|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The San Ramon Valley school board voted unanimously – but reluctantly – last week to approve more than $3.5 million in budget cuts required to balance the budget in the current school year, with substitute teachers in the district taking some of the biggest blows.
The cuts consist of the elimination of substitute premium rates and the resident substitute program for a savings of $488,050, shifting funding for some administrative positions to a restricted funding source for $1,499,623 in reductions to general fund spending, hiring freezes for noon-duty and custodial school site positions for a savings of $105,000, additional hiring freezes throughout the district’s departments for a savings of $731,000, a 10% reduction of unencumbered funds in the school site discretionary budget for $106,000 in savings, and a spending freeze for non-essential items in the department budget for a savings of $592,000.
All in all, the cuts amount to $3,521,673, meeting the requirement from the Contra Costa County Office of Education as part of the approval process for the current year’s budget to reduce spending by at least $3.5 million.
“I would just like to offer some important context – I don’t expect it to change anybody’s perspective, that all of a sudden moves people into universal agreement that this is the right thing to do or a good thing to do,” San Ramon Valley Unified School District Superintendent CJ Cammack said at the start of last Tuesday’s discussion on the item.
“But I think we have to recognize that the number of reductions that we’ll be making in the coming months are going to include a long list of things that are not recommended best practices in education and they’re not things that we want to do,” he continued.
“You won’t hear me defend that these decisions are good for staff or good for kids,” Cammack added. “They are an unfortunate reality of where we fall with our funding model from the state, with the expiration of one-time funds that we received from pandemic relief dollars, and the conditions that exist within declining enrollment districts, which is nearly every district in the state.”
The district’s current dismal budget outlook, Cammack noted, was not the case when programs including the resident substitute and substitute premium programs were first implemented, adding that he and his cabinet had sought to find funds in order to keep both of those programs in tact for at least one more year, but that the tight pursestrings necessitated by the current budget situation made that untenable.
Another factor in the cuts targeting substitute teachers in particular, Cammack noted, is that they are at-will employees, making cuts to those positions feasible mid-year in contrast with cuts to full-time staff, who are hired for a full-year commitment.
“This is something that we need to do in order to make mid-year budget adjustments this year,” Cammack said. “I think it is important to give context to the fact that our district reduced $10 million from our budget last spring. We need to reduce $3.5 million this year, and we will be presenting a list of $24 million in reductions for next year.”
Cammack reiterated that he did not expect his comments or the context provided to make the cuts any easier or better received, but added that amid ongoing budget troubles and millions more in cuts still required in the future, there was one thing everyone might agree on.
“I think these should be considered, and in context, with a long list of future reductions that we will likely all universally share agreement that we don’t wish we were considering,” Cammack said.
In his first meeting since returning to SRVUSD as assistant superintendent of business services, Danny Hillman – who previously worked in the same capacity in Cammack’s cabinet at the Fremont Unified School District – provided a presentation on the proposed cuts.
Hillman said that the package of cuts had been developed with the aim of providing a minimal impact to school sites in the current academic year, with the reduction to the school site discretionary budget consisting only of funds that had not yet been earmarked for a specific purpose.
“We feel that while there is some slight impact to school sites, we really tried to minimize the impact in the middle of the year to school sites by not freezing additional positions, we’re not taking back any discretionary dollars, and we’re trying to shoulder this as much as possible with some of the accounting things that we can do behind the scenes, like the administrator salaries,” he said.
Hillman echoed and expanded on Cammack’s point about the limitations of mid-year budget adjustments – and that more cuts were still to come in the next academic year, which are set to be discussed at the next board meeting.
Although there were only two public comments on the item at Tuesday’s meeting, board members noted that they had received and read through more than 30 emails they’d received on the topic, primarily expressing concerns about the loss of the resident substitute program, and the role teachers in that program play in helping to fill a gap in services for special education students.
“Resident subs are important because they have an established rapport with students,” said Thomas Spedini, a fifth grade teacher at John Baldwin Elementary School. “As someone who previously substitute taught, I can tell you that it is crucial to have a relationship with the 28 to 30 young people that you are working with. It’s essential.”
“An abundant sub pool does not guarantee filled positions,” Spedini continued. “Just recently, I had an absence scheduled and a substitute canceled at 7:04 a.m. I live in Pleasant Hill. Driving down 680 after 7 a.m. and getting to John Baldwin on time would have been quite a challenge. I was very lucky that we had a resident sub who was able to step in, which allowed admin to be able to conduct their day as usual; it allowed my colleagues to be able to conduct their days as usual, there was no immediate impact on the site because of the cancellation of the job, and I feel like that would be regrettable if we were to lose that.”
Area 4 Trustee Susanna Ordway said that the impact of the proposed cuts on people dedicated to the district made the decision on the table that night and other previous and future budget cuts all the more difficult. However, she said she was hopeful that those in the resident substitute program would go into the substitute pool or consider permanent positions in the district, and that school sites would give priority to longtime resident substitutes who had worked there.
“I wish I was a billionaire so I could donate to the school and it would just all work out fine,” Area 2 Trustee Jesse vanZee said. “But Shelley (Clark) and I have also been spending the last several months on the Budget Advisory Committee, where there’s a group of parents, staff, members community members, community leaders, union representation, and we’ve all been sitting here trying to figure out how to climb this hill towards $24 million. For a time, we were concerned that if (Measure) Q didn’t pass, it was going to be $31 million and it would be even worse.”
“And one thing that became really abundantly clear – there was a lot of energy of like ‘we’re going to figure out the best solution for this,’ and as it’s been coming closer and closer to reality, and as the cuts get real, the tone has gotten very somber, because nobody wants to actually suggest cuts or make them, and it’s a really tough thing to do,” he continued. “And I know we’re going to get through this all together, but it is going to stink in the meantime.”
vanZee moved to accept the cuts, which was seconded by Area 5 Trustee Rachel Hurd and approved unanimously by the board.
SRVUSD board approves more teacher layoffs; world language program hit heavilyFebruary 26, 2026 9:57 am
@Jeanita- good comprehensive article, thanks. Was there any mention of management headcount reduction? It seems with declining enrollment that there could be a possibility of combining a position here or there, or folding the duties of a management level employee who retires into the roles of a couple of other people, to allow attrition to save significant dollars. If they are truly looking for ways to save $$ with minimal impact to the students, you would think they would take a look at management level positions FIRST, before making the cuts mentioned in your article.
I work for a global company facing serious economic headwind challenges for the next few years…and the first budget reductions focused on a mandate to review all existing budgets to find ways to eliminate operating expense, followed by a 20% reduction in management positions. Another topic being discussed is the global footprint of our company locations…perhaps there is a facility or 2 that could be eliminated. Just a couple of ideas that I wanted to share, so perhaps you could ask the SRVUSD management some follow-up questions, so there would be some transparency as to where the future $24M in cuts are being focused on? Would be a shame to see nothing but cuts affecting students and teachers…and then one day realize that the needs of the students are not being met…then our schools lose their prestigious rankings they are known for…and our students can’t get into the advanced education programs they desired…then our property values go down…well, you get the picture. Thanks!