Dearest reader,

A couple of readers recently brought some interesting breadcrumbs concerning Saginaw Township Community Schools to my attention.

And naturally, I followed them.

In August 2024, the district participated in Michigan's statewide school facilities assessment, conducted by R.C. Hendrick & Son, Inc.

That assessment identified approximately $68.07 million in facility repair needs, including $16.82 million classified as critical.

The district subsequently sought voter approval for two bond proposals, one for $169.21 million in 2025 and another for $94.235 million in 2026.

Both were rejected by voters.

The accompanying graphic compares the statewide assessment with the amounts proposed for each building in both bond applications.

But I wanted to look beyond the totals.

I compared the critical items identified in the statewide assessment with the project descriptions in the district's 2026 Michigan Treasury Form 3881.

Here are the critical items I could not find individually identified in those project descriptions.

ARROWWOOD ELEMENTARY

• Fire sprinklers: $820,288
• Emergency generator: $279,231
• Canopies: $69,460
• Intrusion detection: $34,904
• Interior signage, backflow preventer, entry barricade, and directional signage

HEMMETER ELEMENTARY

• Cooling system equipment: $347,302
• Fire sprinklers: $281,940
• Emergency generator: $93,980
• Interior signage: $48,622
• Intrusion detection, entry barricade, fencing, and directional signage

HERITAGE HIGH SCHOOL

• Fire sprinklers: $2,515,601
• Canopies: $347,302
• Impact-resistant interior glazing: $209,633
• Intrusion detection: $104,817
• Fixed window treatments: $83,352
• Code-compliant handrails: $55,568
• Interior signage: $48,622
• Numbered exterior doors, entry barricade, and directional signage

MACKINAW HIGH SCHOOL

• Playground surface: $650,482
• Fire sprinklers: $295,926
• Emergency generator: $98,642
• Canopies: $69,460
• Interior signage, intrusion detection, playground fencing, numbered doors, entry barricade, and directional signage

SHERWOOD ELEMENTARY

• Canopies: $7,214,916
• Fire sprinklers: $857,138
• Aquatic facilities: $347,302
• Emergency generator: $288,597
• Elevator or lift documented as not working: $138,921
• Window treatments: $130,238
• Exterior lighting, signage, intrusion detection, and entry barricade

WEISS ELEMENTARY

• Fire sprinklers: $281,715
• Emergency generator: $93,905
• Canopies: $69,460
• Interior signage: $31,604
• Playground fencing, intrusion detection, numbered exterior doors, entry barricade, and directional signage

WESTDALE ELEMENTARY

• Canopies: $69,460
• Classroom doors lacking inside-locking hardware: $32,299
• Interior signage: $24,311
• Intrusion detection, backflow preventer, fencing, entry barricade, and directional signage

WHITE PINE MIDDLE SCHOOL

• Classroom doors lacking inside-locking hardware: $112,526
• Intrusion detection: $71,393
• Code-compliant handrails: $33,341
• Backflow preventer: $4,168
• Entry barricade and directional signage

Now, an important distinction.

The 2026 Form 3881 uses broad project categories, including remodeling, construction, and site improvements. Some of these repairs could fall within those categories without being separately identified.

Therefore, I am not claiming these items were excluded from the bond proposal. I am identifying critical needs documented in the statewide assessment that I could not individually locate in the 3881 project descriptions.

And that brings me to my question.

When a district has an independent facilities assessment identifying millions of dollars in critical needs, shouldn't taxpayers be able to see exactly which of those needs are being addressed in a proposed bond?

Especially when those needs involve fire protection, emergency generators, security systems, and classroom door locks?

The statewide assessment tells taxpayers what was identified.

The bond application tells taxpayers what the district proposed to spend.

What remains unclear is precisely how those two documents connect.

And that, dearest reader, is why I follow the breadcrumbs.

With receipts and respect,
Lady Budgetdown

#LadyBudgetdown #SaginawTownshipCommunitySchools #MichiganSchools #SchoolBonds #Transparency #Accountability #WithReceiptsAndRespect

LADY BUDGETDOWN | GRAND LEDGE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Dearest reader,

I have a question.

In November 2018, voters approved two bond proposals totaling $148.125 million for Grand Ledge Public Schools.

Eight years later, construction activity from earlier bond projects is still ongoing.

According to the district's June 30, 2025, financial records, approximately $26.21 million remained across four bond project funds.

Now, in November 2026, the district is asking voters to authorize another $123.5 million in bonds.

So here's my question.

WHY?

How much of that $26.21 million has already been committed to unfinished projects?

How much remains available?

And why is another $123.5 million needed while work from previous bond programs is still underway?

I'm not suggesting the money has been misused. I'm not suggesting those remaining funds are available for unrelated projects.

I'm simply looking at the district's own financial records, the construction timeline, and the new bond request.

And asking a question that I believe deserves a clear answer.

With receipts and respect,
Lady B 🪶

#LadyBudgetdown #WithReceiptsAndRespect #GrandLedgePublicSchools #SchoolBonds #Transparency #TaxpayerAccountability

 LADY BUDGETDOWN | GRAND LEDGE PUBLIC SCHOOLS: FOLLOWING THE BOND MONEY

District #23060

Dearest reader,

In Step 5, I examined Grand Ledge Public Schools' general fund finances, including its revenues, expenditures, fund balances, and audit findings.

But bond money is a different story.

Bond proceeds are restricted to specific purposes, so I wanted to examine those funds separately.

Today, I'm looking at three questions:

How much bond money has the district received?

How much has been spent?

And how much remains?

📚 THE BOND PROJECT FUNDS

According to the district's financial records, here is the cumulative activity for four bond project funds as of June 30, 2025.

🔹 2021 Proposal I
Total sources: $31,899,817
Spent/used: $31,285,156
Remaining: $614,661

🔹 2021 Proposal II
Total sources: $7,952,386
Spent/used: $7,952,386
Remaining: $0

🔹 2023 Bond Projects
Total sources: $26,738,087
Spent/used: $18,434,737
Remaining: $8,303,350

🔹 2024 Bond Projects
Total sources: $25,969,315
Spent/used: $8,676,855
Remaining: $17,292,460

💰 LET'S ADD THAT UP.

Across these four bond project funds:

Total financing sources: $92,559,605

Total expenditures and other uses: $65,349,134

Remaining balance: $26,210,471

That's approximately $26.21 million remaining as of June 30, 2025.

Now, before anyone gets too excited, that does not mean the district has $26.21 million sitting around available for whatever it wants.

These are cumulative accounting balances, not a current bank statement. Some of that money may already be committed to construction contracts or projects that have not yet been completed.

And because these are restricted capital-project funds, the money cannot simply be moved into the general fund to pay ordinary operating expenses.

The figures also represent these four specific funds, not every bond the district has issued throughout its history.

🏦 WHAT ABOUT THE DEBT?

As of June 30, 2025, Grand Ledge reported approximately $138.77 million in outstanding general obligation bond principal.
And here's an important distinction.

That $138.77 million is principal only.

Future interest payments are additional.

So when discussing school bond debt, we need to distinguish between money already borrowed, money still available for approved projects, and money taxpayers must repay over time.

Those are three different numbers.

🔎 WHAT DID THE AUDITORS FIND?

In the financial audits I reviewed, I did not identify a reported finding establishing improper bond spending.

The district's financial statement audit opinions were unmodified.

That is worth acknowledging.

An unmodified audit opinion does not mean every construction decision was necessarily the most economical one. It means the auditors concluded the financial statements were fairly presented, in all material respects, under the applicable accounting standards.

And I believe readers deserve to understand that distinction.

📖 THE TAKEAWAY

Grand Ledge's bond finances involve millions of dollars in construction spending, substantial remaining restricted project funds, and long-term debt obligations.

The records provide a financial snapshot of where those dollars stood at the end of the 2024–25 fiscal year.

They do not, by themselves, tell us how much of the remaining money is already committed to unfinished projects.

For now, these are the numbers.

No speculation. No accusations. Just a look at what the financial records report.

Because understanding the money is the first step toward understanding the decisions.

With receipts and respect,
Lady B 🪶

#LadyBudgetdown #WithReceiptsAndRespect #GrandLedgePublicSchools #SchoolBonds #MichiganSchools #SchoolFinance #FinancialTransparency #TaxpayerAccountability

Dearest reader,

We've examined Grand Ledge Public Schools' enrollment, staffing, administrative compensation, and outside vendors.

Now it's time to open the audits. 📖🪶

Welcome to Step 5 of my Grand Ledge Public Schools investigation.

And this time, I decided to go a little further back than usual.

Why? Because when a district has experienced significant financial changes, looking at just one or two years doesn't necessarily tell the whole story.

So I examined six fiscal years of financial audits, beginning with 2019–20 and continuing through 2024–25, along with the district's more recent budgets.

And dear reader, there's quite a story in those numbers.

📊 SIX YEARS OF FINANCIAL HISTORY

Let's begin with the district's general fund.

Here's what the audits show for operating results before other financing activity:

2019–20: $3.40 million surplus
2020–21: $2.02 million surplus
2021–22: $4.79 million deficit
2022–23: $428,561 deficit
2023–24: $3.24 million surplus
2024–25: $3.85 million surplus

Notice something?

Grand Ledge went from consecutive operating surpluses to a substantial deficit in 2021–22, followed by another deficit the next year.

Then the district recovered.

And that recovery is important.

💰 WHAT HAPPENED TO THE RESERVES?

Let's look at the district's ending general fund balances.

2019–20: $9.09 million
2020–21: $11.17 million
2021–22: $6.48 million
2022–23: $7.37 million
2023–24: $9.06 million
2024–25: $13.73 million

In 2021–22, the district's general fund balance declined by approximately $4.69 million.

That's a substantial reduction in a single fiscal year.

But by June 30, 2025, Grand Ledge had rebuilt its general fund balance to approximately $13.73 million.

In fact, that's the highest ending balance in the six years I examined.

As a percentage of annual expenditures, the district's reserves increased from a low of 9.82% in 2021–22 to 18.31% in 2024–25.

So let's give credit where it's due.

The district's general fund financial position improved considerably following those earlier deficits.

But healthy reserves don't mean every expenditure deserves a standing ovation.

And that's where things get interesting. 🔎

🚩 FOUR ITEMS WORTH QUESTIONING

1️⃣ THE 2021–22 OPERATING DEFICIT

The district reported an operating deficit of approximately $4.79 million.

Its general fund balance declined by approximately $4.69 million after other financing activity.

That's a significant financial swing.

What circumstances drove such a substantial deficit, and what changes were made afterward to restore financial stability?

The recovery is evident in the numbers. Understanding what caused the original decline is another matter.

2️⃣ THE 2022–23 ADMINISTRATION SPENDING SPIKE

This one caught my attention.

According to the audited financial statements, general administration expenditures were:

2021–22: $836,055

2022–23: $1,663,202

2023–24: $615,922

2024–25: $905,882

Yes, dear reader.

General administration spending nearly doubled between 2021–22 and 2022–23, then dropped sharply the following year.

That is a rather dramatic fluctuation.

Was there a significant one-time expense?

Were expenditures classified differently?

Did the district incur unusual administrative costs?

The audits establish the amounts, but I have not established what caused the spike.

And that makes it a question worth asking, not an accusation.

3️⃣ THE 2023–24 TRANSFER DIFFERENCE

The district's general fund budgetary comparison shows:

Final budgeted transfers out: $500,000

Actual transfers out: $1,750,000

Difference: $1,250,000

That's $1.25 million more transferred out than reflected in the final budget column.

Now, transfers between district funds can be perfectly legitimate.

But a difference of that size deserves an explanation.

Where did the money go?

What was the purpose of the additional transfer?

And how was the decision documented and approved?

The transfer itself doesn't establish wrongdoing. But the difference between budgeted and actual amounts is worth understanding.

4️⃣ THE 2024–25 FOOD SERVICE FUND CONCERN

This one comes directly from the auditor's management letter.

The auditor reported that Grand Ledge's Food Service Fund balance exceeded the three months of operating expenditures permitted under Michigan Department of Education guidelines.

The auditor recommended developing a plan to spend down the excess funds and submitting it to MDE.

Now, having excess money in a restricted food service account is not the same thing as having missing money.

But these funds have specific rules governing how they may be maintained and spent.

And when an auditor identifies a compliance concern, I believe taxpayers deserve to know about it.

It's also important to distinguish this management-letter concern from a material weakness in the financial statement audit.

They are not the same thing.

📉 NOW LET'S LOOK AT THE UPCOMING BUDGET.

According to the district's 2025–26 final amended budget:

Projected ending general fund balance: $15.72 million

Projected annual surplus: $1.99 million

That's a fairly healthy reserve position.

But the 2026–27 original budget paints a different picture.

Projected annual deficit: $2.77 million

Projected ending general fund balance: $12.95 million

That's a projected 17.6% reduction in reserves from the previous year's budgeted ending balance.

So here's my question.

After rebuilding reserves over several years, why is the district budgeting to spend approximately $2.77 million more than it expects to receive?

Is this a planned use of reserves for specific needs?

Are there temporary expenditures?

Or does the district anticipate an ongoing imbalance between revenues and expenditures?

Those distinctions matter.

And remember, a budget is a financial plan, not an audited result. The final numbers may change.

⚖️ WHAT DID THE AUDITORS SAY?

Here's another important piece of the puzzle.

The audits reviewed received unmodified opinions.

The reviewed financial reporting findings did not identify material weaknesses or significant deficiencies.

That's good news, and it deserves to be acknowledged.

But here's something I frequently remind readers.

A clean audit means the financial statements are fairly presented in all material respects.

It does not mean every expenditure was necessary, every administrative decision was wise, or every dollar was spent as efficiently as possible.

Those are different questions.

And those are precisely the questions I examine.

📖 SO WHAT DOES ALL OF THIS TELL US?

Grand Ledge Public Schools is not a district whose general fund has simply deteriorated year after year.

The financial statements show a significant decline followed by a substantial recovery.

Revenues have increased.

Reserves have improved.

And the district ended 2024–25 in a considerably stronger general fund position than it held following the 2021–22 deficit.

Those are facts.

But the audits also reveal unusual fluctuations in administrative expenditures, a significant transfer variance, a food service management-letter concern, and a projected deficit in the upcoming budget.

Those are facts, too.

Both sides belong in the discussion.

Because accountability isn't about making a district look good or bad.

It's about understanding what the financial records actually show, asking reasonable questions, and giving taxpayers the information they deserve.

And dear reader, we're not finished with Grand Ledge.

Not even close.

🏗� COMING NEXT: STEP 5A

I've deliberately separated the district's bond-related finances from this review.

Why?

Because bond proceeds, construction expenditures, architectural services, construction management, outstanding debt, and interest obligations deserve their own examination.

Especially when we're discussing millions of dollars in construction activity.

Step 5 examined the district's financial health.

Step 5A will examine the bond money.

And that's an entirely different chapter of the ledger. 🔎

With receipts and respect,
Lady B 🪶

#LadyBudgetdown #GrandLedgePublicSchools #MichiganSchools #SchoolFinance #SchoolAudits #SchoolBudgets #FinancialTransparency #FiscalAccountability #PublicEducation #TaxpayerDollars #FollowTheMoney #SchoolBonds #WithReceiptsAndRespect

Dearest reader,

We've followed the enrollment. We've examined the staffing. We've opened the compensation reports.

Now, it's time to follow the checks. 🔎🪶

Welcome to Step 4 of my Grand Ledge Public Schools investigation.

And dear reader, this is where I start looking beyond the district's payroll and into the businesses, organizations, and professional services receiving taxpayer dollars.

💰 STEP 4: FOLLOWING THE MONEY

I examined Grand Ledge Public Schools' FY2025 check register and selected nine vendors for a closer look.

Here's what the district paid:

⚖️ Thrun Law Firm: $121,491.36

📣 King Media: $40,200.00

📊 Moody's Investors Service: $27,000.00

🏛� Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB): $11,617.93

📣 Communications by Design: $6,976.25

📰 Gannett Michigan Newspapers: $4,571.18

🎨 Bee Content Design: $3,000.00

📋 Triple R Consultants: $1,800.00

🏛� Michigan School Business Officials (MSBO): $675.00

💵 TOTAL: $217,331.72

That's more than $217,000 paid to just nine selected vendors during the fiscal year.

And remember, this isn't the district's entire vendor list. These are specific payments I selected for examination.

⚖️ LET'S START WITH THE ATTORNEYS.

Thrun Law Firm received $121,491.36.

That represents approximately 56% of the payments on this particular list.

Now, school districts certainly need legal representation. Employment matters, contracts, labor negotiations, board governance, and other issues can require legal counsel.

But $121,491 raises a reasonable question.

What legal matters generated those expenses?

How much involved routine district operations, and how much involved matters that could potentially have been avoided?

A check register tells me who received the money. It doesn't necessarily tell me why every dollar was spent.

And that's an important distinction.

📣 COMMUNICATIONS, MEDIA & PUBLIC RELATIONS

Now let's look at another group of payments.

King Media: $40,200.00

Communications by Design: $6,976.25

Gannett Michigan Newspapers: $4,571.18

Bee Content Design: $3,000.00

Combined, that's $54,747.43.

Dear reader, Grand Ledge also has a Director of Communications.

As we learned in Step 3, that position carried $189,029.51 in total employer compensation during 2025.
So naturally, I have questions.

What communications services were being purchased externally?

Which services were performed by the district's own communications department?

Were these payments for advertising, publications, specialized projects, or something else?

And how does the district determine when it needs outside services rather than handling the work internally?

I'm not suggesting the expenses are improper.

I'm asking whether the responsibilities and expenditures are clearly defined.

Because taxpayers are entitled to understand what they're purchasing.

📊 BOND RATINGS & PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

Moody's Investors Service received $27,000.

MASB received $11,617.93.

MSBO received $675.

Bond ratings, professional development, organizational memberships, and related services can serve legitimate purposes.

But legitimate purposes don't eliminate the need for financial scrutiny.

What services were provided?

What benefits did the district receive?

And how are those expenditures evaluated?

I'll be examining association dues separately because there's another interesting layer to that particular subject.

🔎 THE BIGGER PICTURE

Now, remember what we've already uncovered in this investigation.

Step 1 showed that average teacher salaries increased 12.71% over the decade, but lost 16.62% of their purchasing power after inflation.

Step 2 showed administrative staffing increased 57.14%, while instructional aide staffing declined 43.81%.

Step 3 identified 10 central administration and district leadership positions carrying $2,130,553.58 in combined annual employer compensation.

And now Step 4 identifies another $217,331.72 paid to nine selected outside vendors.

These figures represent different categories of spending, and they should not be treated as interchangeable or automatically added together.

But examining them side by side raises an important question.

How does Grand Ledge evaluate the balance between classroom resources, administrative staffing, and outside professional services?

Because every financial decision reflects a priority.

And those priorities deserve to be examined.

One final note, dear reader.

I have intentionally left major construction management and architectural payments out of this step.

Why?

Because those expenditures deserve their own examination.

And trust me, we're going to get there.

The next chapter of this investigation will take us into the district's financial statements, fund balances, and bond-related expenditures.

There's still plenty of ledger left to open. 📖

With receipts and respect,
Lady B 🪶

#LadyBudgetdown #GrandLedgePublicSchools #MichiganSchools #SchoolFinance #TaxpayerTransparency #FiscalAccountability #PublicEducation #SchoolSpending #SchoolAdministration #FollowTheMoney #WithReceiptsAndRespect

Dearest reader,

We've examined the money. We've examined the staffing. Now, let's examine the paychecks. 📖🪶

Welcome to Step 3 of my Grand Ledge Public Schools investigation.

And dear reader, this is where the ledger gets rather interesting.

💰 THE $100,000 CLUB

According to the district's 2025 employee compensation report:

26 employees appear on the district's $100,000 compensation disclosure.

Their combined total employer compensation?

$4,971,934.36.

That's nearly $5 million in wages, benefits, and other employer compensation costs for just 26 employees.

Now, before anyone gets excited, let me clarify something.

I'm not suggesting these employees are overpaid simply because they appear on this report. Compensation varies by responsibility, experience, and contractual obligations.

But I am interested in how much taxpayers are spending on district leadership.

And that's where I narrowed my focus.

🏢 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION & DISTRICT LEADERSHIP

I excluded teachers, principals, assistant principals, and other building-level positions.

That left 10 clearly identified central administration and district leadership positions.

Here's their 2025 total employer compensation:

Superintendent: $323,163.84

Deputy Superintendent: $264,025.44

Chief Financial Officer: $258,420.76

Executive Director, Academic Services: $200,868.76

Executive Director, Student Services: $196,291.15

Executive Director, Technology: $194,268.92

Director of Communications: $189,029.51

Bond Supervisor: $175,299.08

Executive Director, Human Resources: $172,917.17

Director, Early Childhood & Adventure Club: $156,268.95

💵 COMBINED TOTAL: $2,130,553.58

Yes, dear reader. More than $2.1 million in annual total employer compensation for these 10 district-level positions.

Together, they account for approximately 42.85% of the combined compensation reported for all 26 employees on the disclosure.

And one position in particular caught my attention.

🔎 BOND SUPERVISOR

Medicare wages: $117,304.18

Total employer compensation: $175,299.08

A position dedicated to overseeing bond and capital improvement projects.

Now, Grand Ledge already employs a Chief Financial Officer, whose total compensation is $258,420.76.

The district also utilizes outside construction management and architectural firms for its bond projects.

So I have a question.

What responsibilities does a separately compensated Bond Supervisor perform that aren't already covered by the district's administration, construction managers, architects, and other professional consultants?

I'm not questioning the individual employee's work ethic.

I'm questioning the financial structure.

When taxpayers are already paying for professional construction oversight through multimillion-dollar bond projects, it's reasonable to ask what additional oversight they're funding through district payroll.

And how much does that additional layer cost over the life of a bond?

📊 NOW, REMEMBER STEPS 1 AND 2.

Over the past decade, Grand Ledge experienced:

Student enrollment growth: +5.31%

Teacher staffing growth: +15.76%

Instructional aide staffing: -43.81%

Administrative staffing growth: +57.14%

And after adjusting for inflation, average teacher salaries lost 16.62% of their purchasing power.

Now we're examining the compensation attached to district leadership.

One number alone doesn't tell the whole story.

But when enrollment, staffing, spending, and compensation are examined together, patterns begin to emerge.

And those patterns deserve questions.

Are administrative resources growing in proportion to student needs?

Are responsibilities clearly defined?

Are taxpayers receiving value for the positions they're funding?

And how do these decisions affect the resources available to classrooms?

That's what Step 3 is about.

Not personalities. Not political affiliations. Not whether someone is a nice person.

It's about public dollars, financial priorities, and accountability.

And dear reader, we're not finished.

Next comes Step 4, where I'll examine selected vendors, professional services, and other expenditures.

Because sometimes the payroll tells only part of the story.

The check register may tell us the rest. 🔎

With receipts and respect,
Lady B 🪶

#LadyBudgetdown #GrandLedgePublicSchools #MichiganSchools #SchoolFinance #PublicEducation #SchoolAdministration #EmployeeCompensation #SchoolBonds #TaxpayerTransparency #FiscalAccountability #FollowTheMoney #WithReceiptsAndRespect

Dearest reader,

Yesterday, I opened the ledger on Grand Ledge Public Schools and examined ten years of enrollment, spending, and teacher salaries.

Today, we're following the people behind those numbers. 📖🪶

Welcome to Steps 2 and 2A, where I compare staffing and administration from the 2014–15 school year to 2024–25.

And dear reader, the numbers are interesting.

📚 STUDENT ENROLLMENT

2014–15: 5,167 students
2024–25: 5,441.39 students

An increase of 5.31% over ten years.

Now, let's see how staffing changed during that same period.

🍎 TEACHERS

2014–15: 221.00 FTE
2024–25: 255.84 FTE

An increase of 15.76%.

That's 34.84 additional full-time equivalent teaching positions. Certainly worth recognizing.

But here's where the ledger takes a turn.

📉 INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES

2014–15: 40.52 FTE
2024–25: 22.77 FTE

A decrease of 43.81%.

While the district added teachers, it eliminated the equivalent of 17.75 instructional aide positions.

These are the employees who often provide additional classroom assistance and support to students and teachers.

So why did this category shrink so substantially while enrollment increased?

📊 OTHER STAFFING CHANGES

Instructional Support: 0.00%

Guidance: +65.07%

School Support: -2.95%

Student Support: +263.07%

Other Support: +26.86%

That increase in student support certainly stands out. It may reflect expanded services, changes in student needs, or staffing classifications. It's a category worth understanding before drawing conclusions.

But now, dear reader, let's visit the administrative offices.

🏢 STEP 2A: ADMINISTRATION

LEA / Central Administrators:
12.00 → 15.00 FTE
Increase: 25.00%

School / Building Administrators:
12.50 → 23.50 FTE
Increase: 88.00%

Total Administrators:
24.50 → 38.50 FTE
Increase: 57.14%

Read that last comparison again.

Over ten years, Grand Ledge's enrollment increased 5.31%.

Teacher staffing increased 15.76%.

Instructional aides decreased 43.81%.

And administration increased 57.14%.

That's 14 additional full-time equivalent administrative positions.

Now, I'm not suggesting every administrative position is unnecessary. Schools need principals, administrators, and people to manage operations.

But an 88% increase in building administration while instructional aides declined nearly 44% deserves an explanation.

What changed?

Were new administrative responsibilities created?

Were positions reclassified?

Did the district expand services that required additional administrators?

And most importantly, how did these staffing decisions affect students and classroom teachers?

These are reasonable questions when examining how public education dollars are allocated.

Remember what Step 1 showed us.

Over the same decade, inflation-adjusted revenue per pupil increased 20.23%, while the average teacher salary lost 16.62% of its purchasing power.

Now we're seeing substantial growth in administrative staffing alongside a significant reduction in instructional aides.

Each number tells part of the story. Put them together, and the questions become much more interesting.

That's why I don't stop at a district's total budget or the amount of money spent.

I want to know where it went, who benefited, and what changed for the students sitting in those classrooms.

Next up, Step 3. We'll examine employee compensation and see what the district's salary disclosures reveal.

The ledger isn't finished yet, dear reader.

With receipts and respect,
Lady B 🪶

#LadyBudgetdown #GrandLedgePublicSchools #MichiganSchools #SchoolFinance #EducationSpending #SchoolAdministration #TeacherSupport #PublicEducation #TaxpayerTransparency #FollowTheMoney #WithReceiptsAndRespect

---

Dearest reader,

Lady B is opening the ledger on Grand Ledge Public Schools. 📖🪶

Today, we're starting with Step 1, a 10-year comparison of enrollment, spending, and teacher salaries using Michigan Department of Education Bulletin 1014 data.

And dear reader, some of these numbers deserve a closer look.

📚 STUDENT ENROLLMENT

2014–15: 5,167 students
2024–25: 5,441.39 students

That's an increase of just 5.31% over ten years.

Now, let's follow the money.

💰 ALL SOURCES REVENUE PER PUPIL

2014–15: $9,014
2024–25: $14,649

That's a 62.51% increase in actual dollars, or 20.23% after adjusting for inflation.

But where did the spending increases occur?

📊 PER-PUPIL SPENDING CHANGES

Here is what happened over the same ten years, after adjusting for inflation:

🏫 Total Instruction: +3.89%

📖 Instructional Support: +69.30%

🏢 Business & Administration: +21.01%

🔧 Operations & Maintenance: +37.14%

Notice anything interesting?

Instructional support spending per pupil increased substantially, while direct instruction spending per pupil increased just 3.89% after inflation.

That raises a question worth exploring: What accounts for the substantial growth in instructional support, and how much of that spending reaches classrooms?

And then there's teacher compensation.

🍎 AVERAGE TEACHER SALARY

2014–15: $56,218
2024–25: $63,364

On paper, that's a 12.71% increase.

But after adjusting for inflation?

Teachers experienced a 16.62% decline in purchasing power.

Yes, dear reader. While the district's per-pupil revenue increased 20.23% after inflation, the average teacher salary lost 16.62% of its purchasing power.

Now, Lady B isn't suggesting every dollar of increased spending should have gone toward salaries. Schools have many financial obligations, and some costs have increased substantially.

But the contrast is certainly worth examining.

And remember, these are per-pupil figures. Enrollment increased only 5.31%, so these changes aren't simply the result of serving substantially more students.

Lady B's question is simple:

As more money flowed into the district over the past decade, how were those additional resources distributed, and what changed for the students and teachers?

And this is only Step 1.

Next, I'll examine staffing changes, including teachers, paraprofessionals, and administrators.

Because the numbers tell a story, dear reader.

Sometimes the most interesting part is what happens when you put them side by side.

With receipts and respect,
Lady B 🪶

#LadyBudgetdown #GrandLedgePublicSchools #MichiganEducation #SchoolFinance #EducationSpending #TeacherPay #SchoolTransparency #FollowTheMoney #WithReceiptsAndRespect

Please use dark font and larger for old folks like me. Then bold the data links in larger font to access hot off the press rebuttals quickly.
Ty.

For a non accounting person like me, but data driven researcher. This website format is hard for me to manipulate and not user frienfly. Iow dummy it down. Plz
Ty.

Dearest reader,

Another interesting breadcrumb from Monroe County Intermediate School District.

On July 6, 2026, the district announced the hiring of Jason Miller as its new Director of Safety and Security, effective July 1.

Just days earlier, the Monroe County Sheriff's Office had announced Miller's retirement after nearly 26 years of service.

But here's where things get interesting.

According to the Sheriff's Office's own 2025 annual report, Miller was already assigned to Monroe County ISD, overseeing its school relationship program and assisting with emergency operations planning.

The ISD also already had an Office for Safe Schools operating under its Human Resources department.

So while the director position may be new, the responsibilities certainly aren't entirely new.

Lady B isn't questioning Miller's qualifications or his years of public service.

She's asking something much simpler.

Was this an entirely new administrative position, a restructuring of existing responsibilities, or simply a new title for work already being performed?

Sometimes the most interesting part of a new position is discovering what existed before it.

With receipts and respect,
Lady B 🕯�

#LadyBudgetdown #MonroeCountyISD #SchoolTransparency #MichiganEducation