28 05, 08 21:21 Filed in: School Board Meeting
Here are a few highlights from tonight's school board meeting (agenda
and background packet
).Approve 2008 – 2009 Budget Reductions
Tonight the school board approved almost $9.4 million in budget cuts. These cuts were necessary because proposed cuts in the state budget. The Governor did present a revised budget on May 14th, but it still has over $4 billion in education cuts statewide. See my previous blog post
for more background.
There is still a lot of uncertainty as the Legislature and Governor will likely not have a final state budget anytime soon. The final state budget is likely to have less cuts, but it could even have more cuts. The district has chosen to adopt the necessary cuts, but to defer as many cuts as possible until we have a final state budget.
This is the hardest thing a board has to do. These are deep cuts including cuts in counselors, staff development, technology, secondary transportation, updated elementary text books, and increased class size in jr. high schools and high schools.
In my mind there are two priorities you balance as you decide on these cuts.
- Keeping the cuts as far away from the classroom as possible and minimize the impact on our students.
- Avoid laying off personnel. It's important to preserve valuable people and the experience and programs they bring to our students. These are much harder to rebuild than cuts to text books or staff development (although even these programs are costly to rebuild). The heart of the district (like most corporations) are it's people. Saving jobs sends a signal that the board and district values them and their contribution.
As hard as these cuts are they are a necessary step to keep the district solvent, I feel they have largely accomplished a balanced approach to these two priorities.
One thing the Financial Advisory Committee (FAC) recommended was for the board to consider dipping into the 1% board reserve, which the board did not agree with. Initially I agreed with FAC, but given the uncertainties in the state budget over the next few years we may need this reserve not for next year but the following year. I think even more important than that is having the reserve to cover any cuts that do not materialize. The complexity of cutting such large amounts from the district budget leads to a lot of uncertainty. Many of the cuts are soft costs and as they are implemented we may not realize the savings we thought. I speak from experience here as this is what happened during the 1992 cuts when I was on the board as a student and also in 2003 cuts.
The board was also in general agreement that all of these priorities would be reviewed and potentially re-prioritized if more money is available.Health & Sex Education Committee Annual Report
The key issue covered in this presentation was does FUSD meet the requirement for a comprehensive sex education. As of 2004 California law requires comprehensive education including all methods of birth control including abstinence and must be medically accurate. Parents can opt their children out of the sexual education program. One of FUSD's current programs (Await and Find) is an abstinence-only program and is not compliant with state law. The board has asked staff and the committee to get the district back in compliance as quickly as possible.2007 API Base Scores Presentation
This is not really new news. The 2007 API Base API scores represent a recalculation of the 2007 API Growth report from last August. Each year the state adjusts how the scores are calculated when they issue a base score. This new methodology is used in the 2008 Growth API report coming in August. So you can compare the 2007 base with the 2008 growth knowing they were calculated with the same methodology. Similarly you can compare the 2006 base with the 2007 growth report. Comparing, for example, the 2006 base with the 2008 growth is useful from a trending position, but can be misleading depending on how the score calculations have changed.
Some specific observations:
- 27 of our 38 tested schools are considered high performing schools (API over 800).
- Oliveria and Irvington have moved up to the 800 API and are considered a high performing school.
- Grimmer has increased their similar school ranking to a 5. This is primarily due to the increases in STAR test scores at the school, and the hard work students and teachers have put in to get there.
- Students with disabilities have the lowest API scores (at 605) however the trend shows an increase from year-to-year.