Agreeing with Gilman

Wow, it was great to hear from Ray Gilman in The Star newspaper last week. Ray served the Grand Coulee Dam School District as an administrator for decades. His loyalty and longevity were amazing. He is aware of what is going on with funding in our local school district, regionally and statewide.

Our school district is in the “B” school classification. “B” schools are the smallest size-wise in Washington state. With our student population, we are grossly over-staffed with administrators. Ray is spot on about the district office, but there is overstaffing in other systems within the organization. However, needing bus drivers now after laying them off does not make sense. Changes at the top must happen first, not with core systems like transportation.

To Ray’s main point, I want to focus on administration. Ray was correct that there are at least seven administrators here. The Dean of Students positions could be called vice principals, assistants, instructional coaches etc., but don’t be fooled, they are administrative. He was kind to mention that these positions cost the district $563,000 annually. I know, from experience, that salary, benefits, stipends, buybacks, etc., amounts are closer to a million dollars annually just for local administration.

I also know from experience that to model fiscal stability, our school administrative team could function with combo positions, such as superintendent/elementary principal and secondary/alternative school principal. Our district would still need a special education director. Seniority, experience and expertise would hopefully be followed for the combo principal position choice.

These three individuals in combo positions would be performing duties where seven are in place presently. This would easily save our local school district over half a million dollars annually and this is just reflecting changes made at the administrative level only.

To further add to Ray’s thoughts, our local school district also receives significant Impact Aid funds each year. This is rarely mentioned. These federal funds are for reservation lands and military base school districts across our nation that have a limited tax base.

To be crystal clear, I am not questioning the compensation our school district administrators receive. What I am questioning, along with Ray, is the excessive number of administrators that are on the payroll for a “B” size school district that we’re being told is in a serious, financial crisis and is requesting more funding from community members.

I support our existing levy. However, in addition to this, I think we also passed another ballot measure request from the school district in addition to the previously passed levy. Clarity from the school district about what we’re already paying with past ballot measures has been poor. This new (additional) levy measure only needs 50% of “yes” votes to pass. This is a low benchmark percentage wise so it may be successful. However, as I mentioned previously, I’m voting no along with Ray. It is hard to believe that final action to put this measure on our current ballot was done with full awareness of the pandemic situation. I don’t know about you, but my property taxes have increased significantly and there is chatter of tax increases at the state level.

Locally, leadership must be courageous. Extremely tough decisions need to be made in a unified fashion starting at the top. As community members, we are not bobble-heads. We expect our school district to adjust to its current funding sources while stabilizing fiscally now and for the future. We need sound, creative solutions — not excuses.

John M. Adkins