The existing financial structure of the Newton Public Schools is not sustainable over the long term. This is starkly illustrated by the statistic that over FY 03-07 a 5.9% compound annual increase in cost has been required to maintain level services while only 4.3% compound annual revenue increase has been available. The CAG projects a compound deficit in school funding of $60M in the next six years.
As if that is not enough, two other factors make the situation even more dire. In recent years the allocation of overall City revenue to the schools has been increasing as approximately 70% of new revenues go to the schools. Even with the municipal side sacrificing in this way (which cannot continue indefinitely) we have had to shift costs within the school budget to maintain the most visible aspects of our educational programs at the expense of longer term less visible – but often no less important – cost centers such as facilities maintenance, teacher support and technology.
Taken in total, the overwhelming weight of evidence is that our school’s financial structure is in crisis and we will be unable to sustain the excellence we aspire to without fundamental and structural change.
The table above taken from the CAG report illustrates the key opportunities to moderate cost growth. Clearly there are two overwhelming problems – benefits and SPED. The specific report on SPED is quite thorough and unfortunately does not identify any silver bullets. However, one item that stands out is the overall increase in compensation for aides in the current contract. This will certainly need to be addressed in the upcoming negotiations.
A potentially controversial thought (not present in the CAG report) is to examine how NPS can turn its reputation for SPED excellence into a profit center by capturing out of district placements from other communities thus leveraging our expertise, infrastructure and fixed cost. A nod in this direction has been discussed in relation to the proposal to create an alternative high school and generated initial positive response. Is further exploration warranted?
Benefits are an area that requires a lot more analysis. I have been dismayed at the “our hands are tied” attitude from the administration and school committee to date on this topic. Yes – there are real issues within municipal collective bargaining regulations that need to be taken into account. However, this cannot be an excuse to abdicate the responsibility to thoroughly investigate and propose alternatives. At least we will know what is being left on the table!
One alternative that has been frequently raised is to join the GIC. I will tee up another one here and go into detail in a future post. We could shift from the traditional plans we offer now to a high-deductible consumer driven health plan (HDCDHP).
Other specific items of note:
o The existing contract makes it very costly to have teachers take on extra administrative or management duties (for which they would be compensated). This dramatically limits the flexibility of school principals, especially at the elementary level, from leveraging the skills of experienced teachers to provide a better support structure for the rest of their staff. This restriction should be eliminated from future contracts.
o The bulk of our professional development funding appears to be going to creating central roles of curriculum coordinators, math coaches, and others who provide indirect support to the teachers rather than directly to the teachers to fund continuing education and skill building. Has this model been proved to be more effective? Do the teachers agree? Have we asked them?
RSS Feed