THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, April 16, 1995 TAG: 9504150088
SECTION: VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
LENGTH: Long : 321 lines
It's a rite of spring as welcome as pine tree pollen: the deliberation of the budget for the Virginia Beach school system. This year seems more virulent than others, or just more openly so, or just more hyped by media, depending on who's talking.
The more citizens know, the better they decide for themselves. Excerpted here is recent correspondence from major players in the school spending debate: School Superintendent Sid Faucette, City Manager Jim Spore and School Board Member Van Spiva. For more deliberations, tune in to VBTV, Channel 48, at 7:30 p.m. Monday and at 9 a.m. Tuesday.
- Beth Barber, Editorial Page Editor
Following are excerpts from a ``CIP Fact Sheet'' distributed by Superintendent Sid Faucette at a media conference April 5.
The city's recommended CIP underfunds the School Board's approved CIP by $167,478,002 (including technology in-itia-tive).
The following identifies comparative differences between the School Board's approved CIP and the city staff's recommended CIP.
New School construction proj-ects: (Middle School 1997, High School 1999, Elementary School 1997, Middle School 2001 and Elementary School 2000): The School Board's new school construction projects already reflect a reduced square footage from the schools most recently opened. The city staff cut each new school project an average of 4.96% for a total of $4,830,799. No rationale for these cuts is evident.
Impact: Reduced funding will require that these projects be reduced in scope.
Various School Additions (1-057): The city's recommended CIP cut this project by a total of 21.69% or $14,913,078.
Impact: It will require an additional $18,815,906 to complete the additions projects scheduled through year four (1998-1998). Therefore, $12,167,090 in additions projects will have to be eliminated or postponed. The amount of funding recommended in years two ($2,080,400) and three ($1,792,000) is sufficient only for one elementary school or middle school each year. Funding will not be sufficient to construct additions at either First Colonial or Kellam prior to 1999 unless the scope of the projects are greatly reduced. The timeline for all elementary additions will be severely impacted.
Kemps Landing (1-050): This project has been cut by $1,175,000. The city staff interpreted this project as a new initiative, which it is not. No matter what use is planned for Kemps Landing, the costs are necessary to make the building usable.
Impact: The school system's plan to reopen Kemps Landing in 1995 to house students or any use will be jeopardized. . . .
ADA School Modifications (1-062): The total amount has not been reduced, but funding has been reduced in years one through five and added to year six.
Impact: Funds for Americans with Disabilities Act modifications will be reduced from $1,280,000 in year one to $500,000.
Indoor Air Quality Improvements (1-063): Funding has been reduced by $3,000,000.
Impact: May reduce the school system's effectiveness in improving indoor air quality in affected schools.
Renovations and Replacements (1-058): This project has been eliminated and replaced by three new projects; 1-074, 1-083, and 1-084. The total funding has also been reduced by $4,013,300.
Impact: Dividing this project into three projects will cause us to lose some flexibility. The reduction of this project by 15% will require these projects to be rescheduled and reprioritized.
Celebration Station (1-082): This project not funded in the city's recommended CIP.
Impact: The planned buildout of Celebration Station will not be able to be completed.
Technology Support (1-085, 1-086, and 1-087) and Technology Hardware and Installation (1-088) $106,579,938: These projects are not included in the city's recommended CIP.
Impact: The technology initiative will be eliminated. April 10, 1995 To: School Board From: Ulysses V. Spiva
I have some very serious concerns about the recent media coverage on School Board v. City Council relations over budget matters. Briefly, my concerns stem from the fol-low-ing:
1. A number of new initiatives recommended by the Superintendent have been placed in the 1995-96 School Budget without the Board's approval. At our March 21, 1995 regular meeting, the Board did not approve the implementation of these initiatives because we had not received any formal proposals for them, nor had any opportunity to adequately discuss the pros and cons or fiscal matters pertaining to them. . . .
2. We have learned, unofficially, that the City Manager's office is recommending several million dollars less in local funding for schools. This should come as no surprise to some of us, given the above information alone.
3. As you already know, the Superintendent called a news conference last Wednesday, April 5, 1995, at the vacant Kemps Landing building to discuss his recommended plans for a magnet school fot the gifted. I chose not to attend this news conference since the Board had not been properly prepared for it, in my judgement. Nor had the Board given its approval for such a school at Kemps Landing yet.
Some Board members feel that several of our older schools, such as First Colonial and Kellam high schools, Williams Elementary School, and others - that have been neglected for so long, should be given priority for
CIP funding in this period of scarce fiscal resources. . . .
I believe the School Board and the Superintednet must get their ``act'' together before we meet with the City Councillater this month, or we might find ourselves in a very embarrassing position and cause further unnecessary deterioration of Board/Council relations. April 12, 1995 To: Jim Spore From: Sid Faucette
In plain, straightforward language, I will attempt to respond to your comments and questions concerning the budget. The scope of the questions is broad and for that reason my response will often appear lengthy. . . .
Point No. 1: Variance between the Superintendent's Operating Budget for 1995-96 and the School Board Operating Budget for 1995-96 (Condensed Version). The parenthetical inserted by you that you received a ``condensed version'' is inaccurate in that you have the unabridged School Board budget. If you are suspicious that something has been deleted, please let me know what it is and I will check to be sure nothing was left out . . .
You raise the point that there are certain differences in positions and funding needs in the superintendent's proposed budget and the one adopted by the School Board. You are correct. We reported those differences to the School Board before a budget was adopted. The differences are explained simply by the fact that Mordecai L. Smith, Chief Financial Officer, used the approved number of positions in the superintendent's proposed budget and I had him adjust those numbers in the final budget adopted by the Board to reflect the actual number of positions for which funds have been provided.
The salary funding was adjusted to be certain that each salary line item would support the positions actually contracted for and proposed in the budget. . . .
Point No. 2: Budget Reduction of $6.1 million or is the Reduction $3,834,510? . . . (You) will find that I was in error to quote the $6.1 million reduction reported in the newspaper; the actual reduction totals approximately $8.2 million . . .
I realize that your recommended budget represents the local fund reduction as $3.834,511. I also acknowledge that the following calculation is $1,005,794 fewer dollars than my predicted $8,195,659 reduction:
Local, $3,834,511
Technology Grant, $2,349,559
At-Risk Grant, $510,367
Maintenance, $495,428
Total, $7,189,865
No matter how the reduction is calculated, the $3,834,511 is real and the increase in state funding of $2,349,559 reduces local funding by that amount. At the least, it appears the School Board's budget has had local funds reduced by a minimum of $6,184,070. I welcome assistance in receiving an explanation of the real reduction in the School Board's school operating budget.
Point No. 3: . . . The information provided to me on the five-year forecast by my Chief Financial Officer was that it would take approximately $360 million to maintain baseline funding and pay 3 percent step increases to all employees. Throughout the budget development process, I was assured that my proposed budget was within the bottomline funding, targets set by the City.
Do you remember our discussion on February 10, 1995 (prior to my budget going to the School Board) when I shared with you, our Honorable Mayor and Vice Mayor, and the School Board Chairman that the Superintendent's proposed budget would include funds for a 3 percent experience step and would require 5 percent to 6 percent more overall funding than the current budget? To the best of my jogged memory, your response to my comments on salary and overall funding were favorable. I had forgotten the favorable response to the overall funding percentage, but the School Board Chairman, Mrs. June Turner Kernutt, had not. That, of course, is probably a moot point in this discussion and just served as another lesson in experience.
Point No. 4: . . . On the matter of the dropout rate reported in the ``school scorecard,'' the relationship between the state program . . . and the budget was drawn by the Virginian Pilot writer, Elizabeth Thiel. It was not my intent then, nor is it now, to try to establish a direct relationship between the state report and the budget, or for that matter, the effectiveness of our school system. . . .
The proposed new program initiatives are important to reducing the dropout rate in the following ways:
1. The extended-day magnet school program will provide disadvantaged children with opportunities to use technology, to receive tutorial help from trained educators, to have child care available until 6 p.m. rather than being latchkey children in ``tough'' neighborhoods, and to have access to all types of materials (not typically found in the home) in the school libraries. . . .
I have asked my Assistant Superintendent for Instructional Support Services, Dr. K. Edwin Brown, to analyze current at-risk programs to locate funds to be redirected to this initiative. If funds cannot be found, the initiative would not advance.
2. The two magnet schools for students of high intellect will provide extraordinary rigorous program opportunities for all students who need academic challenge to inspire higher intellectual development in school. These students are from all economic groups. . . .
(O)ur middle school program does not comprehensively address the intellectual needs of gifted and talented students. As a result, the school system is at-risk of losing certain students to private schools. The location of the middle school (grades 6 to 8) magnet school at Kemps Landing would provide adequate housing for a program sensitive to these students' needs and would reduce the number of students at already overcrowded middle schools. By placing Kemps Landing back in service, the goal of less reliance on trailers would be aided by 32 classrooms being returned to active use. . . .
In reality, the costs for reopening and operating Kemps Landing School are essentially the same as any other middle school - no more, no less. The educational benefits for these students is dramatic. The real question appears to be, can we afford not to reopen Kemps Landing as an active school of some type? The projected costs of reopening Kemps Landing are $600,000.
The international baccalaureate program at Princess Anne High School is not a dropout prevention program but is a rigorous academic program to ensure that Virginia Beach students have access to the highly respected international college preparatory high school program. Upon successful completion of this program, an International Baccalaureate graduate will have access to the most, prestigious colleges and universities in the world. The School Board approved this program in 1993. $100,000 is included in this budget to initiate the program plans . . .
The mathematics and science magnet school . . . would locate 400 additional students at Ocean Lakes by the Fall 1997. . . . $100,000 is included in the fiscal year 96 budget . . . for program planning. The program is not specifically a dropout prevention program but does add to our capacity to keep intellectually capable students in public schools and to prepare them for the best colleges and universities in America.
The traditional elementary school proposal is what most people think we currently have. This is an option for a school to select through the shared decision-making process; it actually costs the same, or slightly less, to operate as the current elementary school program.
The FAMS program is the highly respected program sponsored by Ford Motor Company to teach students quality (TQM) methods and manufacturing skills. The School Board gave permission to the faculty of Salem High School to plan for this program to begin in 1995-96. The educational benefits of this program should reach far beyond keeping potential dropouts in school to having a positive impact on students' work habits. . . .
Point No. 5: . . . (regarding Kemps Landing Intermediate School - renovation): My staff does not have the authority to remove any project from the CIP adopted by the School Board. Only the board has that authority. Because I did not have a copy of the March 3, 1994, memorandum in my file, I met with my staff to find out how this could have occurred. As a result, please send me a copy of the March 3, 1994, staff memorandum for my review and response. . . .
Unfortunately, you are correct that a misunderstanding exists over the replacement of Courthouse Elementary School.
To track the discussion of Courthouse Elementary School, we need to go back to correspondence between you and me between June and November 1992. The correspondence clearly indicates our discussions over converting the school back to active use as a 900-student elementary school. . . .
Councilman Lanteigne questioned the School Board's willingness to vacate Courthouse Elementary School for the Pendleton Child Care Center to be relocated there. To the best of my recollection, the agreement between the School Board and City Council was that a 900-student elementary school would be added to the CIP to take the place of the Courthouse Elementary School conversion project. . . .
The conversion project was scheduled to house 900 students in 1996, just as the replacement school was scheduled (but deleted) for 1996. In late 1993/early 1994, the School Board conveyed the site to the City. The school site on Holland Road was even purchased in that general time frame to replace Courthouse Elementary School as an active school with 36 class-rooms.
The school system housed the Educational Planning Center and Psychological Services at Courthouse Elementary School. At the time that we moved the Educational Planning Center into the School Administration Building, we relocated all Support Services (Facilities, Planning, and Construction, Food Services, and Custodial Services) to the Celebration Station building to provide space for the Educational Planning Center. Psychological Services was housed in the old Drug Emporium section of Celebration Station. There was a comparable square footage relocation of staff from Courthouse Elementary School to Celebration Station. The City paid $347,313 to assist in relocation, rental, and renovation costs for the relocation of Psychological Services. I interpreted that assistance to be an acknowledgment of our need to occupy space in rent-ed/leased/purchased space, in this specific instance at Celebration Sta-tion. . . .
The relocations contributed to the student crowding problems because the school system lost a 900-student capacity school in 1996, be it through the loss of the Courthouse Elementary School Conversion Project or the new construction of ``Elementary School-1996.''
There was not an additional project request sheet in our CIP for 1994-95 or for 1995-96 to replace Courthouse Elementary School, because City Council had deleted the School Board's request in 1992 and the additions and the 1997 elementary school project provided sufficient relief, within the funding targets set by City Council, for the larger area served by North Landing and Holland Elementary Schools until the Courthouse Estates and Elbow Road residential construction projects began in earnest. The construction of Courthouse Estates has now ruptured our ability to manage growth in the North Landing Elementary School attendance area. The need for student housing now outstrips our capacity to keep pace with enrollment growth without adding trailers.
I do not think that it serves any purpose to provide a lengthy explanation of the trailers issue at this point. Everyone is aware of my loathing for the practice of housing students in trailers. Student and employee safety is a primary issue that deserves immediate attention. . . . I have decided to let go of that issue until parents, teachers and politicians decide that trailers are unacceptable housing for students. . . .
I have asked my staff to . . . reconstruct a historical perspective on funding for ``Various Schools Additions/Conversions.'' . . . The decision to add onto already too large schools was made as a financial accommodation within the CIP tar-gets.
I am not surprised but am sorry that you are ``at a loss to explain to City Council why the portable classroom inventory seems to remain an issue.'' An analysis of my letter provides some insight into the reason . . . the loss of 32 classrooms at Kemps Landing and the loss of 36 classrooms at a 900 student elementary school in 1996, plus the onslaught of students with disabilities' accommodations . . . enrollment growth, and the School Board class-size targets of pupil-teacher ratios of 22:1 generally and of 20:1 in grades 1-2. Additional impact is caused by the use of a 24:1 pupils per regular classroom in the CIP . . . My staff will prepare for you and City Council complete information on the trailer issue.
Point No. 6: . . . You . . . request an explanation of why funding was decreased for instructional supplies and materials. The primary reasons are the decision to base per pupil allocations on March 31 average daily membership, rather than the September 30 average daily membership used in past budgets, and the reduction of additional funds for special instructional projects associated with the hands-on mathematics program and the accelerated schools project. . . .
I appreciate your willingness to share questions in advance with me to allow time for complete responses at the public meetings. . . .
There are several key issues in this school operating budget and capital improvement program that no one seems to want to discuss and I am determined to have discussed. . . .
I guess (Director of Management and Budget Dean) Block's early newspaper article (March 19, 1995) about the $15 million funding problem and the tax increase being the school system's fault followed by the April 5 newspaper article reporting the $6.1 million reduction in the school budget had the media ``licking its chops'' to report discord between us, our staffs, and our governing bodies. Add to that my desire to discuss a series of items, I may have ``stepped over the line'', as I have been told by a few people, of proper decorum. . . . Most regrettable is the feeling by some City Council members that strained feelings now exist between them and the School Board. I assure you that the Board was not knowledgeable of my presentation at the news conference and my actions should not be interpreted as representing them. . .
Before the budget process is over, I will take my hits from the School Board and the media as well as City Council, you, and your staff. I earned it, will suffer it well, and have no regrets. . . .
KEYWORDS: DEBATE VIRGINIA BEACH SCHOOL BOARD VIRGINIA BEACH SCHOOL
BUDGET by CNB