A statement from BOE, Princeton on April 25, 2017
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [http://cranbury.info] -> School | Parenting
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
anon-500r
Guest





PostPosted: Fri, Jun 16, 10:27 am EDT    Post subject: A statement from BOE, Princeton on April 25, 2017 Reply with quote

UNDERSTANDING THE CRANBURY SCHOOL DISTRICT ~ PRINCETON PUBLIC
SCHOOLS RELATIONSHIP
April 25, 2017
PPS receives about $4,813,480 in tuition revenue from Cranbury for 280 students.
 A reduction in enrollment at the high school by 280 students across four grades
would lead to a corresponding decrease of about 12 teachers. At $80,000 per
teacher, the savings would be $960,000. Teachers would be released based on
seniority.
 The effective loss in revenue to our operating budget would be $3,853,480, ~
$4,813,480 minus $960,000 (approximately 12 teachers).
 A loss in revenue of that magnitude would impact the PPS budget equivalent of
about 48 additional FTE staff at an average cost of $80,000 each.
 PPS's debt payment of approximately $5.7 million year.
 Operating budget or General Fund and Fund 40 Debt payment fund are
completely separate accounting structures.
With these numbers and terms in mind, a partially workable analogy is that of a
household budget with a mortgage, something many of us deal with. We pay our
operating expenses (utilities, food, clothes, etc.) and our mortgage out of our
income. Similarly, the school district pays its operating expenses from revenue
collected through the tax levy, Cranbury tuition revenue, state aid, and other
smaller revenue streams. The long term debt (comparable to the mortgage) is
also paid out collected revenue. Cranbury provides our school district with $4.8
million in revenue annually. If we lose that revenue we save about $960,000 but
are then short in our revenue by about $3.8 million. We are not able to increase
our tax levy to cover that short, therefore to account for the lost revenue PPS
would be forced to cut programs and the associated staff that supports them.
Isn’t there an argument that, like a mortgage, when PPS debt is paid down (in
about 2023) then that $5.7 million will be available to avoid those cuts associated
with a reduction in revenue of about $3.8 million. Unfortunately, that is where the
analogy to a mortgage doesn’t work.
On personal finances all the money is the same. When the mortgage is paid off,
you have more money for your household or other operating expenses. It isn’t
the same for public schools. Operating expenses and debt expenses are not
treated the same. Thus, when the debt of $5.7 million is paid off, there is an
opportunity for a tax reduction (a worthy goal), but there is no ability to continue
to collect that same amount through the tax levy to support the operating
expenses.
The cuts associated with a reduction in $3.8 million of Cranbury revenue would
be here to stay.
We hope that this provides a better understanding as to why Cranbury students
attending Princeton High School is not only a benefit of an enriched student
population but also a financial benefit. The revenue from Cranbury helps support
the extensive programing PPS has to offer to both Princeton and Cranbury
students.
Lastly, although there is no plan to severe the long term relationship with
Cranbury, it is important to state that ending the relationship is not possible
without the approval of the State of New Jersey, DOE.
Board of Education, Princeton
Back to top
anon-500r
Guest





PostPosted: Fri, Jun 16, 10:32 am EDT    Post subject: Re: A statement from BOE, Princeton on April 25, 2017 Reply with quote

for more discussions on Princeton-Cranbury relationship, see youtube below jumping to 1:10:00 from start

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw3eg5m1GjU
Back to top
anon-s6p5
Guest





PostPosted: Fri, Jun 16, 1:51 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: A statement from BOE, Princeton on April 25, 2017 Reply with quote

Hopefully this will end all the bad rumors out there.
Back to top
publius-q30r
Guest





PostPosted: Sun, Jun 18, 9:22 am EDT    Post subject: Re: A statement from BOE, Princeton on April 25, 2017 Reply with quote

there will be fewer students attending PHS?
Back to top
anon-6696
Guest





PostPosted: Sun, Jun 18, 3:20 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: A statement from BOE, Princeton on April 25, 2017 Reply with quote

publius-q30r wrote:
there will be fewer students attending PHS?


There will be fewer students for the new few years because the Cranbury class sizes were smaller But the above post about 280 fewer students was a hypothetical of the impact if no Cranbury student attended and the district didn't get the benefit of their tuition.
Back to top
anon-0493
Guest





PostPosted: Wed, Jun 21, 6:42 am EDT    Post subject: Re: A statement from BOE, Princeton on April 25, 2017 Reply with quote

anon-6696 wrote:
publius-q30r wrote:
there will be fewer students attending PHS?


There will be fewer students for the new few years because the Cranbury class sizes were smaller But the above post about 280 fewer students was a hypothetical of the impact if no Cranbury student attended and the district didn't get the benefit of their tuition.


So using the hypothetical of 5 million dollars a year to send 280 Cranbury students to PPS, it costs taxpayers $17,857.14 for each student. Isn't this exorbitant for a public high school? If there are less students are we getting a tax break?
Back to top
anon-s6p5
Guest





PostPosted: Wed, Jun 21, 7:29 am EDT    Post subject: Re: A statement from BOE, Princeton on April 25, 2017 Reply with quote

anon-0493 wrote:
anon-6696 wrote:
publius-q30r wrote:
there will be fewer students attending PHS?


There will be fewer students for the new few years because the Cranbury class sizes were smaller But the above post about 280 fewer students was a hypothetical of the impact if no Cranbury student attended and the district didn't get the benefit of their tuition.


So using the hypothetical of 5 million dollars a year to send 280 Cranbury students to PPS, it costs taxpayers $17,857.14 for each student. Isn't this exorbitant for a public high school? If there are less students are we getting a tax break?


That is in line with the cost to educate students today. It is all formula driven.
Back to top
anon-5p0n
Guest





PostPosted: Wed, Jun 21, 1:39 pm EDT    Post subject: Re: A statement from BOE, Princeton on April 25, 2017 Reply with quote

anon-0493 wrote:
anon-6696 wrote:
publius-q30r wrote:
there will be fewer students attending PHS?


There will be fewer students for the new few years because the Cranbury class sizes were smaller But the above post about 280 fewer students was a hypothetical of the impact if no Cranbury student attended and the district didn't get the benefit of their tuition.


So using the hypothetical of 5 million dollars a year to send 280 Cranbury students to PPS, it costs taxpayers $17,857.14 for each student. Isn't this exorbitant for a public high school? If there are less students are we getting a tax break?


1) That's actually ~$2K/stduent below the state average for public high schools.

2) When fewer students attend, whether because there are less that grade or more go to price school, it directly reduces the amount the Cranbury school district pays Princeton. Whether that reduces the budget of the school on any given year is something to take up with the School Board -- Township Committee has nothing to do with it. You can thank Christie for giving schools an option to not have to have voters approve school budgets annually, though even when we did Cranbury's always passed easily even when going up.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [http://cranbury.info] -> School | Parenting All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1