Kevin Ford and the BOE’s Fuzzy Math Put to Rest
Dear Readers:
Below you will find an excerpt from BOE member Kevin Ford’s blog which can be found -HERE-.
Mr. Rosendahl, another BOE member, had introduced a spreadsheet prepared by Dave Richardson at the last BOE meeting for discussion. Mr. Richardson has offered repeatedly to explain his calculations in person at their convenience. As of yet no one has taken him up on that offer. Dave will be at the Tuesday night BOF meeting and we expect there will be discussion had at this meeting.
Of course, as we would expect, the “Blog of Spin” and BOE Sock Puppets have taken all of this to a new level of stupidity. Mr. Richardson has advised that he will not have this debate there in favor of here on Truth, or in person at upcoming meetings.
We also have available a full Excel spreadsheet provided by Mrs. Monroe to Mr. Richardson that he has examined and worked to clarify the issues. This is available to anyone who asks for it- simply drop us an email.
Another very important point that needs to be made in all of this is- The motivation behind all of these issues is not to starve the school system or the Town for funds. It is to ensure that our government operates openly and correctly. We will accept nothing less and neither should you.
Thank you, Admin.
From Kevin Ford:
“…Steve Rosendahl brought in a budget explanation (As a clarification I believe he stated it was done by Mr. Richardson) that is being passed around the community. Unfortunately it makes the same mistake as a lot of analyses of the WBOE budgets over the years. It just subtracts out the HS tuition and assumes that all other costs belong to K-8. This is not how the budgets are done. SPED and transportation, in particular, are allocated as a group and included spending for both K-8 and high school. So this individuals analysis includes all costs associated with SPED and transportation for HS students as being a K-8 cost. This is particularly insidious in the case of SPED which can vary wildly and is out of direct control of the BOE. If you look at his source material (the second document) you will see that the greatest year over year increases are exactly there, SPED.
His analysis is also flawed as it compares actual costs to budget. He should have been more careful where he pulled in the 2006-2007 materials from. He isn't comparing the year over year increase in the budget (what prop 46 deals with) but what was actually spent one year with the budget for another. Not an apples to apples comparison.
Here is a link to those, the first document is his analysis and the second is the source material he used:”
http://www.vandammeford.com/boe/Mar2008/CummunityBudgetAnalysis1.jpg
http://www.vandammeford.com/boe/Mar2008/CummunityBudgetAnalysis2.jpg
________________________________________________________________________
From Dave Richardson:
Woodstocktruth,
Thank you for passing on the Kevin Ford commentary. I found it interesting, entertaining and a little bit scary.
With respect to Mr. Ford’s comments regarding the spreadsheet or “budget explanation” as he refers to it, which was passed out at the BOE meeting by Mr. Rosendahl, I think maybe he got a little confused. To clarify the numbers in that spreadsheet and where they came from:
First, I would direct him to the BOE budget that was distributed on Tuesday the 25th and Wednesday the 26th of March, specifically to page 5, the “OVERVIEW”. The number that was used for the All High School Budget is from the center section of that page, second line from the bottom titled “HIGH SCHOOL (All H.S. Related Costs)”, $5,581,565. This is as stated “All High School” costs not just tuition as Mr. Ford suggests and when subtracted from total spending leaves only that budgeted for K-8 and Pre-K, the part that Mr. Baran and BOE actually control or manage.
If Mr. Ford would care to check he can add up all the items listed under department code 85 (HIGH SCHOOL ‘INLCUDES SPED’) – see page 6 of the BOE Budget – and includes all transportation items as well. If he does he will find it adds up to exactly $5,581,565. Incidentally, this has since been changed to include an additional $7000 in the updated “OVERVIEW” page I received from the Superintendent’s office on Friday, this is an allocation from the “District” department budget which is not coded in the listings on pages 7-13 of the BOE budget or in the spreadsheet I requested and received from the Superintendent’s office.
Second, with respect to his comments concerning the 2006-7 numbers, Mr. Ford might want to check the BOE Budget from 2007-8 dated May 24th 2007, again page 5 “OVERVIEW”. He will find that the numbers used in the spreadsheet he questioned are the numbers listed as “Budget 2006-2007”. Now, what may have confused him is that these are NOT the same as listed in the BOE Budget published in 2006 for the Town Meeting since after the Town Meeting in May of that year the BOE, at the direction of the BOF, had to reduce their budget to comply with Prop 46 budget restrictions. Furthermore, the numbers used in the spreadsheet for 2005-6 came from the 2006 BOE budget published in 2006 and are budget numbers not expenditures. The numbers for 2004-5 were in fact expenditures not budget numbers and are so identified on the spreadsheet.
Now while Mr. Ford, and others, are trying hard to confound and confuse the issues, this is really very simple. We have “X” amount of dollars spent to educate “Y” number of students. Divide the two and you have $/student.
What Mr. Ford really missed is the point that while there has been a great deal of squawking and political maneuvering about and around Woodstock Academy and the costs thereof, when you look at the cost per student for educating Woodstock’s children in grades K-8 and Pre-K it has increased at a compounded annual rate of 9.4% over the last four years including the proposed budget while for those in High School (which is primarily the Academy) it has increased a rate of only 2.6% for the same period. While this is hardly the final measure of a school system, the Academy continues to be one of the best, if not THE best, high school in the region.
Are we getting the same level of performance out of WES and WMS when spending is growing at nearly four times the rate as the Academy?
The scary part here is that Mr. Ford is on the BOE and clearly doesn’t understand the budget that he has his name attached to. You have to wonder how many others don’t either.
Best Regards,
Dave Richardson
P.S. For Mr. Ford’s benefit, I’m not an accountant.
Mr. Richardson,
It appears on your spreadsheet that the figures you provided for K-8 in the 07-08 and 08-09 figures included PreK which is a function of SPED. The corrected numbers for 07-08 K-8 enrollment is 917 and the corrected amount for the 08-09 K-8 enrollment is 894.
Here are some corrected figures for 07-08:
A ) Total education budget: $15,003,565
B ) All HS related costs: $5,720,685
A-B = $9,282,880 = all PK-8 costs
Minus $1,595,095 preK plus SPED costs
= $7,687,785
Minus $541,648 PreK-8 Transportation costs
= $7,146,137
Divide by the corrected number of K- 8 students of 917.
$7,146,137/917 = $7793/pupil K-8
Regular Education for 07-08.
Rosebud,
Your numbers are correct if you parse out the Pre-K, SPED, and transportation costs, your numbers agree with what is published in the BOE budget on page 44. I did not parse out these items for several reasons:
1. I wanted to keep it very simple. The HS related costs are all those costs not directly managed by Dr. Baran and the BOE. These full costs divided by the total HS attendance as listed on page 36/37 of the BOE plan (without the SPED out of district which I left out because I don't what this is, and the BOE didn't list on page 37, and since the number is relatively small and relatively constant it wouldn't effect the CAGR calculation).
2. Taking the the total budget and subtracting all the HS related costs leaves what Dr. Baran and the BOE actually are responsible for and manage. Dividing this by the TOTAL attendance including Pre-K, again because this is what Dr. Baran and the BOE manage, gives a total cost per student equivalent to what was calculated above for the HS students.
3. SPED and transportation costs are not insignificant. Transportation in particular is a managed cost.
All numbers are total cost per student period.
What I was really after in all this is comparing the compounded annual growth rates (CAGR) for HS students and for those in WES/WMS, the non-BOE versus the BOE managed costs.
What the analysis shows is that the non-BOE managed costs are much more carefully, and fiscally conservatively managed. The growth over the four year period from the 2005-6 budget to the current proposed budget is only 2.6%. For the BOE managed costs the growth rate is 9.4%.
Beyond just the fact that the growth rate in spending by the BOE is nearly four times that of the non-BOE, a 2.6% growth rate in spending is quite sustainable by a town like Woodstock. A growth rate in spending of anything like 9% (or even 7 or 8% for that matter)is not. It will eventually break the bank, so to speak.
By the way, if you take a look at the parsed costs per student on page 44 of the BOE budget and check the growth rate for the "three" years shown you'll find that the per pupil cost for K-8 is growing at 8.7% over the three year period shown. For Woodstock Academy tuition per student the growth rate is 4.7%.