Governor Jerry Brown is gambling that school board meetings like last night’s will scare Californians into voting for temporary tax increases. But the stakes of that bet are exceedingly high. As the deadline looms for the district to submit a fiscal report that shows how it can cut $5.8 million out of the budget in case the governor’s proposed ballot box tax increases do not pass in November, the Santa Barbara Unified School District trustees will have to make some tough choices.
At the meeting, Meg Jetté, assistant superintendent of Business, offered up a pupu platter of cuts. “You can play around with them as you choose,” she told the trustees. Her “menu,” as she put it, included nine items, among which were laying off up to 70 teachers, reducing 16 classified (or nonteaching) positions, reducing spring semester sections, reorganizing the district office, eliminating the use of contracted nurses, increasing ninth grade English class sizes from 25:1 to as high as 35:1, increasing K-3 class sizes from 25:1 to as high as 32:1, implementing nine furlough days (of which at least five would be instruction days, Jetté told The Santa Barbara Independent), and cutting “Tier 3” programs (which often provide services to needy students) up to 30 percent.
The cuts on that list add up to $11.6 million, but some would affect others. Furlough days, for instance would undo the need for class size increases and teacher reductions. Furthermore, the board last night voted to approve the layoffs of all temporary and some probationary teachers. Despite that approval, layoffs, class-size reductions, and furloughs must be negotiated with the teachers’ union.
Layne Wheeler, president of the Santa Barbara Teachers Association (SBTA), told The Independent that the union is opposed to cuts to staff and programs. He referred to a shortened school year as “draconian” but also said he is negotiating with the district in good faith and, at the meeting, expressed confidence that a compromise could be reached.
Board member Ed Heron actually advocated for furlough days — which would reduce teachers’ salaries up to 5 percent — reasoning that furlough days can always be added back to the school year if the budget improves, but laid-off teachers cannot be easily hired back in the middle of the year. Other board members voiced their support for different items on the chopping block, but nobody was enthusiastic about any of the proposed budget reductions. “I think yet again we’re in a situation in which they are all bad ideas, but we don’t have a choice,” said board member Monique Limón.
The board will likely hash out the details of the budget in piecemeal fashion. However, the district must turn in an interim financial report to the Santa Barbara County Education Office by March 17 demonstrating that it can meet its financial obligations for the current year and two years out while maintaining a 3 percent cash reserve.
Teachers must also receive layoff notices by March 15. The notified teachers are those with the least seniority. In reality, however, the budget is an amoeba-like organism that will change shape depending on state funding and negotiations between the district and the SBTA. If the governor’s ballot initiatives for temporary increases in sales and income taxes pass, they could generate $6.9 billion during the next school year. That will likely play a factor in how many laid-off teachers are actually hired back.
Further exacerbating the district’s fiscal wellbeing is the fact that the state has deferred 34.8 percent of the district’s revenue, greatly tightening cash flow. In other words, the state is not giving the district all the funding it has approved. As Jetté put it, “It’s like your employer saying you deserve $50,000, but we’re only going to give $30,000 this year.”



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Let's be very, very clear about the cause of this: to fund out of control state spending by state government, retired and about to retire government union pensions and benefits. Per pupil spending, adjusted for inflation, is double what it was in 1955 with 65% of education dollars spent *not* touching the classroom, but paying for massively expanded bureaucracy, union benefits, unfunded pensions and non-teacher/non-student activities. It' NOT about the kids. It's about unions and adult administrators and their legislative dependents.
willy88 (anonymous profile)
February 29, 2012 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We all need to be urging the school board to face the reality that the compensation and retirement benefits that they have committed to for the teachers are impossible to fund and have to be reformed. Retirement age has to be moved back to 65 and retirement benefits have to be moved to defined contribution. There simply will not be enough money at any time in the future to pay these benefits under any economic scenario.
reality_check (anonymous profile)
February 29, 2012 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You guys are making things up out of hot air. Santa Barbara spends 60% of its funds on direct classroom instruction, and the majority of the rest goes to things like instructional support and facilities upkeep. SB only spends 5% on admin costs and has half the number of administrators as other districts of comparable size. Benefit packages have already been reformed at the local level, and ed code keeps teacher contributions at a manageable, fixed percentage--there are issues with retirement pensions but for teachers (unlike other local government employees) that's a state reform question and not for the local school board. And you can find out how per pupil spending has dropped over the past ten years in inflation adjusted dollars here: http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2011/ca...
Pimms (anonymous profile)
February 29, 2012 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We need fewer teachers and police and more bulbouts. That way our idle youth will be terrorizing people on the street in safety.
Botany (anonymous profile)
February 29, 2012 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Red Ink Spilleth"... for a headline about such an important issue? Come on, Independent, serve your community with intelligence and respect, or fold up shop and go print bumper stickers for the socially impaired amongst us.
On the fiscal front, get some of your scribes out on the streets and help describe our community that absorbs dollars by the bucketful for the trivial, the fanciful, and the vain, yet finds it hard to support its children through the education that only our teachers can provide.
Spilleth spelt back-words is, htellips.
concerned1 (anonymous profile)
February 29, 2012 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yet they have money for drug sniffing dogs. Weird.
sbs124 (anonymous profile)
February 29, 2012 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The bloated pensions in any public sector organization center around overpaid, uncreative, and self-serving administrators at the top of the unproductive, non-value-added organizational food chain. Outsource the analysts and bean counters to the global economy and save a few bucks and serious pension costs. Put educators back on the front lines of education and "administration" back where it and its minions belong!!
Seriously, by merging a bloated administration and outsourcing accounting and statistical analysis tasks, it may be possible for schools to get back to education and building the next generation.
Our children lag in basic skills and the acquisition of literacy, math and science skills while the fat cats continue to slurp at the trough of high paid jobs, benefits, and yes, bloated retirement benefits. Oh by the way, they aren't protected by unions but by the mere fact that they are paid to make decisions but not make a difference they get away with this.
gsjoh (anonymous profile)
February 29, 2012 at 8:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Fire the sniff dogs first. Quit making criminals outta innocent kids.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 29, 2012 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have an idea...
How about we stop paying movie stars and athletes zillions of dollars to entertain us and instead pour that money into the schools and teachers salaries and make educators role models? Oh no, it just makes too much sense to make normal, every day people good role models instead of focusing on the unrealistic, materialistic lifestyles of the rich and infamous actors and entertainers. Our culture is so messed up.
GDogMama (anonymous profile)
February 29, 2012 at 11:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Every culture does the same thing with their celebrities.
Celebrities make their money based on how much they bring into a private sector business. They only make these astronomical figures when the business model supports their particular role. While I agree that remuneration to movie stars, music types, and athletes is comical, they stop making that kind of money as soon as their ability to draw in far more revenue subsides. It's called supply and demand...
Further, public pensions are bankrupting many cities in the U.S. Everyone knows it and yet nobody will stop it. If a pension in the private sector is not supportable the former employees have no inalienable right to collect money that does not exist. Why should public employees be any different? The fact that in the case of the teachers union this is a state issue is irrelevant; they're public employees receiving unsustainable benefits from taxation in a deleteriously poor economic climate.
Finally, I don't blame teachers even though I am not sympathetic to their particular point of view. I blame parents and the reason my kids ended up in private schools was because we found PARENTS that took care of their kids, and did not expect the school to serve as the proxy parent.
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
March 1, 2012 at 7:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear Itialinsrurgalia,
The reason your children are in private school is because you are rich! Nonetheless, your privately educated children cannot make this country competitive without the children of parents who aren't rich and really don't need your patronization, either. They want to see their legacy succeed and value the educational opportunities.
I'm not particularly sympathetic to your point of view either not that you are begging for sympathy. Your hired hands know what work is all about and what the value of education is. They just couldn't afford it, your style.
gsjoh (anonymous profile)
March 1, 2012 at 6:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Question: The opponents of school vouchers argue that it will take money away from public schools.
If educating a student takes (let's for the sake of argument say) $4000 annually, and a student leaves the public school system, that that should mean that the public school system is saving $4000.
Where is the money going? Also, what about the promise that that California lottery was going to help our schools? What about the bond measures that have passed? Where is the money going?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 2, 2012 at 4:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
One more thing: It cost less to educate kids at private schools because there isn't all the bureaucracy so theoretically vouchers make more sense.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 2, 2012 at 4:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Pimms is correct, and Willy88 misses the point in stating the issue is "to fund out of control state spending by state government, retired and about to retire government union pensions and benefits." This is a red herring issue; separate the pension catastrophe from public education funding. Only 3% of the State budget goes into these pensions: many local governments, including Santa Barbara's, took a "pension holiday" for several years when we worshipped "free market" religion...
We simply don't give enough money to public schools these days despite a rising population. See http://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2011/ca... but it is worse than that.
Bill Clausen: it costs far more to educate kids at most private (non-parochial) schools because educating children well is quite expensive. Many independent schools are spending 15 -- $20,000 per student.
DrDan (anonymous profile)
March 2, 2012 at 6:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
gsjoh-At least we know you are without a clue.
Bishop Diego in SB accepts ALL students, regardless of family means and finds the money for them and no student that meets the academic standards is turned away.
Over 50% of the kids are on scholarship.
Approximately 50% of the kids are Latino.
They don't allow English as a second language.
I don't have any hired hands.
Your Progressive stupidity is typical and predictable.
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
March 2, 2012 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dr.Dan: You are correct about the cost of some/many private schools. The reason I posted what I did was because sometime back in the mid-90's I saw an article, I believe it was in Time magazine, that said at that time the cost of educating children in a Catholic school was about $4000 annually while a public school annual cost was about $4600.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 2, 2012 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I would add that I had the good fortune of going to Catholic school until 6th grade and in the middle of 6th grade I went to public school from that point forward.
I can say that without question the Catholic school education was far superior.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 2, 2012 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Italiansurg: I see you are under attack fro gsjoe and rest assured we are here to defend you against any attacks foreign or domestic. Our loyalty to you is assured.
fivedolphins (anonymous profile)
March 2, 2012 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Italianurg, clausen, et al. If it's that easy and accessible, why don't you go to the Casa de la Raza and all the local area preschools to help parents fill out the forms for admission to Catholic schools and help them find the financial aid to be educated in Catholic schools here in Santa Barbara. They don't have these basic skills and need your paternalism--ehrr--patrionization--ehrr superior education as exemplified by your private school eduation.
Cost-effective education is something everyone seeks and parents want to be smart consumers at the same time. Where are Catholic school standardized test scores so parents and guardians shop based on quantifiable information rather than annecdotal comments such as, "I got a superior education in Catholic schools." I'm not disparaging Catholic school education and love the ethnic mix. It's truly unfortunate for the 1st generation of immigrants that they don't have time or knowledge of the process and they need your help.
gsjoh (anonymous profile)
March 5, 2012 at 8:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@Pimms
@DrDan
1. My figures are at the state level, where education is funded from, not SB county schools level.
2. Since education comes from the state, the state has to fund and deal with its *total* pension obligation (not just for teachers) and thus that drains the ability to fund for education.
3. There are WAY too many layers of bureaucracy and inefficiency - and misaligned incentives - that are tremendously costly with the public education sector (which includes Sacramento bureaucrats on down). Bloated.
4. The school age population has been dropping for more than a decade yet each year we are asked to pony up more for teachers and schools. Again: since 1995, we have *doubled* the per-pupil spending in real dollars and have basically the same test scores and a rising drop out rate.
willy88 (anonymous profile)
March 6, 2012 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)