Basically, the school district is looking ahead and trying to avoid a spending crisis in the future by making cuts now. Making cuts is not desirable but when the district's money is dependent on state taxes and political decisions, there is not much they can do but make the necessary cuts.

Running an educational institution is unlike a corporation in that it does not have control over the source of its funds like a corporation which can just sell more widgets through better advertising or buying out its competitor, etc. The only recourse a school has is to try to convince the legislators that they need more money or to increase the tax levy, the former is hard to accomplish and the latter is very unpopular.

The other difference between a school and a corporation is that it is difficult to measure the productivity of a school in terms of getting the most out of a dollar. In business, if you don't sell your product you go broke. A school does not have the hardline accountability for the money it receives like a corporation. While it is not fair to compare the graduation rates of schools without taking into account the type of area it serves, there must be a way to determine a per student cost. How does our district stack up against the others? Is there a norm or standard to compare against?

The only thing that a school can do in a budget crunch that is similiar to a corporation is to control its cost and become more efficient. Since our school district is facing a budget crisis, now is the time for all of us to ask some hard questions again in order to find a way to make our school system more cost effective.

The first point I want to make is that I have great respect for the teaching profession. I know that I do not have the patience or skill to be a good teacher and I admire those who wish to pursue education as a career. It is unfortunate that we pay basketball players ridiculous salaries while contributing absolutely nothing to our society while teachers are paid far less and are probably our most important workers. I have no problem in paying good teachers more money. I do not advocate cutting teachers salaries as a way to trim cost.

Having said that, I do feel that eventually we are going to have to make the education system a year round process so that teachers do teach 12 months a year rather than 9. It would be a more cost effective use of our resources since utility bills must be paid year round whether school is in session or not. This could mean that there would be 3 semesters each year and a student can decide how many to attend. Theoretically, a student could graduate in 3 years rather than 4. This system would keep class sizes lower and provide for more personal attention. Parents won't have to pay babysitting fees during the summer and kids will have something to do during the summer.

The school board is considering an increase in class size from 18 to maybe as much as 25 or more. This will eliminate some teaching positions. Will this lower the quality of education for our children? Perhaps. I really don't know how much. Some theorists say that smaller class sizes are required because it is too difficult to maintain discipline in a large class today.

I do know that class sizes were bigger when I was in school. My seventh grade class of 1953 had 32 students taught by Mrs. Gross. There were maybe 2 or 3 cars parked around the school. There was one teacher per class. Many of the teachers walked to school and all the kids walked to school. How times have changed. Many doctors, lawyers, educators, and successful businessmen were produced from that school system years ago.

Things have changed in the past 40 years. Both parents are now in the workplace and many think that the lack of discipline in the home has made the teacher's job more difficult today. If that is the case then we are, in effect, subsidizing the homeplace with child development that used to be done at home.

I do have a suggestion for improving discipline. Regarding my editorial last week on dressing appropriately, some wrote to me about how teachers don't dress up anymore. If that is the case, I suggest that the school district enforce a dress code that would give the teachers an aura of respect. If grocery store clerks have to wear ties, why shouldn't our educators? It is my opinion that you don't get respect from kids by trying to be like them and dress like them so as to be their friend. Teachers should dress so that kids respect them.

There are many small things that I think deserve attention. For example, last year the school bussed kids 3 blocks to downtown in the middle of the day to go bowling? Why not have them walk? Better yet, why were they even bowling in the first place? That is something you learn to do on your own time.

Do we have control over vehicle costs? There seems to be an awful lot of half empty buses running around. Are the buses too big or do we have too many routes? Also, do we have unnecessary bussing runs when private vehicles would do? I notice that there are vans and pickup trucks used by the school district. The school did not have those vehicles when I was in school.

Can we cut costs on our athletic programs? Being an ex-jock at MDR I am willing to admit that education is more important than athletics. Some people are advocating making many of our sports intramural again and eliminating costly road trips, coaches salaries, uniforms, etc. In some communities the major sports like basketball and football are being subsidized by local clubs rather than the school. In light of the fact that I have over 300 trophies stored from athletic programs of the past that nobody wants, it makes you wonder how important our athletic programs really are.

In addition, I believe that we have de-emphasized music relative to athletics. Music is something that stays with us for life. Hardly anyone will go on to a professional sports career. We should try to turn out students who look forward to going to a symphony or the museum, rather than students who prefer watching 300 pound lineman crash into each other every Sunday.

Are we spending too much on technology in the lower grades? I think it important that we don't emphasize computers too much at the expense of not giving our younger students the basic 3 R's they need before we introduce them to computers. Computers like television can restrict the learning process with its emphasis on gadgetry and entertainment. We may be creating a nation of robots that do not know how to think.

All of this suggests that the school district should look around and see where it can cut costs. When an institution receives money based on grants and taxes rather than on its ability to compete in the marketplace, there is not the same incentive to keep costs down like in a profit making organization. Over time, unnecessary costs just naturally accumulate. I am not blaming the school system for this fact. It is something that just happens because of the nature of the organization. Periodic reviews are required. There are consulting firms that do cost-cutting studies for corporations. Don't they do studies on schools as well? If not, they should.

I recommend those who are concerned to attend the special school board meeting Wednesday night and present the board your thoughts on the funding crisis. I agree with the school board that pressure should be put on our legislators to not cut the education fund. But it also requires that we attempt to keep costs at a minimum without sacrificing the quality of education.