Lynchburg School Board considers cutting 83 jobs

» 15 Comments | Post a Comment

The Lynchburg School Board may eliminate more than 80 positions next year, including 31 teaching jobs and 18 teacher assistants.

The cuts were recommended by Superintendent Paul McKendrick at a meeting earlier this week as part of a multi-pronged plan to close a projected shortfall of $5 million.

Other aspects of the proposal included a one-day furlough and elimination of tuition reimbursements for teachers who go back to school. It also called for a 10 percent across-the-board reduction in the budget for the central administration office.

“I don’t like having to make such deep cuts,” board member Al Billingsly said in an interview Thursday. “… But, when you’re short $5 million, something’s got to give.”

The school board debated McKendrick’s suggestions at length during a work session Tuesday, but made no formal decisions. They’re expected to vote on the budget next week.

The elimination of 31 teachers is expected to save the district around $1.5 million, according to an analysis by The News & Advance of figures provided by the schools. Officials hope the bulk of the jobs can be deleted through attrition and retirements. The General Assembly is currently considering legislation that would allow school boards to begin offering early retirement incentives. The bill is strongly supported by Lynchburg City Schools.

A formal district policy mandates that layoff decisions be based on seniority. Should the school system begin hiring again in the future, all previously fired employees are to be first in line for the new jobs.

In addition to the teachers lost, officials propose cutting 42 classified positions, a designation that includes teacher assistants, bus assistants, custodians, clerks, and employees in transportation and maintenance. The plan also calls for 10.5 administrative jobs to be axed.

Overall, officials are proposing to cut 83.5 positions for a total savings of about $3.2 million.

Another $1.8 million would be found through a series of smaller measures ranging from the unpaid furlough (expected savings of $354,078) to slashing the library budget by a third (savings of $51,500).

McKendrick said each cut was chosen during a detailed budget examination aimed at cutting costs while retaining school quality.

“Each of them was a gut-wrenching decision,” the superintendent said during an interview Thursday. “Some of these are programs that have been with us for awhile.”

He added that the current economic crisis — which is affecting revenues at all levels of government — left the district with no choice but to become “leaner.”

School leaders had at one point entertained the idea of imposing pay cuts as a means of minimizing job losses. The proposal drew mixed reaction from employees and school board members alike.

During a series of budget meetings, teachers pleaded with officials to protect their jobs and salaries. McKendrick said such cuts would be unavoidable, given that personnel costs make up 80 percent of the school system’s budget.

The final proposal made Tuesday minimizes pay cuts. The one-day furlough recommended would cost the average teacher one half of 1 percent of their salary, officials said. For the school board, it was perhaps the one bright point in an otherwise grim picture.

“I take great pleasure and comfort in that,” member Leslie Faircloth said during the session Tuesday. “The only comfort I’ve found in this whole process is that.”

Chairwoman Julie Doyle said officials looked for savings outside the classroom first when making their recommendations and attempted to ensure that no one group of employees was made to bear the brunt of the cutbacks.

Officials are still considering making some minor changes to the budget numbers, including imposing new student fees and slicing off some of the school board’s budget.

Lynchburg’s board members are not paid, but do have a pool of $33,000 to spend on training, travel and consultant fees. Doyle, who pushed for a cut in that line item Tuesday, said she realized it would be a minor savings but felt it was important that the board do its part.

On Thursday, Doyle said she was “fairly comfortable” with the balance struck in the superintendent’s proposal.

“These are hard decisions, but we have to do a little bit of everything in order to get to that big number,” she said.

The school board is scheduled to approve its budget proposal Tuesday. All funding levels within that document will be contingent on final appropriations from the federal, state and local government.

Lynchburg City Schools is considering making the following cuts to next fiscal year in order to close an expected shortfall of $5 million:

$3.2 million Elimation of 83.5 employee positions

$668,844 10% cut in central office budget

$354,078 One-day furlough

$180,000 Building security

$138,000 Delay in purchase of new textbooks

$116,000 Elimination of tuition reimbursement for teachers

$66,597 Reduction in supply allotments to schools

$51,500 Reduction in library allotments to schools

$39,755 Reduction in capital allotments to schools

$30,000 Reduction in drug testing

$28,500 Drop EAP

$27,500 Reduction in teaching extra periods

$26,311 Reduction in instructional allotment to schools

$12,818 Reduction in enrichment allotment to schools

$10,500 Reduction in work compensation fee

$7,000 Relocation of parent center

$5,000 Elimination of paid lunch duty

$4,600 Elimination of student activity directors

Source: Lynchburg City Schools

Advertisement

 
View More: lynchburg school board,lynchburg,
Not what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
 

Advertisement

Reader Reactions

Flag Comment Posted by GreenGator on February 14, 2009 at 12:07 pm

Drop EAP (Employee Assistance Program) and save a whopping $28,500.

Thanks LCS…your employees see exactly how much you care!  You cut a very used program…that costs you minimally.  And, that even saves you money on health care costs—-since we can go through eap at no cost to the pchp plan.  Once your employees start using what limited mental health bennies they have under pchp, it’s going to cost the system more than $28,500.  But don’t worry…we know you’ll pass the cost on to us.

Thanks, again.

Flag Comment Posted by Accountability Fan on February 14, 2009 at 9:05 am

packer, this comment’
“I also don’t understand something. I work for a non-profit. We fundraise a good portion of our money. We start out a fiscal year with whatever is pledged to us, grants we know we will receive, other income, etc. We project an amount we must fundraise to meet out yearly expenses. We don’t yet have that money and we count it into our cash flow with an awareness of its source. We have to operate as if we are going to get that money; we project it in. Of course, as the year goes on, we adjust our cash flow to conditions. So, if LCS looks at cash flow, sees they are short, sees a fund they can access, and does what we do, move forward on that information, I have no problem. If they find they can’t at some point access the funds, they need to immediately make cash flow adjustments. If they knew they’d have a problem and did not adjust, big, big error.“ tells me you know something that the City Council did not know.

Are you suggesting that the schools had a pot of money going into the school year that Council didn’t know about that was available to spend for operations so that when they knew there would be revenue shortfalls due to 202 fewer students they could just draw on this pot of money instead of making expenditure adjustments?

I find this a VERY astute observation on your part, one that Council was unaware of when told they didn’t have the $1.4 million to do the Capital & repair projects yet could increase operational expenditures by $6 million while only receiving a $2.9 million increase from City Council.

A VERY astute opservation indeed!

Flag Comment Posted by Accountability Fan on February 13, 2009 at 6:52 pm

I’m back from volunteering.

Some answers.  I have looked at this previously and I think this is for the upcoming year, FY10.  As I said, you cannot compare any school divisions spending.  NOVA schools are mandated and funded differently as they have a high cost of living supplement. And this really skews the state average. As far as Bedford County, and this may sound racist or elitist, but because they have fewer children needing those “special services” that I have mentioned such as Special Ed or Prevention, Intervention & Remdiation, they are mandated to spend about $1000 per student less than Lynchburg.  As a result. Lynchburg taxpayers are required to fund an additional (approx.)$1000 times 33.27% (Our Composite Index) times 8130 students or $2,704,851. This “penalty” (I already can hear you yelling, but what else would you call it)will require a real estate tax rate of maybe 6 cents.  Additionaly, the number of our eligble qualifying children for the VPI program will require a much larger local match, a tax rate of about 1.1 cents versus Bedford’s low qualifiers requiring less than 2 tenths of a cent. So to answer Martha’s comment, Bedford is required to spend much less than Lynchburg, and Lynchburg starts out with a “penalty” tax of 7 cents higher, just to get to the mandated levels, and from there you can add on the Voluntary tax difference and now you see why Lynchburg’s taxes are twice as high.
I am certain there are similar divisions to Lynchburg with a high percentage of children requiring special help.  I also recognize that many teachers do not want to teach in an urban enviroment and that may cost more money.  But these are issues that must be addressed at the STATE LEVEL.  As I have always said, the educrats always can point to a division that pays more and spends more but that only measures dollars.  Soon the state of Virginia will be posting the TAX RATES for education, as is done in every state that I am aware of, and fundamental change will no longer penalize the poor urban districts with higher taxes.  Until that time I guess you can just keep saying I hate children.

Flag Comment Posted by bigjimm on February 13, 2009 at 5:41 pm

I agree hawkeye, packer2dogs has it perfectly and although we don’t agree all that much, you also sum up thoughts that are along the same lines as mine.
Well said, both of you. Thanks.

Flag Comment Posted by hawkeye on February 13, 2009 at 5:26 pm

Packer2Dogs

Excellent comments!  I have been trying to come up with the words to express my feelings about this issue and have read the many comments from our usual posters.  I feel that yours really hit the nail on the head.  I am pleased to see the many other thoughtful comments. Again, I feel yours were right on target. Thanks!

Just one other idea: The naysayers all remind me of my favorite comic character, Deputy Barney Fife and his call for “Malfeasance in the Sheriff’s office.“

“I have examples of malfeasance in the LCS board ...but ultimately, I think LCS answered my questions and I don’t know about the rest of you but I’m voting for Dr. McKendrick, Julie Doyle, and the rest of the LCS Board and administration.“

Flag Comment Posted by Martha on February 13, 2009 at 2:37 pm

I don’t know what the per-pupil expenditure for LCS is but Bedford County for many years had the lowest per-pupil expenditure in the state of VA.
What does that say about Bedford Schools? Their real estate taxes, as presented in the posts here, are incredibly low. The amount of AP courses taught in high schools are also lowercompared to LCS.Work is being done to improve those #‘s in Bedford. The technology and vo-tech programs, however, are top notch.
I imagine if you look at spending to fund Federally mandated Special Ed classes the dollar figure required in the city is higher!
I do think that putting spending under a microscope is good for city schools, the punitive nature of the questioning aside the outcome should be a positive one.
By the way Roanoke city schools have a 15 million dollar shortfall.

Flag Comment Posted by packer2dogs on February 13, 2009 at 11:56 am

Accountability fan: I guess I don’t fully get it. If spending per student is appropriate and comparable to other urban localities with quality schools or if there is a reason for costs per student to be higher, then I’m not sure that its relevant if LCS is accessing funds over and above the mandated amount. If, for whatever reason, the city requires a higher percentage of real estate tax dollars to run the schools, my real questions are, are they spending appropriately and are they roughly in balance with other quality urban schools?

I also don’t understand something. I work for a non-profit. We fundraise a good portion of our money. We start out a fiscal year with whatever is pledged to us, grants we know we will receive, other income, etc. We project an amount we must fundraise to meet out yearly expenses. We don’t yet have that money and we count it into our cash flow with an awareness of its source. We have to operate as if we are going to get that money; we project it in. Of course, as the year goes on, we adjust our cash flow to conditions. So, if LCS looks at cash flow, sees they are short, sees a fund they can access, and does what we do, move forward on that information, I have no problem. If they find they can’t at some point access the funds, they need to immediately make cash flow adjustments. If they knew they’d have a problem and did not adjust, big, big error.

I don’t care about the statute; that sounds like if the intent was for their expenditures to exceed their income, then they violate the law. If they made a mistake and that was not their intent, then we have a mistake, incompetence, whatever. Applying the law seems not to be a hard and fast rule. I don’t know if city council is right, I only believe that they could take any number of steps prior to requesting legal action.

Flag Comment Posted by Accountability Fan on February 13, 2009 at 11:14 am

Not much time to respond.  Yes the VDOE has a wesite that contains tons of info.  The question about per pupil expenditues is there but remember that not all divisions are mandated to spend the same amounts, the only true comparisons are the excess over mandated spending.  While it might be easy for you to raise a dollar, those that have lesser abilty have a higher degree of difficulty (higher tax rates, not dollars.
As far as the school leadership not knowing about the cash flow, this is a lark and future data reports will disprove this.  The schools knew from day 1 there would be a shortage of aid for that year but had a fund going in that they knew they could access.  Unfortunately their expenditures exceded the budget, not the amount of money they had, a vioation of the law.  Got to go.

Flag Comment Posted by bigjimm on February 13, 2009 at 11:13 am

Packer2dogs the points you make in your last two posts are excellent. Thanks.

Flag Comment Posted by packer2dogs on February 13, 2009 at 10:57 am

Grandma: if LCS was aware that there would be a shortfall before it occurred (cash flow), the teachers would never have been hired, probably. When and how was the School Board made aware of it? So, is the cutting of teachers basically reverting back to a place where they should not have been hired originally?

You know, mistakes are made, big and small. Yeah, the accounting needs to be better, these were huge mistakes. Does that mean heads should roll? My goodness, when are we going to realize that good people make mistakes. Sitting out here on the sidelines, it is easy to criticize, criticize, criticize and yell bloody murder. I notice that most of us never step up to be considered for the School Board or for public service. Of course, is someone is incompetent with repeated mistakes, they shouldn’t be in the position. However, every manager makes mistakes, period.

I suggest that, maybe, this is a good thing as LCS will work hard to create accounting that is accurate and transparent. If the city sees evidence this is what will happen, if they see a good plan, move forward. Our continued concern and oversight is one thing; griping and demonizing is another.  Fred’s right: did you get this incensed at obvious mistakes and problems in Iraq?

Post a Comment(Requires free registration)

The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
 

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement