Anticipating proposed budget cuts, people packed this evening's workshop style board meeting. Of course most of them were administrators and teachers. Assistant Superintendent for Administrative Services, Gary Grizaffi, proposed $9 Million in budget cuts. Mike Francis of PMA Advisors presented a five year analysis of projected year-end balances using what he termed optimistic assumptions. The board will make a final determination in February.
Debt Service: One of Many Elephants in the Room
I asked what the analysis would look like if debt service were taken into account (The analysis did not take debt service into account). Mike Francis told me that debt service does not affect operations because it is funded by the tax levy.
Everything is funded by the tax levy to one degree or other, or by some combination of local, state and federal tax money. Mike's answer makes it obvious that VVSD treats debt just like our state and federal government treat debt - like an "off balance sheet" expenditure, an expenditure that is not open for review or discussion and is taken for granted.
VVSD Debt service is on an upward trajectory. VVSD's debt service is budgeted at $20 Million for 2011 and trends upward reaching $26 Million in 2014. This is a real expenditure and it crowds out other expenditures.
Just like our federal and state governments, VVSD has no debt reduction plan. They merely "restructure" their debt by going into even more debt at taxpayer expense. Then they have the audacity to say that debt service doesn't matter.
State and federal governments do this with entitlement spending like Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and debt service. Federal spending is so out of control, Senate Democrats have just proposed raising the national debt ceiling by another $1.9 Trillion. This increase would allow the national debt to reach $14.3 Trillion. It's estimated that within a decade, interest on the national debt will be $800 Billion per year. That's a real expense that leaves less money for other services and programs.
According to Comptroller Dan Hynes, "Illinois will be confronting the most dangerous fiscal conditions in modern history." Illinois has $8.75 Billion in unpaid bills.
The Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago estimates Illinois' liabilities and unfunded commitments to be between $116 - $132 Billion:
Illinois general obligation and revenue bond debt outstanding increased from less than $8 billion in 2000 to around $23 billion in 2006 (this growth was largely due to the State’s issuance of $10 billion in pension obligation bonds in 2003).
As the State’s debt has increased, so has the percentage of General Fund revenues required to service this debt – leaving less revenue for other State programs. Illinois’ general obligation and revenue bond debt service in 2000 was less than four percent of the State’s general revenue funds; by 2006 it had risen to over seven percent. If actuarially-required contributions for pensions and retiree health care10 were added to general obligation and revenue bond debt, the State’s total debt service in 2006 would have amounted to around thirty percent of the State's general revenue funds.
The State’s fiscal problems have affected its credit ratings and its cost of borrowing.
Fitch assigned Illinois a “negative outlook” as of November 2008 and S&P put Illinois on “credit watch” as of December 2008.
It is sometimes said that a state cannot go bankrupt. Unless things change quickly in Illinois, we may be about to test that proposition.
Illinois has continued to finance reckless spending with more and more debt. No amount of tax increases can fix this problem, as the tax base would be further eroded. Illinois has no choice but to reign in spending. This debt game can't be played forever.
Foundation Level Funding Pipe Dream
Board President, Steve Quigley, lamented at length about the state's promise to fund K-12 education at $6,000/child, a.k.a. the Foundation Level. The state funds VVSD at $1,500/child.
I have as much faith that the state of Illinois will fund K-12 education at the foundation level as I have that the federal government will pay its bills without issuing debt and printing money. Illinois couldn't fund K-12 education at the foundation level even if it wanted to because there's no money.
The state of Illinois is such a fiscal basketcase as to cause me to wonder if Illinois will eventually go the way of California and issue IOU's in place of checks.
Supported Ed Aide Cuts to Offset Federal Government Stimulus Mandate
Assistant Superintendent for Elementary Education, Faith Dahlquist, reported that the district's ratio of Supported Ed parapros is so far beyond other districts our size that the district has suddenly decided to cut dozens of them.
This comes at a time when the district accepted and has to spend an additional $3.1 Million in stimulus funds with the stipulation that the funds are for new expenditures.
I asked if the aide cuts were an offset to the stimulus fund mandate. Supt. Grizaffi confirmed that the stimulus dollars are funding supported ed aides.
So which is it? Does the district need the aides, or not? That depends on when you ask the question. Before the stimulus dollars the aides were needed. After the stimulus dollars the aides aren't needed. But I thought the stimulus dollars were supposed to create jobs?
This is a clear example of how the stimulus money destroys jobs. In an effort to balance a budget deficit, the district had to cut these jobs because the federal government attached an idiotic mandate for new expenditures that weren't needed: additional supported ed aides.
I hope students who genuinely need aides will not be hurt by these unfortunate cuts.
The district's explanation about bringing it's aide to student ratio in line with other similar district's is an obvious attempt to justify the cuts brought on by stimulus fund mandates.
Special Ed. Overidentification Used to Justify Supported Ed Aide Cuts
As another justification for cutting supported ed aides, Supt. Dahlquist said that students were being overidentified for special education. She said that some of these students had aides because they only spoke Spanish. She said some of these students could be better served with one aide if they had similar learning needs.
I asked how many aides had been hired because a student only spoke Spanish. Supt. Dahlquist said no students had an aide strictly because they only spoke Spanish, which contradicted her earlier statement that some special education students had aides because they spoke only Spanish.
The fact is, some special education students with similar learning needs as other special education students won't be able to have those needs met in a group setting with one aide because they only speak Spanish.
Class Size is Not a Determinant Factor in Student Achievement
Superintendent Schoffstall said that research shows class size is not a determinant factor in student learning. He made this statement after Member Gougis raised concerns about proposed cuts of 4 elementary, 4 middle school and 4 highschool full time teachers.
Member Gougis asked how these cuts would affect class size. After much discussion, Member Gougis said that the district can not use the excuse that they don't have the proper class size as it pertains to student achievement. Member Gougis is right.
Joel Turtel, author of Public Schools Public Menace, writes:
It seems to go against common sense that student academic achievement could drop with smaller class sizes. One reason this happens in public schools is that when class sizes drop, schools have to create more classes to cover all the students in the school. Schools then have to hire more teachers for the increased number of classes. However, public schools across the country are already having trouble finding qualified teachers to fill their classrooms. As a result, when reduced class sizes increase the need for more teachers, schools then often have to hire less-qualified teachers.
As we might expect, teacher quality is far more important than class size in determining how children do in school. William Sanders at the University of Tennessee studied this issue. He found that teacher quality is almost twenty times more important than class size in determining students' academic achievement in class. As a result, reducing class sizes can lead to the contrary effect of hurting students' education, rather than helping.
Reducing class sizes can't solve the core problems with public schools. No matter how small classes become, nothing will help if the teachers are ill-trained or their teaching methods are useless, destructive, or idiotic. For example, if English teachers use the whole-language or "balanced" reading instruction method, they can cripple students' ability to read no matter how small the classes are. If math teachers use "fuzzy" or "integrated" math, they can turn kids into math cripples. Even if classrooms had one teacher for every student, that child's ability to read or do math could still be wrecked if the teacher used these destructive reading or math-instruction methods.
Class size is just an excuse to request more money to fund the additional teachers needed for the additional classes resulting from class size mandates. I'm glad Member Gougis is waking up to the "facts" touted by many in the education bureaucracy.
Can't Have Your Cake and Eat It Too
President Quigley said that serious consideration about the proposed cuts was in the best interest of the taxpayer. Member Gougis contrasted saving $300 on his tax bill with his home value going down by $20,000, implying that if the district cuts teachers education will suffer.
Yet, if we don't begin cutting spending on the local, state, and federal level, it's inevitable that we'll all suffer. There simply is no money to pay for the out of control spending at all levels of government. With a lingering recession, 10% unemployment, rising debt, $Trillion plus federal deficits, Illinois unable to pay its bills on the brink of insolvency, VVSD has no choice but to cut spending.
