The development of the school district budget for the 2024-2025 school year is now underway.
It began at the end of August, when the School Board sent basic budget guidance to Superintendent Kimberly Rizzo Saunders, as she began meetings with her administration (school principals, business administrator, HR director). In these meetings, they look at data from several sources, including current costs, student scores, student needs and the 2023-2027 strategic plan, and begin from a zero base. The budget must support all state and federal regulations and policies in all buildings and programs in the district.
This process results in a proposed budget, a starting point for the School Board budget work session on the first Saturday in November. The superintendent presents a proposed budget-revenue and line-item cost, in total and building by building. If the work of the administration has revealed a need for a new staff position or program, the proposal will be presented at this work session with justification. The proposed budget will be re-examined and renegotiated in light of revenue information and tax burden calculation for the next two months, usually right up until the deadline for the submission of the warrant that voters will see in the March.
This is a long and grueling process for both the board and administration, as both wrestle to develop a budget fair for both our students and our taxpayers. It is this annual process that has driven the board and administration to seriously consider the configuration of the district in light of enrollment and projected enrollment.
A school district depends on three sources of funding to accomplish its state-mandated goal of free and appropriate public education: federal (primarily IDEA and child nutrition funds), state funds (per student adequacy with applicable special education, low-income and ESL funding; building aid, catastrophic aid) and the payer of last resort – local taxes. Except for COVID-19 education funding, the federal contribution has remained flat and represents 4% of revenue. Some miscellaneous local funds (not taxes) represent another 1%, and state funding represents approximately 20%. (That percentage has placed New Hampshire 50th in the United States for state funding). The remainder must be raised in local taxes.
The district budget is 74% employee compensation, 7% purchased services (child nutrition, custodial and professional services, transportation), 10% property upkeep, 6% supplies and materials and 2% equipment. When budget discussions between the administration and the School Board take place, there is little room for changes; only supplies, property maintenance and equipment are subject to reduction or enhancement. Salaries and benefits are set by contract and can only be reduced by cutting staff. The health care costs are dictated by the New Hampshire HealthTrust, and retirement contributions are set by the state and downshifted to the local taxpayers.
Contracted services include some education professionals who are unable to be hired by the district due to our current rates of pay and the bus contract. Property maintenance and equipment have some wiggle room because repairs can always be postponed (until they can’t!) and we have trust funds that will take some pressure off the budget.
These are the mechanics of budgets and budget building in public schools, a complex and very difficult process. When there is no tax base to depend on due to a limited ability to collect taxes – a constant concern for all but the richest school districts – this represents the danger of reduced and inadequate educational services, leaving our state’s children vulnerable to living in a future for which they are not prepared. A steep tax increase risks a defeated budget.
Even though we don’t yet know what that configuration will be, reconfiguration offers an opportunity to examine what it would mean to right-size our district and consider ways we may develop the proverbial “lean and mean” budget. This may allow us to reduce and slow the tax burden while simultaneously improving our service delivery for students.
In 2019, ConVal sued the State of New Hampshire concerning the inadequacy of the funding they provide versus the services they mandate, and 18 school districts joined the suit. While we wait for the judge’s decision post-trial, we continue to consider the other reason the board decided to engage with a consultant around our district design – before honestly pursuing the state, we need to have our own house in order.
Janine Lesser is a ConVal School Board representative from Peterborough.