MUSIC ADVOCACY: Caring Enough to Put the Student First
December 5, 2005
Focus on Budget: How “Average” FTE Value Creates Budget Problems
This article is the third in our series on <Full Time Equivalency (FTE)> and how your administration uses it to build your district’s budget. By now you know how important it is to use accurate calculations of FTE when determining the number of teachers needed in each curricular area. If you pay close attention to another concept – “average” FTE value – you’ll see how it is critical during the budget development process.
AN-TI-CI-PA-TION: Schools Are Not Run Like Businesses
First, your district budget is based on an estimate of all funds, or the anticipated revenue, available for staffing in your district. This revenue may include legislative initiatives, grants, and other monies that are not firmly in place during the budget development process. Unlike a business – which first establishes a vision (or intended profit margin) and then calculates how many products must be sold to meet that goal – your school district develops its budget based upon how much funding is anticipated. Your school board and administrators then use this estimate to determine how many staff positions may be added, maintained, or even cut. Your administration and board usually have a variety of contingency plans, each based on their most educated "guesses" as to what monies will eventually be provided.
Secondly, your district’s budget development process related to staffing is based on the economic concept of "average" FTE value. The “average” FTE value or cost can vary widely between teaching and non-teaching staff.
Teaching vs. Non-Teaching Positions & Other Deciding Factors
The following formula is commonly used to establish the “average” value of FTE in your school district:
• The total dollar amount available for faculty, divided by the total number of faculty, determines the "average" cost (value) of 1.0 FTE faculty position.
The “average” dollar cost for non-teaching staff varies according to the "average" FTE value established for each job classification. For example:
- The “average” cost of 1.0 FTE teacher may be $50,000 - The “average” cost for a 1.0 FTE administrator might be $75,000 - The “average” cost for a 1.0 FTE clerical position may only be $25,000 - These figures may or may not include the cost of benefits, depending on the reporting practices of each district.
Ratio “Averages” Factor Into Budget Development, Too
Calculating the value of 1.0 FTE is also partially determined by ratios, which I will discuss in more detail later in this FTE series. For now, consider the importance of ratios as briefly outlined here:
* The Student-Faculty Ratio (SFR) (or “average” student load): the "average" number of students per each 1.0 FTE teaching position. * The Pupil-Staff Ratio (PSR): the "average" number of pupils or students per each 1.0 FTE position INCLUDING non-teaching staff as part of the staffing ratio.
The Student-Faculty Ratio and Pupil-Student Ratio are used to determine "average" class size or the number of students in the classroom during any single class session. The "average" class size will always be larger than the Pupil-Student Ratio, and often larger than the Student-Faculty Ratio; how much larger depends on which non-teaching positions (such as guidance counselors, teaching assistants or non-certified specialists) are included in the SFR.
“Averages” More Often Create Problems, Not Solutions
The obvious problem with using a mathematical "average" as a budgetary yardstick is that averages do not provide a clear picture of the differences in cost or cost benefit of specific programs or individual teaching positions. Add the sometimes shaky predictions of anticipated revenues to the equation, and you can see how using “averages” to make budgetary decisions may create a short-term financial crisis or, worse yet, long-term financial deficits.
Music performance teachers (band, choir, orchestra) normally have a significantly higher FTE value than other teachers, because they have larger average student loads or SFR. This gives them a higher FTE value than the average teacher, making their positions more valuable to maintain if the district is attempting to save money. Music advocates who understand the difference between actual FTE value and “average” FTE value – and who use accurate calculations of FTE during budget development in their districts – say FTE is often the single most important tool they’ve used to save music programs.
If you’re unsure about how to gather the information you need to determine the actual FTE value of music teachers in your district, please refer to my previous article on the Music Participation Survey Form for step-by-step assistance. The more you learn about FTE, the more you’ll see how vital it is to school music programs.
