Last night staff presented its initial analysis of the cost reduction and revenue enhancement opportunities developed in the Board’s December brainstorming session. Many members of the public and the teaching staff attended the meeting, which was held in the Central multi-use room (aka “the old gym”…although it’s not very old since it’s been modernized).
The first presentation detailed the current outlook for the State’s budget. I won’t reproduce it here, because the key takeaways from it are simple, and well-known to readers of this blog: the State’s in a fiscal crisis; it’s getting worse, not better; it’ll last for at least a couple of years; and education is one of the areas of spending in the crosshairs.
There was some interesting discussion which took place after the presentation, but first here is my take on the material presented by staff. Please note that this isn’t precisely what was presented, as I’ve edited their work to improve its clarity and, in a few cases, to amend it slightly because I think staff missed the mark. As was pointed out many times last night, remember that these numbers are estimates, and subject to change, particularly as other groups (e.g., teachers) participate in the discussion. Also, the presence of an item on this list does not mean the program will be cut, only that the Board asked for information about the impact of reducing or cutting it.
|
Item |
Estimated Savings |
Value added |
Value lost/Impact |
| Fund employee retirement health benefits |
$200,000 |
Protects future fiscal liability
Long term fiscal security |
Sustains future unfunded liability
Short term fiscal concerns Could impact bonds Ethical issue Already done for current year |
| Optional Staff Development Day |
$70,000 |
Provides some staff professional development | Simple large reduction
Decreases professional development This optional day is no longer funded by State |
| Counseling interns |
$50,000 |
Modest counseling support | Reduces support for at risk students
Schools can do without |
| One night custodian |
$60,000 |
Cleaner schools | Requires layoffs
Reduces cleanliness |
| Deferred maintenance contribution |
$25,000 |
Maintains facilities | Future increased facility costs
Potential loss of State matching funds Could cost more in long run |
| Watering fields and landscaping |
$45,000 |
Supports physical education, recess, after school, community activities
Esthetics |
Visible budget reduction
Impacts after school sports Impacts community activities Costs of reinstalling at later date To maintain safety use by schools and community would probably be suspended |
| District office/board conferences |
$30,000 |
Need some for legal compliance
Staying current w/ info and trends Networking Instruction on all legal mandates |
Limits DO staff knowledge, networks, legal compliance |
| Site staff development |
$90,000 |
Staff development essential
State compliance Improved instruction |
Reduces essential support for staff |
| Healthy Cities |
$40,000 |
Supports at risk students
Supports Response to Intervention program Good public relations |
Mixed effectiveness
Could replace funding w/State hourly remedial money and maintain program |
| K-4 PE Associates |
$114,000 |
Supports teacher prep, morale, small group instruction for at risk students
High quality physical education instruction Exercise, student health Use of teacher prep to support at risk students Valuable staff |
Teachers can teach physical education
Lower quality phyiscal education program Reduces prep time, small group instruction, morale, collaboration needed for Response to Intervention, other student support initiatives Funded by SCEF |
| Return more special ed students to new District classes |
$600,000 – $980,000 |
Improved services
Reduced placement of students in expensive non-public school situations Brings children back to San Carlos |
Savings are net of significant additional District-based staffing costs
Lower level of savings is seen as pretty solid based on parental feedback, although final decision on placement is, in practice, up to parents |
| Literacy Associates |
$384,000 |
Essential to Response to Intervention initiative
Essential for early intervention Needs assessment of effectiveness Improves instruction |
Reduces services for at risk students
Potential for increase in special education referrals and costs Potential lower test scores Teachers could provide additional interventions |
| English Language Development Program |
$22,000 |
Legally required
Most at risk students |
District would be out of compliance w/State and federal requirements |
| Noyce Math Coach and PD |
$70,000 |
More effective math instruction
Long term systematic math PD Important District focus Noyce and FiMC funding is ending 6/09 |
Loss of critical support for teachers
Teachers provided with a lot of training Reduced math achievement |
| Homework Center (grant program at Heather)
$16,000 grant, $6,000 match |
$6,000 |
Serves at risk students
Grant funded; little effect on budget |
Little budget benefit from eliminating program |
| Music-K-4 Choral |
$92,000 |
Valued by community
High percentage of students learn to read music Provides prep time for K-4 teachers |
Not essential service
Potential loss of community support Difficult to reinstate (mostly due to logistical reasons) |
| Music-Band 5-8
Orchestra 5-8 |
$0 |
Highly valued by community | Requires years to restore
Increases staffing costs at middle school if cut due to large music class size Orchestra has very low participation Additional teachers would be needed at current student/teacher ratios |
| Middle School Counselors (two positions) |
$168,500 |
Critical administrative support
Supports at risk students |
Significantly reduces support for at risk students and site administration |
| Middle School Counseling Interns |
$50,000 |
Supports at risk students | Could be eliminated w/out critical impact |
| K-4 counselors |
$94,000 |
Critical administrative support
Supports at risk students |
Significantly reduces support for at risk students and site administration
Friendship counselors Mostly funded by SCEF |
| Regular summer school |
$0 |
Provides instruction during long summer break
Categorical funding-Can only be spent on “intersession” instruction |
May not effectively serve most at risk students
Pays for itself, no financial benefit to elimination |
| AVID/After School Program |
TBD |
Supports at risk students | Costly, small classes w/tutors
Does not support most at risk students |
| Technology Associates |
$120,000 |
Needed for tech support | Could reduce, or improve efficiency |
| Librarians |
$235,000 |
Needed to maintain libraries
Promotes literacy |
Could reduce, use volunteers
Reduces effectiveness of library program, endangers library inventory Primarily funded by SCEF Researching whether or not Measure D language constrains ability to reduce |
| District office travel
Board travel |
$30,000 |
Good public relations
Some needed for legal compliance |
Limits access to knowledge, skills, networking, compliance |
| Instructional materials |
$77,200 |
Could delay regular curriculum adoption
Need specialized materials for Response to Intervention Highest priority service |
Reduction would significantly reduce priority district mission
K-5 and core reading instruction materials have not been updated in 7 years |
| Science Center |
$40,000 |
Essential support for adopted science curriculum | Would compromise maintaining FOSS kits, which are the science curriculum
Teachers w/volunteer could help maintain kits |
| Middle School Vice Principals |
$216,000 |
Critical administrative support | Significantly impacts administration of schools |
| Office/classroom supplies |
$144,200 |
Necessary to operate schools and instruction | Could easily change inventory distribution, ie. centralize ordering, access to supplies
Could definitely improve efficiency and reduce costs Could be adopted immediately |
| Maintenance/custodial supplies |
$47,750 |
Required for student safety | Could renegotiate w/vendors
Increase facilities use fees to subsidize supply costs |
| Athletic directors |
$20,000 |
Motivates students
Valued by community |
Not essential to mission
Significant impact on student motivation and community support |
| Middle School Electives
World languages Orchestra |
$55,000 per teacher |
Valued by community
Educates whole child Motivates students |
Could convert 5/6 to self contained
Low participation Some classes are significantly smaller than average |
| Restructure Kindergarten |
TBD |
Critical to Response to Intervention, effective instruction | Significantly compromise mission and Response to Intervention
Better to convert to full day |
| half-time grounds position |
$30,000 |
Maintain facilities | Already done by attrition? |
| GATE |
$28,000 |
Supports gifted students | Limited value and effectiveness
Law requires differentiation in classroom |
| Technology Department Expenditures |
$230,000 |
Supports essential technology for all aspects of work | Reduce costs through efficiency
Convert to Power School and eliminate Data Director and School Loop Equipment will not remain functional w/out support Limit lab use |
| Share services w/neighboring districts |
TBD |
Special ed services? | Would require some work to consider, evaluate and adopt |
| 0.20 sub calling position |
$7,000 |
Essential to provide subs | Convert to automated system |
| Eliminate Curriculum & Instruction services at DO
Evaluate/reduce DO staffing |
TBD |
Necessary to protect equitable instruction & legal compliance | Risk of legal noncompliance, lack of essential support for sites and instruction |
| Postage |
$16,200 |
Must communicate
Not all can be done electronically |
Convert to electronic media
Reduce to necessary mailing |
| Class sizes at middle school |
TBD |
Convert 5/6 to self contained (i.e., single classroom model)
Any changes require contract negotiations |
|
| Class size reduction K/3
1/12/09 22:1 |
up to $275,000 |
Supports effective instruction
Teacher morale |
Not fully funded by State
Not proven to improve achievement Could change only 3rd grade Parents and staff won’t like it Will look at some sensitivity cases based on larger class sizes |
| Salary and benefits givebacks/reduce retiree benefits |
TBD |
Requires contract negotiations
Significantly effects morale Other districts have begun doing this (ie. San Jose) |
|
| Stipends not in contract |
TBD |
Stipends support extra needed work done by staff | Need to assess for consistency and equity
Requires contract negotiations |
| After school contracts/renegotiate leases |
TBD |
Community needs facilities | Could increase fees
Montessori program expires in 2011. All others expire June 2009. |
| MARS test |
TBD |
Core support for math instruction
Long term assessment data |
Are there more effective assessment tools?
Loss would compromise assessment data and instruction |
| District writing assessment |
TBD |
Core support for writing instruction | Loss would compromise instruction |
| Scheduling of elementary and middle schools
Longer days Fewer days |
TBD |
Save money on utilities | Would eliminate early release days
Savings would mostly be from not working certain classified staff (e.g., custodians) as many hours |
| Increase facilities use fees |
TBD |
Supports community use of facilities- adult ed, parks and rec, vital community services | Necessary for covering usage costs
Alternative is to reduce facilities use |
| Reduce substitute teacher budget |
$310,000 |
Supports professional development and instruction
Supports collaboration |
Significantly effects professional development and collaboration
Could save money by tightening business accounting and ensuring sites pay |
| Suspend all professional development |
TBD |
Essential to support instruction and student achievement | Significantly effects instruction and student achievement |
| Charge CLC for Prop 39 out of district students |
TBD |
Supports access to charter schools | Bad for relations between CLC and district
Eliminates subsidy |
| Energy Management System |
TBD |
Good cost and energy savings | Staff doesn’t like inconvenience
Savings would come from lower utility bills |
| Restructure or eliminate Tinsley Program |
TBD |
Program may be outdated
Long term opportunity Potential for bad public relations Requires significant staff time, possible legal costs |
|
| Renegotiate w/vendors to reduce costs |
TBD |
Good practice
Cost savings |
Impact unknown |
| Safe/Drug Free Education |
$26,300 |
Legally mandated instruction | Ineffective programs |
| Expand use of special education high cost student reimbursement program |
$100,000 |
County support for high cost services | Already improved accounting and increased submission this year |
| Increase enrollment |
TBD |
Increases revenues | Impacts facilities and staffing |
| Increase volunteers to mitigate class size increase |
TBD |
Supports community participation
Supports instruction |
Volunteers are not a reliable source of support |
| Reduce school year to 175 days |
$290,000 |
Change made by State won’t override contracts (i.e., requires negotiation) | |
| Develop for-profit preschool/child care |
TBD |
||
| Redeploy SIP and/or charter block grants to pay for core programs |
TBD |
||
| Clawback GASB 45 contribution |
TBD |
Reverses contribution to funding long-term liability made earlier this year | |
| Salary adjustments |
TBD |
Need to impact all positions | |
| Offer “for pay” enhanced educational opportunities |
TBD |
||
| Rent out schools to summer school programs |
TBD
|
||
| Utilize site-controlled funds to pay for core programs |
TBD
|
In addition to the master list, staff presented their recommendation on which items to implement in order to keep the District solvent next year. I suspect that the Board would modify this list if and when actual cuts were made, but it would almost certainly serve as a starting point for discussion:
| Eliminate employee retirement health benefit contribution | $200,000 |
| Bring back more special education students to new District classes | $600,000 |
| Reduce deferred maintenance contribution | $25,000 |
| Groundskeeper-reduce half position | $30,000 |
| Site Staff Development-eliminate District support | $90,000 |
| District office conferences-reduce to legal required | $10,000 |
| Counseling interns-eliminate | $50,000 |
| Optional Staff Development day-eliminate | $70,000 |
| Site consumable supplies-reduce district contribution | $50,000 |
| Tech efficiency-improve/reduce costs | $25,000 |
| Healthy Cities-eliminate district contribution | $40,000 |
| Physical education K-4 Associates-eliminate | $114,000 |
| Increase use of high cost special ed student reimbursement program | $100,000 |
| Librarians-reduce | $34,000 |
| Night Custodian-reduce one position | $60,000 |
| Noyce Math Coach-funding ends | $10,000 |
| Landscape/fields watering-eliminate | $45,000 |
| K-4 Music- eliminate 1.0 FTE | $92,000 |
| SubFinder-replace staff w/automated | $7,000 |
| Athletic Directors-eliminate | $20,000 |
| Literacy Associates-reduce | $150,000 |
| 2 middle school elective teachers-eliminate | $110,000 |
| Science Center-eliminate staffing | $40,000 |
| Total 09/10 school year cuts | $1,975,000 |
You could also consider the above list to be the first level of changes staff would recommend. The second level of changes that were recommended, to be undertaken if the existing Measure D parcel tax is not renewed, was this:
| Middle School VP’s-eliminate | $ 200,000 |
| Middle School Counselors-eliminate | $ 160,000 |
| Literacy Associates-eliminate remainder | $ 234,000 |
| K-4 Counselors-eliminate | $ 94,000 |
| Librarians-eliminate remainder | $ 201,000 |
| Total 10/11 Cuts | $ 889,000 |
After all the presentations Carrie Du Bois brought up the idea of taking a completely different approach to dealing with this crisis, starting with building a strategic plan and focusing on increasing revenue rather than cutting costs. This engendered a lengthy discussion of the pros and cons of doing so. To some extent it was a rehash of earlier discussions (this is the second or third time Carrie has brought the idea up), but it was important nonetheless.
I think growing revenue, in addition to or instead of, cutting costs is a reasonable idea…provided you’re cognizant of the time and resources it takes, neither of which we have in abundance. If we take too much time to adapt our program to a changed financial environment the community could lose control of the District, because a State overseer would be put in charge. As Tom Quiggle pointed out last night, you can see what that lead to by reading about Oakland’s recent experience with the process. It hasn’t been pleasant.
In the end, I believe the general consensus was to continue to pursue revenue-enhancement opportunities, but to also keep working the program cut list as well.
My question is:
Why are items that are paid for by SCEF included in cuts. As a parent I would believe that if SCEF meets their goal that these programs should not be cut because that is what we are contributing to and what the funds are paying for. Is it included because SCEF has not met that $$ amount yet?
A fair question. The Foundation does stipulate what the money should be used for. From a legal perspective I’m not sure how strong a stipulation it is, but legalities are less important than relationships in this arena. The Board obviously wants to maintain a good relationship with the Foundation.
On the other hand, the Board is responsible for deciding how to use resources to deliver the best education for all the students in the District. If its priorities don’t match those of the Foundation then the Board might have to consider not accepting some or all of the Foundation’s donation. Which might, in turn, lead to even bigger cuts, which might not be in the interest of either the Foundation or its supporters.
In at least some communities with big educational foundations the support provided through the foundation is unconditional. It’s left up to the Board to decide how best to spend the money. That may not be readily applicable to San Carlos, but it does show that philanthropic support of schools need not be strictly tied to specific programs.
Regardless, in tough times, like now, the situation is inevitably more of a negotiated one rather than simply applying pre-existing arrangements. With due recognition, of course, for the possibility of an adverse reaction among donors if money is redeployed. I’m sure that will be a factor in the Board’s decision-making.
Excellent question, Adrienne. I am the President of SCEF and have heard the same comment from many others. We do sign an agreement at the beginning of each school year that states how the funds SCEF gifts to the district are to be used, and for this year the allocations are made exactly how we agreed: PE teachers, librarians, music, science, technology, counselors, “flexible” (aka unresricted site) funds, etc. We work very closey with the superintendent, principals, teachers and parents to determine what the priority programs are.
The challenge with the upcoming year is that the district will not be able to fund even the most basic of expenses, such as classroom teacher payroll, if SCEF funds are restricted to only the above programs. As the budget situation unfolds, we will again all work together to figure out what are the most important programs/positions and then establish the SCEF allocation.
Pingback: » Education Parcel Tax Could be on Special Ballot in May San Carlos Blog: The ”411” On The ”070”