Slide Show for Buhler USD 313 Budget Update

Budget and legislative information for Buhler USD 313

The following information I will share with the Buhler USD 313 staff, site councils and PTO's after spring break.  If you have questions about this information or need more information please contact me.  I urge all of you to become advocates for our students by contacting your legislators.
David

To:            Buhler USD 313 Staff

From:       D. Brax

Subject:    Budget and legislative information

Date:        March 8, 2011

Governor’s budget reduction proposal for 2011-2012 = $427,448

Fixed cost projected increase

·         Health insurance increase of 7% = $64,130

·         Fuel cost increase of 20%  = $20,121

·         Maintenance/custodial  supplies increase 10% = $32,000

Total cuts and projected fixed cost increases for 2011-2012= $543,699

Listed are some cost saving measures to date for the 2011-2012 school year.

Personnel Savings

·         Not replace the Buhler Grade Principal

·         Change in Superintendent salary                                                       

·         Not replace Prosperity part-time vocal position

·         Not replace Buhler High Media Specialist (not BOE approved yet)                                    

Total Personnel Savings = $157,012

Early retirement savings      

·         Cost savings in early retirement to date = $24,877

Carry-over savings

·         Savings to carry-over for 4 snow days this year = $44,000

Total Savings to date = $225,889

Difference between needed cuts and cuts to date                                       $317,810

Budget Cuts by the Buhler USD 313 Board of Education from January 2009 to date

·         Textbook adoption freeze

·         Professional development reduced by 90%

·         No summer curriculum or professional work

·         Late bus routes reduced from 7 to 2 to 0.

·         Field trips limited to Reno Co.

·         Dismissed school early in two different years

·         Reduction of teaching staff through attrition by 3.5 persons

·         Reduction of custodial and maintenance staff by 2.5

·         No data management upgrades

·         Athletic budgets and coaches reduced greatly

·         No out of state conferences unless grant funded

·         No out of state student competition

·         Reduced transportation support help

·         Reduced BHS summer secretarial help

·         Capital Outlay State Aid eliminated ($254,000)

·         Professional Development state aid eliminated ($15,000)

·         Moved Maintenance Salaries to Capital Outlay

·         Greatly reduced classroom supply budgets

·         Greatly reduced library budgets

·         Eliminated weekly readers

·         Reduced color copying

·         Eliminated paper parent newsletters

·         Reduced secretaries

·         Reduced postage

·         Reduced summer maintenance

·         Reduced technology infrastructure budget

·         Eliminated vehicle purchases (except Dr. Ed)

·         Reduced summer transportation help

·         Kept school buses in the school lot

·         Eliminated overtime for classified staff

·         Eliminate District Media Aide

·         Reduced new teacher extra days pay

·         Eliminated Assistant Superintendent position

·         Job share the Buhler Grade Principal position

·         Prosperity Principal is also part-time vocal teacher

·         Reduce or eliminate BHS library/media specialist position*

*not yet approved by the Buhler USD 313 BOE

Revenue Enhancements by the Buhler USD 313 Board of Education to date

·         Increased textbook fees

·         Increased technology fees

·         Increased pay to participate sports fee

Future Concerns for K-12 Education

To meet the budget demands for next year the board and administration will continue to analyze ways to make budget cuts and use some cash reserves.  In the 2011-2012 fiscal year the state budget will probably bottom out.  It appears that the state economy is beginning to recover slowly. 

Kansas House of Representatives Actions:

·         Senate Bill 1 – There is movement in the Kansas House to cut taxes and not replace the revenue needed to restore school budgets.  The House gutted S-1 and replaced it with a tax cutting measure.  According to the Hawver Report of March 20, “The bill essentially freezes at current year levels the spending possible by the Kansas Legislature in the future by diverting to individual and corporate income tax relief any increase in state revenues in the future.  It means that for all the talk about when “conditions improve” as the recession ebbs, there won’t be money to expand programs, rebuild the state’s financing of K-12 education, or more comfortably care for the state’s poor.”

·         House Concurrent Resolution 5010 – This is a constitutional resolution that takes 2/3 votes in the House and Senate and then approved by the voters.  This resolution introduced by Mike O’Neal states that only the legislature can determine appropriate funding for K-12 education.  Essentially, the courts would not have any involvement with determining suitable funding for education.

·         State Board of Education and Board of Regents – Mike O’Neal has proposed that the Kansas State Board of Education and the Board of Regents be dissolved and replaced by a Secretary of Education who is appointed by the Governor.

·         “Suitable Education” – Governor Brownback has asked Mike O’Neal to define a “suitable education”.  He stated that he can do that in a paragraph or two. 

Your help is needed

Please contact your area legislators asking them to restore funding to K-12 schools.  To date we have cut over $1,700,000 since January 2009.

 How to Write your Legislator

Letters to Kansas Senators and Representatives:

The Honorable  (full name)
State Capitol

Topeka, KS  66612

Dear Senator (last name):  or

Dear Representative (last name):

Elected officials care what their mail says.  A logical courteous letter carries weight; it can change a legislator's mind, particularly when the legislator is wavering on an issue.  It is important that your message be written as effectively as possible.  Here are a few points.

Content:

• Keep it brief.  Be as brief as possible, but don't sacrifice clarity and completeness.  Two pages is a maximum but one page is best. Use your own words and not form letters.
• Identify yourself.  Let your legislators know that you live and/or work in their district.  (I am the parent of two children in the Buhler School district.")
• Keep it focused.  Limit the correspondence to one subject.  Otherwise, you decrease the force of your argument and complicate your legislator's efforts to act.
• Get to the point.  State your purpose at the outset and use the remainder of the letter to expand your views.  Be constructive suggesting alternatives or better solutions, if possible.  A few strong, well thought out points will be more influential than a long laundry list of reasons.
• Use facts.  Issues you write about may be emotion-laden, but beware of the nonfactual argument.  It will make your legislator less willing to consider your point next time, too.
• Relate it to home.  Emphasize the effect of the budget crisis on Buhler schools.  Give facts and illustrations regarding your children if possible.  (Refer to cuts already made to Buhler USD 313. Legislators seldom change their decisions because of a philosophical argument but well-reasoned examples carry tremendous weight). 
• Provide background as needed.  Don't assume that a legislator is as well informed as you about a problem.  A legislator can't keep abreast of everything.  Explain the situation, what you think and why.
• Make specific recommendations.  ("Protect public education during this session, Look for alternative revenue sources for schools, etc.")
• Keep it positive.  Your attitude is important.  A polite, positive-sounding letter is more likely to impress than one that is negative, rude, or threatening.  Avoid being antagonistic.  Point out the benefits of your position.
• Close with a friendly appeal, regardless of the action you urge. 

Format & process:

• Correct address.  Use the correct name and address for your legislator.
• Follow etiquette.  Addressing correspondence to legislators requires particular etiquette.  Every legislator is called "Honorable" on the envelope and inside address.  In the salutation, address house members as "Dear Representative _________" while senators are called "Senator ________."  Spell the name correctly.  During a legislative session (Jan-May), send correspondence to their office, otherwise send to home or business.
• Return address information.  For letters, be certain that your name and address are on the envelope and letter.
• Reference bills by number.  Refer to all bills by name and number when possible.
• Write legibly or type.  Make sure to use correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation.  Do not depend on spell check or grammar check to catch all errors.
• End cordially.  Thank them for their help and consideration.  "Sincerely," is an appropriate closing.
• Follow up thanks.  Send a note of appreciation if your legislator supports your issue or a note of disappointment if they do not support the issue.  If they send information you request, also send a note of thanks.
• Don't give up.  To be truly effective, sending more than one letter during a session is a good idea.

Using E-Mail

E-mail can be an easy and effective tool for communicating with legislators.  The tips above for letters also generally apply to sending e-mails.  In addition, e-mails should:

• Avoid informal language.  E-mail to a legislator should be treated as seriously as a traditional (snail-mail) letter.  Resist the temptation to use the informal language and symbols often associated with e-mail communications.  Never use impolite language or make "demands."
• Include your full address and zip code.  Make sure the text of your e-mail includes your full name and street address, including zip code.  E-mails that may appear to come from outside the district are unlikely to be read and might be blocked by filtering programs.

 LEGISLATIVE CONTACTS

Kansas Senator

(Hutchinson, 34^th District)

Terry Bruce (R)

Local:  620-662-6830

401 East Sherman

Hutchinson, KS  67501

Topeka:  785-296-7300

State Capital Bldg.

300 SW 10^th Ave

Room #141-E

Topeka, KS  66612

terry.bruce@senate.ks.gov

Representative

(South Hutchinson, 101^st District)

Joe Seiwert (R)

Local:  620-459-6927 (H)   

1111 East Boundary Road

Pretty Prairie, KS  67570

Topeka:  785-296-6838

State Capital Bldg.

300 SW 10^th Ave

DSOB

Topeka, KS  66612

joe.seiwert@house.ks.gov

Representative

(Hutchinson, 102^nd District)

Jan Pauls (D)

Local:  620-663-8961

1634 Baker

Hutchinson, KS  67501

Topeka:  785-296-7657

State Capital Bldg.

300 SW 10^th Ave

Room #420-S

Topeka, KS  66612

janice.pauls@house.ks.gov

Representative

(Hutchinson, 104^th District)

Michael R. O’Neal (R)

Local 620-662-0537

PO Box 2977

Hutchinson, KS  67504-2977

Topeka:  785-296-2302

State Capitol Bldg.

300 SW 10^th Ave

Room #143-N

Topeka, KS  66612

mike.oneal@house.ks.gov

Suitable education, suitable funding and additional governor power thoughts.

 Let me get this straight!  Here is what is on the agenda of the Speaker of the House over the past couple of weeks. 

1.  The Governor has asked Mike O'Neal to define a suitable education.  He stated that he can do that in a paragraph or two.  I'm sure anything beyond his definition would be the responsibility of the local school board to fund.  Where would be the equity among the school districts?

2.  He has also introduced Resolution HCR 510 that states that the "The legislature shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state in an equitable manner and in such amounts as may be determined by the legislature"  In other words the courts could not intervene in determining if K-12 education is adequately funded!

3.  He wants to abolish the State Board of Ed. and Kansas Board of Regents and put the functions of these boards under the whims of the governor. 

Do you think the Speaker is attempting to usurp too much legislative and executive branch power?

 

Speaker O'Neal pushes to abolish State Board of Education, Kansas Board of Regents

March 10, 2011, 10:20 a.m. Updated: 10 March 2011, 2:29 p.m.

Topeka — House Speaker Mike O'Neal, R-Hutchinson, on Thursday urged approval of a constitutional amendment that would abolish the State Board of Education and Kansas Board of Regents.

It would authorize the governor to select a Cabinet-level secretary of education.  “I do not see a great deal of coordination between the Board of Regents and K through 12 right now,” O'Neal told the House Education Committee.  He described the 10-member State Board of Education as “dysfunctional” because it has 5-5 votes on some issues.

But Gary Sherrer, chairman of the Kansas Board of Regents, and Ken Willard, a member of the State Board of Education, opposed the proposed constitutional amendment. Sherrer said it was “a solution seeking a problem.”

Currently, the nine-member Board of Regents, which supervises higher education, is appointed to staggered terms by the governor. The board hires a regents president. The Education Board is elected from districts and appoints a state education commissioner.

Sherrer said the regents was created in 1925 in order to protect higher education from political abuses and direct control of the governor.  “We have in place today a governance and coordination structure that encourages collaboration, reduces duplication, enhances Kansas' quality of life, and boosts the state's economy,” he said.

Willard said the Education Board would become more politically motivated if it were susceptible “to the changing political environment of the governor's office.”  “While the proposed new governance of education could, no doubt be made to work, the question is, what is the evidence that it would, in fact, serve the interests of the people of Kansas better than the cooperative leadership model now in effect,” Willard said.

Missy Taylor, with Kansas Families for Education, said the proposal would produce too much uncertainty within the education system.  “Every time a new governor is elected we could see a change in leadership for our educational system, and this could prove detrimental for our schools and our students,” she said.

John Masterson, president of Allen County Community College and chairman of the Community College Council of Presidents, said O’Neal’s plan would be disruptive to higher education. “The current structure makes our educational system less subject to political forces,” he said.

O'Neal said his proposal may be better suited for legislative action during the 2012 legislative session. But, he said, he wanted the debate to start.

Support for K-12 Education

Below is an article from the Topeka Capital Journal.  It reveals the results of a scientific survey that shows overwhelming support for Kansas public schools.  I wish the legislators would take this to heart as they contemplate deeper cuts to K-12 education.  To date the House and Senate have not passed a rescission bill for this fiscal year or a budget for next fiscal year.

Education advocates tout survey results

Posted: March 1, 2011 - 9:02pm

By Angela Deines

THE CAPITAL-JOURNAL

Education advocates held up results of a survey Tuesday that they say shows nine out of 10 Kansans "believe public education is worth the investment of tax dollars" and put a high priority on the value of education.

Representatives of several state-level education groups said during a news conference at Logan Elementary School that a "vast majority" of those polled recently by Patron Insight, Inc., of Stilwell, believe Kansas schoolchildren  have equal access to educational opportunities, regardless of where they live.

"We believe that data suggest quite strongly that patrons believe in an equal playing field across the state and that public education is very important and should be equally funded", said Ken DeSieghardt, CEO of Patron Insight. "From a data perspective, Kansans value their public schools, and they really believe they are a good investment of tax dollars and they want to protect the funding."

DeSieghardt said 500 registered voters were surveyed in 162 school districts, showing a "true cross section" of Kansans' sentiments regarding public education.

Mike Mathes, Seaman Unified School District 345 superintendent, said the Patron Insight survey shows 82 percent of  those surveyed give their local districts a grade of "A" or "B" for their performance. He said that shows Kansans have faith in the education students are receiving in public schools and that adequate funding should follow.

"It is a very vocal minority who is trying to show public schools are failing so we can lower taxes and not give that money to those failing public schools," he said. "I think this is a piece of data that is reliable and valid that shows our public schools aren't failing and it's a good investment to invest in our public schools."

The education representatives presented the findings of the survey prior to a Kansas House Education Committee hearing on Thursday.

Committee members are scheduled to discuss a resolution that would change language in the Kansas Constitution from "the Legislature shall make suitable provision finance of the educational interests of the state" to "the Legislature shall provide for the equitable distribution of public school funds in a manner and amount as may be determined by the Legislature."

Many state lawmakers remain irritated that they were ordered by the Kansas Supreme Court in Montoy v. state of Kansas to provide equitable education funding across the state, funneling millions of dollars into the base state aid per pupil funding. 

During the 2011 legislative session, lawmakers have been discussing  ways core functions of public education would be defined while also allowing school districts to levy more local tax dollars to fund education the way they see fit. However, education officials have pointed to vast differences in the amount of money that can be raised based on varying property values in the state's school districts.

"Generally Kansans feel decisions made at the local level are best," said John Heim, Kansas Association of School Boards executive director. "But then you have a fairness issue when it comes to funding."  

Fred Patton, KASB president and member of the Seaman school board, said a new statewide “Kansas Conversation” initiative will encourage school districts to have "local conversations" on what Kansans believe public schools should do in providing an education for their children. That information will then be given to Gov. Sam Brownback and state lawmakers to show them what Kansans think should be the function of the state's public education system.

"It shouldn't be just school leaders making all the decisions," Patton said.