Budget update
In his recent “state of the state” address and subsequent release of his budget proposal, the governor talked about “protecting” education. Unfortunately, the details of his proposal contradict his rhetoric.
The past is prologue
For context, let us note that public education in California has been funded below the national average for decades. A school in the United States funded at the national average has 16 more teachers per 1000 students than do California’s schools. California schools also have fewer librarians, counselors, administrators, and support staff. These figures, compiled in 2006-07, rank California as 49th out of 51 states (including Washington D.C.) in teaching staff, and 51st in total school staff. California’s comparative numbers are probably even worse now, given the cuts since the 2006-07 study. (See EdSource study for details.)
If there was ever a school system in need of protection and improvement, it is California’s. Public schools in California are among the worst funded in the nation, and, over the past three years, the state has withheld 18.355% (deficit factor) of what public schools were entitled to receive.
What does the governor propose?
How does the governor plan to protect education? First, he plans to rebench the minimum school funding level (Proposition 98) for 2009-10 to reflect the decrease in the actual state revenues. Then he plans to “fully fund” schools using the Proposition 98 formula for 2010-11, a formula that will generate a negative (minus) 0.38% cost of living allowance (COLA). The 18.355% deficit will also be carried forward into 2010-11.
When the calculations are all completed, the net result will be $225 less per student than our forecast from last fall.
For the Folsom Cordova Unified School District, that means that the $10.6 million dollar shortfall we had anticipated for 2010-11 is now $13.9 million.
The governor also announced that the additional $225 per pupil reduction had to be accomplished via savings from “contracting out” and cuts to “district administration” and not to teachers. He made those proclamations knowing full well that districts are currently prohibited by law to contract out services unless the employee associations agree.
Furthermore, districts do not spend $225 per pupil to pay the total cost for “district administrators.” It sounds good to whack administrators, but it is not even mathematically possible, let alone realistic or desirable, to save $225 per student by cutting all district administrators. The governor’s budget details have not been clarified, but it appears that what he really meant was any “non-teaching” personnel, including administrators, counselors, nurses, aides, campus monitors, custodians, and anyone else who supports teachers. The governor has a knack for using words that sell in public and then fade into the shadows as the work and reality surface.
(See the EdSource study cited above for a comparison of what California spends on district administration versus the rest of the nation. See also a January 14, 2010, article in The Sacramento Bee for how the FCUSD compares to other local districts in the cost of “non-instructional expenditures.” An analysis by The Bee indicated that the FCUSD spends 4.7% of its budget on district administration and supervisors. The state average is 5.1%.)
Where do we go from here?
If there is one thing we know about the governor’s current proposal, it is that it will change between now and May when he issues his revised budget proposal. That could be good or bad news.
The bad news is that the state’s economy is not likely to improve in the next few months, and that the bottom line ($13.9 million in cuts to our budget) is not likely to get better.
The good news is . . . Well, I can’t think of any good fiscal news at the moment. The legislature is not likely to boost the funding for public education, and the preliminary news is that California’s budget problems will not be helped by federal assistance as they were last year.
Consequently, the FCUSD will need to bridge the $13.9 million gap between revenues and expenses by spending reductions and/or revenue increases.
Potential reductions
I have attached a copy of the list of potential reductions that have been identified to date (January 15 preliminary reductions). We have included ideas culled from previous lists, ideas forwarded by staff and community members, and items included on lists from other districts. If you think of something that we have not included, please forward your ideas to us at budgetideas@fcusd.org.
The list is divided into four categories that include the current recommendations, other options that were considered, items that must be negotiated with employee groups, and ideas that would require a change in existing law.
The Governing Board received this preliminary list on January 14. Public forums are scheduled for January 21 (6:00 p.m. in the Vista del Lago multipurpose room) and for February 2 (6:00 p.m. in the Mills Middle School multipurpose room).
The Board will need to approve notices of potential lay-off for certificated employees in late February or early March. Please keep in mind that although the District will need to notify certificated employees of a potential lay-off, the final decisions will not be made until June. We deeply regret the fear, anger, and angst that result from issuing the notices, but they are required as part of the process and timelines for reducing staff in public schools.
For now, we will continue to monitor the state budget and to learn more about any new options or proposals at the state or federal level.
We will also work with our employee associations to determine if there are any internal adjustments that can preserve jobs as well as services and opportunities for students. The administrators and supervisors in the District have already voluntarily agreed to a six day work year reduction and corresponding salary decrease to save services for students and jobs for others.
Please keep in mind that this list of preliminary recommendations is intended to start the lengthy process of taking steps to balance our 2010-11 budget. The list is not final and is only intended for discussion and consideration at this time.
Our promise
The Governing Board has vowed to be transparent in all of its considerations. We will keep you informed of all of our considerations and recommendations. The most accurate and complete information will be posted at this location on our website, and we will keep it up to date.
The most damaging aspect of the budget crisis is the potential to harm relationships. With decisions being made to reduce positions and services, there will be strong disagreements about the choices.
I would suggest that now is a time for us to exercise patience and understanding. In particular, please do not participate in circulating rumors and conjecture. These are difficult times, and we do not need to add to our challenges by succumbing to unwarranted FEAR (False Evidence Appearing Real).
If you have a concern or question, ask the person most responsible, or ask me. Together we will get through this mess.
Want to help?
There can be no denying that the state is in the midst of an unprecedented fiscal crisis. However, I hope you will join me in seeking a more appropriate level of funding for California pubic education by making our political leaders (list of legislative contacts) aware of your concerns.
Even in tough times we all have a duty to do what is right for our children and our future.
I look forward to what I believe will ultimately be a ground swell of support for public education. People who care about children and our future will eventually demand better from our state.
