To the Editor:
I’m writing this letter to express my views concerning the MSAD/ RSU 40 Fiscal Year 2011 Budget. I usually attend school budget meetings, but this year I can’t because I’ll be away on business.
Let me state at the outset that Frank Boynton, the school district’s new superintendent, is doing a very good job under very difficult circumstances. I don’t understand why the School Board has not extended his contract to ensure he stays with SAD 40 for more than two years. He’s performed well during his first year, and he deserves the School Board’s vote of confidence and a longer contract.
Now, down to business, I support the proposed MSAD 40 FY 2011, but I have reservations.
All MSAD 40 budgets have a direct impact on the resources Waldoboro and other towns in MSAD-40 need to operate and to build for their futures.
I agree with most that education has to be a major priority of taxpayers. However, I do not subscribe to the notion that spending money on education is necessarily a good thing if the money is not being spent wisely.
This year’s budget describes where the administration intends to cut costs, primarily through long-overdue reductions in staff – in recognition of a declining student population and declining financial support from the state.
However, the budget information says nothing about the quality of education MSAD 40 has provided or intends to provide. The budget document presents a legalistic snapshot, nothing more. It’s as though those supporting MSAD-40’s education effort were more concerned about attending to legal niceties, instead of providing a balanced view of how well the schools in the district are doing.
The budget does not report on measures of performance. You will not find any information in the budget document about the number of students who are graduating from high school. You will not learn how many special needs students attend the MSAD 40 schools. You will not see how many of the teachers in the district have improved their professional standing through continuing education or how many of them have advanced degrees. You will find no discussion of a vision for the future of education in the district.
Some of you will think I’m being unfair. After all, the budget MSAD 40 has presented for our consideration is a bit less than last year’s, and steps have been taken to keep expenditures in line with revenues from all sources. I do not minimize this effort. It is commendable. The School Board, under the leadership of the new MSAD 40 Superintendent, has worked diligently to complete a very difficult budget process.
However, I do think we have every right to expect more.
During a year of budget crisis, the zero-based budgeting process has remained and the structural goals have not changed: Preserving small rural schools, keeping class sizes small, and having strong leadership in every building.
We need more from the administrators of our schools than the predictable repetition of what’s been written in every budget document for the past six years.
Change is the one constant upon which all of us can rest assured. I’ve seen very little other than cosmetic changes in the MSAD 40 FY 2011 budget from previous years. The proposed budget is re-active; it is not pro-active.
The taxpayers who support the MSAD 40 schools deserve better.
The structural changes that cannot be put off much longer will have to be faced. I’m referring to introducing new classroom teaching technologies. I’m referring to a complete revamping of the curriculum; I’m referring to re-structuring teacher’s contracts and, yes, I’m referring to some modest increases in class size and further reductions in staff.
The proposed school budget has the effect of crowding out the resources Waldoboro and the other towns in MSAD #40 require to meet their other priorities. I recognize the imperative of the opportunity to obtain a superior education for students in all of the MSAD #40 communities. I also point out that there remains a lot of fat in the MSAD-40 budget.
Just one example: Teachers continue to receive an absurdly generous medical insurance package, a package, which costs the school district’s towns and taxpayers dearly-and which costs the teachers dearly, as well. According to the school district’s superintendent, at a budget committee meeting held in April, the average cost of a teacher’s insurance policy exceeds $9000 a year-and the teachers are paying 20 percent of that cost-on average, $1800 per year.
Policies are available that insure three employees for about $1200 less per year than it costs MSAD #40 to provide Blue Cross/Blue Shield coverage to one teacher. The costs to the taxpayers of the insurance coverage MSAD #40 provides to its teachers amount to millions of dollars.
High-cost, low-deductible health insurance policies are no longer sustainable. Other, less expensive options, must be explored.
My reservations concerning the costs of teachers’ health insurance notwithstanding, I support the current budget, as approved by the MSAD 40 Board of Directors. It represents an important first step in the efforts of MSAD 40’s new management to get things moving in the right direction. I’m therefore in favor of the current budget as written, provided actions are taken during the coming fiscal year to bring health insurance costs into line and further to consolidate MSAD 40’s schools by increasing class size, establishing performance standards and revamping and re-focusing the curriculum.
Bob Butler
Waldoboro
