FCPS Offers False Budget Choices

To the Editor:

In her recent letter to the Editor (Support More Funding, Jan. 21, 2010), Kathy Smith claims that the Fairfax County School Board and Superintendent have cut central administration by 15 percent over the last two years, but savings in actual dollars from these cuts have been much less than 15 percent.  Central administration expenditures under the Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) FY 2010 approved budget were more than $404.3 million, a decrease of about $2 million, or less than one percent, from $406.2 million under the FY 2008 approved budget.  A 10 percent cut in actual spending from last year’s budget for central administration would result in savings of more than $40 million, more than enough to avoid the Superintendent’s proposed increase in class sizes and cuts in full-day kindergarten, freshman sports, summer school and elementary band and strings.  In fact, central office spending could likely withstand an even larger cut.  In the last ten years, central office spending has increased $154.6 million, or 62 percent, from $249.7 million under the FY 2001 approved budget to $404.3 million under the FY 2010 approved budget.  Since FY 2004, the year before Superintendent Dale submitted his first budget, central administration spending has increased $91.5 million, or nearly 30 percent.  These large increases require much closer scrutiny and raise serious doubts about Ms. Smith’s claim that the School Board and Superintendent have taken prudent measures to control costs.

At a recent PTA meeting I attended, School Board member Stuart Gibson told a story about a FCPS teacher he had met who had expressed concern about an increase in real estate taxes because she had recently bought a new home and expenses were tight, particularly given that this year’s budget proposes to freeze teacher pay again.  Nonetheless, according to Mr. Gibson, this teacher expressed a willingness to pay more in taxes if it was the only way to protect our schools from the damaging cuts being proposed.  This example highlights the commitment and dedication of our teachers that is a primary reason for the world-class status of our schools.  But it also exemplifies the false choices underlying the Superintendent’s proposed budget.  We will spend $2.2 billion on our schools this year and central administrative spending has grown by more than 60 percent in the last ten years.  While sacrifices will be required in these trying budget times, teachers, students and taxpayers should not again be placed at the front of the line for those sacrifices when the School Board and Superintendent have yet to make a convincing case that they have made all possible cuts in administrative spending.

Tom France
Vienna