There is a (false) distinction being made between teacher pay and overall compensation. Given the large run up in benefits cost it’s hard to imagine how teacher pay can increase when overall compensation is being driven up so much by benefits cost growing so rapidly. I’d like to get a better sense of what amount of control the system has on allocating overall compensation between ‘pay’ and ‘benefits’. It seems that lately all available economic wiggle room has been allocated to benefits. Is this the choice of the state, administration or board? I would guess that some of our teachers would prefer a more generous allocation of compensation to pay and would be very interested in keeping benefits cost from depriving them of current compensation. But I may be missing something.

There are a number of assumptions in the budget drafts provided that deserve more analysis. Student enrollment, future ‘pay’/’benefits’ ratios, the overall value of the digest, state funding levels and greater detail on non-instructional expenses. The later category of particular intrest to me. And that is before considering the prospect of $400k or more of savings from alternative busing options.

It is also important to look at past decisions and evaluate them in light of new budget realities to help inform choices going forward. For example, the administration was interested in combining 4/5 and middle school campuses. How would this have effected busing costs and start times. There now seems to be some thought of combing bus routes among different schools. Have the previous concerns subsided? How are the recent decisions to increase technology and career academy spending by 1.25 million sitting with the propect of milage increases on the table?

Anyhow, just some thoughts. I may be able to put some additional detail to this in the coming days.