|
Clearinghouse on Educational Policy and Management
|
| College of Education · University of Oregon |
|
Trends and Issues: School Finance
Many schools have discovered ingenious ways to reduce noninstructional expenditures. Energy-performance contracting, for example, provides numerous health and productivity benefits for schools. It is "a mechanism to allow schools to pay for needed new energy equipment and modernization improvements with savings from reduced utility and maintenance costs" (Birr 2000). Its benefits include improved indoor air quality and reduced absenteeism. Tax-exempt school districts generally use a municipal lease (sometimes combined with cash, grants, or bonds) for energy-performance projects. In 1993, the Texas State auditor’s office found that $185 million could be saved annually by cutting travel expenses, buying cheaper supplies, soliciting bids for services, reducing excessive staff and salaries, and eliminating overly generous benefits. In 1983, Philadelphia schools began an energy-conservation program that has saved $115 million and netted schools 40 percent of the savings (Meyers 1997). Food-service programs conserve resources by centralizing kitchens, forming purchasing cooperatives, updating technologies, and expanding their services and income via vending machines, catering, and creative, crowd-pleasing marketing strategies (Cline and Fitzgerald 1997). To cut costs and recapture student clientele, some open-campus high schools are transforming their cafeterias into fast-food restaurants (with healthy look-alike menu items) or contracting with Pizza Hut or Taco Bell to provide the "real thing." School districts in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Florida have uncovered hidden potential for savings, thanks to free, voluntary, comprehensive state audits of their management and spending practices (Johnston, March 25, 1998). Although such reviews can be risky, "they can also yield more useful data than standard, state-mandated compliance audits." The Texas comptroller came up with $300,000 in optional cost-cutting ideas. Wading through the reports takes time, but changes can be quantum, not just incremental. School officials are increasingly "authorizing, chartering, and contracting with for-profit and not-for-profit organizations to operate entire schools or defined parts of the educational program" (McLaughlin and Brown 2000). Edison Schools manages 79 schools across the nation, and "Sylvan Learning operates their learning centers in 117 schools primarily funded under Title I." (Title I of the Elementary Secondary Education Act). Title I provides $8.2 billion yearly to improve learning opportunities and achievement for the nation’s neediest students.) Despite promising preliminary results in some schools, some educators are skeptical about the costs and consequences of these private tutoring services. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Education "seems intent on shifting much of the Title I money to firms like Success for All, which try to raise achievement for all students in a school" (Mathews 2000). It is too early to tell if efficiency and cost savings will result.
|
