Veterans of Texas summers know that it’s best to get the most
important and grueling work done now, before our famous yearly drought sets in.
So it’s appropriate that the Austin Independent School District (AISD) is
preparing to pass its budget for the 1995-96 school year on June 12, about two
and half months earlier than usual. Although the outlook for the year isn’t as
green as it could be, this year’s proposed $383 million budget affords a modest
pay raise for employees, spends
$3 million less than last year, and still
does not decimate any programs. The tax rate has been proposed at $1.28 per
$100 property valuation; that’s lower than last year’s, although with most
appraisals going up, it’s estimated that the average homeowner will pay $5 more. The reason for the good news, according to AISD budget
director Jon Graswich, is the newly enhanced, more visible role in the budget
of the entire district’s administration, especially instruction personnel. A
budget council, comprised of central office and campus administrators, was
convened last year and did a top-to-bottom examination of AISD’s needs and
finances, well before Superintendent Jim Fox arrived for work in January. Their
mission was to do the district’s first-ever program budget.
The council labored under two major imperatives – they must
not raise the tax rate, and they must provide a salary increase for all
workers. In light of the fact that the district is facing a loss of aid from
the State of Texas of about $20 million, along with its usual enrollment
increase of some 2,000 students, the task was not easy. But with a few
exceptions, the budget presented in March satisfies most of the district’s
stakeholders.
“It was more than just a cut list,” said Graswich of the
process. “It was an attempt to see if the money could be better spent.”
That’s not to say that the proposed budget hasn’t engendered
any adverse reactions. For example, members of the public have loudly jeered a
plan to cut some librarians, and halt the Priority Schools program, which
encompasses 16 elementary schools with a majority of low-income children. Not
everyone is impressed with how AISD sought to better spend its money.
The Money Situation
By now, it is no secret that the state’s contribution to
AISD’s coffers is shrinking by the year, placing an even greater share of the
financial burden upon local taxpayers. In 1994-95, the district received about
15% of its money from the state; for 1995-96, the state’s contribution will
drop to around 10% of the budget, or $37.5 million. Yes, the state’s “Robin
Hood” plan for equalizing revenue is definitely to blame. But things are more
complicated than that. As Graswich put it, “We’re more in the Sheriff of
Nottingham’s camp than Robin Hood’s.”
There’s a kind of seesaw effect at work. AISD loses state
money as the property on its tax rolls continues to become more valuable, but
gets a little bit of it back as it enrolls more students. For example, the
state will pay AISD an additional $1.6 million for enrollment increases for
1995-96. Meanwhile, $9.7 million in new money, culled from new property on the
tax rolls, will flow into AISD’s coffers this year. There’s also about $8.1
million in funds generated from Medicaid administration, interest earnings, and
lowered workers’ compensation rates. These “windfalls,” of sorts, combined with
a withdrawal of $2.7 million of the district’s fund balance, will soften the
$20 million loss. Some $3 million in budget cuts will then bring the deficit
down to zero (see sidebar).
And as for the future? For 1996-97, district officials
project a state funding deficit of around $13 million. It will again be offset
somewhat by new state funds from enrollment increases, and by “extra” local tax
money. And by 1999-2000, the seesaw will pretty much stop moving. Graswich
expects that AISD will have become so property-wealthy that it won’t qualify
for state funding any more. In the 21st century, AISD could find itself in the
same position the Lake Travis ISD is in now – Lake Travis must actually
give money to the state because of its “excess” property wealth.
How Will the Money Be Spent?
Being a labor-intensive organization, AISD’s biggest expense
is its payroll, which represents about 85% of the budget. Proposed salary
increases will cost $7.7 million – which will provide a 3.37% hike for
teachers, 2% for classified employees, and 2% for administrators. At the same
time, reductions at the campus level account for $4 million in cuts. The most
important way those cuts were accomplished was through the creation of the
“surplus” list. Principals were instructed to review their actual enrollment
demands, versus the staff they had, and place “extra” teachers on the surplus
list.
Superintendent Fox presented this plan as preferable to
laying off teachers outright; he pledged that all teachers on the list would
have jobs somewhere, if they want them, filling the vacancies that open up as
teachers decide to retire, quit, find other jobs, take leaves of absence for
disability, and the like. Some 150 teachers are now on the surplus list, poised
either for re-placement at their home campuses, or for placement at a new
campus. But even the surplus list won’t entirely fill the district’s needs.
About 300 new teachers will be hired this year, said Kay Psencik, associate
superintendent for curriculum and a major architect of this year’s budget.
That’s not to say that doing the surplus list was a painless
affair. Behind every “surplus teacher unit” is a person who needs a job, and
who didn’t feel very good about being designated as “surplus.” The surplus list
has been blamed for a number of unsavory incidents on AISD campuses –
converting malcontents into sycophants, re-igniting some long-cherished
grudges, and causing sleepless nights and some genuinely hurt feelings.
The savings to the district is achieved by raising class
sizes. In elementary school, the average class size is proposed at 20 (up from
19); for middle school, 27 (up from 25); for high school, 29 (up from 25). As
these are only proposed averages, actual class size caps would be higher. At a
time when AISD seems to be making a bit of headway on its dropout rate, doesn’t
an initiative to raise class sizes seem like a disincentive to stay in or
return to school? District officials say no.
“That’s something that’s discussed, but the research doesn’t
bear that out,” said Psencik. She understands that parents are reasonably
concerned about students’ access to the teacher and in turn, the teacher’s
ability to manage the class. Good teachers, Psencik said, accomplish both tasks.
Major New initiatives
AISD has attempted to stay focused on programs with this
budget, and so some new things are on the way. Last year, the board of trustees
voted to close Robbins and Evening High Schools, campuses that served pregnant
and parenting teens, drop-outs, and those needing individual or self-paced
instruction. In its place will come NovaNET, an on-line, self-paced system of
curriculum delivery. NovaNET will be installed in 10 high schools, and
officials intend for it to serve the same function as the Robbins and Evening
campuses did, but for even more students – and at a fraction of the cost $89,000.
The district has also budgeted monetary incentives for
campuses that boost student enrollment in advanced placement courses, and for
revitalizing its gifted and talented program ($80,000). To help increase
security, the budget adds four police officers for high school and middle
school campuses ($180,000).
Another major initiative intended to save the district money
is Fox’s reorganization of central administration. By the time new positions
for managers and support staff are added, old positions taken away, and federal
funds redirected, the central office reduction is slated for $276,647.
Some Sticking Points
Other methods of achieving savings have been quite a bit
less
popular with the public, and are still under fire as the budget heads toward
final approval. A proposal to cut seven librarian positions and have smaller
elementary schools share librarians would save $245,000, but has provoked a
giant outcry in recent weeks. So has cutting some 30 teachers from elementary
art, music, and P.E. (plus some other positions in those departments); that,
combined with raising the remaining teachers’ class sizes, would save $1.1
million.
Another controversy, over which district officials say they
have no control, is the reallocation of Title I funds from the federal
government, which go to children who are economically disadvantaged. Changes at
the federal level in Title I funding will bring about the end of AISD’s 16
so-called Priority Schools, campuses with low-income populations that received
extra money. An estimated $8.1 million will be redistributed to 38 schools
(counting the 16 Priority Schools), including, for the first time, four middle
schools, and many schools with a low-income population as significant as that
of any of the Priority Schools. But critics say that poor children have never
been anyone’s priority, especially AISD’s.
Too Good to Be True?
Again, this year’s $383 million budget spends $3 million
less
than the previous year’s, accommodates 2,000 new students, and still doesn’t
raise the tax rate. It cuts central administration and some teachers, but
otherwise, affords rather few losses in services, and puts a few new ideas in
place.
So what’s the catch? Very likely, AISD administration is
buttering up the taxpayers for a bond issue, which has yet to be scheduled for
an election. Facilities needs in both poor and rapidly expanding neighborhoods
are quite real, and long overdue for redress. And, just as if to point out how
deeply the bond issue is connected to this year’s budget, a public hearing on a
possible $410 million bond issue is scheduled the evening following the budget
adoption, on June 13.
This article appears in June 2 • 1995 and June 2 • 1995 (Cover).