|
Reducing the Operating
Cost of K-12 Education in Pennsylvania
Bill
Rutherford
Lititz, PA
Below is a proposal to reduce the operating cost associated with the
State Public Education System (K-12) without reducing the number of
School Districts (501). I have specifically left the teaching
structure in place from the School Principal positions on down. The
teachers, students and their parents would not see any change in their
present routine. Warwick School District, for example, would remain
Warwick School District but their admin and overhead cost would be
greatly reduced.
What I’m
proposing would only impact the Administrative and Overhead component
of these 501 School Districts. I’m suggesting that each County take
over these functions for the School Districts.
Presently
Warwick spends 60 cents of every dollar on education and 40 cents on
overhead and admin. This is fairly typical in the state. This proposal
has the potential to increase the portion spent on education to 70-75
cents on the dollar. If we are getting more education for our tax
dollars locally then the burden on the state and taxpayers will be
reduced without sacrificing the quality of education.
This
proposal recommends reducing the following cost:
- Overhead
- Teacher’s Labor and Benefits
- Design and Construction
- Purchasing
The School Board structure would remain the same except that the power
of the local School Board to approve budgets and negotiate with the
teacher’s union would be moved to the County and/or State levels. The
School Board’s main focus would be on curriculum, staff and student
performance and forwarding budget recommendations to the county level.
The total estimated annual savings resulting from this proposal
are between $2.5 and $3.5 BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR.
I think this is a conservative estimate.
Reducing Overhead Cost
Discussion:
Presently there are 501 school districts in the state. Each District
has its own administrative staff comprised of a Superintendent,
Assistant Superintendent, Tax Office, Maintenance Office, Human
Resource Office, Business Management Office and various other admin
personnel. These personnel do not teach students.
The 501
Districts were established by the Legislature. The School Boards
cannot change the basic underlying structure. They are, to a very real
extent, living with a fixed amount of overhead cost due to a structure
established by state officials.
Proposal
Establish, at the County level, a K-12 administrative team to perform
all-of-the above mentioned task at the County level instead of at the
District Level. Given the size of the budgets, this is very realistic
and saves the Districts a considerable amount of money in overhead
cost. Leave the 501 Districts intact from the Principal positions on
down.
For
example, if you had a County School Superintendent with an Asst.
Superintendent plus three Business Managers, I believe, based upon my
experience, you would have enough management oversight to manage a
good size county and/or city. In the larger cities some adjustments
may have to be made but I think its
clear
there is an enormous amount of money that could potentially be saved
and funneled back into teaching and lowering operating cost and school
taxes.
An
example of the potential savings is shown below:
Reduce the number of Superintendents from 501 to approx 70
(eliminate 431 positions at an average salary of $110,000 per year) =
$47 Million/yr plus benefits, lets assume 30% of their salary for a
total savings of $61 Million/yr
Eliminate 431 Assistant Superintendents (at $90,000 plus 30% in
benefits total saving = $50 Million/yr
If each
Superintendent had 3 Business managers you would need 210 Business
managers versus the present number of 501 (eliminate 291
positions). At a salary of $85,000/yr the total savings including
benefits = $32 Million
Reduce
the number of Tax Collection, Human Resource, Maintenance and Business
Management support personnel to support 70 offices versus 501.
Assume
that at the county level you would need approximately 40 personnel to
do all these tasks. If you assume the number of staff associated with
these tasks is 40 people per School District, you would reduce the
number of admin personnel by 431x 40 = 17, 240 personnel. If you
assume an average salary with benefits of $40,000/yr the savings would
be 17, 240 x $40,000 = $689 Million.
In this
example the total savings is estimated to be $830 Million/yr.
Of course the true numbers would have to be researched but I
arrived at these numbers based upon my research into my school
district and other nearby county districts.
Comments on this
Section - Comments should be directed to Ken Ralph, Editor of
LCDC Media at his
email address. Comments
will be posted here.
Reducing Teacher’s Labor and Benefit Cost
Discussion 1:
Presently each District’s School Board negotiates a contract with the
Teacher’s union so you have 501 labor agreements. There are at least
two serious flaws with this approach.
First
of all this scenario sets up a situation where all 501 Districts are
competing with each other for talent and constantly comparing
contracts. This drives up the cost of labor and benefits continuously
and encourages good talent to go job shopping to see where they can
get the better deal. The less affluent communities cannot compete and
in the long run the students suffer the consequences.
Secondly, we are placing this all important task of Labor Negotiations
in the hands of volunteers elected to the School Board, many of whom
are retired educators sympathetic to their ex-peers and others who
have children in the School District and don’t want to make waves
and/or have their favorite programs to fund. Most of these people have
little to no negotiating experience with unions.
Proposal
Establish a State-wide teacher’s contract for K-12 that’s negotiated
by professionals equal in talent to union negotiators. This would
level the playing field. It would also go a long way towards leveling
the playing field in terms of those communities that get quality
education and those who presently don’t because they are less
affluent.
The
Federal government sets pay scales, raises and benefits on a
nation-wide basis and allows for cost-of-living adjustments depending
on location. Penn has statewide contracts for other state workers such
as Penn DOT. The state teacher’s raises should be tied to the Federal
government’s cost-of-living increases.
Discussion 2:
Presently teachers in our school district, and I assume in others, get
paid additional salary if they complete a masters and/or doctorate
degree program. There is no proof that our students are benefiting
from this practice. I asked our Superintendent to show me the student
performance data that substantiated paying for this practice and he
said that none existing to his knowledge.
It
appears that the teachers are the only ones benefiting from this
practice, not the kids.
Proposal
Eliminate this practice by taking it out of the contracts. If a
teacher wants to pursue an advanced education, it should be at their
own expense, on their own time and with no additional salary being
earned. Until someone can demonstrate that the kids are getting
something out of this, it should be stopped. In our school district
the additional cost of this practice is $1.5 M/yr. Statewide you may
be looking at saving 501 x $1.5 M = $751M/yr.
Discussion 3:
Teachers presently complete a four year degree and have three years to
complete 24 hours of graduate work in order to be certified according
to our superintendent. Most of them decide to get a master’s degree
because they are half way there anyway after they get certified. There
is no state exam for teachers to pass in order to be certified that
I’m aware of.
Proposal
Require
that teachers work so many years and then sit and pass a state exam in
order to be certified in their field like engineers do or pass an exam
out of school like lawyers do.
Comments on this
Section - Comments should be directed to Ken Ralph, Editor of
LCDC Media at his
email address. Comments
will be posted here.
Reduce Design and Construction Cost
Discussion:
Presently each School District manages their construction projects.
The personnel managing the schools are not engineers and/or
construction professionals and as a result the cost and schedules are
not under control and the taxpayers are left footing the bill. A
Business Manager may only build one or two projects in his or her
lifetime. They can’t be expected to learn this profession by doing
that.
Proposal
Establish several standard designs for public schools to prevent
design firms from taking advantage of school districts. This step
alone would save Billions of dollars statewide each year. We need
functional buildings, not monuments to School Board members and
Superintendents.
Secondly, establish a cadre of engineering and construction
professionals at the county level or higher to oversee and administer
these projects. This step would help insure that lessons learned are
being applied across a broad area and benefiting the public at large.
Educators should be left to educate and should not be expected to
manage $60 to $80 Million projects competently in their spare time.
Reduce Purchasing Cost
Discussion:
Each
District negotiates and purchases their own books, supplies etc...
Some districts get together or work with the IUs to purchase things.
Their small size, in terms of contract values, diminishes their
bargaining power.
Proposal
Purchase items at the county or higher level to increase discounts and
increase bargaining power with vendors.
There
are numerous items I have not addressed such as examining Teacher to
Student ratios and curriculums to see where economizing could work but
these areas should be looked at.
In
closing I would not expect the proposal contained herein to get a fair
hearing from the education community alone. Much of what I am
proposing goes against their better interest. I would hope that an
integrated team of business and education professionals would evaluate
this proposal.
Please
let me know if you have any questions. I would be glad to speak in
person about this proposal.
Comment on this
Commentary - Comments should be directed to Ken Ralph, Editor of
LCDC Media at his
email address. Comments
will be posted here.
|
