South Kingstown vs. a Top 100 District in Massachusetts

The forest and trees metaphor is pretty apt when our local boards analyze programs, outcomes and the budgets funding them.  

When I served on the South Kingstown School Committee, I would pore over the budget comparing it to prior years, identifying trends, poking at every bit of minutia I was provided.  Once out of office, though, I was able to do a deeper dive into other districts around southern New England.  I was especially able to focus on Massachusetts districts that were highly regarded. Then I could see the forest.

If using the comprehensive CAS testing as metric, South Kingstown would barely fall in the middle of ALL Massachusetts districts, and near the bottom of suburban districts.  If spending were linked to outcomes, you might suggest that they must be spending more in Massachusetts.  You would, of course, be VERY wrong.

A few years ago, this comparison to Longmeadow was done.  With many factors being comparable, they were spending some $17 million LESS than South Kingstown.  While not entirely similar, the districts have enough overlap to ask “Why the disparity?”.  The students there are getting better outcomes, and they were doing it for less.

Revisiting Longmeadow today, the disparity is more severe.  Our current $69 million budget (page 48 here), spread over the expected ~2500 students (page 33) is nearly $28,000 each.  Longmeadow is closer to $16,000.  They have a few more students (around 2,800), and have a total budget around $45 million.  We are spending over $20 million more than a similar district, and not seeing the same quality of outcomes that Longmeadow students receive.

A few differences to note are that Massachusetts parents often need to pay for their own bussing and activity fees.  But a student needing bussing and participating in 2 sports costs the parent less than $750.  That leaves at least $11,000 per student in disparity.

So we return to the forest and trees metaphor.  We do not need details to know that there is ALOT wrong with spending $69 million.  And we really didn’t get a chance to see those details anyway.  For the first time in decades, a school spending plan was approved without having the prior year financial audit complete, any current year updates, or a complete detailed budget until the eleventh hour.  Decision makers and the public were essentially blind to 3 years of fiscal detail.  Despite this opacity, districts like Longmeadow tell us we have a severe spending problem.  A few years ago, $20,000 per pupil seemed high.  This budget’s $28,000 defies logic.

The spending proposal increases by 4.8%, despite another expected enrollment decline.  No cuts are necessary, just track spending to student and staff attrition.  The inevitable question “What do you suggest we cut?” tells more about the asker’s values than anything else. It betrays an unwillingness to consider ANY due diligence in their fiscal oversight, and suggests other priorities for how money flows through the town.  With 30 to 40 staff members retiring or leaving each year, it would not even require eliminating a single person to keep spending flat.  

If our elected officials would acknowledge the forest they are in, maybe we can start moving in the right direction.