Washtenaw County schools' spending on instruction takes slight dip
Washtenaw County’s local school districts spent an average 55.6 cents of every dollar on direct classroom instruction in the 2007-08 school year, a review of district audits shows.
That’s below the state average of about 58 cents and is also down slightly from the 2005-06 school year, when districts spent 56.3 cents of every dollar on direct classroom instruction.
Figures from the 2008-09 school year are not yet available; districts traditionally present their financial audits in the fall.
Local districts spent a total of $466 million in the 2007-08 school year.
What wasn’t spent on classroom instruction can be divided into two areas: Central office and maintenance costs.
About 23.5 cents of every dollar went toward traditional central office functions like instruction coordinators, the business office, district administrators and building administrators.
Another 16.4 cents of every dollar paid for maintenance, operations and transportation, audits show.
Local school officials said they try to protect the classroom.
“That’s always been our goal when we make cuts - to stay away from the classroom,” said Robert Allen, Ann Arbor’s deputy superintendent for operations. “That’s why you’ll see a slightly higher percentage of our spending going towards instruction than in the past.”
Cuts and more cuts
Budget presentations from somber superintendents to their school boards recommending millions of dollars in cuts have become a springtime tradition in local school districts.
District officials have repeatedly said they face a structural budget deficit where revenue growth - which is largely controlled by the state - can’t match up with increased expenses, primarily benefit and retirement costs.
School boards have approved waves of cuts, including teacher layoffs in many of the county’s smaller districts.
But the financial picture remains grim.
Ann Arbor, for example, is projecting a budget shortfall of up to $15 million next year.
That’s the equivalent of 200 positions, Allen has said.
Willow Run has been running a budget deficit for several years and is under a state-mandated deficit elimination plan. Ypsilanti school officials anticipate being in the same situation sometime this school year.
Local school boards are hopeful voters will pass a new 2-mill tax in November that would raise $30 million a year and be distributed to each school district.
Ann Arbor stands to gain an additional $11 million annually under the millage, which would be used to help eliminate the budget shortfall.
But some residents are skeptical local school districts’ aren’t doing a good job managing the money they already have.
“I don’t think they spend as much money on the actual classroom as they should,” said Walter Matthew, who has two elementary students in the Ann Arbor schools. “They need to make deeper cuts in other areas.”
Where the money goes
The bulk of spending by districts - in instruction and other areas - funds salaries and benefits.
In Ann Arbor, the district spent $84.5 million on elementary, middle school and high school instruction.
Nearly $57.5 million of that went to salaries, and another $23.1 million covered benefits.
The district spent $2.3 million on teaching supplies.
Aside from instruction, the biggest spending category for local school districts is in their central offices - including the principals that run the schools.
Those costs also include student services such as supplemental teaching and activities like guidance counselors, health and social work services.
In fact, several school administrators argue those costs should be added into the instruction category because they involve educating students.
In general administration, which covers school boards and superintendents, districts spent an average of 1.3 percent of their budgets. Districts spent another 1.6 percent on central business services, the audits show.
Savings?
Local districts believe one solution to cutting costs could be consolidating services.
A committee that met last year to explore areas for combining services recently came back together, said Washtenaw Intermediate School District Superintendent Bill Miller.
The focus this year is how to install common standards and computer programs into districts’ central offices, which would make combining services easier, Miller said.
“That would allow us to share data easier,” he said. “If two offices are on different (human resource) programs, it would be hard to combine those services and get savings. If they are on the same one, it would be easier.”
The committee, made up of various officials from local school districts, is also looking at ways to save money on new programs for students, such as a countywide International Baccalaureate.
“We’re trying to get as much efficiency as we can,” Miller said. “We’re working department by department.”
Local districts have been talking for years about consolidating services. They made a countywide purchase of Powerschool to help track students and have combined for years on special education services. The also recently switched to a private company that provides substitute teachers for all the districts.
What’s not on the table right now is mass consolidation of districts, Miller said.
“It doesn’t make sense for a lot of districts,” he said. “We’re looking to take it step-by-step.”
Comments
YpsiLivin
Wed, Sep 9, 2009 : 8:46 a.m.
The reality of busing is that its cost will rise much faster than the state aid and property tax revenues that pay for it. The ONLY way to sustain school transportation is to redirect money away from classroom instruction. Since busing isn't sustainable without cutting funds from classroom instruction, get rid of it and redirect the cash back to the classroom, where it belongs. As far as consolidating schools, try this: consolidate all 10 Washtenaw County school districts into a single county-wide district. That would either eliminate WISD or expand its role. Use one set of text books and one curriculum county-wide. You would eliminate ten administrations in favor of a single large one. Very large school districts work in other states; there's no earthly reason they can't work here.
DagnyJ
Wed, Sep 9, 2009 : 8:24 a.m.
So can we talk about other cost saving measures? Like consolidating schools? Or why I don't want to send money to other school districts?
The Grinch
Tue, Sep 8, 2009 : 8:29 p.m.
This unfortunately appears to have become a fact-free and a logic-free zone.
YpsiLivin
Tue, Sep 8, 2009 : 4:39 p.m.
David Fitzgerald, I'm hardly living on a different planet. I work full time, as does my spouse and I take my children to school each day. I'm quite familiar with what's involved in getting kids to school. Busing is a luxury item and if the administrations of the local school districts are looking for ways to transfer more money to instruction, they're going to have to do it by transferring money away from luxuries and non-necessities like transportation and food service. So, if the schools don't put buses on the road to keep children in their classrooms, exactly why (outside of any state law requiring it) would the schools so generously offer such a service? Without the buses, fewer kids would be in class, and state funding would drop. Cynical? Hardly. It's just the plain and simple truth. Effectively, buses are viewed by school administrators as money-makers. Is busing necessary? Hardly. Most charter schools and private schools operate day after day, year in and year out without buses or food service. Guess what? Their students show up every day. The parents, even those who work full-time, manage to get their kids to school, bus or no bus and the kids don't starve. Those schools are every bit as nice as the public schools and often out-perform them. Why? Because they spend more of their dollars on classroom instruction. Here's another question for you. Do you realize that on very cold days, school gets canceled because the buses won't start and because some students have to stand outside in sub-zero weather waiting for the bus. On those days, the primary driver for school cancellation is the school bus. Does that still sound right to you? How much do you suppose it costs to cancel a day of school? And what is the cost to the parents? Talk about the tail wagging the dog... School buses a necessity? No way! Never were, never will be. School buses are luxuries that school districts can't afford. They are not necessities.
The Grinch
Tue, Sep 8, 2009 : 3:58 p.m.
Ypsilivin--I guess you are living on a different planet than I am, but in my world many, perhaps most families have both parents working, not so they can afford their summer cottage in Harbor Springs, but because they need the income in order to provide a decent standard of living for their family. This being the case, transportation for children to school is not a luxury, it is a necessity. Beyond this, bussing children to school is far more energy efficient and far less damaging to the environment than putting 60 cars on the road for each school bus. You are correct that state law does not require it, but that does not mean that it is not a necessary service. A means to prop up school counts? Get serious.
YpsiLivin
Tue, Sep 8, 2009 : 8:09 a.m.
"And to say that the only reason districts provide busing is to prop up their count day numbers is taking cynicism to an extreme" Why else would a school take on responsibilities that rightfully belong to the parents? Schools can provide non-essential services only by taking money away from essential services. Classroom instruction is required by law; free taxi service isn't. If schools want to spend more money in the classroom, they're going to have to cut spending on non-essentials like transportation and other amenities they can no longer afford to provide. Classroom instruction should be a school district's highest priority. Maintaining a private transportation system falls outside of the mission of the school.
Steve Norton, MIPFS
Mon, Sep 7, 2009 : 10:23 p.m.
Just because some services and programs are "voluntary" does not mean that they are unnecessary. And to say that the only reason districts provide busing is to prop up their count day numbers is taking cynicism to an extreme. AAPS provides transportation to lots of kids, many of whom come from working families where parents need to be at work before school starts (especially at the elementary level, when school starts at 8:48am). In fact, if you say that everything the state does not require is therefore unnecessary, it would include lots of things: elementary school libraries; art, music and physical education; athletics; most language training; advanced and elective classes at the middle and high school level; and so on. Perhaps the state does not require them, but would we be responsible citizens if we said "Sure, go ahead and cut all those programs. They're just fluff!"? We have good schools in Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County. Cutting programs to the required minimums will not make our communities more attractive to businesses or people considering living here, nor will it give our children the preparation they need for 21st century jobs. That path leads only to a downward spiral, with no recovery.
YpsiLivin
Mon, Sep 7, 2009 : 9:30 p.m.
David Fitzgerald, here's a news flash for you: public school districts aren't required to provide busing to regular education students. Busing is, therefore, an unnecessary and voluntary public expense that can be ELIMINATED for all but special education students. School districts voluntarily provide busing services (and waste millions in the process) to keep their student count day totals high. How many millions of dollars would that particular cut save the Michigan taxpayer each year? From http://www.michigan.gov/mde/0,1607,7-140-47875-174536--,00.html "School districts are not required by law to transport regular education children. Michigan Compiled Law 380.1321 outlines the obligations of the school district if its board elects to provide transportation. A school district is obligated to provide for the transportation of a special education student if the Individualized Educational Planning Committee has determined that the transportation is a specialized service which is included within and necessary to carry out the student's Individual Education Plan."
DagnyJ
Mon, Sep 7, 2009 : 4:54 p.m.
I also know that the district's enrollment will reach a peak in 2009-10 and then begin to decline. IN fact, we should be seeing lower numbers at the elementary school level now, because the current grades 9-12 are the biggest since the baby boom. That means that there is capacity to close schools, and plenty of room for teachers to move to different schools. Plus, we just paid handsomely in AA for expansions at most schools. So clearly the room is there.
DagnyJ
Mon, Sep 7, 2009 : 4:51 p.m.
Consolidation: I suggested consolidating SCHOOLS not DISTRICTS. For example, there is research indicating that high schools with fewer than 800 students are wasteful, and schools with more than 2,000 students are also wasteful. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED232256&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED232256
Bob Martel
Mon, Sep 7, 2009 : 8:27 a.m.
@Spambot1, Thanks for posting the Syracuse University study regarding the cost impact of consolidating smaller school districts in New York State. The study clearly shows the cost benefits of consolidating smaller school districts (under 500 and even 1,500 student districts) but does not appear to address potential cost impacts (positive or negative) on consolidating larger school districts although the study does report observing cost savings from consolidating "larger" school districts of 6%, which if this observation did apply to districts of a size relevant to Washtenaw County, is certainly not chump change. But the study does not appear to define the larger districts so I am unclear as to whether they mean to apply this observation to 1,500 student districts or even larger ones. Accordingly, I'm not sure that this paper supports either of our positions in this case.
The Grinch
Mon, Sep 7, 2009 : 12:23 a.m.
Ypsilivin: You miss the point of my post. Running the busses and maintaining buildings are one of the costs of running schools. They are not "overhead" and they cannot be dismissed--they are integral parts of the school system. Mr. Martel--you, too, miss the point of my post or choose to ignore it. Your self-chosen metric is to compare school expenditures with those of non-profits. OK, fine. Using YOUR metric, many non-profits have more than a 25% admin overhead. So, by your chosen metric, A2 public schools and those of the county (as an average) are quite efficient. If you don't like the conclusion drawn from your metric, you should have chosen a different one. And, Mr. Martel, school funding in Michigan is done at the state AND local level. Prop A did not change that. Prop A did limit the ability of local school districts to raise property taxes with the promise that the state would make up the difference in lost PT revenue. The state has consistently over the last decade failed to come through on that promise. So, as state funding falls, and as property tax revenue falls, and as districts are prevented from asking for millage increases, what, exactly, do you propose doing? You and others like you who make vague accusations of inefficiency but with no facts to support that charge owe us specifics. You are, after all, taking Spambot to task for his lack of facts. So, what cuts, where, and how much. Or are you just blowing smoke?
SpamBot1
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 9:01 p.m.
Do we all have to provide evidence for our claims, or only those that have logical and sensible posts? --- http://www-cpr.maxwell.syr.edu/efap/Publications/Does_School_Consolidation_Nov_05.pdf --- The research, conducted in New York, finds that there is a significant savings potential for small districts. And I agree that, in our State, there are many smaller districts that could (and should) consolidate, saving tax payer dollars. I disagree with the portrayal of ALL school districts as massive inefficiencies (see the first post following this article). --- Larger districts can hypothetically save some money by consolidating, but most of the savings would be eaten up by other costs that come with the increased size of the district. i.e., in combining two districts, you would have one less superintendent, but you'd have significantly increased administrative needs in every area and the additional costs of transporting students over a much larger territory. Given the savings are actually 4% (at best and excluding up-front costs) and the significant "diseconomies of scale" (see pages 6&7 of the research), I doubt many would want to cede local control. --- With Willow Run, you bring up an interesting question. Who wants to consolidate with that district?
Bob Martel
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 7:52 p.m.
One other thing, Spambot1, kindly cite your research for the urban myth claim regarding the claim that school district consolidation would not result in any meaningful savings. Thanks.
SpamBot1
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 6:21 p.m.
Another one of those urban myths... "Consolidating districts would save SO much money." Do the research (Mackinaw Center for Public Policy doesn't count anymore than Bill O'Rielly) and you'll find that the savings generated by consolidating distrcts is minimal. The only place you find substantial savings is when VERY small districts (less than 500 students) are absorbed by larger ones. I don't think you'll find any districts that small in our county.
YpsiLivin
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 5:04 p.m.
David Fitzpatrick - if you look at the NUMBERS in the spreadsheet, you'll see that Washtenaw County school districts (plural) spend about 55.6 cents per dollar on average for classroom instruction. Ann Arbor spends slightly more but many other Washtenaw County districts spend less. As a group, the Washtenaw County school districts spend less on average than other districts in the state. The number 56 is a lot closer to the 50-percent figure that jthornsb mentioned than the 75-percent fudge figure that Ann Arbor administrators offer because they want you to believe that certain other indirect (read: non-classroom) costs kinda sorta should/could possibly count as "classroom instruction" since these costs involve a staff member talking to a student. Let's get right to the center of this Tootsie Pop. The upcoming $30 million millage - if successful - will be distributed to the local school districts mentioned in the article. If this article is on target, $13,320,000 of that money - yours, mine and ours - will be going to the schools, but won't be going to the kids. Sorry, but I'm not sold on wasting nearly half (and yes, I live in Ypsilanti so the 50% figure applies in my case) of my "school tax" dollars on expenditures that don't impact classroom performance.
Bob Martel
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 4:23 p.m.
The fact that Ann Arbor School's figures may look "OK" in light of the averages as Mr. Fitzpatrick indicates in several of his posts misses the point: are we spending too little in the classroom and the other things that support the students vs. overhead? Let's not forget that we have over 549 school districts in this State! Each one has a whole lot of pure unadulterated overhead. In Washtenaw County alone, we have ten of those districts. How much money could be freed up for instructional services if Washtenaw County had only one or two school districts? That's a question that no one seems to want to discuss.
josber
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 2:58 p.m.
Nonsense David Fitzpatrick doesn't defend the spending priorties well. Much to much is spent on central office. But here's the problem, there's only so much money, and teaching kids needs to be the priority...
GoblueBeatOSU
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 2:52 p.m.
"There is something wrong with the picture when 50% of what is spent on instruction is spent on central office staffs."...yes there is...yes there is... of course the Ann Arbor way to fix this will be to find a way to raise taxes. With more tax revenue they can spend more on the classes and fix the ratio...which will allow the central office to pay themselves more..and the whole thing starts over again... oh wait...Ann Arbor already has a tax increase for the schools on the ballot I believe...
The Grinch
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 2:08 p.m.
jthornsb--that's not what the article says. It is closer to 25%, which is an entirely appropriate number. Read more carefully.
jthornsb
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 1:12 p.m.
There is something wrong with the picture when 50% of what is spent on instruction is spent on central office staffs.
The Grinch
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 11:34 a.m.
I'm curious, Dagny J, where will teachers teach if you close the schools that have their classrooms?
Steve Norton, MIPFS
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 11:25 a.m.
While it's pointed out in the story, you have to read down a bit to see it: the categories "direct instruction," "central office support" and so on are misleading. I'm not an expert on this, but I think that "administration and support" includes things most people would consider teaching, including ESL teachers, the teacher consultants, social workers, and so on who meet with students on a daily basis, and even the building principals. So it's not really "central" administration. The article does point out that the truly "central" administration costs are actually quite small. I'm sure AAPS did hire some staff, and they lost some staff as well. Basically, total staff is flat or falling a bit, as they leave non-teaching positions unfilled as part of the 09-10 budget. They've done a lot of cuts, and they have consolidated many services. But it takes time, and smart people, to figure out how to consolidate services without making a total mess of things. And we've lost a lot of things, even though they haven't been widely advertised. So what exactly is "non-essential"? And what (truly) central admin functions would be cut? HR, the people responsible for finding high quality staff? Finance, the people trying to find ways to be more efficient and cut costs? Instruction, the people who help teachers keep up with ever-changing state requirements and make sure everyone has the same goals and is teaching the same stuff? We've consolidated substitute teachers, and other things. We've privatized food service. We "restructured" the middle schools for the sole reason of saving $2.3 million a year. Many employee groups have made large concessions to avoid privatization. Parents now pay for all field trips and most enrichment programs, if they can. And the list goes on. Now, the bottom is about to drop out as state funding implodes because Michigan's economy is hurting and the federal stimulus is just about to run out. At what point do we say it's time for us to step up and do something about it?
DagnyJ
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 11:02 a.m.
It's time for Ann Arbor to consolidate its smallest schools. Start with the high schools, which are the most costly to operate. Close a small HS and you cut several central office positions, and also eliminate building costs. Then close the smallest elementary school (s). This is a no-brainer. There is no need to cut 200 teachers. That's a threat to get people to vote for the millage.
SpamBot1
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 10:46 a.m.
Well said Mr. Fitzpatrick. School funding, teaching, administration, salaries, benefits, and everything that surrounds schools is so poorly understood by the general public that public education is often the target of misguided attacks. You did a great job of deflecting one and pointing out that this story is, despite the initial reaction of many, a compliment to many school districts in the area. --- The mass inefficiencies and disgusting extravagances imagined by the general public just do not exist in public schools. They are the stuff of urban legends; Easily recited, but impossible to demonstrate.
The Grinch
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 10:15 a.m.
Mr. Martel's comparison of schools with other non-profits is apples and oranges. The vast majority of non-profits do not have large physcial plants that must be maintained in order to perfrom their most basic funciton. Most non-profits do not have large vehicle fleets that are run on a daily basis and that must be maintained in order to perform their most basic function. As Mr. Martel notes, using the chart provided by A2.com, and the numbers for the A2 school district, combining instructional costs with maintenance and building costs, 75% of every $ sent to the schools goes for the schools' most basic functions while the remaining 25% go for administration. On that basis alone, the A2 school system rates well in comparison to non-profit administrative costs. But non-profits generally don't have state and federal unfunded mandates with which they must deal (e.g., No Child Left Behind; environmental laws) that require admininstration and that force increases in administrative burden and costs. And few non-profits in the Ann Arbor area have as many employees or as many clients as does the A2 public schools. That, alone, drives up administrative burden and costs. Small organizations can have one or two people doing several administrative functions. Large organizations, such as A2 Public Schools, cannot. So, let me suggest that, $ for $, our schools seem to be doing fairly well when compared to non-profits. Are there more efficiencies that can be had? Almost certainly, but 25% on administration seems not to be terribly out of line.
Bob Martel
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 9:13 a.m.
I had no idea the direct classroom instruction percentages were so low. I realize that there is a need for overhead and such, but to spend nearly 45% of it's budget on non classroom expenses should be a scandal. Imagine a non-profit that spent only 55% on direct client services? Or what if health insurance companies spent 45% of collected premiums on administration and overhead, and only 55% on direct health care? I realize that these are not perfect examples and that the cost of operating buildings does benefit the students directly, but, puleeeze, does anyone else besides me think that these spending priorities are skewed the wrong way?
SpamBot1
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 9:06 a.m.
Ah yes, the analogies between school and business never seem to end. This time, it's "hiring freezes." It sounds good, but like most of the other ideas from business, they cannot be applied to education because our goals are different, and those differences begin at the most fundamental levels (and while my knowledge of business is limited, I would guess that a true "hiring freeze" is really a knee-jerk reaction that makes a good sound-bite, and is more a sign of poor management than anything else). ---- While districts are certainly reducing the number of hires, some spots that are lost to attrition or retirement HAVE to be filled. --- The duties of a music teacher that retired after last year simply cannot be added to the to the responsibilities of a 3rd grade classroom teacher. If a special education teacher moved away over the summer, we can't just lock the classroom door and tell those students to go elsewhere. ---
bruno
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 8:24 a.m.
I heard we hired more teachers for this year, is that correct? in my line of work, if we are facing a budget crisis, I dont think we would be hiring at this time. Perhaps we can get some better clarification on this matter from those more involved in the school budget. Thank you.
clark
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 8:10 a.m.
Holy cow, I count one misspelling (Couny), one incompatible plural (schools districts), and one missing possessive (districts spending) in the title to this article ("Washtenaw Couny schools districts spending on instruction takes slight dip"). Doesn't anyone proofread these things before posting them?
corazon
Sun, Sep 6, 2009 : 7:41 a.m.
AA Schools can't afford to lose 200 teachers! Cut & consolidate non-essentials & central admin!