Posted: 4/27/07
North Branch school cuts approved as proposed
 Board chairperson Kim Salo, who said during the meeting that parents would have to do more to make up for lost programs at the middle school, pictured just moments after the board approved $2.5 million in cuts to the 2007 - 2008 budget. |
By Patrick Tepoorten
There was no public comment at the April 26 meeting of the school board, and none was needed. On the table was $2.5 million in cuts to the 2007 - 2008 budget, and there was little doubt as to how anyone attending the meeting felt about it. The proposed reductions would ultimately pass without change, but not before much discussion.
Superintendent Rodney Reisnouer acknowledged that the cuts would be harmful to the education of students but added, "there is no decision we could come up with that isn't going to be harmful to our education system." He also stated that the district could be looking at the same situation next year, and without a drastic change at the state level, the cuts could be "horrendous."
Middle school principal Todd Tetzlaff, whose site is the biggest loser in the cuts because the district budgets by site and middle school enrollment is expected to plummet next year, summarized the cuts his site will endure. Besides the elimination of family and consumer science, technical education, and reductions to health programs, he also noted staff reductions in the area of math, special education, behavior, support staff, as well as deep cuts to the site supply budget. He said the things that will be missing from the middle school next year are things that are "essential to healthy operation," and noted that middle school staff was "grieving the loss of options for kids."
But when it came to crunch time, Tetzlaff, who had been asked to review the proposed middle school cuts, was unable to find a more palatable solution. "I stand behind the recommendations made for reductions," he said. "We have a strong school building and it will continue to be. It's people, not programs, that educate kids."
In an effort to try and recover some of what will be lost, Tetzlaff informed the board that an hour of applied studies would be added for seventh and eighth grade students next year. Although there is no chance it will replace the hands-on training of lost programs, perhaps some of the general concepts could be passed on.
Board chairperson Kim Salo remarked that areas covered by the programs, must also fall more heavily on district parents. "Parents need to understand that it's not just educators' responsibility."
Before the cuts passed, Reisnouer addressed some of the comments the district has received regarding the cuts, breaking them out into a handful of areas.
• Of concern was that no cuts had been made to administrative positions. Two positions that came under fire were the director of teaching and learning, and community relations coordinator.
Reisnouer stated that, because of state mandates and the fact that the district must maintain its curriculum, the director of teaching and learning is a position the district "can't get along without," and added that those responsibilities would be too much to expect principals to take over.
He noted that the community relations coordinator had been a "huge issue" for those criticizing the cuts, but stated that the position was important, especially when times are tough and communication becomes very important.
But Reisnouer also acknowledged that the positions could take on more responsibility, and suggested to the board that the two positions combine to take on grant writing responsibilities, an administrative position lost in a previous round of cuts.
Salo reminded the board that administration has not been immune to cuts in the past, including the grant writer position and an assistant superintendent, which was downgraded to director of teaching and learning. She also noted that comments she received suggesting that it was simply a title change with the same salary and responsibilities were "totally false."
• Activity fees, which were brought up often at a public hearing on April 18, was also discussed. Reisnouer said he was open to the possibility of putting more of the financial burden for activities on families, but cautioned that if fees get to high, families could start leaving the district.
Activities director Becky Leuer was instructed to survey parents at fall sign up and find out how much of an increase they are willing to withstand. She was also instructed to poll hockey parents on their willingness to foot the bill for practice transportation. Bussing boys to hockey practice costs roughly $90 a day, and girls, since it is further, costs $135 a day.
Before the unanimous approval of the cuts, many spoke to the issue. Reisnouer reminded the board that he was retiring in two months and therefore had no allegiances to any group. "If I thought it would help to do something different, I would do it," he stated. He asked that, although the cuts make him nauseous, the board approve them so the district could move forward.
Board treasurer Karen Saltis said she personally does not like many of the recommendations and that her children would be personally affected by them. But she also stated that the board needed to support the decisions of site administrators and try to give students "a quality education with the resources available."
Board director Kirby Ekstrom recognized that the board had been put in its current position by a lack of operating levies over the years, but acknowledged, "even if we had three levies in a row we would still be making cuts of some kind, just not as drastic."
Salo referred to comments she had received wondering how the district got "$2.5 million in the hole," and noted that the district was dealing with a projected deficit based on declining enrollment and stagnant state funding, not an overspending problem.
Members of the board and administration thanked staff for both putting together recommendations and for finding ways to live with them, in what Reisnouer called "an ugly business."
Comment from mary determan, 4/30/07
Why doesn't the school board start cutting the sport programs instead of the staff and important classes for students. It angers me to think that educated teachers and staff think it is more important to cut staff than sports. It just doesn't make any sense. Why should the people of the school district pay teachers and staff to coach football, basketball, softballa nd the like. Come on.
If you want sports, take it out of the school.
Lets put the schools back on track and teach what is supposed to be taught. Do we need professional sports players or do we need kids that can go out into the world and say I learned what I needed to know from my school.
Where do we draw the line?
Comment from Nathan Mitchell, 4/30/07
Although it is very frustrating to see our district having to take on the responsibility of balancing a lackluster budget, I feel as if we might be ponting the finger in the wrong direction. It is quite obvious that school districts around the state are suffering from cuts in funding at the state level. Meanwhile our legislators are putting their focus on such items as destroying local businesses with a smoking ban, building the vikings a stadium, and other obvious "spend, spend, spend" bills. I think that we must not point the finger at those who make the cuts within the district, but maybe point it at those in legislation who put education on the back burner.
©ECM Post Review
6448 Main Street
North Branch, MN 55056
Telephone: 651-674-7025
Fax: 651-674-7026
E-mail: editor.postreview@ecm-inc.com