Dear (school board member),

I am writing to express my disappointment in your vote approving the 2012-2013 budget. While I understand it was a difficult decision, I believe the facts for voting against the budget remain persuasive. The cuts in your current budget will:

•Reduce Music Specialists by 30%
•Shuffle music teachers to positions they are unprepared to teach
•Reduce most music positions to halftime

This is not acceptable—cutting music in order to increase other non-essentials is irresponsible. Replacing proven, reliable, and well-loved programs with new, untested programs is a risky path. Educational programs come and go (remember CIM and CAM?), but music has remained an important part of a well round education for centuries.

I ask that you re-open negotiations on the budget and either cut days to retain music or slow the implementation of new programs in order to retain music specialists. A single furlough day would result in the retention of all music specialists cut.

Music has been part of the Beaverton school district for fifty years, it must continue to be for the next fifty.

Additionally, Superintendent Rose, at the budget meeting on Monday, used his comment time to address those members of the public and school staff who were present and advocating for more furlough days and the retention of music teachers. I would like to respond to three points he made:

Why aren’t / weren’t those of us advocating for furlough days, lobbying Salem for more education dollars?
 
Many of us have, do, and will continue to lobby Salem. Many of us gave our time to make phone calls for the district’s levy this past November. We are strong advocates for the schools and fully understand that any long-term solution requires the cultivation of a stronger source of revenue. The implication that we are complainers who gripe at the board, but are unwilling to fight for the long-term success of our schools is false.

The budget and its effects are not Superintendent Rose’s fault. They are the result of under-funding and are decisions forced by this reality.
 
It is true that the district was horribly under-funded by Salem this year. It is not true that the district had to make all of the decisions they did. Certain allocations were increased at the expense of teacher jobs. Furlough days were minimized after repeated evidence that both parents and staff supported a ten-day cut. These are decisions the district must own—they cannot be pawned off on the state. Shifting the argument to state allocation should not be a way for the district to conceal its own intents.

Why did the advocacy groups show up so late in the process—literally hours before the final vote.

Understanding a district budget is a difficult, time-consuming process. The budget and many of its ramifications were not fully understood until two weeks before the final session. Many of the changes were buried in pages of documentation and required a working understanding of previous budgets to fully comprehend. Other concerns were brought up at previous comment sessions and were not responded to. Verifying the veracity of our claims and making sure that what we communicated to parents and student was true took time. In retrospect, looking at the timeline for the budget process, it is a minor miracle advocacy groups were able to respond meaningful in the small time given.

If you find these arguments convincing, then it follows that action should be taken. That action is the re-opening of the budget and the consideration of more furlough days. I ask on behalf of Beaverton students, current and future, that you retain music—it is vital to a quality education.
                                   
Sincerely,
Tom Colett

I can only say how disappointing it was to watch you vote in favor of the proposed budget that was balanced on the back of our children. How could the majority of the Board avoid talking about what we having been asking for since the beginning? There was no explanation, only statements to say you didn’t like doing what you were about to do. However, the Board did it anyway, and you had options to do something different that would preserve programs and class room sizes.

Who is to blame?

Dr. Rose opened his prepared speech by saying this wasn’t the Board’s fault, and that the Beaverton Community should focus our energies elsewhere.

• We understand the school funding system is broken.
• We understand this is a state-wide issue.
• We understand the recent levy wasn’t successful, and could have lessened the impact.
• We understand this isn’t your fault personally.

However,

• We believe it is YOUR responsibility to find a way to bridge the gap in times of crisis.

Instead the Board chose to take the most drastic approach of crippling beloved, viable, and enriching programs, while saddling those remaining teachers with unrealistic classroom sizes.  We may all be to blame at some point, but at the last minute the Board could have chosen to make a difference.

Innovations over Preservation?

It was ironic that after hearing so many testimonials requesting that the current programs be maintained, the Board proceeded to have an extended open discussion and vote about the desire to start a new on-line course program, and begin late starts to add more time for teachers to collaborate.   Teachers with classes over forty students won’t have time to work on collaboration – they will be buried with unmanageable classroom sizes and papers to grade.    It wasn’t lost on the entire audience that the Board is proposing to spend money and cut class time to start new programs that don’t have a track record for improving the student’s comprehensive educational experience.  This approach is not sustainable for providing quality education.

In contrast to uncharted and expensive “innovations”, we do have a track record of and know for certain the following:

• Music improves student’s emotional intelligence, self esteem, and develops them in ways that are vital for adulthood.
• Librarians improve student’s access to information, reading opportunities, and research skills – critical life skills for post-high school success.
• Reasonable class room sizes provide student’s opportunities to learn, focus, and receive the necessary attention to command a subject matter.

These programs are sustainable in the development of our children’s emotional and academic education.  They are proven to make a difference

Flawed Community Involvement Process

We were very disappointed to hear the Superintendant imply he knew the cuts would be just like this as early as last Summer/Fall when he came on board. Last fall if the community had been told the proposed impacts and that class sizes would soar to 40+, that key educational development programs would be slashed, and that librarians would be eliminated, perhaps the levy would have been successful.  To make matters worse, our opinions were solicited in the budget teaching sessions, yet the budget outcome does not resemble the results of the surveys and public input. Why was our time and opinion wasted on surveys, budget teaching sessions, and budget hearings if the Board already planned to cut staff levels so severely? This was a slap in the face of public process!

What is the priority in times of Crisis?

Its unfortunate the Board had community-supported options available to minimize the impacts of the deficit.   Instead of trying to save a sinking ship by plugging the holes and staying the course”, the Board has chosen to pursue alternatives for new programs and innovations that distract from saving lives and getting us to safe harbor.  When we have been rescued by stable funding, and are sitting in drydock for overhaul, that is the time for innovations to be explored. Why throw the children overboard in order to have more room to talk about how to build a better ship?

Disappointment wasn’t your only option

Clearly there were other options to explore, as several budget committee members could not vote for approval of the proposed budget.  Even the Chair, John Burns, spoke against it at budget committee meetings and up until the very last minute at the Board Meeting on Monday.  Then the final vote was not a full consensus.  There may have been more pressure to approve something that very evening rather than approve the best option for our children – it was written on the face of several board members.

I personally have been involved with the development of public agency annual budgets for over 20 years.  There is always the option to stay the course, provide the services of the core mission, and avoid extras that are nice but not necessary.  In the Beaverton School District case, there were options that didn’t balance the budget on the back of the students.  I’m very disappointed that the majority of you weren’t able to find the courage to do the right thing by staying the course with core programs at this time of crisis.

Moving Forward

A very heartfelt “thank you” to Board Members Degman and VanderWeele for their uncommon courage to see through the tough choice, to vote intelligently, and for standing up for what is best for the students.  They understand the core mission to serve the student’s best interest.  For that, many hundreds of us applaud your support.

Please know we understand you have a tough job.  However, the advocates for our children will continue to respectfully request that you revise the intent of the 2012-13 budget that was approved Monday.  There are ways to make changes – Oregon Budget law allows options for change – with due process and public involvement and hearings.  I know that advocates will continue to be fully engaged in finding a better solution for our current and future students.

Sincerely

(sent via email)

Erica Rooney

The attached letter is from John Burns, music education advocate and BSD Budget Committee Chair.  Please make this go VIRAL.

From: John Burns
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 1:31 PM
To: leeann_larsen@beaverton.k12.or.us; ‘Sarah Smith’; Tom Quillin; karen_cunningham@beaverton.k12.or.us; jeff_hicks@beaverton.k12.or.us; mary_vanderweele@beaverton.k12.or.us; Linda Degman (Linda_Degman@beaverton.k12.or.us)
Subject: A different Budget

Dear Board Members,

I know that tonight will be quite intense and decided to email you rather than take up time for public testimony.

The revised budget process and short calendar left us all asking good questions in the very last Committee meeting and I hope the Board has questions today.  I know that many staff members feel that if the scope of the budget proposal had been revealed earlier, there would have been a significant outcry for more furlough days.  We all believe that we do not have sufficient funding. Why would you schedule one more day than instructional hours requires?  The tightest District schedule I have seen is 168 days for elementary students and 170 for MS & HS.   That equates to 7 additional days that could be removed from BSD’s calendar and costs.

Another question remains regarding adding functions while such drastic cuts are being made.  The new budget adds $5M in new staff positions.  Does the Board agree with adding these at the expense of driving $5M additional cuts from classroom teachers?

I asked a question in the last Committee meeting that I hope you will take under consideration; and that is “what choices would you make if the numbers were different?”   I think they would be different choices.

The Financial report shows that we will have expenses of $309.2M for 2011/12  (last year’s budget of $326 is a meaningless reference point)

The budget for 2012/13 is proposed at $302.5M .  That is a deficit of only  $6.7M.  There are additional expenses of $5M for 2012/13 so the effective deficit for staff positions is a total of $ 11.7M – approximately  135 positions.

5 days is $6M. Forego the $5M in new positions and you have maintained our comprehensive curriculum in a way that is sustainable.  Adding back 10 days is a simple and understandable appeal for a Local Option Levy.

Tonight is billed as the ‘Board’s opportunity to change the budget’.  I hope you do respond tonight, but the budget is really a year around exercise and the Board can consider changes at any time. I hope you keep these options in your thinking as we finish this year and move forward to implement 2012/13.

Regards,

John G. Burns