Archived Story

Costs override increased school funds
By MICHAEL NICOSIA

Gov. Schweitzer has recently called for schools to show him how the increases in state funding have been spent. Depending on how one interprets that request, it could either be construed as an implied suggestion that the money was not spent wisely, or, in the alternative, that the governor needs help from educators in convincing other critics that the money was spent wisely. Regardless of how one interprets the request, the answer is relatively simple and easy to convey. Schools spent the entire increase, and then some, on increased costs of instruction and student services.

As we all undertake this discussion, we must be mindful that it is about the education of our children. It is about our constitutional promise to each and every Montana child that our Legislature will do what needs to be done to provide a quality system of free public education in good times and in bad. Sometimes, it’s easy to forget these important touchstones when the discussion turns to phrases like “decreases in the increases” and “real dollars” and the always popular “ANB.” These are all important concepts, but only as they relate to how we meet the constitutional promise of a quality system of public elementary and secondary schools.

According to figures of the state Office of Public Instruction, school districts statewide increased their spending on pupil instruction and student services (which go directly to the classroom) by almost $6 million dollars more than the increase in ongoing state support of school district general fund budgets provided by the Legislature during 2006 and 2007. The state increased its support by $70.6 million, while schools increased spending on direct services to students by $76.4 million.

How could this be? The answer lies in the share of school district spending provided by the state. The state funds only 63 percent of school district general fund budgets, and only

42.5 percent of total school spending. As a result, a certain percentage increase in state funding that may sound extraordinary does not directly translate into the same percentage increase in total spending. For an analogy, think of a two-income household. If your spouse’s income is 50 percent of your combined income and your spouse gets a

10 percent raise while your income remains flat, that only comes out to a 5 percent increase in your combined incomes. So it goes with state funding of schools. A

7 percent increase in state funding amounts to only

4.4 percent of general-fund budgets and only

2.94 percent of total spending. That means that schools not only needed the increases provided by the state over the last two years, but had to resort to local levies to pay the difference.

These statewide numbers are all fine as far as they go, but how do these numbers translate into each community and how can we best cooperate with the governor in providing district by district numbers to his satisfaction? Thankfully, a process already exists for doing just that. It is called local control and it is alive and well in each school community in the state.

School districts across the state spend considerable time each year ensuring that the information upon which they build their budgets is reflective of the community’s interests and will. They sit down at the table with employees to negotiate labor contracts. They meet several times over several months to determine the extent of any needed levy to make up for shortfalls in state funding increases. They solicit and incorporate the input of community stakeholders, including parents, people without children in the schools, school employees and business, about how the school district can best meet the needs of children in their community. Then they adopt their budgets and fund programs to the best of their abilities with the state and local funds raised. This is the unique process of local control called for in our Constitution n volunteer leaders elected from within each community to act as trustees of that community, making the decisions on how to best and most efficiently spend public funds to serve children in our public schools.

Whether you look at it on a statewide basis or in each and every community in our state, you will find the same answer to the governor’s question. The increases provided by the state went to pay for increased costs of instruction and student services and in many cases, schools had to supplement those increases with voted levies in order to balance their budgets. If you want to know how your school district spends its money, visit with the local superintendent or board chair and you will be impressed with the detailed knowledge and insight that went into determining how your school district could best meet the needs of children in your community.

Michael Nicosia is superintendent of the Columbia Falls School District 6 and vice chairman of the Montana Quality Education Coalition.


Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)
Current Word Count:
   

|

Subscribe to the Missoulian today — get 2 weeks free!