The Independent
ASHLAND —
Just as this economic downturn has forced many companies, families and individuals to become more efficient and finds ways to get by with less, it is doing the same for state government. A 3.5 percent cut in funding for the Kentucky Department of Education has forced Education Commissioner Terry Holliday to propose a reorganization that will eliminate four top administrative positions and dozens of other jobs.
While being imposed because of the funding cuts, Holliday said the reorganization is designed to make the agency more efficient and help it provide services more effectively. If that is accomplished, the cuts could actually improve the department by forcing it to take a hard look at how it is doing things.
Education Department spokeswoman Lisa Gross said the changes are spurred by “economic reasons — our budget cuts. But this also reflects the commissioner’s vision by streamlining in a way that will allow us to focus on ... the strategic priorities of the (state Board of Education).”
Holliday’s proposal — which must be approved by the state school board — would eliminate the jobs of two deputy commissioners and reduce the number of associate commissioners from eight to six. The savings from the cuts could add up to $500,000 annually, Gross said.
Kentucky School Boards Association spokesman Brad Hughes called the reorganization “a simple fact of fewer resources and greater demands. But if this puts the department’s limited resources more toward helping struggling schools, it’s a good step.”
No one likes to see their income drop, but that has become the norm for companies, families and government agencies during this recession. When income declines, private companies have two choices: Raising prices or reducing spending, and with higher prices often leading to lower sales, more companies resist the option.
By the same token, when revenue declines, state and local governments can either raise taxes or cut spending. Since higher taxes can prolong the recession, most state and local governments have opted to cut spending.
If it forces companies, families and government agencies to become more efficient and reduce waste, having less money can be a positive. Just like many businesses and individuals, state and local governments are finding ways to eliminate unnecessary spending.
