Articles in the Budgeting category

Renovate before costs go even higher

If you think you’re spending more and getting less these days, you’re right — at least for school construction.

School districts spent almost $20.8 billion on new buildings, renovations, and additions last year, an $800 million increase over 2006. But that money resulted in fewer projects because the average square-foot costs increased about 6 percent.

Using numbers gathered by Market Data Retrieval, School Planning & Management magazine recently released its annual school construction report, which looks at both the national picture and trends in 12 regions across the country.

Overall, it found that 63 percent of the $20.8 billion was spent on new construction, 18 percent went for additions to existing structures, and 19 percent was used for renovations and retrofits for older buildings.

The percentage spent on new construction was the highest since 1979 — shortly before the bulk of the baby boomer generation graduated and enrollments dropped. And those buildings still continue to be big, debunking the trend of smaller learning environments.

The analysis shows that the vast majority of money was spent in fast-growing southern and Southwestern states, and the region that includes New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

School construction spending has reached record levels this decade, but don’t expect to see more increases in coming years, though — SPM expects total spending to drop below $20 billion this year, based on data for projects that are underway.

Joetta Sack-Min, Associate Editor

Kathleen Vail|March 12th, 2008|Categories: American School Board Journal, Budgeting, Governance|

Six-figure salaries for teachers?

WANTED: Seven high-energy middle school teachers for new charter school in Washington Heights, N.Y., near the Bronx. School will initially serve 120 mostly low-income and Hispanic students. Teachers will work a longer day and year than at most public schools and have bigger class sizes. Background in education not required, but knowledge of Latin a plus.

And did we mention salary? The new school, called the Equity Project, will pay you $125,000 — that’s right, $125,000 — plus a potential bonus based on school-wide performance.

Not surprisingly, according to a story in the New York Times school founder and principal Zeke M. Vanderhoek has received such a flood of responses that the school’s voice-mail message has begun urging applicants to use e-mail instead.

The school, said the Times, “will test one of the most fundamental questions in education: Whether significantly higher pay for teachers is the key to improving schools.”

The key? Well, I would guess that if every public school in America could pay its teachers $125,000 plus incentives — which Vanderhoek plans to do by using city, state, and federal money, as well as grants – the vast majority would indeed improve, and some dramatically so: It’s a simple question of economics. And, while the prospect of universal six-figure salaries for teachers may seem remote for now, the mere mention of that kind of compensation could have a real impact in the debate over how best to “professionalize” the job. (One way: Show them the money.)

Of course, when “boutique” projects like this one succeed, it’s often because of their very uniqueness; they possess qualities that aren’t necessarily transferable to bigger systems. For example, to make ends meet, Vanderhoek plans to pay himself, and any principal who after him, less than his teachers. The school will have only one or two social workers for a school serving a disadvantaged population. The only electives will be music and Latin. And the story didn’t say anything about football.

Unrealistic? Maybe for now. But experiments like the Equity Project give us all something to think about.

Lawrence Hardy, Senior Editor

Kathleen Vail|March 11th, 2008|Categories: American School Board Journal, Budgeting, Governance|

Autism’s lasting impression

Journalists—at least the ones I know—tend to forget stories shortly after they are published. But occasionally there’s one so compelling that you have to go back.

I first heard about Brick Township, N.J., a decade ago while writing a story on autism for Education Week. In the late 1990s, very little was known about treating the disorder, much less the causes. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was studying Brick because of a perceived “autism cluster,” given its seemingly high rate of children diagnosed.

The quiet oceanside village was bombarded by press, and parents and residents were frantic to know why so many of their children were afflicted. Most believed environmental contaminants played a role, although medical mishaps and genetics were also frequently mentioned. School officials, though, pointed to an entirely different supposition—since Brick was one of the first places to provide educational services specifically for children with autism, desperate parents were moving to send their children to Brick schools.

When I decided to write about autism for ASBJ—this time looking at the costs, treatments, and how little is still known about the causes—the first place I researched was Brick. Surely by now there would be an answer to this medical mystery, the CDC must have found some fascinating evidence to explain the autism cluster, right?

Instead, I found that Brick’s rate of identification is now the norm in New Jersey, probably because medical experts’ heightened awareness of the disorder means many more children have been identified. And the CDC report raised more questions than it answered, essentially laying out in painstaking detail the lack of good national data and information.

But what Brick and several other districts have figured out is that, regardless of causes, they must educate and embrace these children. My story in this months’ ASBJ shows how they’re doing it.

Joetta Sack-Min, Associate Editor

Kathleen Vail|February 27th, 2008|Categories: American School Board Journal, Budgeting, Curriculum, Governance, Student Achievement|

Tip of the iceberg

Over the past few months an investigation by the Washington Post has provided an ample supply of the most heartbreaking and infuriating anecdotes as evidence of the dysfunction of the District of Columbia’s public school system.

But those media reports “are just the tip of the iceberg,” one of the insiders says.

Allen Lew, who was recently appointed director of school construction by D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty, used the terms “hopeless” and “deplorable” to describe the state of the department he took over last summer, but he says even those words can’t sum up the magnitude of the situation. “You just can’t imagine how bad the school system is,” he told attendees at a school design symposium at the University of Maryland this weekend.

It was so bad that repairs were backlogged for years, a third of the schools didn’t have working boilers, contractors weren’t paid on time or at all, and even though many school buildings were way under capacity and needed major repairs, the suggestion of closings could end a career.

How to fix such a mess?

Lew’s first priority was to ensure each school had a working heating system by Oct. 15, 2007—accomplished after two temporary boilers were quickly borrowed from Kentucky. Longer term, while Fenty and School Chancellor Michelle Rhee are moving forward with a controversial consolidation plan and curriculum reforms, Lew wants to build relationships with other agencies that could have a stake in the school system. Lew says his plan is centered on making a school building—a new or nicely renovated structure with a working boiler—an integral part of the community.

Lew seems like a very smart and honest guy, and his credentials as a developer and public servant in D.C. are impressive. Listening to him speak gives hope that in time, this can be fixed. But we all know it will take years of dedicated, relentless, and fearless leadership to make significant progress. Let’s hope he can do it.

Joetta Sack-Min, Associate Editor

Kathleen Vail|February 20th, 2008|Categories: American School Board Journal, Budgeting, Governance|

A dose of reality on our dropout rate

No one knows the exact figure. But, best guess, about one in three high school students in the class of 2008 will drop out of school before graduating.

The dropout rate is even higher in high-poverty urban centers—sometimes surpassing the 50 percent mark.

In recent years, officials in a number of states have proposed a worthwhile—but somewhat simplistic solution: Raise the age of compulsory school attendance to 18.

Sounds good in theory. But there are concerns: First, although 27 states have raised the legal dropout rage to 17 or 18, there’s spotty evidence that this mandate has had any real impact in the dropout rate. After all, how do school officials keep uninterested and restless older teenagers in school if they don’t want to be there?

And how many schools seriously track down truant near-adults and “compel” them to return to school?

There also are budget implications to this approach. Officials in Maryland recently estimated an older dropout rate would require the state’s high schools to find classroom space for as many as 21,000 students.

They’ll also need to find 1,100 more teachers—in a state with an acute teacher shortage—and come up with about $200 million in extra operating costs.

Certainly the investment is worthwhile. It’s a personal tragedy when a student drops out of school. And there’s a monetary price tag for society, as well: A study in North Carolina concluded that the dropouts of a single year cost the state $169 million annually in lost sales tax revenues, higher Medicaid costs, and more tax dollars poured into prisons.

So I understand why there’s interest in raising the legal dropout age.

But let’s be honest: A legislative mandate alone isn’t going to solve the problem. What we need are reforms to the large number of schools identified last year as “dropout factories.” What we need are early intervention efforts that ensure every student entering high school is prepared for ninth grade. And what we need are school programs that keep kids engaged in their education.

So we’ll see how this plays out. It would be nice if state lawmakers put some money behind these good-sounding mandates. Alas, the record for such sound legislative policy is mixed, at best.

Del Stover, Senior Editor

Kathleen Vail|February 14th, 2008|Categories: American School Board Journal, Budgeting, Governance, Student Achievement|

Going Green May Save You Some Green

Green schools provide students and staff with a healthy atmosphere in which to learn, as well as, more opportunities for hands-on educational experiences. And although it may seem like going green would use up a large portion of a district’s budget, much of the money spent on green projects would be restored through savings on energy and water costs. According to the U.S. Green Building Council, the average green school saves $100,000 annually.

But according to Marcus Egan, NSBA’s director of federal affairs, more research and independent data needs to be conducted on going green to determine upfront costs and project benefits before schools make costly commitments. The House of Representatives’ Green Schools Caucus, formed in December 2007, could encourage this kind of research but have yet to make any serious gains, says Egan, who spoke about the subject at NSBA’s Federal Relations Network conference earlier this month.

Until then, Egan says, schools can certainly find small ways to make a big difference in their school environment and teach students about energy. The Green School program in Montgomery County, Md., for example, allows students a rare opportunity to explore energy efficiency by establishing “Green Teams” of students, who assess their schools and promote recycling efforts. According to the Washington Post (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013001763.html), conservation measures by “Green Teams” saved the school system $1.2 million in electricity costs last year.

With the economy experiencing a downturn and many school districts feeling the pinch, who couldn’t use a little more green?

Stacey Hollenbeck, Spring Intern

Naomi Dillon|February 11th, 2008|Categories: American School Board Journal, Budgeting|

Keep your building maintenance up

If you were to purchase an $80,000 BMW M-series sports car — or any vehicle, for that matter–you’d most likely change the oil and fluids as recommended, right? Or, at least you wouldn’t be surprised if the engine failed after a few years of neglect?

So it seems like a no-brainer that if a school installs an expensive new heating and cooling system, it should keep up with the routine maintenance, right?

Yet another investigation into the financial nightmare known as the District of Columbia Public Schools has revealed that the district’s facilities department did not perform routine maintenance in the 400 boilers operating in schools, some of which were state-of-the-art systems installed less than 10 years ago at a cost of $80 million. And, not surprisingly, many of those boilers are now broken, some beyond repair.

The routine maintenance, according to a Dec. 31 article in the Washington Post, (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/interactives/dcschools) would have used water treatment chemicals to remove harmful mineral deposits in the boiler systems. Without the treatments, which would have cost about $100,000 a year for the entire district, deposits clog and corrode pipes and the boilers’ inner workings.

But D.C., for all its woes, is hardly the first district to make such a deferral. Far too often, building maintenance is the first cut when a district’s budget tightens, leading to more expensive and severe maintenance problems. Over the years we’ve heard countless stories of collapsed roofs, failed heating and cooling systems, mold, and other disasters that could have easily been avoided (at much lower costs) if districts hadn’t cut the maintenance. Besides, how can you expect kids to learn if their classrooms are too cold/hot/loud/leaky/etc. to be comfortable?

As we head into the coldest winter months, keep in mind that a school building is also the symbol most community members associate with the school district. So if your buildings don’t appear to be well maintained, public confidence in your school system may erode along with those boilers and roofs.

Joetta Sack-Min, Associate Editor

Kathleen Vail|January 4th, 2008|Categories: American School Board Journal, Budgeting, Governance|

President Bush’s fuzzy math

Think you’re good at math? Economics? Bet I can trip you up.

Which increase in domestic discretionary spending is a greater threat to our nation’s fiscal health:

A) Four percent for one year
B) An average of 7 percent a year over six years.

Did you guess A? Congratulations! We have a job for you in the Bush White House.

You see, 4 percent was the cap on domestic discretionary spending growth demanded recently by the president. Never mind that over the first six years of Bush’s term, domestic discretionary spending averaged 7 percent a year, according to a Heritage Foundation report cited in the Washington Post.

But that was when Republicans controlled Congress. Now that the Democrats are in charge, the White House is getting all fiscally responsible. Sort of.

Bush vetoed a $22 billion spending increase and rejected Congress’ offer of an $11 billion hike, but then announced this week that he was “pleased” with a budget bill, passed on Monday, that would exceed that $11 billion limit with “emergency” spending on border security, veterans care, and other items.

What got cut in the process? Title 1 funding of $280 million, and $250 million for special education — a program which, many years ago, Congress vowed would be 40 percent federally funded.

Meanwhile, Congress and the president all but guaranteed the deficit will rise next year after Congress approved an arguably needed $50 billion rollback of the Alternative Minimum Tax (originally meant for wealthy taxpayers but now affecting 20 million upper-middle-income households, according to the Post) but without new offsetting taxes on private equity managers, which Bush opposed.

“I have difficulty seeing how $11 billion or $22 billion in discretionary spending on the domestic side of the equation is so fiscally irresponsible when juxtaposed against these major AMT provisions of $50 billion, or certainly against the $70-plus billion they want for the global war on terror, Iraq, and Afghanistan,” G. William Hoagland, a budget adviser to former Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, told the Post. “It doesn’t pass the sensible man’s test.”

Who said anything about sensible?

Lawrence Hardy, Senior Editor

Kathleen Vail|December 18th, 2007|Categories: American School Board Journal, Budgeting, Governance, Student Achievement|

Report shows Native American dispartities

A few weeks ago I provided a link (and hopefully some of you followed it) to a telling study produced by the non-profit think tank, Public Agenda. Walking a Mile certainly corroborated what I’d discovered in my reporting of December’s ASBJ cover story: Very few non-Indians understand the issues, challenges, and misconceptions American Indians face.

I include myself in that group. I knew that Native Americans had treaty rights, but I didn’t how that started, what it meant, and how it affects life for American Indians today. I had some vague sense that the federal government had entered into agreements with hundreds of distinct indigenous tribes in exchange for land many, many years ago.

But I didn’t know what the government had promised, and even more importantly, if it had honored those promises. A 2003 report by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights shows they have not. “A Quiet Crisis,” which reviewed the budgets of the six main federal agencies tasked with serving the 562 federally recognized tribes, is, to put it mildly, shocking.

Here a just a few of their findings:

Slightly more than a quarter of Native Americans enjoy medical benefits through an employer; most rely on the Indian Health Service. Yet annually, IHS spends 60 percent less on its recipients than the average per person health care expenditure nationwide. In fact, the government spends less than any other group it has direct health care responsibility for, including veterans, Medicaid recipients, and prisoners. Is it any wonder then that American Indians have higher rates of diseases like tuberculosis, diabetes, and alcoholism resulting in a life expectancy that is lower than any other racial/ethnic group?

Of the roughly 4.5 million American Indians in the U.S., less than half a million live on reservations, land held in trust by the government. The housing situation on the reservations is grim, with about 40 percent of homes deemed inadequate compared to 6 percent nationally.

Today, less than 10 percent of American Indian children attend schools operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs — a complete turnabout from a half-century earlier. Maybe it’s because in 2004, BIA schools spent about $3,000 per student, less than half the amount spent in public schools. Or could it be that BIA schools are generally in worse condition than schools nationally, even inner-city schools, with the backlog of needed repairs and construction tallied at close to $1 billion in 2001.

But what about all the benefits tribes receive, you ask, like tax exemption and the power to run casinos? Tribes are not exempt from paying taxes and, in fact, often pay more than their share. A study by the Arizona Commission on Indian Affairs, for example, found that for every dollar the state spent on a tribe, nearly $42 was returned through taxes levied on businesses on the reservation and sales tax on items bought by American Indians off the reservation.

For more details, visit the report at www.usccr.gov/pubs/na0703/na0731.pdf .

Naomi Dillon, Senior Editor

Kathleen Vail|November 30th, 2007|Categories: American School Board Journal, Budgeting, Governance|

All schools need adequate funding — even in D.C.

You’ve got to put this in perspective. Yes, two District of Columbia school employees may have spent more than $13,000 in student activity funds on things like an $82.50 bottle of wine and a strip club outing. But it’s not easy working for the D.C. schools these days, especially with all the criticism they’ve received. And compared to the $31.7 million allegedly stolen from the city treasury in an elaborate property tax return scheme, $13,000 seems like pretty small change — in fact, it’s less than the cost of educating one district student. So, I mean, what’s the big deal?

OK, not very funny. But neither are the stories of fraud and mismanagement that seem to pop up regularly from one of America’s most troubled school system. And it’s especially disturbing to me after I spent more than a year writing a series (Children at Risk) that basically said the nation needs to spend more money on poor children and the schools they attend.

There is corruption in the public sector and in the private sector as well. People predisposed to mistrust the public sector will generalize from examples like those above. Critics of the private sector will point to their Enrons and Tycos.

Certainly, the District of Columbia schools — and many others — need to be overhauled; the dead wood pruned, the corruption and sheer incompetence exposed. And, as I said in an earlier blog, I think new school Chancellor Michelle Rhee may be the right person for the job.

But at the same time, I hope people don’t conclude that this is all districts serving disadvantaged students need. If you’re skeptical, look at the Education Trust report, Funding Gaps 2006, which shows that schools serving the nation’s low-income students received far less funding, on average, than those serving advantaged ones. Or read the report Growth and Disparity: A Decade of U.S. Public School Construction 1995-2004, which shows that district with poor students spent thousands less on infrastructure than their wealthy counterparts, and that the money they did spend was more likely to be used on basic repairs rather than educational enhancements.

So, please, keep making the case that schools — all schools — need adequate funding. Keep up the campaign. Just don’t use D.C. as your poster child.

Lawrence Hardy, Senior Editor

Kathleen Vail|November 20th, 2007|Categories: American School Board Journal, Budgeting, Governance, Student Achievement|
Page 15 of 16« First...10«1213141516»