Message from Superintendent Patrick Godwin Regarding the State Budget Crisis

May 20, 2009

There is an adage that reads, "Just because everything is different does not mean that anything has changed."  This saying certainly seems to apply to the state budget process and its impact on our schools.  Although a great deal has happened in the last few days, the financial outlook for schools remains bleak.

Following is information about the District's current fiscal challenges.   

Status of the state budget

The special election is over, and we do not have a balanced state budget for 2009-10.  The ballot proposals were less than perfect, but what comes next may be worse for schools.  All indications are that California's already below average per pupil funding for public education will receive even more cuts. 

The governor has hinted at what he will propose in his June 8 budget revise, but the proposals are not final and will require approval by the legislature.  For those of us planning for next year, the looming reductions are compounded by the uncertainty of not knowing what to expect and the possibility that the revised state budget may be weeks or even months from being completed.     

Federal stimulus funds

Fortunately, California's public schools have received a significant boost from the federal stimulus package.  However, the federal dollars will not solve all of our local budget woes. 

The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) will bring $4.9 million dollars in one-time funding to help offset the loss of our on-going state revenues.  The distinction between the loss of on-going revenue and the addition of one-time funds must be noted.  The District's Governing Board will have to make difficult choices in the current year in order to use the federal money to alleviate problems over a period of at least three years.  It would not be prudent to spend most of the money in 2009-10, knowing that we will have to make huge reductions in 2010-11 and 2011-12.

The SFSF funds for education also come with some requirements beyond saving jobs.  The language of the package cites four criteria for its use, including:  

• Save jobs
• Implement school improvement and reform strategies
• Ensure transparency
• Minimize the "funding cliff"

In a conversation with the LA Times, new US Education Secretary Arne Duncan warned that schools and districts that only maintain "the status quo without moving the bar -- they might as well tear up the application" for forthcoming lucrative federal grants.  It is clear that the federal stimulus dollars headed for education are intended to both save jobs and to "drive real reform."  (LA Times Article.)

Based on Secretary Duncan's remarks and President Obama's recent speech on education, the Governing Board will need to consider how to use the SFSF funds over multiple years and how to ensure that the federal dollars support school improvement.

Superintendent's budget recommendations

The superintendent's current recommendations for the 2009-10 budget have been revised in the last few days. (Revised recommendations.)

There are five changes from the previous version. Those changes include:
 

• A reduction in the amount of IDEA funds that can be used to offset special education costs due to the expense of additional services the District will be required to provide next year.

  • We have an increase in the number of students needing special programs, especially preschool students on the autism spectrum.
     

• Additional revenue in the amount of $250,000 based on capturing some unused funds from special programs (commonly referred to as categoricals).

  • The budget act allows us to redirect carryover funds from certain programs.

• Restoration of a proposed $20,000 reduction for National Board Certified teachers

  • Fourteen teachers have signed up for the certification process.
     

• Restoration of a proposed $62,000 reduction for frosh athletics.

  • Our neighboring districts will be continuing frosh athletics for next year.
     

• Increasing our first and second grade class sizes to 24 students.

  • The previous list indicated an increase to 22 students would allow us to save $720,000. However, we had to increase to 24 to achieve the projected savings.