I found the posts on this thread pretty interesting despite the fact that most responses to the original question are simple blanket statements without any facts. I looked at the original question and thought that was a pretty big increase over a short period of time. I thought about the no child left behind argument and thought it plausible considering everything else has remained the same and this is the one thing that has changed in the education field. Then, I spent a few minutes googling and actually getting some facts. I came to the conclusion that the no child argument is complete bunk and a flat out lie. This may be a year old, but on May 25, 2006, Jack Dale, Superintendent of FCPS, participated in an online forum on washingtonpost.com and was asked a similar question. Below is the exchange:
Annandale, Va.: Please explain why you insist the budget must grow at 6 percent plus a year when the school population is declining.
Jack D. Dale: This year, there were three driving forces. One is the salary increase I proposed. With over 85% of our budget going to people, any salary increase will demand an increase in the budget. The second force was increasing costs for benefits and mandatory retirement system contributions to the state. The third force was energy costs -- diesel, natural gas, oil, gasoline, electricity, etc.
Another exchange:
Anonymous: Fairfax County is so very expensive to live in based on a teachers salary....Are any incentives being put in place to encourage teachers to live where they work or rather to help them afford to live where they work?
Jack D. Dale: In the last two years, I have raised the starting teacher salaries substantially. We also have partnerships with many banks and businesses to reduce housing costs, loan costs and other "cost of living" expenses for staff. Our web site has an extensive list of such benefits.
Not one mention of "No Child Left Behind."
I looked a little bit further and found that in the FY 06 budget, the county attributed $4.5 million to the No Child Left Behind requirements. This is a hefty number, indeed, but it only represents a paltry 2-3% of the overall budget. Hardly a budget buster!
In another article here --
http://loudounextra.washingtonpost.com/news/2007/aug/07/housing-fairfax/?real_estate -- School Board member Jane K. Strauss (Dranesville) said that even without adding any programs, it would be difficult to maintain services. Nearly 86 percent of the school budget goes toward salaries and benefits, Strauss noted, and any cost-of-living increase has a large price tag. Enrollment is steady, but the number of students who require extra help because they have limited English proficiency or need special-education services is increasing.
It would seem the no child argument is a complete fabrication made only to slap around an unpopular president gratuitously. Look, it is pretty easy to find faults with the president without making up things!