16
Apr
2002
If the members of the Davenport Community School District board take their jobs seriously, they have a lot of information to sort through between now and April 22, when they're scheduled to vote whether to close Johnson and Grant schools.
Board members have been given a thick packet that includes 16 individual options for saving the district money. They need to decide, first, whether using a combination of these alternatives makes more sense than closing two schools. If the answer is yes, then they need to find consensus on which group of alternatives is the best way to accomplish their cost-saving goals.
When the district voted to close Johnson and Grant in January, the package included the addition of all-day kindergarten (at a cost of approximately $1 million), the closing of Grant and Johnson (saving more than $1 million), and increasing class sizes by two students (saving more than $2 million). The net savings from the package was estimated at $2.3 million.
The district has made clear that all-day kindergarten in not negotiable, so that option is included in all alternatives.
Below are individual cost-saving alternatives developed by the school-district task force. No individual option will erase the district's deficit, so the school board would need to create a package that would address its financial shortfall.
Alternative A: Increase by two students the size of each class in each grade. This was one component of the school district's plan to close Grant and Johnson schools. Although the district initially said this would save slightly more than $336,000 in salaries and benefits for teachers, the revised calculations put the teacher savings at $869,000. Parent representative Alan Guard claims the move would actually save approximately $950,000. Also in this alternative, the district provided savings estimates for increasing class size by four students ($1.46 million) and six students ($2.13 million).
Alternative B: Build a new school to replace Grant and Johnson. This would result in general-fund savings of $574,000. A new school would cost approximately $6 million to build, and it would force the district to eliminate other capital projects, which are paid for through a separate fund.
Alternative C: Eliminate three high-school assistant principal student-activities positions. This would result in savings of $221,000.
Alternative D: Eliminate the Curriculum & Instruction Coordinators and Curriculum & Instruction Facilitators. This would result in savings of $1.12 million, although less than 60 percent of the positions are paid for by the general fund. If only nine positions that are paid for by the general fund were eliminated, parents estimate the cost savings at $642,000.
Alternative E: Combine two elementary schools with one principal. This would result in savings of approximately $98,000.
Alternative F: Move sixth graders to the elementary school and consolidate intermediate schools. The district says that elementary schools do not have enough space to accommodate sixth graders, so it cannot ascertain the financial benefits.
Alternative G: Eliminate sixth-grade-teacher team-planning time by changing the structure of the sixth-grade program. This would result in a savings of approximately $392,000.
Alternative H: Replace three high-school associate principals with a "discipline team" of four to six teachers. This would result in a cost savings of $216,000.
Alternative I: Closing either Grant of Johnson school, but not both. Closing only Grant would save approximately $1 million. Closing only Johnson would save approximately $1.2 million.
(Of these options, only Alternative A and Alternative D found much favor among the vocal group of parents who have been fighting the closure of Johnson and Grant.)
While these alternatives and their impacts were discussed by the task force, a few others were brought up at the body's April 11 meeting. They were included in the report given at Monday's public hearing, but the impacts calculated by the school district were not reviewed by members of the task force:
Alternative J: Eliminate 10 para-educator positions. This would save approximately $169,000, according to the district.
Alternative K: Implement an across-the-district budget cut. Because the district has "site-based budgeting," noted task-force member and former school-board president Denise Hollonbeck, the schools would make decisions about cuts instead of the district administration. The district calculated 1- and 2-percent budget reductions based on the general fund, resulting in savings of more than $806,000 and $1.61 million, respectively. Hollonbeck said the cut should be based on the district's entire budget but applied only to general-fund expenditures, resulting in savings of $1.19 million for a 1-percent cut and $2.38 million for a 2-percent cut. Across-the-board cuts were implemented in 1994 when the district was facing what Hollonbeck said was a similar financial crisis.
Alternative L: Require all full-time non-union employees to contribute $87 a month to the premiums for family health insurance. Currently, employees and their families contribute nothing to their insurance coverage. The district said that "109 non-bargaining employees ... require family health insurance," resulting in savings of $114,000. Guard said he thought that estimate was conservative and cited potential savings of $150,000.
Alternative M: Give all administrators $4,000 in deferred compensation, instead of the current percentage-based system. Administrators currently receive a 7-percent annuity, averaging more than $7,500. Setting the deferred-compensation amount to $4,000 per administrator would save approximately $227,000, according to the parents. (The deferred-compensation plan was instituted in 1981, to make up for a cap on the amount of administrators' salaries that could be contributed to their retirement plans. That cap has since been lifted, so the deferred-compensation plan the district has is a holdover perk that no longer accomplishes its original goal.) "It's not something that's going to affect them [administrators] immediately," Guard said. The material given to the school board suggested "a flat 4-percent annual annuity," but that was not what was suggested at the task-force meeting.
A parents group led by Guard has also put together five "packages" of cuts that would reach a goal of at least $2.3 million in savings. These packages include some of the above along with a few ideas that were not included in the task-force report:
• Requiring all school-district employees to take an unpaid day off. This proposal would save the district approximately $600,000. A similar proposal was included in a November 2001 school-district document that would have saved approximately $380,000 but would have applied only to teachers.
• Cutting all administrators' salaries by 2 percent. This measure would save $160,000, according to Guard.
• Leave vacant three administrator positions. This would save an estimated $264,000, according to Guard.
In total, suggestions favored by Guard and other parents total nearly $4.3 million and include keeping Grant and Johnson open.
Board members have been given a thick packet that includes 16 individual options for saving the district money. They need to decide, first, whether using a combination of these alternatives makes more sense than closing two schools. If the answer is yes, then they need to find consensus on which group of alternatives is the best way to accomplish their cost-saving goals.
When the district voted to close Johnson and Grant in January, the package included the addition of all-day kindergarten (at a cost of approximately $1 million), the closing of Grant and Johnson (saving more than $1 million), and increasing class sizes by two students (saving more than $2 million). The net savings from the package was estimated at $2.3 million.
The district has made clear that all-day kindergarten in not negotiable, so that option is included in all alternatives.
Below are individual cost-saving alternatives developed by the school-district task force. No individual option will erase the district's deficit, so the school board would need to create a package that would address its financial shortfall.
Alternative A: Increase by two students the size of each class in each grade. This was one component of the school district's plan to close Grant and Johnson schools. Although the district initially said this would save slightly more than $336,000 in salaries and benefits for teachers, the revised calculations put the teacher savings at $869,000. Parent representative Alan Guard claims the move would actually save approximately $950,000. Also in this alternative, the district provided savings estimates for increasing class size by four students ($1.46 million) and six students ($2.13 million).
Alternative B: Build a new school to replace Grant and Johnson. This would result in general-fund savings of $574,000. A new school would cost approximately $6 million to build, and it would force the district to eliminate other capital projects, which are paid for through a separate fund.
Alternative C: Eliminate three high-school assistant principal student-activities positions. This would result in savings of $221,000.
Alternative D: Eliminate the Curriculum & Instruction Coordinators and Curriculum & Instruction Facilitators. This would result in savings of $1.12 million, although less than 60 percent of the positions are paid for by the general fund. If only nine positions that are paid for by the general fund were eliminated, parents estimate the cost savings at $642,000.
Alternative E: Combine two elementary schools with one principal. This would result in savings of approximately $98,000.
Alternative F: Move sixth graders to the elementary school and consolidate intermediate schools. The district says that elementary schools do not have enough space to accommodate sixth graders, so it cannot ascertain the financial benefits.
Alternative G: Eliminate sixth-grade-teacher team-planning time by changing the structure of the sixth-grade program. This would result in a savings of approximately $392,000.
Alternative H: Replace three high-school associate principals with a "discipline team" of four to six teachers. This would result in a cost savings of $216,000.
Alternative I: Closing either Grant of Johnson school, but not both. Closing only Grant would save approximately $1 million. Closing only Johnson would save approximately $1.2 million.
(Of these options, only Alternative A and Alternative D found much favor among the vocal group of parents who have been fighting the closure of Johnson and Grant.)
While these alternatives and their impacts were discussed by the task force, a few others were brought up at the body's April 11 meeting. They were included in the report given at Monday's public hearing, but the impacts calculated by the school district were not reviewed by members of the task force:
Alternative J: Eliminate 10 para-educator positions. This would save approximately $169,000, according to the district.
Alternative K: Implement an across-the-district budget cut. Because the district has "site-based budgeting," noted task-force member and former school-board president Denise Hollonbeck, the schools would make decisions about cuts instead of the district administration. The district calculated 1- and 2-percent budget reductions based on the general fund, resulting in savings of more than $806,000 and $1.61 million, respectively. Hollonbeck said the cut should be based on the district's entire budget but applied only to general-fund expenditures, resulting in savings of $1.19 million for a 1-percent cut and $2.38 million for a 2-percent cut. Across-the-board cuts were implemented in 1994 when the district was facing what Hollonbeck said was a similar financial crisis.
Alternative L: Require all full-time non-union employees to contribute $87 a month to the premiums for family health insurance. Currently, employees and their families contribute nothing to their insurance coverage. The district said that "109 non-bargaining employees ... require family health insurance," resulting in savings of $114,000. Guard said he thought that estimate was conservative and cited potential savings of $150,000.
Alternative M: Give all administrators $4,000 in deferred compensation, instead of the current percentage-based system. Administrators currently receive a 7-percent annuity, averaging more than $7,500. Setting the deferred-compensation amount to $4,000 per administrator would save approximately $227,000, according to the parents. (The deferred-compensation plan was instituted in 1981, to make up for a cap on the amount of administrators' salaries that could be contributed to their retirement plans. That cap has since been lifted, so the deferred-compensation plan the district has is a holdover perk that no longer accomplishes its original goal.) "It's not something that's going to affect them [administrators] immediately," Guard said. The material given to the school board suggested "a flat 4-percent annual annuity," but that was not what was suggested at the task-force meeting.
A parents group led by Guard has also put together five "packages" of cuts that would reach a goal of at least $2.3 million in savings. These packages include some of the above along with a few ideas that were not included in the task-force report:
• Requiring all school-district employees to take an unpaid day off. This proposal would save the district approximately $600,000. A similar proposal was included in a November 2001 school-district document that would have saved approximately $380,000 but would have applied only to teachers.
• Cutting all administrators' salaries by 2 percent. This measure would save $160,000, according to Guard.
• Leave vacant three administrator positions. This would save an estimated $264,000, according to Guard.
In total, suggestions favored by Guard and other parents total nearly $4.3 million and include keeping Grant and Johnson open.
