August 5, 2004

No November parcel tax
School district shows where the cuts will fall

By Kymberli W. Brady
Staff Writer

On Monday, the San Jose Unified School District opted not to put a parcel tax on the November ballot, citing the need for more of a community-wide grassroots effort in order to get the measure to pass by the required two-thirds margin.

“I’m upset that we have to wait,” admitted board member Richard Garcia. “I was hoping that we could work hard to pass this in November with our parents, staff, and community, but it is very clear that this is not the time to do this.”

Instead, the school board decided unanimously to focus on the 2006 primary election and benefit from a 16-month window that would allow for the enhanced public outreach and voter perception needed for a more successful campaign.

“This puts things into a different frame of reference as to what we need to do now,” says School Board President Gary Rummelhoff. “Our next challenge is to engage the community in a different kind of conversation.”

At a cost of $200,000, half of what it will take to put the tax on the ballot in March 2006, Almaden’s Charles Tate, former Measure F Bond Oversight Committee chair, feels that the district should have gone for it. His daughter, a sophomore at Leland, is one of the many Almaden students who will be affected by the cuts.

“I’m for it now,” he says. “Even without enough support, I think it’s worth the risk. It’s a relatively small investment and it’s going to be double that in 06.”

The tax is a necessary move in light of declining enrollment and the state’s failure to make good on an estimated $2 billion promised to California schools. For SJUSD, that equates to $9 million in losses plus an additional $4 million in mandated reimbursements.

Superintendent-elect Don Iglesias says it’s not a matter of whether the money will come—but when. However, the promised funding hits the already strapped district hard, and a grim forecast shows school closures and drastic cuts edging toward the classrooms.

Rummelhoff reiterated that additional mandates in special education continue to deal a crushing blow as well, as the government picks up the tab for only 15 percent of the estimated $15 million each year spent on special needs students.

Last week, two contradictory press releases from the governor’s office stated the per-student funding at both $280 and $326 in the state budget. While School Services concurred with the $280 figure, the board reminded the community that the increase follows a cut of $60 per student last year, and allocates $180 to the unrestricted General Fund, with the balance restricted to maintenance and categorical programs.

“My worry is that people think we are actually going to get that much more money,” said Lewis. “They don’t understand that we already lost money and this is going to specific things that really won’t help us like they think.”
“We need this parcel tax,” said Willow Glen resident Andrea Wheeler. “We can’t rely on the state to protect our K-12 education funding—they just overturned Prop. 98 and cut funding to the schools in half.”

“We’re willing to take it on,” added Iglesias. “But we want decent odds that it’s going to be successful. It’s pretty clear that votes aren’t there yet.”

Inside the budget
In addition to inevitable school closures, at stake in the coming years is the elimination of the six-period day in middle schools throughout the district along with class size increases from 20 to 30 students in grades K-2. All non-mandated transportation could be on the chopping block as well.

According to Rummelhoff, relying on one-time savings, past program cuts, and reserves are no longer options.
“In the past, we’ve been able to solve our financial problems while keeping it out of the classrooms,” he says. “But those were one-time savings and clearly the problem is looming large.”

Spending reductions in 2003-04 were attributed to the elimination of all district librarians and cuts in management, maintenance, and transportation, along with class size increases in special education, as well as third and ninth grades. The closing of Hammer, Erickson, and Hester schools has slowed the growth for the coming school year. While the state allowed the district to pull from remaining balances in categorical programs, tapping into the reserves was also needed to close the $11 million gap, a measure that has taken the fund down to the legal minimum of two percent—enough to finance teacher salaries for only two weeks.

“No one else has bridged a gap like this,” says Rummelhoff. “It feels like we are still swimming upstream and we need to get the stream moving our way.”

The multi-year projection indicates a widening gap, with expenditures moving faster than revenues—due in part to sharp declines in enrollment and increases in teacher salaries, health and welfare, insurance, and utilities. Without assistance, the projected $9 million gap for 2005-06 will force the district to downsize further and develop a leaner administration, says Associate Superintendent Jerry Matranga.

“When you’re smaller, it’s a different way of doing business,” he admits. “Downsizing alone won’t close the gap. Eventually, we’re going to get to the point where it will start to seriously impact instructional programs.”

To offset the projected drop of 500 elementary and 300 secondary students during the next two years, the district looks to immediately tag at least two elementary schools and one secondary school for closure—a cost savings of approximately $1.7 million per year. The closures, according to Superintendent-elect Don Iglesias, are inevitable—and more may be needed.

“We can’t continue with the number of high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools that we have in the district,” Matranga says. “It’s not something we want to do, but something we have to do.”

Although transportation cuts could save an additional $860,000 each year, it poses a threat to attendance, as students unable to get to school on their own may cause a backfire in lost revenues. Iglesias says they are looking into alternatives, including fee-based bus services at cost, rather than eliminating non-mandated transportation all together.

While it is not yet known which schools will be targeted, the structural gap needs to be closed. The district claims that revenues must be enhanced, expenditures must be cut, and downsizing remains the only way to match the loss of students—either through horizontal consolidation, with school closures and re-assigned students, or a more vertical approach that would combine middle and high school campuses.

Even with high enrollment, Almaden schools will not be immune, as close proximity to other schools remains another consideration. Williams Elementary School came close to the chopping block last year, but officials admittedly ran into problems finding placement for its more than 660 students. They are not out of the woods yet.

While the numbers almost add up for 05-06, Rummelhoff warns that it is the greatest level of risk that the board has ever looked at. “I’m encouraged that we are looking outside the box, but we can’t rely on hope to get us through this,” he says.

“They need to look at the total program more seriously,” says Tate. “They’re showing us $7.3 million in cuts that they could have been doing for years and we’re just seeing this. They need to do a better job of communicating with the public.”

But, along with consolidation comes increased class sizes and the need to cut central support services and administration, while maintaining a reduced yet efficient school system—as San Jose, according to Matranga, can no longer support the luxury of small neighborhood schools in the state’s current economy.