Tuition? I reply to Cal's reply to my reply to Cal

School Board News: New Hampshire Education Commissioner Virginia Barry personally approved our request to grant a waiver allowing us to move graduation day back to June 7.   The board voted unanimously to put the decision in the superintendent and principal's hands.  Congratulations to the board on a successful passing of this hot potato. Principal Allen will quickly survey seniors and their families and the final decision will be made soon.  Check out ORTV for fun coverage by the students of this and other district issues.  (The graduation date story starts at 8:07.)

Also surprising, staffing up for tuition students began tonight, with a request approved for two .4 part time, no benefits teacher positions to teach required math and science to (I think they said) 34 additional Barrington students.  Principal Allen apparently aroused some consternation in Barrington by starting a waiting list that grew to four before the board could vote tonight.

Even though the tuition greatly exceeds the cost of these positions, the money for the positions still has be taken from the budget approved by the voters in March.  Since then, there have been three retirements approved, only one of which will be replaced.  Technically, that's where the money for the new hires comes from.

The superintendent suggested election day, early November 2013, as a target date the tuition student decision should be made.  This gives time for budget planning.  Transition planning has already begun.  If approved, the mass of students would start in September 2014.  That's also known as FY15, since that fiscal year (corresponding to the school year) ends June 30, 2015.

There's a meeting tonight (Thursday 4/18, 6pm, ORHS auditorium) to discuss elementary school reconfiguration.  Childcare will be provided.  The most radical proposal is to make Mast Way grades K - 2 and Moharimet grades 3 - 4, maybe 3 - 5.  There's an alternate proposal to redraw district lines to even out the currently projected enrollment of I think Mohariment 380, Mast Way 300.


Now to the main topic.

Calvis Jarvis has another letter in Foster's today.   It's an attempt to rebut my letter about his original letter.  I don't plan to respond in the paper, because I'd just be repeating my first letter. But I thought it would be worthwhile to respond here where I don't have to be so terse.

I've formatted Cal's letter in this font.

Tawdry deception

I see where the editor get's "deception" from the letter, but "tawdry?" That is apparently Foster's contribution to the debate. I looked it up: Showy but cheap and of poor quality. I'll agree my letter is a poor quality deception because it's not a deception. It's my understanding of the truth as best as I could articulate in 350 words.

To the editor: I have a news flash for those who were wondering (Big money, 4/11/2013): I do want to reduce taxes for Oyster River! I have advocated we should restore the cost of our own kids’ educations to a more competitive amount, before importing students at a discounted tuition we have to subsidize. 

I was wondering, Cal.  I'm glad you're back on the side of us taxpayers.  Cutting our costs "of our own kids' education" cuts taxes.  I'm all for it.   We should do it.  We have been doing it.  That's what retirement incentives and energy savings do, as I pointed out in my letter.  I hope we keep doing it.  I hope we find new ways to cut costs.

But why "before importing?"  Tuition students cuts our taxes now.   As I've attempted to show many times, even if our cost per student is higher than that the tuition we charge, tuition students still cut our taxes.  This is because it costs money just to have buildings open and staffed with principals and custodians, etc.  If we can spread that cost among more students, we get lower cost per student.

I'm not giving up on you Cal.  Let's try another analogy.  Say you and I ran a summer camp, Camp Jervine.  We have a dining operation to serve the kids and staff three meals a day.  We lease a high end kitchen with nice ovens, freezers and dishwashers.  We're staffed with a dining director, nutritionist, head chef, a dishwasher, cooks and waiters.  When we count up all the costs at the end of the summer and divide, it comes out to $10 per meal.  (Let's ignore cost differences between breakfast, lunch and dinner.)

Say we have a visitor for dinner.  At any given dinner, we could produce and serve another plate of food for essentially the cost of the food, say $2.  We wouldn't need to hire anyone.   If we charged the visitor $6 for her meal, we would make $4.  We surely wouldn't lose $4 because our average cost per meal is $10.  We are not subsidizing this visitor's meal when we charge $6.  That $4 we make can be use to lower the cost to the campers or to increase our profit, Cal.

Cal says we don't need a head chef, nutritionist and director.  Our nutritionist is a great manager and chef.  Let's make that one job.   That's great. Now it only costs us $7 per meal on average.  But that doesn't change the economics of that extra meal for a visitor.  That would still only costs us $2.

Cal says, sure that's OK for one visitor, but for a significant number you're going to have to hire waiters  and maybe even more cooks.   I agree.   But we don't need to hire another head.  We don't need a bigger kitchen with new appliances.   Our dishwasher is underutilized and we won't need another one.   We have extra space in the dining room.   We already have plenty of plates and utensils.  Say when you add in the additional waiters and cooks just for these extra meals, the cost goes up to $4 per meal.   We would still make money charging $6 for each extra meal.   Let's open Jervine Cafe!

This all seem straightforward to me.  The last point to make is that now is when the tuition student deals are being presented.  We may not have the opportunity to take a large number of tuition students in the near future. We have to decide now whether or not they make sense for the district.  I've argued they're a win-win, saving programming for the students and money for the taxpayers.

Mr. Rubine is used to throwing big $ amounts around like Hail Mary passes, figuring people will eventually just punt when figures get too confusing. Once we get past all the bemusement and deception, consider the content of his arguments:

It's Dr. Rubine, but that couldn't matter less.  Call me Dean.  I worked pretty hard, using only the roundest of numbers, to make things as simple as I could for our readers in my letter.  Let's recap: 

• 200 new students covered by 10 new staff, generously estimated as $5,000 cost per student.
• $12,000 tuition minus $5,000 cost is $7,000 the taxpayers save per tuition student.  
• $90,000 annually in energy savings thanks to Sustainability Committee.
• $1 million annually in staff savings due to board's retirement incentive.
• $900,000 annual shift by Republican legislature from state taxes to local property taxes.
• At least $10,000 in annual football costs not covered by the boosters.

OK, it's alot of numbers, I'll give you that.  I hope there's not too much here that your typical newspaper reader couldn't handle.  If you have a problem with any of these figures, state it.  Just because you're confused doesn't make what I say false.

The OR retirement incentive led to 17 takers, “only four of whom will be replaced.” Then, by his accounting, to manage an estimated 200 tuition students, 10 new hires are required. We net 3 employees less than before. Taxpayers rejoice! 

The taxpayers should rejoice under this story.  We save 3 employees' pay, say $200,000 and collect an additional $2,400,000 in tuition.  That's $2.6 million dollars less the taxpayers will have to shell out.  That's about 7% off your taxes.  And I really think my estimate is conservative.  Business Administrator Caswell is working on the actual numbers.

Tuition revenue for 200 students at $12,000 each is $2.4 million. However, OR taxpayers will foot the bill for the difference, $900,000, between the revenue received, versus our costs for those 200 students! Someone living in Deerfield can give their kid an Oyster River education for the state average cost, while we pay for 1/4 of their education, as part of the cost for our kids. Our total cost is “marginally” less, but this is our solution for educating our children? Why, so we can keep more people on the ORCSD payroll? 

There is no $900,000 bill.  The taxpayers have to shell out less money after they take the tuition students.  Less taxes is good.   

As best as I can tell, Mr. Jarvis' complaint is really that it's not fair that the tuition kids get a better deal than the district kids. That the tuitioning town ends up spending less sending each kid to high school than we spend sending our own kids.   Even though it's to our benefit to take the tuition kids at the good rate for them, it's still not fair.

I can see this.  It's a good deal for Deerfield.  Anybody who wants to could move to Deerfield and send their kids to Oyster River High at a bargain rate.   Here's a house on a nice lake for $135K and $3,214 in taxes.  Snap it up, Cal.

It's perhaps not as great a deal as it might seem.  Tuition doesn't include transportation or special education, two things that add much to the cost per student taxpayers see.  Once you adjust for those things it's less unfair.

Right now, anyone could move to Barrington and send their kids to Oyster River.  Maybe one of the kids on Todd's waiting list lives in this house that recently sold in Barrington for $37,500.

It suggests an alternate plan for the district.  We can be like Newmarket.  We close the middle school, squeeze the kids we can into the three remaining buildings and tuition out the rest.    I have no doubt that  this would save the taxpayers money.  I'd have to work out whether it would save more or less than tuitioning students.  Eventually enrollment may shrink until we no longer have excess students to tuition out.  I'm pretty sure that if you presented this plan in public it wouldn't be very popular.  But it's not really my idea.  Board Member Lane asked about the economics of closing one school at a recent meeting.

I think it would be great if our costs were such that this unfairness was eliminated.  But from a purely business perspective, tuition students benefit district taxpayers as well as the towns sending the students.  And benefits all the students too.  The world is rarely fair, but at least in this case it offers us and the tuitioning towns a win-win situation.  That's pretty rare too, so we should grab it up.

Mr. Rubine bemoans the fact that the “Republican” state legislature shifted costs back to the local communities. He was happy tourists and vacationers were supporting our kids’ educations. This epitomizes the problem we have in this country with spending. The local taxpayers would not see any effect from shifting costs, if the school administration would take care of the spending side of the equation. That is where the rub is with FORE and their clan, because it might cost jobs. I’d be concerned if we had a student-to-teacher ratio of 20:1, instead of 11:1, like it is. Their concerns reside with the Dept. of Labor, not with the Dept. of Education. 

Cal, of course I'm happier when taxes extracted from visitors to the state go toward schools.  Pretty much anyone who lives here would be.  It's got nothing to do with spending or jobs.  It's got to do with lessening the burden on local families.  Lessening the burden on the people of Oyster River.  You said you were with us, Cal.  I thought you were with us.

Readers will ultimately decide who in this debate is making sense. Just governance and prudent decisions for our schools depend on where the truth lies. Right now, money is flowing from the wallets of OR taxpayers. Collecting it does not require forks. It requires pitchforks, and wheelbarrows. High cost is one excuse used why there is no room for football at ORHS. 

The only position I've taken on football is that I want the board and the public to know how much it will eventually cost us before we say yes.  If the taxpayers are willing, I'm in.  I think the taxpayers are going to be a lot more willing when there are a bunch of kids paying tuition to support new programs like football.   I don't see football working out very well in a small school with declining enrollment that's frantically cutting to reduce costs.

Sure, people will decide.  The board will ultimately decide.  But this board will weigh heavily public opinion.  So the public should understand, tuitioning is good.  Let's make a list.

Why Tuitioning is Good

• It's good for students, who get to maintain or even increase their electives.
• It's good for taxpayers, who pay less because tuition revenue greatly exceeds costs.
• It's good for the tuitioning town, which due to market forces will get a good deal on an Oyster River High School education.
• It's good for teachers, who get to have a job teaching kids who want to be there.  I said it, Cal.
• It's good for all the employees of the district to work in a successful district.
• It's good for the administration, which has a chance to correct any past understaffing without painful layoffs by assuring that all teachers are fully utilized in a larger school.
• It's good for the community, which has a long history of valuing education, to be the winner in the secondary education market.  To be the place that other towns want to pay to attend.  To have the culture of a thriving high school.
• It alleviates the pain of a shrinking system where cost per student would skyrocket, large layoffs would ensue, morale would stink, performance would suffer, property values would tank and soon we'd be looking to tuition out our own kids.

Why Tuitioning is Bad

• It's not fair the tuition towns get a better deal than us locals.
• That unfairness may have a negative effect on district property values.

This isn't Mr. Jarvis' list, it's mine.  He'd probably claim tuition students cost district taxpayers money, but I think that's simply incorrect. The property value thing is a concern of mine, one that Mike McClurken makes an attempt to downplay in a recent letter to Foster's.  I'm not sure if it's true.  It relies on people being able and willing to move to a town with a tuition agreement with another town.  That doesn't seem that attractive a prospect to me.  Also, the people who would be willing to scheme to get their kid into our school are probably self-selecting to be just the ones we want.

Occasionally you hear special education as a reason not to take tuition students.  Our agreement with Barrington states that they pay any special education costs we incur for their students.  The superintendent has made it clear any tuition agreement would work this way. Apparently Dover left this clause out of their agreement with Barrington and thus probably has almost all of this population.  Dover will obviously fix that in this cycle, so we can expect a share of this group.  It should have no effect on taxes.

I've assumed a pretty low tuition.  In reality, the district should try to charge the maximum amount for tuition that would still end up with enough demand to fill the school.  Since it's a market that doesn't really trade very often, it's hard to know what that price is.