Among the possible sources for cuts in the budget which were "not on the
table" were:
1. A freeze on the salaries of employees covered by the teachers' contract
(teachers, social workers, school psychologists, and other licensed personnel
but not principals or area superintendents).
The district's explanation for this omission is that we need to be
able to offer competitive salaries so that we can recruit and retain talented
staff. The MPS average starting salary is around $28 thousand and the average
in the near suburbs is around $33 thousand. Left unsaid, perhaps, is the fact
that the district is in negotiation with the "teachers' union" and they felt
the need to include funds for an increase.
2. The district has a number of initiatives which formed the program
background for the budget. The district, to date, has not provided a cost
breakdown nor shown a willingness to review the programs for possible delay
in implementation.
The initiatives include: The Attendance Initiative tries to insure 95%
attendance by each student; Twelve Point Plan is a district improvement
plan...please see the MPS website for a full explanation of each of the
initiatives; High School Transformation attempts to address low graduation
rates and closing the achievement gap; Middle School Platform attempts to
close the achievement gap and improve the general educational environment.
3. It is impossible to discern from the survey whether or not the following
were reviewed:
a. Attorneys' fees for workers' compensation claims and civil actions;
b. District-paid out-of-state travel by principals and school/district
administrators;
c. Reduction of the automobile allowance;
d. Have the rates paid for natural gas, water and electricity been
renegotiated....
The district did include an unspecified $6 million in district-level
cuts. With the hiring of David Jennings, it may very well be that such issues
are being considered. I do know that the district's cell phone policy is
being reviewed with a view toward reducing their use (many staff would go
back to having pagers).
4. As far as we are aware there has been no consideration of combining
formally or informally with other districts.
Items one and two represent not only potentially large savings but also
almost undoubted damage to the district's plans for improving graduation
rates and closing the achievement gap. The reason that the Citizens' Budget
Advisory Committee urged the Board/District to include the class size option
was not necessarily that we supported increasing class size (although most of
us do hold that position) but that all options needed to be discussed. The
district committed to spend every penny of the referendum on reducing class
size. The district has done so. The district's commitment is not changing.
The very real difference in circumstances makes meeting the class size ratios
set forth in the referendum of questionable value at this time. The goals
would be retained; the timeline for achieving the goals would be extended.
The committee understands that for some children the benefits of reduced
class size are undeniable. The impact of some of the other proposed cuts
could undercut or eliminate these benefits altogether.
As anyone who reads the emails on this site knows, the items I list are but a
few of the possibilities not mentioned by the district's survey. Anyone who
would like to make further suggestions for budget reductions should feel free
to send them to me. I will present them to the committee for review and
include, where we can reach consensus, them in our recommendations to the
District/Board.
Ken Stewart, Chair
Minneapolis Public Schools Citizens' Budget Advisory Committee
Nokomis Village, 12-9
612-722-4154
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
