PROPOSED RESPONSE TO LOSS OF FUNDING
Under current conditions, the Vail School District is facing the loss of approximately $5.8 million dollars of funding by the 13/14 school year.
A plan must be developed.
More “belt-tightening” will be done in administrative and instructional areas, but extreme measures will be necessary to meet the pending budget cuts. The starting point is the elimination of all services that are not directly related to the core educational mission of the District.
The District is looking to focus efforts on its primary mission: classroom instruction.
Some specific measures being considered:
1. Charge students/parents the full, actual cost of athletics and other activities. If there is not enough participation, the activity will be cut.
One of our administrators called athletic programs “our best drop out prevention program.” Likely true. We are very proud of our athletic programs and highly value them. However, the reality is that athletics support academics. Providing athletic opportunities is not part of the District’s core purpose. Many secondary schools around the world, including some local charter schools, produce excellent academic results without athletics.
Athletics are very expensive. Obvious costs are coaching stipends, equipment, and travel. In addition, many other costs include: salaries of athletic trainers; watering, maintenance and lighting of playing fields; officials; and the extensive additional administrative time required for organizing and supervising the constant flow of activities.
If one wishes to confirm that athletics are expensive, inquire as to the fees parents pay for the “club sports” in which more and more of our students are participating.
The true cost of athletics in Vail is roughly estimated to be $1 million to $1.4 million — in addition to the revenue from current fees, ticket receipts, and fundraising. If athletics are to be truly self-supporting (not using classroom dollars), initial estimates are that participation fees per sport could be $700 per student or more. We are continuing to work on these numbers. Tentative plans are to initiate increased fees as early as January 2012.
2. Charge youth sports and other groups the actual costs of providing grass fields. If fees cannot be collected, fields that are not necessary for each school’s program will be eliminated.
The Vail School District greatly values its relationship with our community. One of our guiding principles is:
WE ARE RESPONSIBLE TO OUR LOCAL COMMUNITY. Our schools are the centers of the community. We actively seek community involvement. And, we respond to community needs.
Our community is woefully short on recreational facilities. As such, as our schools were designed and built, we took advantage of any opportunity to provide additional playing fields for the community.
In Rita Ranch for example, all four school sites had an adjacent park site that was supposed to be developed and maintained by the City. When the City refused to develop the park sites, the District purchased the park sites and incorporated large playing fields into the sites. The expanded playing fields were enthusiastically shared with youth leagues.
One of the key reasons the District built and offered these expanded playing fields is that the additional costs had essentially no impact on funds available for classrooms and instruction. School funding formulas permitted the District to pay the additional watering costs from a funding source separated from classroom dollars. The legislature has eliminated that separate funding source. Now every dollar spent on watering fields must be subtracted from the same funding source used to fund teaching positions.
An extreme example of the District serving as the community park service is Desert Sky Middle School. Other middle schools in the District are getting by with just 2 acres of grass fields. Desert Sky has 14 acres. Maintaining those additional 12 acres is costing the district approximately $100,000 per year — more than the cost of two teaching positions. If drastic budget cuts must be made, the choice between teaching positions and grass will be necessary.
Serving as the community’s “park service” is not part of the District’s core mission.
If playing fields must be reduced, fees for youth leagues to use the remaining fields would likely be increased to better cover the actual costs of maintaining the fields.
Initial estimates indicate the District could save at least $400,000 with the elimination of playing fields that are not necessary for each school’s physical education and recess needs.
An even better financial advantage could be realized if the “extra” acres were leased. For example, the 12 extra acres of grass at Desert Sky could be offered as a building site to a business or church through a long-term lease. Income from the lease could be used to support academics.
Again, we do not find these options to be attractive. However, the reality is that we are “competing” with charter schools located in strip malls and industrial buildings. These schools receive over $1,100 or more per student from the State than the Vail District. Often they do not water a single blade of grass. They have the opportunity to put far more of their funding towards teacher positions and salaries.
3. Reduce the high school day to five periods.
School Districts in Arizona are required to provide eligible students with a free education.
The cost of providing instruction beyond the minimum that is required for promotion or graduation must be covered by the school district.
School Districts in Arizona receive full funding for every high school student who is in school for four hours (four traditional class periods). With the exception of JTED (career and technical education) classes, districts do not receive compensation for students taking additional classes.
Many high school students in Vail take six or seven classes each year. It is possible for students to obtain the 22 credits (classes) for graduation by taking five classes for two of their high school years and six classes for the other two years.
Obviously, it is advantageous for students to be able to take more classes than what is required. However, those additional classes require the employment of additional teachers. If drastic budget cuts must be made, the choice must be made between hiring teachers for classes required for graduation and “extra” classes.
If the District limited students to a five period day (except for JTED classes), the saving would be approximately $500,000.
Students wishing to have educational experiences beyond the five period day would either have to pay fees for a Pima Community College classes or an activity provided by the District.
IF ALL THREE OF THE ABOVE PROPOSALS ARE ENACTED, INITIAL ESTIMATES OF SAVINGS IS ROUGHLY $2 MILLION — LEAVING ALMOST $4 MILLION MORE CUTS TO BE MADE IN OTHER AREAS. ALL OF THE ABOVE CUTS ONLY BRING 1/3 OF THE TOTAL LOSS.
