Here are a couple of examples. In the area of professional development, money could be used to cover classrooms teachers who are released to attend training programs. Districts could purchase training programs on more effective use of technology in the classroom. Laptop computers and software could be purchased for student use at home. Instructional materials and library stock could be updated. Same for science labs. The idea is to spend on those things that won’t necessarily require continued funding beyond 2011 but will have a positive impact that can extend beyond that date. Thanks for the comment.

1) educational cost
2) of the educational cost about 80% is labor related costs.

Unfortunately, the short sightedness of the argument is that using stimulus money to hire additional staff is only a stop gap measure. When the stimulus funding ends, who is going to pay for the additional staff ? The burden then falls on the community who will see taxes increase 7 -15% or more in one year. Most communities in Connecticut cannot handle such an increase and will defeat budgets until they fall into a more reasonable range. Such actions will force the school system to lay those teachers off again, totally defeating the purpose of the stimulus. The hiring must occur in areas where the hiring will be self sustaining or else the stimulus money is wasted.
Although the argument is a good one, its long term effectiveness is self defeating.

Do you or any readers know of examples of cities/towns that have found innovatiove ways to reduce school (or municipal) spending without hitting quality of service hard?

I’m thinking that with the huge number of local goverments facing state funding cuts, SOME effective out-of-the-box ideas must have emerged.

Is there anything like a central clearing house for that kind of ino?

Thanks!

My main experience with early retirement programs is from my employment with the State Department of Education. In fact, when I left in 2003, it an early incentive plan was in effect. Critics of retirement incentives point out that most of the vacancies are refilled so that cost savings in the long run tend to be negligible. In addition the loss of so much experience at one time can be operationally disruptive in the short term. The key factor in favor of retirement incentives is that even though the salary cost savings may only be short lived, the savings occur at time they are needed most since these types of plans tend to be implemented during financial crisis periods. In the private sector of course, it may be more feasible not to refill vacancies until the economy warrants increasing production again. In education that is not realistic since the kids will all be back in September and positions must be refilled for the most part. As the desperate search for any savings that will help balance the upcoming budget intensifies, the willingness to consider ERIPs seems to increase as well, despite the downsides.

I am on my way out the door for a brief trip and I don’t want to answer your question in haste. It is a good one and I do have a couple thoughts. I will give you a proper response late this week.. Thanks for writing in.–Bob

I wonder if you have any experience with early retirement incentives or salary freezes as an alternative to layoffs? My guess is that it only delays the inevitable. They may be better alternatives than laying off staff. Any thoughts on this catastrophic situation?

Kathy