|
|
Evaluating the 2005-2006 school budget How can John and Jill Public evaluate the merit of the 2005-2006 Readington school budget? Not very easily. Sure, the district has released a budget statement that offers a very broad overview of proposed spending, but, really, only the overall net total of $28.7 million is a reliable number for analysis by the public. That is a jump up from the prior fiscal year. Like that of any other NJ school district, our budget statement lacks the level of granularity needed to make informed decisions on specific areas such as curriculum, student or classroom related materials, new infrastructure versus support for existing infrastructure, or administrative costs. Furthermore, budgeted dollars do not necessarily equate to actual spending during the fiscal year, since money can be easily moved between account codes. How, then, to decide? There are those who will instinctively offer a negative vote on the budget, tired as they are of rising taxes and seemingly uncontrolled spending by all levels of government. These people will note that in one year millions of dollars are approved for new school buildings, and that in the next year the school board suddenly remembers that furniture and other items will be needed to outfit the new space. There are also those who will, with equal impulse, offer a positive vote on the budget. Such people will contend that the only way we can support our schools and our children is to support the bigger budget. Such knee-jerk reactions on both sides can result in some interesting conversations at social gatherings. Since John and Jill Public do not have access to the district accounting system and since decisions during the fiscal year will change the course of the budget anyway, perhaps it is worth considering a different tack in order to make a reasonable judgment. What we do know something about is the past performance of the people who direct the budget decisions. A stock analyst researching a given company examines the financial leadership of the company CEO and the board of directors, among others. Similarly, in our school district, we do know something about the financial stewardship of the superintendent and the school board. We know from experience where they have placed financial emphasis in the past and where they have cut dollars before. On that tack, then, are we content to hand over additional millions of dollars to the present administration? Is the financial example set in the past few years a trend that we are comfortable to support? This website has been critical of particular spending previous to this budget. It has been noted here that teacher discretionary spending has been cut in half, that many teachers are not paid according to their true position on the salary guide, that spending on unnecessary testing has increased, that spending on politically connected consultants has increased, and that certain administrative salaries have increased to an extraordinary level. There are almost always questions at board meetings concerning specific spending. There are also many more questions that will likely go unanswered. Has the cost of legal support and consulting increased? Could the recent construction process have been better managed to reduce costs? Has the administration been completely forthright about furnishing, support and maintenance dollars required for new infrastructure and new programs recently put in place? Our school leadership, like that of many other NJ districts, would like to put an almost moral spin on the budget. The implication is that voting against the budget is like voting against the children. Yet, whether a stockholder in a large public company or a stakeholder in a public school district, we must evaluate financial objectives based on return. As stockholders we do not have a handle on the nitty-gritty finances of the company in which we invest. Instead, we evaluate the people at the helm for their intentions and their past performance. Likewise, as stakeholders in a public school district we must often rely on our experience with the school leadership in order to make an informed decision on the budget. If anything, a vote on the budget is a vote on the confidence we have with the school leadership. Whatever the result, truthfully, the teachers will be paid and the lights in the classrooms will be on. We suggest, then, that the decision on the 2005-2006 school budget should really be made on the level of confidence we have in our school leaders to make the best possible decisions for a return on our investment. Voting against the budget is, in a sense, a vote of “no-confidence” in the leadership. Voting for the budget offers the leaders a mandate to continue down their existing path. |
