“I think that we need to balance the reinvestment with what our students need and what our community can afford,” Jacobowitz said. “Extra supports for students, whether that is enrichment or remediation, and extra supports for teachers seem like worthy areas of reinvestment to me.”
Savings will matter
Some members of the community have expressed concern that in an environment where state aid is on the decline and the local economy is struggling to recover, the numbers in Padalino’s plan might not be conservative enough with regard to projected savings. Shaughnessy disagreed.
“School buildings are expensive to operate,” he said. “There will be fewer class sections, which will result in a reduction of teaching staff. We will be utilizing a higher percentage of our remaining physical plant and a higher percentage of our teaching capacity. This will result in the projected savings.”
Bowers added that the research undertaken by school officials in preparing the proposal was thorough enough that the anticipated savings are realistic.
“Could there be some unanticipated depletion of some of the projected savings? Yes,” she said. “As in any business, there can be unexpected expenses, economic influences, and new mandates. Several years ago we would not have predicted that we would budget under a tax levy limit of approximately 2 percent. I do believe, however, that the proposal does allow for some flexibility, and that we should realize most, if not all, of the savings that is forecast.”
The challenge, Bowers said, is in finding a balance between the need for a modern, quality education and the ability of the community to help foot the bill.
“It has become harder and harder to balance these needs during difficult times,” Bowers said. “Our local tax base is not as solid as it once was, and the social and global needs of our students are far greater. We truly have been asked to do more with less. Our state aid is either less or flat, the tax levy limit restricts our ability to raise revenue, and the mandates continue to grow with little or no funding attached. Nationally, our school buildings are in physical crisis, as so many were built during the post-war baby boomer years, and now face significant infrastructure challenges. Not only are they not equipped to meet the challenges of a 21st-century education, but they are in varying states of deterioration and decline. And yet we cannot afford to under-serve our students in this global economy. Indeed it would be a grave injustice to do so.”
Shaughnessy said he believes Padalino’s proposal does an effective job of not sacrificing one side of the coin for the other.
“I don’t think there is a trade-off of educational needs for financial needs in Dr. Padalino’s plan,” Shaughnessy said. “This is because we have been operating very much under capacity. Eliminating the unused capacity saves money and doesn’t reduce educational programs. I believe the educational programs of the district will be enhanced by adopting this plan.”
But while Padalino’s plan may address the needs of the students and the taxpayers, there remains a growing sentiment across the state for a change in the way education is funded. We won’t truly know whether a majority of the school board supports Padalino’s plan until the end of the month, but school officials and trustees have generally been united in the call for change in school funding.
“I believe very strongly that our board, our district, and our community should continue our lobbying efforts to change the way we fund education,” Bowers said. “It is fundamentally flawed to expect property owners to carry this responsibility.”
