Truth Matters: Is BGPS Wasting Your Money?

Spend very much time reading comments about Battle Ground Public Schools and you will eventually encounter a familiar collection of ideas. The district wastes money. Administration is bloated. They need to learn to live within their means. They keep giving raises to people at the top. Why should taxpayers give them more money when they cannot manage what they already have?

I understand why those arguments connect with people. I am not particularly fond of watching my property taxes go up either. I do not have a secret side hobby where I sit at home hoping someone will find another reason to increase them. And when an organization says it needs more money, asking how it has handled the money it already has is a perfectly reasonable response.

But statements about waste, administrative bloat, and financial mismanagement are more than opinions about taxes. They are factual claims. That means we do not have to decide whether they are true by counting Facebook reactions or seeing which comment has accumulated the greatest number of exclamation points. We can go look.

That has become increasingly important to me as I have listened to this debate. We should be willing to investigate claims we agree with just as seriously as claims we do not. I have things I am inclined to believe too. I have assumptions. I have frustrations with school districts, state government, and bureaucracies in general. If I am going to ask other people to examine what they believe, I have to be willing to do the same thing.

So I went looking.

And, as is often the case, the real story is more complicated than the Facebook version.

Did Battle Ground Actually Cut Administration?

“Cut administration” is probably the most common response I hear whenever school funding comes up. There is a reasonable idea underneath it. If a district is spending too much at the top, we should protect classrooms and reduce unnecessary administrative overhead first.

So, did Battle Ground do that?

Quite a bit, actually.

Over the past two years, Battle Ground Public Schools reports that it has cut approximately $34 million and eliminated 268.2 positions, representing about 16% of its entire workforce. Teaching staff has been reduced by 16%, but administration has taken even larger percentage cuts. District administrators are down 28%, district administrative support is down 23%, and building administrators are down 21%. Battle Ground Public Schools

For the 2026-27 school year alone, the district reports reductions of another 18% in district office administration and 15% in building administration. Positions have also been consolidated. Some assistant principals now serve more than one school. Battle Ground Public Schools

That does not mean administrative staffing can never be questioned again. Of course it can. But if the argument is, “Before you ask the community for anything, cut administration,” we should at least acknowledge that they have already done a significant amount of that.

We should probably also acknowledge that administrative cuts have consequences. You can eliminate an assistant principal. Unfortunately, fifth graders do not hear the news and gather for an emergency meeting where they collectively agree to require 21% less administration this year. “We’ve got this, Mrs. Principal. You go ahead and cover the other building. We will handle lunch ourselves.”

That is not generally how fifth grade works.

The next question, then, is whether Battle Ground could still be spending too much on administration even after making those cuts.

For that comparison, I looked at Battle Ground alongside Evergreen Public Schools. Washington districts use a standardized budget reporting system called the F-195, which gives us common categories such as central administration and building administration instead of leaving us to compare whatever each district happens to feature on its website.

Evergreen’s 2026-27 F-195 budgets approximately $54.2 million for central and building administration combined, with 20,856 budgeted K-12 FTE students. That works out to approximately $2,600 per student. Google Sites

Battle Ground’s published 2026-27 budget summary says more than 71% of spending goes to teaching and teaching support, with another 19% going to transportation, building maintenance, grounds, utilities, and other support. Using the remaining administrative categories and the district’s approximately 13,000 students produces an administrative cost of roughly $1,700 per student. Because Battle Ground publishes those summary percentages in rounded form, I am deliberately calling that number an approximation rather than pretending I can tell you the cost down to the last nickel. Battle Ground Public Schools

The comparison does not prove Evergreen is wasting money. Evergreen is a larger district facing a different set of challenges. It does tell us something important about Battle Ground, though. It is difficult to argue that BGPS is some extraordinary regional example of administrative extravagance when a neighboring district is spending roughly $900 more per student in those same broad administrative categories.

I have also been to the Battle Ground district office. I can report that the floors are not covered in terrazzo. I have yet to locate the superintendent’s palm tree and chaise lounge. Maybe there is a hidden wing I have not been invited into.

Administrators do, of course, continue to expect salaries. The joy of public service is apparently still not accepted by most mortgage companies.

What Are We Paying the Superintendent?

Superintendent pay is another number that tends to grow as it travels through conversations. I do not love talking about somebody else’s salary. Most of us would be uncomfortable having ours posted online and discussed by strangers. But superintendent contracts are public records, and compensation is regularly brought up as evidence of waste, so it is fair to look at the actual numbers.

Battle Ground Superintendent Shelly Whitten’s contract lists an annual base salary of $251,465. It also provides a $7,500 annual contribution toward a tax-sheltered annuity, along with the benefits provided to other certificated administrators. BoardDocs

For comparison, Vancouver Public Schools Superintendent Ricardo “Rocky” Torres-Morales has a $305,000 base salary for 2026-27. His contract also includes a district annuity contribution equal to 7% of his salary and a $600 monthly vehicle allowance. BoardDocs

Evergreen Superintendent Christine Moloney’s latest available 2025 public payroll record reports $336,740 in regular pay. I want to be precise about that one because it is not exactly the same measurement as a 2026-27 contract base salary. It is the latest regular-pay figure publicly available in the source I found. OpenPayrolls

I am not going to tell you that $251,465 is a small amount of money. It is a lot of money. For many families, it would be life changing. But this is also the person at the top of an organization serving approximately 13,000 students, employing a large workforce, managing hundreds of millions of dollars, maintaining facilities, negotiating labor agreements, complying with state and federal regulations, overseeing student safety, and being the person whose name will appear in the newspaper when something goes terribly wrong whether or not she personally caused it.

Speaking as a pastor, I understand at least a little of the strange burden that comes with being the person ultimately responsible for an organization. There are problems you did not create, decisions you did not make, and situations you did not even know existed until suddenly everyone is looking at you wondering what you plan to do about them.

We should expect capable leadership in a position carrying that level of responsibility, and capable leaders cost money. We can debate how much is appropriate. What the regional comparison does not support is the claim that Battle Ground is paying its superintendent some wildly extravagant salary compared with neighboring districts.

This is one reason I keep coming back to actual numbers. A number that passes through six Facebook comment threads tends to put on weight. It may need a little less salt.

What Does Financial Mismanagement Actually Look Like?

The accusation that concerns me more than administrative pay is the broader claim that Battle Ground has a history of financial mismanagement. That is a much stronger statement, and fortunately we have ways of evaluating it.

Vancouver Public Schools gives us a nearby example of what serious financial distress actually looks like.

In September 2026, VPS announced that it expected to finish the prior school year with a negative fund balance. The district said it had used its savings and needed to borrow against future state funding to pay its current bills. Washington’s Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction formally placed Vancouver under Binding Conditions, a financial oversight process requiring monthly meetings with OSPI and ESD 112, regular financial reporting, and a plan to rebuild reserves. Vancouver’s target is to restore its fund balance to approximately 5% of annual spending, about $21 million, within three school years. Vancouver Public Schools

That does not mean the state has taken over Vancouver’s schools. Vancouver’s elected board still governs the district. It does mean state officials are now closely monitoring the district’s finances because its financial condition deteriorated far enough to trigger formal intervention.

That gives us something concrete to compare against Battle Ground.

In 2025, the Washington State Auditor issued what BGPS identified as its 14th consecutive clean accountability report. Then, in May 2026, the State Auditor issued another accountability audit covering the 2024-25 school year. The report found the district complied, in all material respects, with the requirements examined and maintained adequate controls for safeguarding public resources. That makes the current streak 15 consecutive clean accountability reports. Washington State Portal

The district’s latest financial materials also report that state auditors spent approximately 425 hours reviewing its finances and operations and found no fraud, significant errors, or misuse of funds in the areas examined. Battle Ground Public Schools

Four hundred twenty-five hours.

No offense to any accountants reading this, but that sounds a little like purgatory.

A clean audit does not mean every spending decision was wise. Auditors are not evaluating whether I would have bought the same software, hired the same person, remodeled the same building, or made the same strategic decision. Reasonable people can disagree about priorities and still be looking at an organization that is handling public funds legally and responsibly.

There is a large difference between saying, “I think they should have spent that money differently,” and saying, “This district has a history of financial misconduct.”

The audit record supports the first conversation. It does not support the second claim.

“We Have to Live Within a Budget. Why Can’t They?”

This objection may be the easiest one to understand because all of us have experienced some version of it. Income goes down, something gets more expensive, and suddenly the math does not work anymore. We cut something. Sometimes we cut several things. Eventually, we start having unpleasant conversations about subscriptions we forgot we had and whether anyone is actually watching Paramount+.

Battle Ground has been cutting.

The district reduced spending by about $14 million for 2025-26 and another $20 million for 2026-27, about $34 million over two years. The approved 2026-27 budget now projects approximately $213 million in revenue and $227 million in expenses, leaving an approximately $14 million gap even after those reductions. The district plans to use part of its fund balance, essentially its savings, to cover that gap for one year. Battle Ground Public Schools

That is where the household-budget comparison is actually helpful, as long as we finish the comparison.

If my income drops, I cut spending. If I still have a temporary shortfall, I can use savings to get through it. But if I am short $14,000 every year, withdrawing $14,000 from savings every year has a fairly predictable ending.

I can also technically afford steak every night if I continually take money out of savings. This is an impressive financial plan until I arrive at the highly inconvenient stage where I have eaten all the steak and also have no savings.

BGPS says directly that using fund balance for routine operations is not sustainable. The district expects to end 2026-27 with about $11.7 million remaining in its fund balance, below the target established in board policy. Its projected state financial-health score is expected to fall to 1.25 out of 4, which would place the district within the state’s financial warning range. Battle Ground Public Schools

So when we say the district should “live within its means,” we should understand what that increasingly means in practical terms. It has meant eliminating hundreds of positions, reducing programs, combining administrative responsibilities, increasing class sizes, implementing furlough days, and spending down reserves while trying to keep the basic operation intact.

We can still debate what should be cut next. I genuinely do not know where another round of reductions would fall. But the idea that nobody has tried cutting spending simply does not fit the record.

“Then Why Are They Building Buildings?”

This one comes up a lot because, on the surface, it seems ridiculous. A district says it is short on money while construction is happening somewhere else in the district.

I understand why people look at that and think, “Come on.”

The explanation is one of the least exciting features of public finance: money comes in separate buckets, and the buckets have rules.

Impact fees paid by developers can be used only for eligible facility projects in the district’s approved capital facilities plan. Capital levy proceeds, bonds, and other capital funds are likewise restricted to capital purposes. They cannot simply be redirected to teacher salaries, curriculum, supplies, or the ordinary cost of operating schools. BGPS explains this distinction directly in its levy materials, and recent district projects such as the Central Operations building were funded with impact fees. Battle Ground Public Schools

So yes, a district can be building something while also struggling to pay for classroom operations. The money for those two things may come from entirely different sources and be legally restricted to entirely different purposes.

You cannot take money designated for a roof and announce, “Congratulations, you are now a reading specialist.”

Government accounting remains strangely inflexible on this point.

What About Declining Enrollment?

There is another argument worth taking seriously: If enrollment goes down, shouldn’t spending go down with it?

Over time, yes.

Evergreen is experiencing the effects of a sustained enrollment decline, and that has forced difficult conversations about staffing, facilities, and how many buildings a smaller district population can support. Battle Ground’s recent history has been different. Prior to the current year, the district had generally been growing rather than experiencing the kind of prolonged decline Evergreen has faced.

There is also a timing problem when enrollment falls. School costs do not disappear one student at a time. If one student leaves, the district does not immediately eliminate 1/30th of a teacher, 1/600th of a principal, 1/800th of a bus, and twelve square feet of a building.

If enrollment declines enough and stays down long enough, those adjustments eventually have to happen. Buildings may need to close. Staffing levels change. Programs shrink. But fixed costs come down in chunks, not fractions.

You cannot tell the school bus, “Enrollment is down 2%, so please become 2% shorter.”

Why I Keep Coming Back to This

I am not arguing that Battle Ground Public Schools should receive a blank check. It should not. This is public money, and the people entrusted with it should expect scrutiny. I want strong academics. I want thoughtful priorities. I want administrators to justify administrative costs. I want elected board members to ask hard questions, and I want the public to be able to see where the money goes.

But scrutiny works only if we are willing to change our conclusions when the evidence changes.

Battle Ground has cut administration substantially. Its current administrative cost per student is significantly lower than Evergreen’s using the comparison above. Its superintendent is paid less than the neighboring Vancouver superintendent and less than Evergreen’s latest reported regular pay. The district has cut approximately $34 million and 16% of its workforce in two years. Its independent state audit record now includes 15 consecutive clean accountability reports. Meanwhile, only a few miles away, Vancouver shows us what it actually looks like when a district reaches the point where formal state financial oversight becomes necessary.

None of those facts tells us how to vote.

They do tell us that some of the claims we repeat about Battle Ground deserve another look.

I have spent enough of my life being certain about things that later turned out to be more complicated than I thought. I suspect I am not finished with that experience. So I am trying to apply the same standard here that I want other people to apply: check the source, read the document, and be willing to discover that the story is not quite what we expected.

Do not take my word for it.

The documents are public.

Read them. Check my math. Check the district’s math. Decide for yourself.

And if, while you are doing all of that, you happen to locate the secret Battle Ground administrative palace, please let me know. I still have not found it.