Right message, wrong address

The Groton Finance Committee published a statement this week that explains their reasons for not endorsing the school override. They echo sentiments regarding the school budget that are being voiced in many corners these days.

• This is a multi-year problem. We can't afford to just keep raising taxes to fix it.
• The schools need to "fundamentally restructure" how they deliver education so they operate more efficiently.
• Questioning spending on various items in the budget. Some of the favorites to pick at are curriculum coordination, professional development, the math specialist, and the new athletic programs.

These are all valid points. The only issue I have is their suggestion that we should vote No to send a message to the district that we're not just going to keep raising taxes for the school system. It gives no credit to a School Committee and administration that have been hard at work for years, sharpening their pencils and looking for greater cost efficiencies. It fails to acknowledge that they have already heard the message, loud and clear, but have struggled with damaging changes in the state's funding forumula and escalating costs that are beyond their control.

But these are problems faced by school districts all over the state. They are problems acknowledged by Governor Patrick. It is wrong to send a message that lays such problems only at the steps of the Groton Dunstable School District, at the expense of our children's future.

Much of what the Groton FinCom talks about are things that will be, at best, a major challenge to address in the coming year, and were completely impossible to fix in this year's budget without doing major damage to the schools.

The school administration was conscious that Groton and Dunstable would get less funding under the new funding formula last fall, but the extent of the funding shortfall didn't really show up until the Governor's budget was published in February. The district did not have time to implement the kind of drastic changes that would have been necessary to close the budget gap created by the shortfall in expected state revenue.

Groton FinCom's claim that district is just doing "business as usual" fails to acknowlege, not only the strength of the district's efforts, but also the intractability of the problems they face.

• One of the not so "business as usual" changes that the school managed to get in the last round of teacher contract negotiations was the option to put health care services out to bid, which resulted in a $500,000 reduction in health insurance expense last year... which not only saved us from needing an override last year, but even gives us some benefit this year, since the $436,000 increase in health insurance this year is being added to a smaller base.
• The reductions in energy costs that the district has achieved through better management of energy usage are significant...to the point where they were able to level fund that line item in spite of significant rate increases.

Groton FinCom says the budget has no "cost savings" initiatives and pointedly criticizes the district for adding a computer expense this year. However, the computer leasing program is a cost savings initiative. The leasing program is a strategy, not only for preventing obsolescence of the equipment, but also for avoiding what could be an even bigger expense, if the district were to have to replace a large number of computers all at once.

Groton FinCom is absolutely correct in pointing out out that salary increases are the biggest factor driving the budget increase. The school administration sees it that way too. Unfortunately, solving this problem is not as simple as deciding to hold the staff to 3% increases.

Much of the district's salary expense is dependent on the "Unit A" teachers' contract. The rates for FY08 were set by the current contract, so there wasn't much the district could do about the increased expense for FY08. However, starting next year, GDRSD will be negotiating a new contract with the teacher's union that will go into effect for FY09.

Certainly, the impact of salary on the school budget will be a foremost consideration during those negotiations, as it was on the last round. However, it cannot be the only consideration, because compensation has to be competitive to get and keep good teachers. Currently, GDRSD gets above average performance from teachers who get only average compensation.

Groton FinCom also notes: "In prior years, increases in the school budget were offset by increases in state aid. With state school aid projected to be flat-to-down in coming years, those offsets are a thing of the past: all of the incremental increases in the school budget, and then some, must now be borne by local taxpayers every year."

Exactly. This is the real problem. In a year when one might have expected some property tax relief, a larger share of the burden has been shifted onto our property taxes.

There are two sides to any budget.. an expense side, and a revenue side. While we look for creative ways to lower the expense side without compromising our educational standards, we need to also work on the revenue side. Paradoxically, when families with school-age children move into our district, our expenses are increased by more than the tax revenue they add.

Clearly we are at our limit for tapping into local revenue, but the percentage of state revenue going to education has been declining in recent years. Instead of being a state known for making education a priority, Massachusetts now ranks 43rd among states in our country in the percentage of revenue allocated to education.

While it may be unwise to have your budget be overly dependent on sources of revenue that you don't control, we should still expect and fight for Massachusetts to allocate a larger percentage of funding to schools. Most states allocate 50-60% of state revenue to elementary and secondary education.

Groton FinCom says there are good school systems "all over America who have shown that, within reasonable bounds, excellence in education is 'not all about the money.' " That is a very broad statement. We need specifics. If there are good schools with adjusted per-pupil expenditures less than ours, then we need to know where they are so we can learn from them.

"What is needed is a fundamental re-examination of the schools' organization, administration, cost structure and operating paradigms, aimed at providing improved student services at reduced per-pupil cost." Groton FinCom is not the only group of people saying this, and they're right. Solving budget deficits on a million dollar scale calls for a higher-level solution than turning off the lights and finding a way to reduce the amount of paper that goes home in backpacks. A fundamental restructuring of one of the country's oldest institutions is another thing that is a lot easier said than done... It will also be difficult to accomplish in the time frame needed to solve our problem.

The degree to which our school system is shackled in its day-to-day operations is appalling. We're not allowed to eliminate or charge for buses. Our teachers have to meet federally prescribed standards for professional development for NCLB. Someone has to make sure that what goes on in our classrooms conforms to state curriculum frameworks, which sometimes change faster than we can implement them. Government funding and grants require an unbelievable amount of paperwork. This list goes on and on. It seems that, for every cost-saving idea we might come up with, there is always some regulation that gets in the way or drives costs up. We're going to have to find a way around those roadblocks to solve this funding problem, and it's just not going to be easy.

Meanwhile, we are staring at a funding problem right now.

The Groton FinCom's message does an excellent job of articulating the problems that the district is facing, and even goes so far as to suggest some avenues to be explored. They think people should vote No this year to "send a message."

But these are problems faced by school districts all over the state. They are problems acknowledged by Governor Patrick. It is wrong to send a message that lays such problems only at the steps of the Groton Dunstable School District, at the expense of our children's future.

GDRSD is asking us to pass the override this year to keep the schools strong for another year while they work, as one administration and as part of a statewide effort, to fix these problems.

This is not the year to vote No.