Fairfax County Public Schools will face a projected $147.9 million deficit in fiscal year 2014 — a gap that would require an 8.8 percent increase in the annual transfer it receives from the county.
That amount does not include $90.8 million in identified program needs, such as restoring class size reductions, extended teacher contracts and textbooks — in all, the system would need $238.7 million to meet projected costs.
The county's school board got an early look at the structural gap it faces over the next five years during a fiscal forecast presented during Monday's work session, created largely by the board's use of one-time money to meet ongoing needs, said FCPS Chief Financial Officer Susan Quinn, who gave the presentation, noting the numbers discussed were only projections and not final figures nor recommendations.
"It's clear we need to change the way we do business here ... and also the way we educate students," said board member Patty Reed (Providence) as members began to piece together a budget strategy they hope brings more efficiencies, savings and community buy-in than in years past.
To cover the $147.9 million deficit, aside from program needs, Fairfax County would have to increase its transfer to the school system by 8.8 percent — around the amount board members In fiscal year 2013, the Board of Supervisors ; school board members said Monday they did not think an increase twice that size was realistic.
"This isn't just our challenge, this is the whole school system and community's challenge," Reed said.
The system's revenues have failed to cover all of its expenditures over the past several years, Quinn said. That, combined with federal and state uncertainty in a number of areas — among them, how the state will adjust the state Local Composite Index (LCI), Virginia's school funding formula; when and if state per-pupil funding will rise to pre-recession levels; and the impact of federal sequestration — has created a structural deficit for the system.
Beyond those issues, the system is staring down a student enrollment that will increase by 2,250 next year — hitting a total of 193,000 students by 2017 — and must finish phasing in mandated shifts in Virginia Retirement System contributions, which will cost at least $10.8 million.
For all expected revenues, expenditures, compensation and program needs, click on the PDF of the report in the window to the right of this story.
Board member Janie Strauss (Dranesville) said officials were "in a deeper hole than we've been," worse than the last major recession the board faced in the early 1990s, from which it took seven or eight years to recover.
After that period, the system saw a period of financial growth while enjoying fairly flat student enrollment. But this time, Strauss said, student enrollment growth is at unprecedented highs, and there's no telling where the county economy is going to go.
"[I keep asking], how long does it take for the Fairfax local economy to go one way or another and nobody can answer that question, so it becomes just an incredible poker game as to what we can predict is going to happen for this 2014 budget," said Strauss, who noted many elements would remain unclear until after November's elections. "It's wise for us to presume flat funding from everyone because we don't know were it's going to go ... we have to be extremely careful when we plan this budget."
Superintendent Jack Dale said he has asked each of his departments to identify the consequences of a 5 percent non-school based reduction; he'll also be meeting with leaders at the elementary, middle and high school levels over the next two weeks to identify other efficiencies and savings.
The system is working with the state on an efficiency audit, which studies management of non-school based departmental efficiencies. Dale said those results will not be available until sometime next spring.
Other suggestions from board members included:
- Reopening the fiscal year 2013 budget to hone in on wants versus needs
- Studying the impact hiring and travel freezes would have on costs
- Revisiting the system's school staffing ratio
- Looking more closely at wants versus needs, specifically in the areas of consultants, travel and technology
"We have to incorporate into our vernacular the phrase 'savings,' and it doesn’t mean that we're cutting education, it doesn't mean we're doing things badly, it means that we're establishing priorities," Elizabeth Schultz (Springfield) said. "And I beseech my fellow board members to start adopting now the mindset that there's ways we can do things more efficiently, and it isn't to the detriment of our students or the detriment of our system but it's just that it can be done better because the forecast demands it. We don't have the luxury to say we're not going into the line items anymore."
Dan Storck (Mt. Vernon) said the board needed to better engage the community during the coming year's budget session: Pat Hynes (Hunter Mill) noted the parent community can sometimes come to Board of Supervisor budget hearings with a divided message about whether schools need funding, and where they need it.
"Changing the conversation ... that is our responsibility and nobody else's," Storck said. "We have to go out there and explain and educate."
Staff is preparing a program budget, which will be available to the board in mid-October. Board members also asked to develop better budget engagement and budget prioritization strategies.
The board will meet with the county board of supervisors in November.
Office of Communications--who even knows what they do?? In FY 2008 they had 11 employees earning a total of $626k ($63K each avg) In FY 2012 they had 10 employees earning a total of $918k ($91k avg) I L-O-V-E it when Dale and certain SB members brag about how they have reduced headcount at Gatehouse...the above is a perfect example. So, they cut one position-but gave everyone 50% raises!!!! The end to these fiscal shenanigans has to be near.
Your grammar and spelling indicate that you are clearly both literate and well-informed... NOT.
2% doesn't begin to cover what was saved - because state and federal mandates have increased without adequate funding, there actually was a lot more saved than that. The percentage of ESOL and Special Ed. students has increased - and whatever you think about immigration, or Special Ed. diagnosis, the Supreme Court has ruled on these things and FCPS is not at liberty to ignore them. Your 700 million number is suspect too -- the FCPS 2007 budget had a general fund transfer of 1.525 billion. FY 2012 the transfer was 1.611 billion. This is 86 million, not the 700 million you claim - if it was that big, the general fund transfer would have been 2.2 billion - which is the size of the TOTAL budget, NOT the size of Fairfax County's fund transfer. Maybe you got your numbers confused, but what you have typed is simply not true. In any case my point isn't whether the depth of cuts is "commendable." My point is that spending per pupil has actually shrank in real terms, in spite of what lesser-informed people claim.
Fairfax County is undergoing a dramatic change in demographics. Economics is taking its toll as is the influx of immigrants who cannot speak English. Part of the problem is that some of these students have not even been in school in their home country--so not only are they not fluent in English, a newly enrolled 6th grader may not even be able to read in his native language. The problem as I see it is the lack of leadership and appropriate decision making at the top of the pyramid--starting with Jack Dale. Until last year, our school board has rubber stamped everything his staff proposed or asked for. The board is a little better now, but his supporters are still there and, unfortunately, still seem to have control. They have not made the adjustment to the rising enrollment. Gatehouse seems to be useless and top heavy--more concerned with issuing paperwork requirements to teachers and making regulations that are not effective in the classroom. Starting at the top, we need better leaders and administrators in this system--this will lead to better teachers and better educated students. FCPS must get rid of some of its "nice to have" programs like FLES and make common sense decisions about the schools. Are "instructional coaches" effective? Maybe they need to go. ETC.
Debt service is not a 'normal' part of the equation because it is not always directly under the school board's control; it is due specifically to the bond referenda that have been approved overwhelmingly by direct vote of the citizens of Fairfax Co. If it were such a bad thing, one would expect some of these referenda to fail. But they don't. I am also reporting your comments - you slander me when you call me a crook. Try monitoring your tone a little for a change.
If other departments have cut deeper, that's certainly unfortunate. But the school board and superintendent are legally obligated to request what they think is necessary for their own department. If the BOS gives them a portion of what they ask for, so be it. There was just an election, and the results spoke volumes about how most of Fairfax Co. feels on this issue. Perhaps you would get further with your requests for further cuts if you would refrain from calling everyone who disagrees with you a criminal.
The numbers from FY2008 don't even make sense when you look at the detailed budgets - 3.0 technicians at a total cost of only $76k? Presumably some of this cost is buried elsewhere in the budget instead. It's not likely that the actual people involved got a 50% raise as you allege. It's more likely that the shell game has shifted individual staff members and their compensation packages among departments. Indeed, if you look at the Dept. of Communication & Community Outreach, which includes the office in question, you see that both total staffing AND total expense dropped over the timeframe in question. This has more to do with poorly constructed budget documents than anything else. In any case, if the FCPS Dept. of Communications refuses to answer your questions directly, you can probably get Herrity & Co. to do some digging for you at budget time. It would be far more effective than posting a few selected facts and assuming the worst.
More money doesn't always equal better - but neither does less. Programs like FLES may seem frivolous to many - but again, at budget time and at election time, that message doesn't get through to the board, because it is a minority position in the community. Personally, i don't see how cutting FLES would result in any net change for the better. Gatehouse, on the other hand, is a burden to everyone in the system, even to themselves. There has been NO movement beyond lip service to cutting un-necessary paperwork and freeing up teacher time. But that would have a remarkably small budget impact - nobody is actually paid to read a lot of that paperwork, it just sits there.
There is far less waste than anyone outside the system realizes. I consider the reasons behind the transfer requests to be "good." You obviously do not, while not providing specifics of what "waste" you would cut, and how you would divert the funds raised. I, for one, am always interested to hear the details of what critics would cut, but find they rarely have credible suggestions above a few million - which is a lot, until you consider the sheer size of the system. A million dollar cut is only just over $5 per pupil. Still worth cutting if it's wasteful, but hardly enough to lay the foundation for anything else.
It's just as if your boss came to you and said, "Hey, buddy, you can have a 5% raise - but I'm deducting 5% of your check for uniforms and supplies." You wouldn't call that a raise, and neither do we. I know it looks that way when you only read the headlines, but try scratching the surface a little to see what's really going on.
Why not? Because TOTAL county debt service, including school and non-school portions, is less that $300 million/year. So there's no way it could be what you claim. FY2007 total with debt was 1.7bn, and FY 2012 would be about 1.8 bn. Check the debt service documents, it's all there: total school debt obligation of only 170 millions. I'd like to see where you got the facts to support your claim, because I can't conceive of the math that would make it true.
Taxpayers don't buy the argument of more money=better schools. Sure, the teachers deserve a decent salary but look at Chicago for a glimpse of an upcoming train wreck. They just gave a raise they can't afford---$400 million bump up in salary when they are looking at a $600 million budget deficit next year. You can cave in to unions if you want but at some point the bills come due and there won't be money there to make payroll. The end result will be a headcount reduction to pay for the salaries. Get ready for larger class sizes. At some point you guys will realize that this is the new reality. The real estate market isn't coming roaring back like the old days. Unemployment rate will stay near 8% for some time and DC could get hammered if this sequestration hits--beltway bandits are already sending out pink s;ips. Pretending that everything is rosy isn't helping the situation.
If they had, teacher pay would be about 10% higher than it is, and there would be no shift to teachers paying for VRS out of their paychecks. In fact, we've already had headcount reductions to pay for salaries - it's happened at least twice in the past decade.