A very logical article sent to me by a friend. The school system in question is the Craven County North Carolina School System:<\/p>\n
Instead of constantly looking at only the micro budgeting issues for the school system \u2013 let\u2019s look at the macro. I had an accountant teach me this while running the IT Budgeting system for a large Agency \u2013 yes, the whole thing \u2013 over a billion dollars. What I learned is only looking at the micro causes you to miss the big picture and that there are funds available \u2013 just not being used properly. BTW when I started applying this trick with a few other engineers in the budget shop with me \u2013 we were mysteriously transferred out and told to stop. Why \u2013 because we were finding the money and demonstrating there was more than ample money \u2013 the issue was not needing more money \u2013 the issue was getting proper oversight of the expenditure of the money!<\/strong><\/p>\n I will use only the Board of Education published data. Source 1: https:\/\/www.publicschoolreview.com\/north-carolina\/craven-county-schools-school-district\/3703310-school-district<\/a><\/strong> Next source: https:\/\/www.publicschoolreview.com\/north-carolina\/craven-county-schools-school-district\/3703310-school-district?fbclid=IwAR0m-kWR84RLSzLKrJ63kzQCLBRdRKg0x3g1a2Mkd1scoHCPmgiZjilDwpU<\/a><\/strong> Teachers are saying it is more like a 26:1 ratio in reality and that these numbers are not true and is the basis for a lot of teacher complaints. We are hearing from school board members that there is a serious vacancy rate of teachers and from at least one that it is not teachers but staff members \u2013 again these statements are not tracking with the published numbers.<\/strong><\/p>\n The point \u2013 the point is the micro and macro pictures do not go together \u2013 what is the bottom line? The cry teachers need more money could be satisfied looking at the macro picture. The cry that the student-teacher ratio is too high is not supported by the macro picture and in fact the macro picture now begs the question \u2013 where is the money going? Worse when submitting the budget for the last two years it is obvious that not all schools count the same making the budget even harder to figure out. For example, one school could count a librarian as a teacher but another does not.<\/strong> Good budgeting is reconciling the macro and the micro views \u2013 not just asking for money. Right now we have a disparity between the macro (a 16:1 student\/teacher ratio) and the micro (somewhere above 23:1 student\/teacher ratio). Further we have a $7M reserve fund in the school system \u2013 why? That is exceptionally high \u2013 that is money just sitting there not being used. No county department has that high of a reserve fund.<\/strong> We, citizens that own property in the state, are just asking to spend more tax dollars and pour more money into the system \u2013 we can do that \u2013 but it won\u2019t fix the issue of lack of proper oversight of the resources. I get the complications \u2013 for example asking a history teacher to teach chemistry is not good \u2013 but in the macro sense, we just need to move assets around (or as I showed there are 152 extras that this could be accounting for). I also get that if we have a great history teacher and are one too many \u2013 that we don\u2019t want to get rid of the history teacher, perhaps want to do it through attrition and maybe the ratio will change to something else when it comes time for that history teacher to leave (which will happen \u2013 either by retirement, quitting, or death \u2013 eventually that teacher will leave \u2013 its just a question of the time period \u2013 but are we carrying 152 teachers hoping for the larger class sizes?). But the bottom line as the one accountant taught me, the micro and macro pictures are not matching \u2013 they aren\u2019t even in the same universe. Could you imagine having a household budget of $40,000 with a $100,000 reserve, and expenses of $35,000 saying that you can\u2019t make it? That is what we are being told. Oversight is needed \u2013 where is it? In government all decisions are documented \u2013 again where is the oversight \u2013 please provide the documentation that it exists.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A very logical article sent to me by a friend. The school system in question is the Craven County North Carolina School System: Instead of constantly looking at only the micro budgeting issues for the school system \u2013 let\u2019s look … Continue reading
\nAssume equal distribution of students \u2013 I know not right but we are doing a macro picture, not micro so it is okay. So 13,895 across 25 schools in the macro picture is 555.8 students per school. This source says there are 16:1 student ratio \u2013 that is pretty good!!! So more teachers are not needed \u2013 you could go to a 20:1 ratio and still be great. So let\u2019s take the argument away and say that a decent classroom size is 23-25 at the high school level and 16 at the elementary level. Let\u2019s say middle school is also 16. That means half the population needs 1 teacher per 16 students and the other half needs a 1 teacher per 23 students \u2013 I get to needing 736 teachers which gives me 152 teachers to augment the needed teachers as see fit (and note the 152 is far less than the number of vacancies). Notice I am not disputing the 889 number \u2013 just trying to figure out how we are using them and what they are doing as an investigative question since the main complaint is the retention rate is so low and we are seriously short of teachers.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nAgain doing the math: 13985 divided by 889 teachers, I get a 15:1 ratio, not the 16:1 ratio \u2013 so the two sources are obviously using the same database and are synchronized with each other and is on par with the State as you can see in the chart right next to it. Now go further down in this source to fiscal comparison. Where is the money going? The graphs are showing the dollars per student is far less for 2021 \u2013 okay \u2013 but how did you get there \u2013 that is not shown. The graphs together do NOT make sense. If the school system as a whole is spending more than the state norm (significantly more), and the school system is spending less per student than the state norm \u2013 where is the money going? Look at the graphs together \u2013 it does not make sense. If you are looking at the macro picture it says some reprogramming of where the money is going is needed? Where are those requests?<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nLook at the spending curve \u2013 Craven County is receiving more money than the norm for schools yet is among one of the counties paying the lowest teacher salaries. Why? That is an interesting question to tackle.<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nI get the budgeting is hard \u2013 there is county, state, and federal dollars to account for. The county dollars pay for essentially the infrastructure (this includes the computers and software that each student has) and additional money for staff (this includes teachers if so desired). State pays primarily for staff, curriculum, books (which are basically non-existent in the classrooms I\u2019ve visited \u2013 there was one book to be shared among the teacher\u2019s 6 classes). Feds are paying for the rest. County is about 25% of the budget, State is about 66% of the budget, which leaves the Feds about 10%. Again, perhaps the proportions need adjusting if this isn\u2019t working \u2013 has anyone tried to get that done?<\/strong><\/p>\n