Recommendations to SSDA member districts regarding response to the Governor’s Proposed State Budget
By David Walrath
While I believe that the Governor’s proposed budget will not be the final enacted budget, it does not mean school districts should behave as if the deep severe cuts will not occur. Consequently, SSDA is making the following recommendations:
1. On categorical funds, school districts should attempt to increase their net ending balances of categorical funds between now and June 30, 2008. The last time the state had a significant reduction in state funds for schools, schools were provided flexibility in using the net ending balances of their categorical aid funds. SSDA will be advocating for access to those net ending balances if part of the Governor’s budget proposal is enacted by the Legislature. Therefore, I advise school districts to attempt to start increasing those ending balances.
2. Negotiations. Notwithstanding the good faith negotiations all school districts have been entered into with their bargaining units, I strongly encourage that no member district agree to a bargaining settlement until the 2008-09 State Budget is enacted. This does not mean discussion should end with exclusive bargaining representatives, all parties should be aware of the magnitude of the proposed reductions and the necessity of making fiscal adjustments.
3. School districts should start the process of determining which teachers and personnel may be subject to March 15 notices and ensuring that the bumping procedures and protection procedures are legal. It is highly probable that the best outcome in the budget discussions still will result in school districts needing to make personnel reductions for the budget year. While current law provides an option for school districts to reopen their personnel reductions after the State Budget is passed, the last time we were in this situation the state suspended that authority. Consequently, school districts should not depend upon that authority for making additional personnel reductions after the State Budget is enacted. All reductions in force should be considered as part of the March 15 actions.
4. School districts need to be very clear on the effects of these cuts and reductions on their programs and advise their communities, local service organizations, and newspapers – not once but on an ongoing basis – of the drastic effects that will occur if the Governor’s proposals are adopted. There is no need to protect the Governor or the Legislature; in fact we want our citizens to be upset with the Governor and Legislature because of the education cuts proposed by the Governor.
5.
The SSDA position on the State Budget is that school districts: 1)
should be provided full funding of Proposition 98; 2) the COLA
should be provided to all programs; and 3) no suspension of
Proposition 98. School districts are not the problem; the
state’s fiscal problem has occurred because other state General
Fund expenditures have increased rapidly during the past four
years. State General Fund revenues have increased by 40%
between 2003-04 and estimated 2008-09. Proposition 98,
however, has increased only 30% during that same time.
If the Governor’s proposed suspension were to occur, the
Proposition 98 increase would be only approximately 22%. K-12
schools and Proposition 98 are not the problem. There has
been uncontrolled expenditures in other programs and tax cuts that
have caused the problem. School children should not be the
ones paying the penalties because the adults did not control their
fiscal expenditures.
We will be providing more information, details and talking points as we go forward. For now the talking points are:
Proposition 98 is not the problem, California schools are already having the fewest teachers to pupils, fewest counselors to pupils, fewest nurses to pupils, and fewest librarians to pupils compared to the rest of the nation. We already are last in the nation. We have significantly fewer adults to students in California and that is obvious in our academic achievement outcomes. The Governor’s proposed budget would result in even greater reductions in the number of adults helping students in K-12 schools. The Governor’s budget proposal would result in lowering academic achievement because of fewer adults assisting students and the turmoil that will result in not being able to maintain sustainable education programs.
