Just an astonishing story today in the Independent Record about the proposed mill levy and budget cuts in the Helena School District. Once again, the education reporter at the IR only went to District and Board sources, without pursuing one quote or bit of information from other district stakeholders. Why does that matter? Because it leads to shoddy, half-assed reporting that does not reflect the perspective of all groups impacted by the proposed cuts.
One of the “savings” projected by the administration is reduced staffing of teachers. According to the factually challenged piece:
The first budgetary reduction is in staff. The district plans to not replace some teachers who are retiring at the end of this year — to the tune of five positions at the elementary level, three at the middle school, and 1 ½ positions at the high school.
According to documents provided to the Helena School Board of Trustees earlier this week, the recommendations are based on enrollment forecasts; therefore they don’t anticipate the decrease in staff to have an impact on students or services.
That’s an interesting claim. It’s especially interesting when one looks at the Helena School District’s web page, which actually tells a different story. According to the projections we paid Dodge Data Systems to produce, every elementary school in the Helena School District will have more students next year and the year after than they currently teach. Every single school. The total number of elementary students in 2008-09 was 3,396. Projections for the next three years? 3,476—3,514—3,594. The high schools will have three less students next year, obviously enough to justify the elimination of a position.
It seems to me that the idea that ‘enrollment reductions’ can justify staffing cuts with no impact is intellectually dishonest. In fact, the district’s superintendent, Dr. Messinger, told the district staff and public that “when an employee is not replaced there is a potential impact on the services provided to students, if the services cannot be provided in an alternative manner.”
The district is making a claim that is absurd on its face. According to the article:
Messinger said the changes would not affect class sizes, physical education or music instruction.
Now, I’m just an English teacher, but if you teach more students with less teachers, wouldn’t the number of students in each class have to go up?
And, of course, there’s no discussion in the article about reductions in other staffing areas. This, despite the fact that Dr. Messinger, also publically said:
At the work session this week I will present options that are being considered and describe the anticipated impact. The use of vacancy savings to balance the budget will be considered across all employee groups throughout the next budget year.
That means one of two things: either the Board work session did not consider reductions in other staffing areas or the IR’s education reporter was too tired to actually stay for the whole meeting or to read the entire document. I honestly don’t know which is more likely.
These are, no doubt, challenging times for budgets. When the media abrogates its responsibility to critically examine institutions and their budgeting priorities, though, difficult decisions are even harder to make.
This is Journalism 101: check the claims your sources make, talk to multiple stakeholders, fully report the information. It’s harder than writing a press release, but it’s what journalists are supposed to do.