Reply to M

<< I would prefer that administrative levels experience
cuts before teacher/programs. Downsizing is the name
of the game in business these days - From what I have
heard there is a lot of fat that can be cut... >>

Dear M,

Thank you for your email. I agree that our Board has been listening to parents.

I'd like to comment on one perception in your letter, the one about cutting fat (meaning administration) from our budget. If you look at the Newspaper today you will see that increases in costs in several categories are highlighted over the last decade. While instructional costs (money for teachers) has nearly doubled, administrative costs have barely increased at 4%. 

I've been on the Board for almost six years and paid close attention to it for six year prior to that. We have had several episodes of administrative cost cutting which have kept these costs in check. I believe one such episode led to a disaster when it was too severe. Shortly after that one episode we no longer had the personnel to do many routine procedures like inform our insurance companies that our teachers had retired and thus stop charging us for their premium payments. It was shortly after this cut that we went five million dollars in debt which led to a cut in instructional services that was also very painful. There must be balance.

I tell you these things because people need to understand that there is more to a school system than just teachers. Without support services everything would grind to a halt. I think the current administration has been kept pretty trim but we will continue to trim it where ever possible.

Thanks for your note.

Harry Welty