By Antonio D. French
Filed Wednesday, June 14 at 1:11 PM
Starting July 1, the St. Louis Public Schools will be operating without a new budget. The school board yesterday rejected the budget proposed by Superintendent Creg Williams which would have added $4 million to the already $26 million deficit the district is currently operating under.
Board member Bob Archibald, who voted in favor of passing the budget, said he did so reluctantly, knowing that it did not address the financial crisis which the district faces. Board member Bill Purdy, who voted against the budget, pointed to several large expenses in the administrative budget which he said might be cut in light of the deficit which Williams said would rise to $50 million next year.
Williams defended his budget, which included an $8 million raise for the teachers, saying that many of the administrative expenses were small in comparison to the cost of such things as health care and the rising cost of utilities, which he said the district has no control over.
Williams said that no amount of cuts to the administrative budget will save the district from the budget crisis that he said will hit SLPS next year. "These are problems that this district has and we need to face them once and for all and stop pointing the finger at one another!" said Williams.
The board rejected the budget by a vote of 4-3 with only Archibald, Ron Jackson and Flint Fowler voting to pass it.
Just as occured last year, the district will continue to operate under the old budget until a new one is passed. District spokesperson Tony Sanders said that means no new monies will be spent on such things as pay raises or added health care costs until they are allotted in a new budget, which might occur at the July 18 meeting of the board.
9 Comments:
Ok, I'll cut a little slack to members Archibald and Jackson, because a budget needs to be approved to keep the state out of city business. So, they were put in a bad position of having to either vote for this deficit budget or not. The better course of action than voting for a budget that puts the district further in debt would have been to mandate that the Superintendent and his staff return to the next meeting with a balanced budget, and in lieu of that to vote against the proposed deficit-spending budget. So, again they had an opportunity to walk-the-walk of fiscal responsibility, but didn't.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006 3:09:53 PM
If teachers want raises, they better inform their new majority to consider Williams' budget. Either include both administrative cuts and zero raises for teachers, or don't bother.
Thursday, June 15, 2006 9:39:18 AM
Boy, that Board is something else! Why would anyone reject a budget that already projects a deficit. I can appreciate the fact that Dr. Williams did not hide the numbers (like some others would have). We have believed so many bad leaders in the past that when a decent one comes up with a semi-hopeful plan we reject it...budget and everything. Now, I'm tired of this. Dr. Williams is not the bad guy and the Board and Teachers Union should not punish him for past transgressions. We were going broke before he got here so don't act like what he's saying about numbers is so shocking and now he needs to go look everything over!
Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:04:45 PM
AMEN to that blogger, especially with no raises for the teachers being involved. I can say that we surely could have used that.
Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:06:57 PM
Its obvious there is no fiscal responsibility. Why is Dr. Williams even wasting his time. The Board seems to never want to approve any budget. My question is why? And don't give me that 'because its a budget with a deficit'...we have accepted budgets like that plenty of times before...and in some cases did not even know there was a deep deficit enclosed. With the uncontrollable variables such as: gas and health care, etc., that budget should have been approved on Tuesday.
Friday, June 16, 2006 2:00:37 AM
First, it was previous boards that have accepted those deficit spending budgets that took us from a positive net worth in excess of $50 million to one of negative $50 million over the period of three years (2000-2003).
Most members of the current board took appropriate action in not approving yet another budget that pushes the already bankrupt district deeper in debt.
The best course of action, though, would have been to call for Superintendent Williams and his staff to return to the next regularly scheduled meeting with a balanced budget, and not by under-estimating variable costs, but by making hard choices in cuts to bloated areas.
The sad part of this is that even if they had approved this already negative budget, if 2007, for which the budget was, runs anything like 2006, then the budget would still be over-run by $7-10 million.
Friday, June 16, 2006 11:15:03 AM
It does not take all those people downtown to run this district. Especially a district where students are leaving in groves (exiting to other schools or just hanging out in the streets). Why can't we go back to some of the old ways. For instance, what does a Chief of Staff do? Is that the same as an Assistant Superintendent? Why don't we create a GOOD professional developement department and get rid of all the curriculum consultants? When you look at Alternative Education is everybody qualified and degreed or just friends of someone else. What's up with human resources? How many Directors?
Common sense would tell even the dumbest person it too many people in 801 and too many high salaries. People get a clue.
I hope a bond issue is not in the works.
Saturday, June 17, 2006 7:07:08 PM
I agree with Anonymous 2, 4, and 5. I am little surprised that this motion had three yes votes. This should have been a unamanous rejection. Finally this district has a board that appears to start living within their means. We need to start finding ways of saving money instead of paying for useless programs, services, and excessive administrators. But we cannot hold the teachers as the sole excuse of wasting money. Whenever a budget crunch happens the teachers are accused of having salaries that are to high. The teacher salaries are in line with many of the surrounding districts. Society has moved far away from the one room school house and teaching being free service to the community. But in the days of the one room school house the community would provide the teacher a place to live and would often invite the teacher over for dinner. Students would bring teachers food, like apples, for the teacher to eat during their lunch break. When was the last time a teacher was invited to a student’s house for dinner? But instead of complaining about the costs of education how can we start to fix the financial crisis that this district is in.
For starters, how about instituting an activity fee for all of the sports teams to help offset transportation, equipment and uniforms, Coaches salaries, and maintenance of playing surfaces (inside and out)?
Next would be an art fee. This includes the Fine Arts and the Practical Arts. These are usually subjects that get cut first in budget crunches. But without these subjects students cannot see first hand what the “core subjects” are teaching. I can prove that when these subjects are downsized or eliminated attendance goes down, there are more problems with disipline, not to mention lower standardized test scores. For example students who take music classes they score better in math than those students who do not take music. The same holds true for industrial technology classes. In the visual art classes the students are encourage to take risks in their decision making when making a project. Let us not forget to mention Family and Consumer Sciences. How many mothers and fathers have taught their sons and daughter how to cook, sew, childcare, running a home, and so on? Plus, if we wish to have these students be technology competent, they need computers to work on (not to mention keeping the computers updated). These all costs money.
Let us take a look at the Central Office. The joke in the school I teach in is “How many Human Resource employees are needed to lose an application (certificate or certificate update, degree, or whatever else you have to turn in)?” A hundred years ago when William Harris was the Superintendent he eliminated nearly every administrator in the office. Not to mention he did have every teacher get recertified and/or reapply for his or her job. His focus was the classroom not excessive administration costs. He had (if I can remember correctly) two or three assistant superintendents and a handful of office workers. If I were Dr. Williams I would take a close look at 1. Which jobs are really needed? 2. Who is doing their job? and 3. Combining departments to eliminate costs.
Last of all is developing a plan for this district. Why is this district paying someone in New York or somewhere else to develop curriculum? Every certified teacher has at least a Bachelor’s degree not to mention a Master’s degree. I am sure this can be down within the district instead of outsourcing. There are many qualified teachers and administrators who can sit down and develop a curriculum that would enhance student learning. Stop with these quick fixes, which end up costing more money in the long run. Plus implement the plan at the beginning of the school year instead of halfway through the school year. This can be done with little to no cost to the district. In fact teachers can use this as part of their professional development.
Anonymous 1 states that if the teachers want raises they need to better inform the new majority. Personally I think this School Board is not on the side of the teachers or the administration. They are not afraid to tell both sides “no.” It is about time. This district use to be the model of education for the nation now how is this district viewed? I believe Peter Downs and Donna Jones would have been elected anyway. Isn’t it nice to see parents finally on the school board again? The “New Majority” is trying to get the district back on track after years of wasteful spending. But these are seven people who are trying to do what is best for the students not the teachers or administration. If this means Dr. Williams or the teachers do not get what they want then so be it. But who else is willing to start the stopping of wasteful spending?
One last thing, I know many students in this district may not be able to pay an activity fee. For these students (I am suggesting mostly high school students) lets put them to work during or after school and outside the sport season they wish to part of. Teach them the rewards in a job well done at the same time educating them with a skill that they could use after high school. Not to mention community service. This may not be their career job but it is a start. How many of the parents (plus teachers and administrators) worked in fast food, retail, swimming pool, or other summer jobs for their first jobs?
Let’s start looking for ways to save money instead of wasting money.
Sunday, June 18, 2006 12:17:43 AM
To Anon #6:
When I was in high school, we had activity fees, which I recall being part of the student council fee, but I could be wrong about that. The fee covered participation in some school activities, but on top of the activity fee, we still had to purchase tickets to school games and dances. Also, the parents of the kids on the field ran the concession stands as a booster club to make additional revenue for the teams. This may happen in the SLPS, or not, I don't know. If not, it should.
So, I don't see a problem with charging activity fees for extra-curricular activities, but I would caution against additional fees for music, art, or other curricular activities for a couple of reasons. First, these types of non-academic curricular activities have been shown to not only help the kids in their social skills, but also have bleed-over into their academics (ie. kids that play an instrument typically have better grades). So with that importance, I would hate to rob any kid of the ability to participate in these non-academic curricular activities because they may not be able to afford the instrument or supplies. This is where booster clubs would again be very helpful, if not already being used. In my highschool, the band also had a booster club that raised money to help paying for items like travel to competitions and instruments for kids who couldn't afford the rental fees.
So, we need greater parent involvement with raising the funds for these curricular and extra-curricular activities to take the burden off the already strapped general operating fund. Heck, my elementary school had icecream socials, bake sales, and school fairs for just this purpose.
Sunday, June 18, 2006 3:03:12 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home