"No tax increase!"  reads the opening slide of a propaganda video now posted on the Readington School District website.  This and similar rhetoric coming from our school leaders lately might easily be confused with the sort of language found in the world of used car sales and late night infomercials:  No money down!  No payments until next year!  Call now!

More than a few people have contacted readingtonparents.org with questions about statements being made by the administration concerning the budget, and this article should help serve as a reality check on the propaganda being published in the name of voter education.  Below we will examine some of the claims being made in the district's video and try to clarify the background behind the "No tax increase!" salesmanship.

The most common source of confusion for members of the public is how a school budget increase can result in no tax increase.  The answer is simple, but also dangerous if not fully examined.  The State of New Jersey put a cap on school expenditures not long ago which, in most circumstances, limits districts to a 4% increase in an annual budget over the prior year.  This has caused great angst among school boards who feel, sometimes correctly, that their particular circumstances will require a bigger percentage or that they will be left without the resources to face unexpected expenditures in areas of facilities or energy in a coming year.  On the other hand, critics argue that only a strict cap on rising budgets can control spending which is strangling local taxpayers.

In Hunterdon county, there are school districts who are proposing 2008-2009 budgets under the 4% state cap.  Readington has proposed a budget which is carefully crafted to reach right up to the maximum increase allowed by law.  In fact, the school board and the administration worked in public through various spreadsheets containing budget line items and figured how to bring spending for the next school year right up to the lawful figure.

To understand how this 4% increase does not raise taxes for homeowners in Readington one must recognize that the school district operates on a fiscal year which ends June 30.  Our local taxes, though, are determined on the basis of a calendar year.  This means that in any given tax or calendar year, we are paying for half of a previous school budget year and half of a future school budget year.  Our 2008 local Readington taxes are determined in part by school spending both in the 2007-2008 school year and the 2008-2009 school year.

Readers will recall that in the 2007-2008 school year voters shot down the school budget and the township asked the school to reduce expenditures.  That fact and other unique circumstances helped to reduce our taxes in 2008, even though the coming school budget--if it passes--will increase.  This is how the administration can make a claim of "no tax increase!" now, even though their budget is increasing by 4%.

But, there is another shoe to drop.

What the propaganda from the administration does not mention is that in the 2009 tax year there will be far less likelihood that taxes will not increase.  Since the 2008-2009 school budget will have increased by 4%and since it is highly unlikely that the 2009-2010 budget will be reduced by a corresponding amount, it is a pretty good bet that that the school budget we are voting upon now will result in higher taxes come 2009.  It works kind of like that "no payments until next year!" advertising claim we see on late night television.  The administration would be more honest in proclaiming "No tax increase...yet!"

Interestingly, even though the school's 2007-2008 school budget was cut, there is still a surplus available as we approach the end of their fiscal year right now.  In fact, in order for the district to meet the state mandated budget cap of 4% in 2008-2009, the school board has proposed extensive use of "pre-purchasing."  This term is a euphemism for spending the surplus from one fiscal year before the June 30 end-of-year deadline on items that would otherwise belong in the next fiscal year.  So, our district is proposing six figure spending before June 30, 2008 on items which actually relate to projects in the 2008-2009 budget year.  Vendors absolutely adore this kind of spending because it means a deadline set in stone and money that school administrators can't get rid of fast enough.  Needless to say, there isn't much in the way of discussion, review or analysis when pre-purchasing is taking place, which is just how salespeople who deal in school markets like it.

Of course, the players in the budget game who have a longer term stake in higher budget amounts understand that annually compounded increases in budgets are most important.  Just like a bank account which grows over time with compounded interest, budgets grow over time with compounded annual increases.  Take, for example, a $31 million dollar budget in a base year.  With 4% annual increases, that budget will be at $34.87 million in year three.  That same base $31 million budget would be at only $33.87 million in year three with 3% annual increases.  One percent a year might not seem like much, but it means a million dollars in additional spending and taxes over only three years of compounding.

With that fictional example in mind, it isn't a big leap to understand the importance of examining spending each year for its own merit, rather than glossing over what some would posit are "minor" percentage increases.  While there is defensible rationale for increases related to rising costs in areas like health care benefits or fuel, to name two worthy examples, there is also a defensible rationale for declaring that areas like technology, travel, administrative conferences, and cosmetic facility improvements be curtailed or postponed in tough economic times.  For a specific example of how all this tends to play out, consider the recent proposal for new middle school bleachers.  The current bleachers are usable, although new ones would no doubt be nicer and perhaps even marginally safer.  The school board has set aside $20K in the 2008-2009 budget to purchase new bleachers, but, at the same time, it was stated at a public meeting that the money is really as much a contingency which could be used to pay for rising fuel costs in the coming year.  If the $20K is needed for fuel it will be spent there.  If not, new bleachers will be purchased.  Fuel is a requirement, bleachers are not.  Either way, though, the $20K is gone.  This kind of thinking is behind too much of the discretionary spending.

The video released on the Readington School District website is full of this kind of double thinking, as well as words which can be shown to be coming out of both sides of the district's collective mouth.

Examples?

After getting through the "No tax increase!" sales pitch, the video tells us with gloss and verve that the district will be maintaining reasonable class sizes, a building blocks program, accelerated math programs, gifted and talented programs and music and art education.  Gee, that sounds great.  Of course, some of the "reasonable" class sizes range well up into the high twenties when we aren't talking about averages.  The building blocks program is just a re-branded amalgam of previously existing classes and lessons which don't seem to have much of a coordinated approach.  The accelerated math programs are just a reference to the controversial student grouping based overwhelmingly on test scores. (Saying that testing is just one of many factors considered for the grouping doesn't make it true.)  The gifted and talented programs being touted are the same ones that parents have come to board meetings in recent months to complain about.  The music and art programs are just sad reminders of what schools used to be like before the laser focus on "core" subjects left behind everything else.  Band directors are retiring or leaving the district, and the band program has been propped up for years by parents who pay for expensive private music lessons for their children.

The video goes on to cite all the great services for children.  They offer courtesy busing and school nursing!  But, could it be any different based on the brouhaha several years back when they tried to cut courtesy busing, or based on the parents who have come to board meetings to complain about how serious health issues in their children have been ignored, or based on newspaper articles about how a staff nurse falsified health records?  The video again presses on with exciting graphics about door to door pickup and drop-off for kindergarten students, a homework room in the middle school, an invention and design program, new math textbooks and--yup--the new bleachers for the middle school!  Well, the kindergarten door to door pickup was discussed at a recent school board meeting and almost dropped in order to save on fuel costs.  It was just barely saved after much discussion.  The homework room has been previously exposed as something of a fraud by readingtonparents.org, and the invention and design program has yet to be defined beyond some vague, undeveloped ideas for lessons.  The new math textbooks have also been extensively discussed by readingtonparents.org.  There is plenty of controversy still to come there, no doubt.  And, the bleachers?  Maybe they'll disappear into the fuel tanks of our bus fleet or maybe they won't.

Next the video explains how costs are being controlled through efficient scheduling of faculty and through maintenance and tech support requests now being inputted by users online.  The efficiency of faculty scheduling really means that teachers are being asked to teach the largest possible class sizes under the rules and to do double-duty in roles other than teaching.  The online requests by users for technology issues was made necessary by an astounding backlog of problems with a vast array of technology implemented too to quickly, without training, and without regard to maintenance and support issues.

There is a pattern in this video of taking a minus and spinning it into a plus.  Maybe this works out to a solution under one of those interesting algorithms used in Everyday Math, but for those of use burdened with a taste for demonstrable proofs the video looks a little too much like an advertisement for an Ab-Roller or a set of Ginsu knives.  Clever, misleading, disingenuous and not worth the money. Unfortunately, neither the public as a whole nor the school leadership as a whole have much trust in each other.  Blatant propaganda like this video doesn't help.  The school board and the administration still feel that they need to play budget games like loading up with contingency spending items and maximizing annual budget growth in order to hedge against failure of the budget at the polls.  Members of the public can't be blamed for doubting the word of the school leadership when games like this are played instead of a genuine discussion of legitimate budget issues taking place.

In a similar vein, the administration is using statistics from a Star Ledger article to brag about costs relative to other districts.  As everyone should know, there are lies, damned lies and then statistics.  The State of New Jersey publishes a comparative spending guide of K-8 school districts from which less flattering statistics could be gleaned.  Readington ranks 53 out of 88 K-8 districts in terms of per pupil spending in the 2007-2008 budget year, coming in at $11,922 per pupil in a field range of $8264 to $15,212 per pupil.  Our student/administrator ratio went from 203.1 in 2006-2007 to 168.2 in 2007-2008, indicating an influx of new administrators and bringing the district's rank among a field of 88 from 33 down to 58.  Our faculty/administrator ratio fell too, bringing our rank down to 50 from 19.  But, statistics can be twisted almost any way a presenter desires, which is just the point.  Instead of meaningless statistics, how about an honest and meaningful presentation of the actual trials and tribulations facing educators and administrators?  What about a real discussion of Readington's unique issues instead of cherry-picking numbers to support the weight of thin, hot air?

Sincere voters may or may not be inclined to support the 2008-2009 Readington school budget, but intellectually honest citizens will be forced to conclude that the propaganda and over-the-top rhetoric displayed lately by our school leadership is not helpful in fostering a sense of trust with the public, or a constructive dialog, or a positive long term relationship with stakeholders.  Voters are fully capable of understanding the true challenges facing our school board, such as the rising costs of employee benefits and energy, the cost of state and federal mandates outside of district control, and the cost of creating quality educational programs.  Why not just tell the truth?  Instead of klutzy attempts at salesmanship, instead of pretending problems are really solutions, and instead of conveniently leaving out pertinent information, why not simply lay it all out for voters to see and ask for their help as a community to improve our schools?   Too obvious?