In most
conversation circles around the state of Kansas, there are ploys used to get a discussion
started. Farmers will compare amounts of rainfall to the exact hundredth of an
inch to see who got the most. Sports fans will make optimistic statements like,
“This could be our year.” And even when it appears there’s nothing to talk
about, we can always make a comment like, “How’s it going?” to whomever will
listen.
Kansas educators’
conversations start a little differently these days. Lately, when I meet a colleague,
I introduce myself, tell them where I’m from, and then ask, “How much money was
cut from your district’s budget this year?” If that doesn’t get the ball
rolling, others will ask what our district will have to cut, or if we can keep
the doors open until the end of the year. Compelling conversation? I’d rather
talk about the Royals or the great rains we’ve had this spring…
Since I
brought up the topic of budget, let’s delve into my first year with our school
district’s budget. This school year started with promise, as most school years
did. Kids were excited to return, and staff was ready to get to work with them.
But financially, we were sitting in good shape to rebound from a couple of
difficult years of overspending. We had increased enrollment working for us,
higher assessed valuation on our side, and even some state aid from Topeka (to
the tune of $272,000), allowing us to give local taxpayers a break in their
contribution to the Local Option Budget. We even heard Governor Brownback tell
us that he would protect education in his election campaign if he were
reelected. It seems like I remember him saying that education and the students
of Kansas had suffered enough…
Then, in a
State of the State address for the ages, we heard those resounding, daunting,
and even accusatory words from the governor. “Kansas has a spending problem and
education is to blame. Let me repeat that…” you know the rest… The proverbial
carpet had officially been pulled out from beneath us.
A closer
look at the meaning of “spending problem and education is to blame,” gets
interesting. If you look at USD 466’s budget, you’ll see that the state’s
contribution to our budget did go up. But please DO NOT confuse this statement
with thinking that our district got more money than it should have. That’s a
completely different statement.
Here’s what
happened. Our budget allows us to have $6 Million in our General Fund. This
money comes from the state’s Base State Aid per Pupil (BSAPP) as well as
weightings we are allowed for the classes our students take and the situation
our kids’ families are in. We also receive $2 Million in Local Option Budget
(LOB). LOB money is generated by Scott County residents paying local taxes. Our
school district taxes 30% of the general fund to help with yearly costs. I’ll
come back to the Local Option Budget shortly, as this is the fund that is so
deceiving. The Capital Outlay fund this year allowed us to generate about
$750,000 to take care of maintenance needs in the district. Capital Outlay also
comes from local tax dollars. These three funds are the majority of our budget.
These are in question as we attempt to put our students on the path to success.
Let’s look
at the Local Option Budget a little closer. Remember the statement made earlier
that Kansas has a spending problem. The governor claims that the legislature put
more money into education this year than ever before. If we look at the LOB,
the state gave us $272,000 in LOB state aid. Remember that we can only generate
30% of our General Fund. This means that we didn’t get any more money in LOB,
we were simply able to levy less mills to reach our maximum budget authority.
More money was provided by the state, but it was done in a manner that kept
local tax payers from having to pay it themselves. The $272,000 helped us get
to the $2 Million cap. In the end, our district did NOT get anything more funding
than it would have. We just received our dollars from a different place.
Not only did
this message blur the picture for tax payers by falsely claiming school
districts have more cash flow, the state then took some of the money back. They
took away some of the money we were promised would help local taxpayers. Had we
rejected the money in August and told them, “We’ll just take this out of our
local pocketbooks instead,” we would have been better off!
Working in
our favor this year was increased enrollment and an excess payment the state
won’t require us to pay back. Due to these two things happening, our budget
basically breaks even with what we originally anticipated. But we can’t
overlook the fact that we could have had an excess of $76,000, due to our
increase in enrollment, to answer a lot of budget questions (adding back staff,
improving curriculum, etc.)
As we move
into the next budget year, it sounds like we’ll be working with the same money
we had last year. This is the philosophy of Block Grants. Early indications are
that our enrollment with be slightly up. The formula we’ve used in the past to
figure school funding would have provided more finances for us to hire staff,
purchase curriculum and technology, and purchase capital items (furniture,
vehicles, etc.) when enrollment increases. But our reality is that we will have
to work within the means we had when enrollment was lower. Once we get our
final count in September or 2015, it’ll be interesting to see what the true
impact this legislative session had on us.
We have
heard from the governor and his followers that “times are tough,” and we need
to make adjustments to get ourselves out of this recession. This recession was
self-imposed by those outside of education. USD 466 didn’t ask for this, but we
are dealing with it. Let’s just hope that Year Two isn’t as dramatic.