining or taking the annual shot across the bow. Hope to see you at the upcoming budget meetings.
Best regards,
Rich Ellis
As we reread his comments again, we realize that perhaps Mr. Ellis is trying to pull the wool over our eyes with the term ‘subsidizable resident pupils.’ This will get wonky really quick, but the difference could be between the three year rolling average enrolment, and actual enrolment in the current year.
Frankly, if that’s what he is doing, it is propaganda and deception of the worst sort. But we’ll let him answer. And we should go easy on him; most likely, the masters of numeric manipulation in the School Department have fed him this Kool-Aid.
As you well know, your faithful reporter is not one to shrink from a challenge. And so we copy here our response to Mr. Ellis’ thoughts; it will not appear in The Forecaster print edition, and you may not have access to it on the web.
Here it is:
Mr. Ellis:
Thanks for your extensive response. As you can imagine, I am quite busy keeping the bank of computers I use to generate false numbers and spurious arguments humming along. But I do wish to offer a timely reply to your efforts, and trust you will consider what follows in that regard.
Let me begin with the following. While you and virtually every other school board member I can think of, not to mention superintendents, are intent on shifting the problem elsewhere, it all begins and ends with spending, and the Brunswick School Department has an unblemished record in that regard. Nothing you say or do can change the recorded history of approved budgets and the enrolment reports to the state. Unless you wish to suggest that some or all have been falsified. Should you provide numbers (with sources) that correct those I have been collecting for more than ten years, I will be happy to consider them against the budgets, Department data, and state records I have relied upon.
That said, thank you for your kind explanation of the legislation in this area. Please note as well that the Maine State Constitution says:
Article VIII. -- Part First.
Education.Section 1. Legislature shall require towns to support public schools; duty of Legislature. A general diffusion of the advantages of education being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people; to promote this important object, the Legislature are authorized, and it shall be their duty to require, the several towns to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the support and maintenance of public schools; and it shall further be their duty to encourage and suitably endow, from time to time, as the circumstances of the people may authorize, all academies, colleges and seminaries of learning within the State; provided, that no donation, grant or endowment shall at any time be made by the Legislature to any literary institution now established, or which may hereafter be established, unless, at the time of making such endowment, the Legislature of the State shall have the right to grant any further powers to alter, limit or restrain any of the powers vested in any such literary institution, as shall be judged necessary to promote the best interests thereof.
http://www.maine.gov/legis/const/
So let’s agree up front that the State’s record of complying with clearly written obligations is less than distinguished.
As to the initiative you cite, what it said on the ballot is a starting point, since legislatures are then free to do what they will with the language.
That little detail aside, I would remind you that the initiative you refer to was passed with promises of 15% property tax reduction statewide; I know; I still have one of the signs. Note as well from your own sources that the education unions provided the majority of funding for the campaign. And I can remember Nick Mavadones, then an official at the MMA, and in recent years, mayor of Portland, in the TV ads urging a yes vote and making the promise. You may also recall that this was the establishment’s offering to fend off the so-called Palesky initiative modeled after California’s proposition 13.
I don’t know about you, but we’ve lived in our current house for nearly 15 years, and not once has our tax bill gone down that I can remember. And it is thousands higher than it was at the beginning.
I took a read through the statutory language, and found more than enough passages to confuse someone with a better mind than I. Some of them suggest that the figure the state is obligated to pay is less than 50%, not to mention any number of complexities associated with baselines, definitions, pension payments, etc.
The fact is, the GPA per student, whether it reaches 55% or not, has increased significantly on a per student basis. My figures show that it has increased from $3432 in FY 06 to $4765 in the current school year, an increase of 39%.
The fact is, the GPA enrolment figures are based on a sliding 3 year average, as shown in the appended statutory language. Given Brunswick’s precipitous enrolment decline, you should at least admit the state is cutting you some major slack here.
The fact is, the state pays for sizable sums for teacher retirement and retired teacher benefits, amounts not shown in local budgets in any form. So one could argue that the state is paying considerably more toward ‘education’ than you suggest.
Here is one relevant passage:
Beginning in fiscal year 2011-12, the annual targets for the state share percentage of the total cost of funding public education from kindergarten to grade 12 including the cost of the components of essential programs and services plus the state contributions to teacher retirement, retired teachers' health insurance and retired teachers' life insurance are as follows.
(1) For fiscal year 2011-12, the target is 49.60%.
(2) For fiscal year 2012-13, the target is 52.50%.
(3) For fiscal year 2013-14 and succeeding years, the target is 55%.
The fact is, per student enrolment costs have grown exactly as I indicated.
The fact is, if per student costs had gone up by 5% a year since FY 05, our budget would now be $29.1 million, or $4,200,000 less than it is. I should think that an annual increase of 5% in “tuition” would be considered a generous growth rate by virtually any standard.
“You are mixing residential pupil expenses in FY06 (apples) with total budget approved per pupil in FY12 (oranges).”
Excuse me? I’m afraid you lost me here. Fruit salad aside, my standard practice is to divide the total budget by total enrolment to arrive at what I call ‘per student spending.’ If you have another way of calculating this, I’d like to see it.
The fact is that negotiations for a new teachers contract will begin soon, if they aren’t already underway; please tell me what you are doing to see that these costs are kept within reason, and that benefit costs are being restructured to be more in keeping with widely based employment norms. And what’s being done to see that the worst teachers don’t get paid the same as the best teachers. I don’t know what field you work in, but unless you consider yourself to be at the bottom of the performance scale, I doubt you would be happy with such an arrangement, or consider it ‘fair.’
Along those lines, please tell us what the Department is doing to see that the millions we send the MEA for insurance don’t include several hundred thousand to be used for political activism. And beyond that, what you’re doing to see that the insurance costs benefit from a competitive process.
The fact is that the overwhelming majority of budget increases over the years go to teacher salary increases, warranted or not, and benefits so generous as to make the average Maine taxpayer faint in disbelief. On top of the best job security one could hope for.
The fact is that just a few years ago, we had four schools teaching grades K-5, and we now have one school teaching each. If that hasn’t resulted in major cost savings, I don’t know what would, over and above the enrolment declines. Four school lunch services have been reduced to two; two fewer schools require bus service; classrooms per grade should be significantly lower due both to enrolment decline and efficiencies; support staff and administrative staff should be lower as well. EG, budgets should be lower, yet they have not declined.
I get that you are angry with the state and wish to drive all the attention towards Augusta and away from Brunswick. Perhaps that is why you chose not to address the other realities I mentioned.
As to your comment about ‘predicting numbers’ and the associated difficulty, no one had to ‘predict’ the loss of Durham students and military dependents any more than one has to ‘predict’ the age of their children in coming years. Influencing factors?? My goodness; they were a certainty, givens with entirely known effects on revenue from those sources.
Want to talk about trouble ‘predicting?’ Perhaps you should review the Planning Decisions studies that said Brunswick’s enrolment would rebound just like magic. And the predictions made to justify building the new school.
In particular, I note that you completely ignore the windfall aspects of the loss of military dependents and Durham students. Do you dispute that these students were not bringing ‘fair share’ revenue with them?
And my figures for per year student spending are accurate. For example, in the current year, the approved budget is $33,301,672. If you divide that by 2456, the enrolment reported to the state in October, you get a figure of $13,559.31.
As a member of the school board, I would have expected you to have up to date budget data. If you are unable to get the info you need, please let me know, and I’ll forward the budget files to you.
Readers can find the current year budget here: http://www.brunswick.k12.me.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Approved-School-Budget-11-12.pdf
I refer you to page two in the document, though you may wish to become familiar with the rest of it as well.
To repeat, while you are intent on shifting the problem elsewhere, it all comes down to spending, and the Brunswick School Department’s are a matter of public record. Nothing you say or do can change the recorded history of approved budgets and the enrolment reports to the state. Unless you wish to suggest that both were falsified.
Anyhow, while I am pretty sure our philosophies on local education funding are diametrically opposed, I would encourage you to get better informed and to contribute more productively by helping to find actual solutions instead of just shooting the messenger or taking the annual swipe across the messenger’s posterior. Hopefully, at the upcoming budget meetings, you’ll have accurate figures in hand.
I have no doubt however, that your ‘actual solutions’ will consist of spending however much more it takes to preserve the status quo, rather than reforming the enterprise to reflect economic, demographic, structural, and performance realities.
If you have the time, though, we’d love to hear what you and the school board have done and are planning on doing to improve student education in Brunswick, aside from giving the teachers annual guaranteed raises regardless of their performance or student outcomes. Suggesting that paying teachers more will yield better education for our kids next year than this year is an insult to the concept of teacher professionalism, and even worse, an affront to taxpayers.
Best regards,
Pem Schaeffer
PS: please tell us where the extra $5,329 we’re spending per student compared to FY 05 has gone.
PSPS: you can find ample commentary on the same issues from last year here:
http://othersideofbrunswick.blogspot.com/2011_05_01_archive.html
Feel free to offer your criticisms on the points contained therein; I will do my best to respond.
PSPSPS: Since you have a firm grip on Maine Statute, perhaps you can comment on this passage from §15671:
B. The annual targets for the state share percentage of the statewide adjusted total cost of the components of essential programs and services are as follows.
(1) For fiscal year 2005-06, the target is 52.6%.
(2) For fiscal year 2006-07, the target is 53.86%.
(3) For fiscal year 2007-08, the target is 53.51%.
(4) For fiscal year 2008-09, the target is 52.52%.
(5) For fiscal year 2009-10, the target is 48.93%.
(6) For fiscal year 2010-11, the target is 45.84%.
(7) For fiscal year 2011-12 , the target is 46.18%. [2011, c. 380, Pt. C, §2 (AMD).]
C. Beginning in fiscal year 2011-12, the annual targets for the state share percentage of the total cost of funding public education from kindergarten to grade 12 including the cost of the components of essential programs and services plus the state contributions to teacher retirement, retired teachers' health insurance and retired teachers' life insurance are as follows.
(1) For fiscal year 2011-12, the target is 49.60%.
(2) For fiscal year 2012-13, the target is 52.50%.
(3) For fiscal year 2013-14 and succeeding years, the target is 55%.
No comments:
Post a Comment