|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
With the failure Tuesday of the statewide ballot initiatives, officials with the San Ramon Valley Unified School District met in special session Wednesday to discuss the ramifications of the defeat and how the district will handle the expected loss of another $6 million in revenues.
School board members were briefed on the situation by school superintendent Steve Enoch, who said that even with the May 5 approval of Measure C, the district remains in difficult financial circumstances.
“The revised budget from the governor is going to take another $6.5 million away from us. We’re operating with $15 million less than we thought when this school year started,” he explained.
Enoch laid out two possible courses of action for the district, based on the most recent budget revisions from Sacramento. The first option, projected out over four years, shows cuts across the board. At the elementary level, class sizes would be held at 20:1 ratios for K-3 and ninth grade through this year, but would shift to 24:1 in subsequent years. Middle and high school classes would be increased to 30:1 ratios.
In addition, elementary teachers would lose one specialized preparation period. This affects art, science and physical education instructors as each school would be allowed to determine which of the three programs they would follow and which would be cut.
Other reductions would come in the number of special education para-educators, grounds maintenance and custodial personnel. Items eliminated would include counselors, librarians, fifth-grade instrumental music, pool heating in January and February, and school crossing guards.
The second scenario is contingent on securing concessions from the various bargaining units representing employees of the district. In that scenario, many of the same cuts would occur, but would be pushed out by more than a year in order to preserve teacher’s jobs.
If nothing changes in regards to funding levels, both scenarios would see the district losing money by the end of next year and completely exhausting its reserves by the end of the 2012-13 school year.
Enoch said despite the somewhat gloomy forecast, the budget they presented represents the best plan they have for the use of the funds they have.
“I actually believe that option 1 clearly represents the benefits we have received by passing Measure C. We would clearly be in a world of hurt without that,” he explained.
School board members were frustrated by the depth of the cuts before them but many felt that adopting the more stringent spending plan of option 1, then directing staff to begin negotiations with the bargaining units was the better course.
The negotiations are expected to center on voluntary furlough days for the entire district. Statistics provided by the district showed that for each furlough day, they would save an estimated $760,000. The spending plan being considered would have two furlough days next year, three the following year, and four the year after that.
Board member Paul Gardner gave his support to seeking the furlough days from the unions.
“Two furlough days will save some significant jobs. Total compensation cost of the district is 88 percent. The cost to employees of two furlough days would be less than 1 percent of an average employee’s compensation. We’re talking about companies out there that are cutting salaries by 10-20 percent,” he said.
Board President Bill Clarkson agreed.
“We need to be heroes to our children and our fellow employees. Losing 2 or 3 or 5 percent is nothing compared to the pain of losing your job, of not having a way to pay the mortgage,” he stated.
For the most part, the board was in unison over the plan to adopt the budget, but member Greg Marvel questioned the loss of the specialized prep times at the elementary level and called on his fellow board members to reverse that cut.
“That provides an extra level of specialized instruction that helps give the kids that extra boost in the elementaries that they will need in middle and high school,” he said.
When Marvel was unable to get support from the board to reinstate the prep period, he moved that they approve the option 1 budget and immediately begin negotiations with the bargaining units in order to get the concessions needed to extend the programs as long as possible.
During the public hearing, more than half a dozen people spoke out about the issue. Measure C campaign co-director Denise Jennison called on the board to make sure amid all the program cuts and financial woes that the public is aware that Measure C is helping the situation.
“If we want to maintain our credibility with the community, you need to make it clear to this community just what that $6.8 million is buying them,” she stated. “I believe we have an obligation to let them know how it is helping.”
Jennison also asked the board to work with teachers, staff and parents in a unified fashion and avoid pitting departments against each other in a quest for funding.
“We’re a ‘unified’ school district,” she said. “We still need to be unified when things get better.”
After the public hearing, the board voted unanimously to approve option 1 and directed staff to begin the negotiations immediately. Board member Ken Mintz requested that they have some updated information from the unions by their May 23 regular meeting.
Dear Dolores,
Please thank Geoff for providing this very informative story. TDW’s Forum might ask each segment of our district the question, “how does this impact parents, students, and residents without children in SRVUSD? Each group cares in specific ways and we can hope they will share their thoughts.
From my perspective, our fiscal crisis is shared throughout our economy and we must find a way to provide the best education available with exceptional reduction in funding. In my view, the solutions are local, within the district, and can be achieved by all district “owners” participation, direction and consideration.
But the answers are from all district owners, please?
Hal, as a community courtesy
I know one way to contribute approx. $500,000 a year to the budget.
Simply retrofit the districts lighting with energy saving lighting. Between the California Energy Commission, PG&E and the savings each month, it will cost the district ZERO dollars to do this.
Soumds to good to be true dosen’t it, well ask the Board what has been done?
The toxic clean-up costs for even ONE broken “energy-efficient” light bulb will more than offset the imagined savings.
Green Jeams, Where are you getting that info from?
Green Jeans may have gotten his information from the BioCommunications Research Institute, which outlined their concerns about these bulbs in a release last year:
http://www.bcrionline.org/energy.shtml
There are several reputable sources online that discuss the danger of mercury poisoning from these CFLs. Did you know that if you don’t dispose of your burned-out CFL at a hazardous materials recycling center, you are required – BY LAW – to seal the bulb in TWO plastic zip bags and place them in your outdoor trash? This is because if they break – and they’re made of glass, so they will break – the double bags are supposed to keep them from leaking mercury into the landfill.
(How long do you think it will take before the broken glass cuts through the bags under a ton of shifting trash? Ridiculous.)
I completetely agree with the increase in class sizes. I also think the furlough days are great. Kids are stuck in school too much anyways. Let them have more breaks. Cutting some paraeducators is a good idea, such as bi-lingual educators. We don’t need so many tutors either. They never really help. There’s a point of diminshing returns with kids who think they have ADD and can’t learn like all the rest in a classroom, but must be catered to individually. We may need to cut into art. Oh well. The truth is, a kid can paint or doodle on their own time. They don’t need to be little picasso’s to experience the pleasures of the broad and abstract experience that is art. Let them make their own art. We shouldn’t cut music, because it has been proven that music helps a child’s brain grow universally, and it is not easy to learn an instrument on one’s own. Do not cut PE. We need our kids doing more physical things, instead of sitting around in classes all day. And, of course, STOP GIVING SRVUSD MONEY TO OAKLAND, RICHMOND AND EVERYWHERE ELSE!!!
Those of you that are referring to CFL’s are absolutely correct. They are more toxic than incandescent light bulbs due to their mercury content. However, there are mercury recycling agencies that specialize in disposing of fluorescent/CFL lamps. The school district is already using these facilities for disposing of their linear fluorescent lamps. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason that CFL’s should ever be thrown in the garbage.
On another note, you are making the assumption that the author above was only referring to CFL’s. The fact of the matter is, very little of the school district’s lighting falls into the incandescent to CFL lighting category. The majority of the district contains OLD linear fluorescent and some HID (metal halide, high pressure sodium, etc.). All of which could be upgraded to newer technology T8 and T5 fluorescent lighting.
Examples:
An existing 3-lamp 1st generation T8 fixture which uses 88 watts, could be retrofit with a 2-lamp 3rd generation T8 system which would only consume 48 watts.
An existing 400W metal halide fixture in a multi purpose room which consumes a total of 458 watts, could be replaced with a 6-lamp 3rd generation T8 fixture which would only consume 218 watts.
I guess what I’m saying is, “Don’t get caught up in the belief that a CFL is the only energy efficient lighting out there!”
Oh…and for those of you that ask, “How is the district supposed to pay for all the new lighting with all the budget cuts?” There are low interest loans available to schools, which allow them to completely upgrade their existing lighting systems. The best part…The payment on the loan is less than the energy saved each month, making the project CASH POSITIVE from Day 1. Once the loan is paid back (usually 2-3 years) the district realizes the savings.
Thank you Don, I didn’t catch that he was referring to CFL’s only.
This is great information, I hope all of you can see what the school district could be doing to save money.
One more note about the newer linear fluorescent lamps. They contain significantly LESS mercury than the majority of existing linear fluorescent lamps being used in our schools currently.
Hal,
I’m too curious as to how a loss of 6M in ‘district revenues impacts parents, students, and residents without children in SRVUSD’.
My husband and I have no children, (yet) and believe in trying to find a way to provide the best education available. There are many resources available within our community… possible reach out for community volunteers in those areas that may get cut… PE, art, 5th grade music, librarians, counseling. There are many people in our community who are highly educated that can and may volunteer.
It’s in our best interest to ensure that students receive the best education possible. I’d love to see some involvement from the people who have no children in the school system. Like myself, I work during the day but would still like to contribute.
This is not a solution for those that may loose their jobs but it may provide some community involvement while still providing the best education possible for our district.
Just a thought.