Re: A Levy Question

["Mike Curley" <curley@turbonet.com>]

John:

Let me start with this in terms of "detail" and see where 
our discussion goes from there.  For those following this 
conversation, John has a sophisticated knowledge of the 
budget and funding process from his years on the board.  I 
will say up front that what I provide is in some ways a 
simplification of that complex process.  John can certainly 
press ahead with more detailed questions, but I invite any 
other visionaries to chime in for clarification, expansion, 
or explanation.

The Administrative Council (all building principals, 
assistant principals, activities directors, special education 
director, business manager, asst. superintendent, and 
superintendent) recommended that if a $1.1 million 
addition to the supplemental levy were passed by voters 
that the funds be allocated as follows:
	$450,000 to fund the recommended elementary 
model (West Park K-3/Russell 4-6) instead of the 
Kindergarten Center that is proposed/necessary with no 
levy)
	$250,000 to fund district wide support and 
programming
	$400,000 to support students, classloads, and 
programming at the secondary level

Elementary Model--$450,000:
	With no levy the proposed configuration of our 
elementary schools is to have a Kindergarten Center at 
West Park and have Russell, McDonald and Lena 
Whitmore schools all house grades 1-6.  We would have 
to release about 14 +/- elementary teachers and 
counselors.
If the levy passes the proposed configuration has West 
Park a K-3 school, Russell 4-6, Lena and McDonald K-6 
schools.  We would release approx. 6.5 elementary 
teachers  and counselors.

District-wide support and programming--$250,000:
	Retain the English as a Second Language teacher 
($37,165), provide some funding for Mentor Program 
($7,000; the district received a grant for part of the 
program's needs), retain a special education position and 
support ($75,000), partially fund summer school ($10,000), 
retain part of the funding ($40,000) for curriculum 
(purchase of textbooks and other materials that have to 
do with delivery of the primary function of the district);  
retain some funding ($40,000) for technology--essentially 
the computerized part of the district, both for education 
and management (still underfunded for annual need, but 
not as badly as without a levy);  and add funds back 
($41,000) into the annual maintenance requirement (that 
will still be underfunded, but not as badly).

JR. and SR. High School support--$400,000:

$50,000 to retain 7th grade team teaching.  Virtually all 
administrators saw this as the top priority at the 
secondary level.

$160,000	Moscow Jr. High School Programs/Classloads
	49,430	8th grade team teaching
	37,165	retain math and Endlish teachers so classloads
			approximate average of 22-- v. 25 without levy
	12,264	maintain full-time gifted/talented teacher 
(unless classloads demand these funds go to another 
teaching section)
	21,240	English aide (writing, sip reading/writing) 
(unless classloads demand these funds go to another 
teaching section)

$160,000   Moscow High School programs/classloads:
	Without levy, we have to reduce about 25 "sections" 
(classes from the day).  With the levy, we reduce 4-5.
	Core class sizes (English, math, social studies, history, 
science) average about 22 (range 19-25) with levy, 24 
(range 21-27) without the levy.
	multiple elective programs offered v. many electives 
eliminated without levy
	basic and advanced student needs met with diverse 
offerings to meet their needs/abilities v. probable 
elimination of many sections in these areas without a levy
	graduation requirements remain intact v. potentially 
having to revise requirements downward without the levy 
(because of elimination of electives/sections)
	maintain more vocational programs v. complete 
program elimination in certain vocational areas without 
levy.
$30,000		restored to activities programs.  This would 
leave the REDUCTION (from this year's level) at about 
$56,000.

NOTE:  The budget process is on-going.  Typically numbers 
change in mid-stream.  Our "final" budget is due in June 
(after a public hearing), but the final numbers from the 
state on what they will be paying the district come to us in 
July.  At any given time we do the best we can with the 
information at hand.  On top of these variables, it seems 
to many who keep a close eye on those things and 
understand the workings of our legislature (I'd be really 
scared if I thought I understood THAT...), it appears that 
we will be facing yet another HOLDBACK this coming 
year.  There may be a recall to legislative session in the 
summer.  The special problem with that in addition to the 
funding difficulty it causes:  our contracts to staff must be 
offered in MAY.  Salaries and benefits account for 87% of 
our budget.  Another 6% (approximately) are fixed costs 
just for opening the doors (utilities, fuel, etc).  That leaves 
7% of the total budget from which to make any necessary 
ADDITIONAL CUTS.

Mike Curley

ps  I am sending a copy of this note to several district 
administrators and board members to check what I've 
said for accuracy and "completeness" (in the context of 
simplification) and to CQE members FYI.




On 4 Apr 02, at 12:57, John Danahy wrote:

Date forwarded: 	Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:57:36 -0800 (PST)
From:           	"John Danahy" <JDANAHY@turbonet.com>
To:             	"Vision2020" <vision2020@moscow.com>
Subject:        	A Levy Question
Date sent:      	Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:57:00 -0800
Forwarded by:   	vision2020@moscow.com

Mike;
     Could you please provide a detailed explanation of how
     the 1.1 million
will be spent by the district?

John Danahy
jdanahy@turbonet.com