Woodstock CT Café

I called the SDE and spoke to Annette in Data who referrred me to the Bureau of Grants Mgt. Unit. There I spoke to Mark Stange(?sp) who informed me that the Regular Education district profile includes SPED costs. If you go to http://www.SDE.ct.gov website, then District/School profile, then regular education by district, open up to Woodstock, then scroll to District Revenues/Expenditures. Mark told me that the first item “Instructional Staff and Services” includes the SPED costs. Other items listed include administrative costs, plant operation/maintenance, transportation.

Not included in the total per pupil cost are additional expenditures that are provided and include land, buildings, and debt services. I am unclear on construcion costs if anyone else care to explain.

One other question I have is that the Total section is *astericked and it is noted that total town expenditures per pupil pk-12 listed under that asterick* differs from the district total per pupil. This leads me to believe that the district totals are only pk-8. I have tried to recontact Mark without success to clarify. If this is the case, then, for example, under the 2005-2006 data, the district pr pupil spending is $9191, but the total pk-12 per pupil data shows $9385. If I her back from mark I will let you know.

Some other intersting numbers from the SDE website. The latest complete data is listed under 2005-2006. My interest was to find that portion of money that went directly to student services in order to find out if the per pupil costs for the other sending towns included exhorbitant debt or administrative costs that may lead us to believe that although per pupil spending was high that in fact, perhaps, not all of that figure was really reaching the students. Here is what I found:

As I stated above, under each section entitled District Expenditures/Revenues there is a breakdown of costs. The first for items are student related costs. These include:

1- Instructional staff and services
2- Instructional supplies and equipment
3- Improvement of instruction and educational media services
4-Student Support

I included all of these four items and added the per pupil cost for each to obtain a total “student specific” cost.

I did not include other items included in the total expenditures such as administrative costs, plant operations’/maintenence costs, Transportation, or Debt service. Although what I found under debt service is interesting and so I will mention it.

Student Specific Costs / Debt service

Woodstock: $6671 / Debt service $1121

Brooklyn: $6740 / Debt service $1258

Pomfret: $7139 / Debt service $1025

Eastford: $8848 / Debt service $0

Canterbury $8118 / Debt service $906

So it appears that Woodstock spends just a bit more than Brooklyn for student specific costs.
It also appears that the schools that are paying the most in debt services subsequently spend the least on student specific services.
SPED costs are included in these numbers, and as presented earlier, Pomfret non-sped per pupil spending is less than Woodstock’s, but their debt service is a bit less. So, in my estimation, Brooklyn, Promfret, and Woodstock spend similarly enough.

Canterbury and Eastford are the winners here. Who would have thought?

And does anyone know why our debt srervice is so high?

Jenga,

Griswold’s high school (the last school building project) is 15 years old.

Last year, the town approved the building of a new elementary and addition to the middle school. Construction will begin in July of ’08. Total project estimate approx $23 million.

The first phase will be financed with a $10 million bond. This bond should be acquired, this summer once the grants have been approved by the state.

The 07-08 debt service is $1,893,850. Of that amount, the state pays $1,207.000. Therefore, the entire debt service that is shouldered by the Griswold taxpayers for 07-08 is $686,850.

07-08 High School Enrollment= 792
Total 07-08 Griswold Student Enroll= 2,137

$686,850 div by 792= $867.23
$686,850 div by 2,137= $321.41

This debt will be paid off in 2012. (Obviously, the payments will decrease every year)

SOURCE: Town of Griswold 07-08 Budget

For the rest of you: Contact the Finance Dept, town of Griswold, 376-7060.

So, Jenga…What, exactly, are you talking about?

Further information from Mark Stange, Bureau of Grants Mgt.: The “District” costs under Expenditures/Revenues are pk-8. Regardless, the total budget, which includes the Academy, is *astericked below and has the amount listed as $13,974,000. Now the unusual thing about this number is that it is not the same number that is on the town or the education budget for 2005-06 which is $13,550,320.69 Mark claims that he only receives the numbers from the town and cannot explain the difference. Leads me to question reliability of the numbers and that perhaps the state numbers are only estimates. I will call the superintendent’s office to see if I can clarify and get back.

The BOE has been doing a lot of dumb things. Explain Academy issues, but don’t pursue a 9th grade proposal; compare other schools that offer far more programs than we do, but don’t just ask for more money; direct citizens to the BOF, don’t just cut programs and blame it on 46.

Soap,

I have some questions for you.

When the budgets are prepared and presented to the public, why is the expended information inaccurate?

The 07-08 education budget states that $13,550,320.69 was expended in 05-06. And, yet, the true figure is appox $443K more was expended. Do the people not have the right to know what was really spent? Is this not misleading?

Beginning on page 44 of the 07-08 education budget, there is a list of entitlements, grants, donations. Is this what you are referring to?

Why doesn’t the budget make it clearer for the people to know that this is “extra”? It is widely believed that this is nothing more than a “breakdown”. (Most do not understand what they are looking at)

Hooold,

Your first question: I would like to see the prop 46 calculation clarified. Yes, I would.

Your second & third questions: I, too, would like to see the justification. Perhaps we could see the same justification from ALL boards? Now, there’s a thought!

Believe me, I am constantly spreading my joy!

RC,

To answer your questions:

1) I don’t know. I do know that when the education budget is presented it is unclear at that time how much state and federal grant money the town will receive. After budget season has come and gone I find myself wondering what that figure actually turned out to be and now I know that this figurcan only be found on the SDE website. I only went back to 2000-01 and found in all cases that the total education budget (pk-12) was higher than that listed on the town budget history. On this last year’s education budget pg.5, the 2005-2006 expended budget is noted as $13,550,320.49. As I said earlier the actual amount on the SDE website was $443K more. While I do understand the reason it is more, I do not understand why the true figure is not included on the next year’s budget. I did notice on the Prop 46 worksheet that “Increase in State Grants” is added to the total increase allowable, but not sure if this number reflects the increase noted on the SDE sites.

2. Yes. People have the right to know. In the very least, people deserve a budget that is transparent and easy to navigate. I noted that some of the MFATF recommendations call for this. (Hoold, I like your suggestions too and you should also note that one of the MFATF recommendations requests an explaination of Prop 46 to the people).

3. Good find. I never noticed! The total grant entitlement for WPS was $426,664. this would make sense as per karen the majority of this 443K increase is from grants that aree not received until after the budget is approved.

4 I wonder too why this number isn’t added to the total expenditures as listed in the next year’s budget to the town as it is on the SDE website.

Thank you for your interest. Not sure how all this plays out or if it really matters other than making it a bit more difficult for people to get a true picture of educational spending.