| | | St. Cloud schools need audit before levy
10/9/2008 12:00 AMYour turn, St. Cloud Times
This is the opinion of James Rugg, a representative of Citizen Awareness of the Restructuring of Education.
Reading comments on the Times Opinion pages regarding the St. Cloud school district operational levy is troubling.
Some analysts say we are in the most serious economic downturn since the Great Depression, yet reading about the levy, we are left with the impression that there are no alternatives to maintaining "excellence" if the levy does not pass.
A former school board member asked for a thorough audit of the district by some company not associated with education. I don't believe that has been done. I have no reason to believe the district is not completely forthcoming in spending; however, such an audit could reassure the public of that fact.
This should be done before the district requests further levies. For 2007, district accounting (2008 is still in process) shows spending of $9,773 per student, 9,358 students, 781 teachers, 393 paraprofessionals and 389 support personnel.
If every teacher had a class, the student-teacher ratio would be about 12-1. In fact, it is about 22 in elementary and 32 in high school, or about 27-1 average across the district.
The total cost of education has more than doubled, adjusted for inflation, since the 1960s. Yet literacy and performance have dropped considerably. Minnesota spends about half of its entire annual budget on education.
Do these numbers and statements raise any questions?
The mentality for most operations is that you must grow each year or you will fall behind. Schools are no different. About 80 percent of the requested levy involves expanded personnel and programs. Is this necessary and wise?
I would favor two of the levy issues. Reinstating transportation funding to allow picking up students near schools is a good idea. Past levies have had provisions to build up the district fund balance until we reach state guidelines of 5 percent to 8 percent of budget. Continuing that initiative is necessary to prevent the district from having to borrow money and pay interest to meet payment needs. Interest money just gets billed to taxpayers.
The hitch is that as soon as a funding problem surfaces, the school board has used that money rather than cut personnel or programs. There needs to be a separate accounting fund for this money that maintains at least the minimum 5 percent and cannot be used for other operational purposes. Those provisions should be in the levy. They are not.
We have a new superintendent, which should provide a clean slate. The entire approach to education and how it is funded cries for updating. A prime objective should be to operate within funding provided by the Legislature. It is obvious there is no thinking along such lines.
Levies were meant for unusual situations like the new school just built in St. Joseph. Yet they have become a standard at each voting period. It is natural for parents worried about their children not being provided a superior education to want more funding, but that is exactly what we have had for years.
More funding is not the answer. Expanding the system is not the answer. If education performance is to improve, we must start at the bottom with an agreement on what "education" means, what is needed to meet the objective and how to use the money.
Education is the future for each child and for the nation. If you agree, bring the message to your legislator, superintendent, school administrator and teacher. This is not an end, but a beginning to "excellence" in education.
This is the opinion of James Rugg, a representative of Citizen Awareness of the Restructuring of Education.
http://www.sctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081009/OPINION
/110090012/1006
 | |
