I haven’t gotten the materials to be presented by staff at next Tuesday’s Board meeting on addressing the fiscal crisis yet. But I do have the original list of programs and activities staff suggested be evaluated a few weeks ago.
Here’s that list:
| Athletics |
| AVID/After School Program |
| Classroom Supplies |
| Counseling Interns |
| Curriculum & Instruction Services at District office |
| Custodial Supplies |
| Deferred Maintenance contribution |
| District office conferences |
| District Office travel/Board travel & conf (mandated only) |
| English Language Learner support |
| English/Language Arts Curriculum |
| Friendship Counselors (K-4) |
| GATE |
| Grounds staff (half a person) |
| Healthy Cities |
| Homework Club |
| Increase class sizes (K-3 and middle school) |
| Instructional Technology |
| K-4 PE Associates |
| Librarians |
| Literacy Program |
| Maintenance Supplies |
| Middle School Counseling (Regular & Interns) |
| Middle School Electives |
| Music (Band) |
| Music (Choral) |
| Narrow middle school curriculum to reduce teaching staff (e.g., fewer electives) |
| Noyce Math |
| Office Supplies |
| One night custodian |
| Optional staff development day |
| Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) |
| Postage |
| Regular Summer School |
| Restructure Kindergarten |
| Retreats |
| Salary & benefits |
| Science Center |
| Shared Services with Neighbor District(s) |
| Site staff development |
| Special Education Costs (one-time) |
| Stipends not defined in contract |
| Sub-calling position (switch to web-based 2009-10) |
| Technology Associates |
| Technology Department Expenditures |
| Vice Principals at Middle Schools |
| Watering fields |
The Board’s brainstorming session added a number of items to this list, and also produced some revenue-generating possibilities. I didn’t keep separate notes on the suggestions made by my colleagues, but here were the additional items I asked to be analyzed:
| Charge CLC for services on an hourly, quot;as used” basis, including special education |
| Charge CLC for space used to educate non-District students |
| Charge youth sports facility usage to cover out of pocket costs associated with use |
| Eliminate District stipend to sites |
| Eliminate paid computer lab support |
| Eliminate paid PE positions |
| Find uses for facility outside of normal school hours (e.g., adult education in the evenings) |
| Have sites use site-controlled funds to pay for core programs |
| Increase facility use fees |
| Increase rental fee for space sublet to 3rd parties so that it offsets opportunity loss of not using space as classrooms |
| Increase space rental fee to after school programs |
| Reduce District IT support to half-time |
| Reduce or eliminate District office “receptionist” position |
| Reduce rate at which District covers health benefit premiums for early retirees |
| Restructure Tinsley program to reduce “excess” special education burden |
| Suspend all professional development activities that cost the District money |
Please remember that enacting all of these items, or at least the staff-suggested ones, would likely not save enough money to balance the budget, or allow the District to survive financially long-term, given what is forecast about the State fiscal environment.
I hope to see you next Tuesday evening. If you can’t attend in person, please remember to stay on top of these budget discussions, as they are likely to result in changes that will have the potential to significantly alter the nature of public education in San Carlos, at least for the next few years.
Are all the schools in the district charged for space used to educate non-district students?
Good question, Tim, and the answer to which highlights that “charge” is really a shorthand expression for a more complicated situation.
The District’s facilities are “owned” by the community, and intended to benefit the community’s school age children. That’s why districts should provide space, free of charge, to schools they charter to educate community children.
In a similar vein, using community-owned facilities to educate children who don’t live in the community should also benefit the community’s children. When an out-of-district student enrolls in, say, Arundel as a charter transfer, additional revenue gets brought into the District. Additional costs, do, too, but the net result is that there’s more money brought in than goes out, in almost all cases.
That additional money benefits all the community’s children by making it possible to offer enhanced educational opportunities.
When an out-of-district student enrolls in CLC, there is also a net financial benefit, in most cases, to CLC. But it is not shared with the rest of the District, because CLC is its own separate financial entity.
There are other aspects to the debate over whether or not an adjustment to the current arrangement between the District and the CLC should be tweaked. But, in its simplest form, offsetting the sequestered benefit of using community-owned assets is what I meant by “charging”.
Thanks for taking the time to write and raise the issue.