About this blog

I am currently a Governing Board Member of the San Carlos School District, elected November 2007. I created this site to keep in touch with folks who want to know more about what is happening in the District and what it's like to be a Trustee.

Please note that ANY OPINION EXPRESSED HERE IS PURELY PERSONAL AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT OFFICIAL POSITIONS OR POLICY OF THE SAN CARLOS SCHOOL DISTRICT NOR THE OPINION OF ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE BOARD.

I encourage everyone to visit the District web site as well as attend School Board meetings.

Note that I reserve the right to edit, reject, or delete posts based on spelling, grammar, readability, or my judgment of what is appropriate discourse.

If you're interested in getting updates when blogs are posted, please send an e-mail to seth@rosenblatt.org

 

February 2010
M T W T F S S
« Jan    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728

We Knew It All Along...

Last Fall I posted an entry about our schools’ API scores. As I pointed out then, all of our schools have both excellent and improving scores. I have also stated many times that, by design, our four K-4 elementary schools offer an equally excellent education. Although most parents and District staff understand that to be true, there are some folks that have a misunderstanding based on what they read on websites or based on comments from realtors. Despite that all of our schools easily exceed the state API excellence threshold of 800, sometimes folks report that Heather School only has a score of 861, compared to 907-917 for the other schools.

Variation in scores over 800 tell us very little about the quality of the school. Although these scores are the only system publicized by the state and federal governments for evaluating the effectiveness of schools, we need to understand their limitations. My colleage Mark Olbert wrote a blog post based on a fantastic analysis of our API scores related to the student population. He does a much better and more detailed explanation than I will give here, but essentially we must control for students’ location as well as students in special education (since Special Ed classes are not distributed evenly over the schools).

If one looks at the API scores of the four schools for general education students who live in San Carlos, the APIs of the four schools all fall within the range of 929-933! I encourage you to read Mark’s blog for a more detailed explanation, but suffice is to say that this proves what the District administration has been claiming for many years — there is no difference in the quality of the education among our elementary schools! We’re extremely fortunate to live in such a community.

The Tough Work Now Begins

Unfortunately a good chunk of the remainder of the school year will be devoted to trying to solve our current budget mess, and this process kicked off in earnest with a Board study session we had on Tuesday, Janaury 26th. With the recently proposed State budget, our friends in Sacramento whacked education again. For us, the latest estimate is a further decrease in revenue of about $700,000. This was on top of the $900,000 we already knew we’d be in the hole for next year. Furthermore, these estmates already take into account the recent mid-year reductions we made (as I wrote in early December, we eliminated five positions at the District office — almost 20% of the District office staff — and for four of those folks, their last day was yesterday).

That leaves us with a known problem of $1.6 million. However, as we have learned, the situation is more likely to get worse and not better, so our staff estimates that it would be more prudent to look at it as a $2.2 million problem — a combination of revenue enhancements and cost reductions equaling that amount starting next fiscal year would eliminate our deficit and keep us above the 3% minimum required reserve level. However, only a 3% reserve level hardly gives me great comfort (we were at 14% only three years ago, so it’s easy to see how the State can wipe that away quickly). Also, this assumes that we renew the Measure D parcel tax, which expires June 2011. We need to have another discussion on when to put this renewal on the ballot — definitely look out for that!

By the way, if you didn’t catch that, I did say “revenue enhancements.” I’m very excited to report that Dr. Baker and his team are aggressively pursuing ways to increase our top line, including more aggressive grant proposals as well as looking at launching some fee-for-service businesses, such as pre-school, after care, and summer camps. It’s a brilliant idea, and long overdue (although SCCLC has had a model for some years). Like any new business, we must remain conservative as to its possibilities for the purpose of budgeting, but I do agree with our Superintendent that it has tremoundous potential. Accordingly, the Board agreed that a target of around $250K in next fiscal year is prudent for the purpose of budgeting.

That leaves us with the cuts. At our Board meeting Tuesday night, the Superintendent presented what was essentially a discussion piece developed by the Admininstration to look at restructuring the way we deliver some programs. Unlike in the past when we considered eliminating certain programs, these ideas were more about sharing responsibilities and/or reducing services rather than eliminating them. Of course, such reductions would still involve reducing personnel (as that’s where the savings lie), but they are definitely more creative solutions that would lessen the impact on the students. Some of these ideas include reducing library support, using middle school music instructors to also teach elementary school stuents, etc. These are all just concepts at this point — the Board will of course debate these and other ideas over the next few months. However, the Board did generally agree that the target for these types of programatic restructuring cuts would be about $750K. So, with $250K in revenue enhancements, that leaves us with a target of about $1.2 million in reductions that would need to come from employee compensation. Generally speaking that can happen two ways (or a combination of the two) — reductions in the average compensation per employee, or a reduction in the number of employees. The former means things like salary cuts; the latter means things like increasing class sizes (and both areas are matters that need to be collectively bargained).

This bring me to process. How are we going to approach this problem and discussion, as well as get input from the public? Unlike last year where we did a few large “town hall” style meetings, it is more likely that the Superintendent will conduct a series of smaller, school-site meetings at every school to discuss these issues with parents and concerned community members and bring back that input to the Board. Please be on the lookout for notices from your principals on these meeting days and times. Also, we still have the budget survey from last year, and that will continue to be a resource for staff and the Board. Many of you may recall from last year that we have a March 15th deadline for sending out “pink slips” to certificated employees. So, for example, if we think that increasing class sizes is at all a possibility, then the District would have to send out notices to potentially affected teachers. It’s of course a wacky system as the budget isn’t completed until June (and like last year, you can then rescind the termination notices – but of course affected employees have already started looking for other jobs by then), so you have to make a decision by March 15th to send out these notices based on a ton of uncertainty.

So, if you’re seriously depressed by the time you’ve read this far, I do want to add some perspective. Yes, the State is treating us like crap. Yes, the ramifications for California are potentially catastropic. Yes, the structural problems in the state render it unlikely that this will turn around for very long time. But we in San Carlos have an amazing history of making lemonade from lemons. We still have great schools by every measure, dedicated and inspiring teachers, a top-notch administration and staff, and passionate and devoted parents. Although it may be cold comfort to some, San Carlos has it much better than so many other places in the State, including some our close neighbors (e.g., Redwood City is facing some unfathomable reductions in their programs). This is due largely to the fact that, despite being a Revenue Limit district, San Carlos kept a large financial reserve, got the community support to pass two parcel taxes, and has a strong and growing Education Foundation. I encourage everyone to attend these budget meetings and to continue to support the San Carlos Educational Foundation, which I know is tough in these times. Also please attend Spring Fling on March 6th when we can together celebrate all that we have accomplished as a community despite the lemons that the State delivers to us.

Boundary Changes are Finally Done

Last night the school board unanimously approved changing our elementary school boundaries. As I’ve written in earlier posts, this is a change that has been discussed for a number of years, and the Board made it a priority to complete this year. It was a complex problem and an involved process, but I’m confident that we made the best decision to balance enrollment and mitigate the likelihood of school waiting lists, while at the same time preserving the concept of neighborhood schools.

Dr. Baker deserves a lot of credit for working tirelessly through this process, which is difficult and fuels passionate debate all around. He conducted numerous community meetings and worked the plan so as to take into account feedback but also working within our goals and constraints. The plan as originally proposed has been modified as follows:

  • Some streets within Devonshire canyon will remain in the Arundel zone
  • We added some streets within the current White Oaks area to now be in the Brittan Acres zone
  • For homes east of El Camino, only homes at Holly Street and north will move to the Arundel zone
  • We moved some parts of the Alameda to the Heather zone

This plan significantly increases the footprint of Heather, while materially shrinks that of White Oaks. It also gives some relief to the likelihood of oversubsciption at Arundel. The link to the Final Approved Planl is here. Note that these street assignments still need to be updated on the District web site.

One thing that’s worth repeating is that these changes do not affect current students or their siblings who will attend elementary school at the same time. No students are being moved in this plan — the zones will apply only to new families, so therefore the changes will effectively be implemented over the next 5-7 years.

On a related note, the Board also unanimously approved a new document outlining the “preferences” for enrollment in any school. These preferences are essentially, with only minor modifications, a codification of past practice, such as giving enrollment preference to siblings in school, etc.

Lastly, boundary changes are certainly not a panacea for enrollment issues. It is a crucial piece of the puzzle, but still a single piece. We still need to look at Middle School capacity and enrollment, potentially addding capacity at some schools, looking at transportation options, and maybe even thinking how we would add a school in the Laureola area. Some of these ideas may take years, but they’re definitely worth pursuing!

Thank you again to Dr. Baker, my fellow board members, District staff, and members of the enrollment committe for all of the time and hard work that went into making these proposals. And also thanks to the community who attended the town hall meetings and gave their input, as that was extremely valuable. Of course no change is perfect nor does everyone consider it better for them, but it’s clear that this community broadly supported this, understands that all of our schools are excellent, and really came together for the good of the whole District and all of its students!

With friends like this...

At the Governor’s State of the State address, he vowed to “protect education” despite the addititional $20 billion shortfall that the State is facing through next fiscal year. I guess I’m not sure what dictionary he uses, but the word “protect” may have a different definition in his than it does in mine.

In the Governor’s proposed budget that came out this month, there is indeed another cut to K-12 education. It includes what is termed an “administrative cut” of $191/child and a negative COLA (cost of living adjustment) of -0.38%. For the SCSD, this means another funding reduction of almost $700,000.

These cuts are incredible, and above the $900K in reductions we were going to need to make for next year anyway (which is above the $700,000 in cuts we already made mid-year this year by eliminating administrative positions). And of course, most people who follow school finance think this is the good case scenario! A more conservative projection suggests we may need to cut up to $2,000,000 in our budget for next year!

To put that in perspective, that is almost 10% of our entire budget, and comes on top of the 18% reduction in revenue we’ve already incurred over the last three years. We’re in for very rocky times, and it’s just shameful that our state is so short-sighted.

I will give periodic updates on this subject throughout the school year. The School Board is having a special budget workshop Board Meeting on January 26th where we will discuss all of our options, which include program cuts, potential revenue generation ideas, as well as advocacy efforts. In the very short term, how everyone can help is to support the San Carlos Educational Foundation (including attending Spring Fling on March 6th)– every dollar raised by SCEF is as critical as ever!

Can California Government be fixed?

Most folks in any way exposed to the workings of Sacramento know that it’s one of the most dyfunctional government systems we have in the country. It’s a systematic issue and not one related to specific legislators, as I actually admire many of our state elected representatives. However, they are paralyzed by a system that makes it very difficult to deliver on the needed change in the state.

Today I attended a conference hosted by the CCS Partnership (CCS = Cities, Counties, Schools), which is a joint effort of the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties and the California School Boards Association. The Partnership promotes the development of public policies that center around fixing California’s governance and financial systems based on the needs of all of these local jurisdictions.

The conference today focused on both what is generally considered the problems with CA state government, as well some of the potential paths to solve some of these problems. Although I have discussed some of these before, a number of the issues that came up include:

  • The State’s 2/3 required to pass a budget or to levy taxes (of which only three states have such a requirement)
  • Term limits of State Legislators (which, among other things, has the side effect of transferring power to the political party and quelling dissenting ideas)
  • The incredible restriction on local government agencies (schools, cities, etc) to raise their own sources of revenue (which would be a system having the officials closest to the people held accountable for their actions)
  • Unfunded mandates from the state
  • The public initiative process, which ironic to its original intent, is actually a tool of special interests and creates the phenomenon of “ballot box budgeting”
  • The reliance of the State on very cyclical forms of revenue streams and the lack of longer-term budgeting and planning
  • The connection of school districts and cities to this cyclical form of revenue, with school funding coming from the state and the state being able to borrow or take local funds.
  • The extremely convoluted California Constitution, which has been amended over 500 times and is apparently the third longest constitution in the WORLD (including comparing it to all other countries!)
  • The effects of Proposition 13 as it relates to a lot of the above

I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

On the one hand, it seems like a daunting problem with such built-in inertia that one wonders if it any significant reform can be made. The room today was filled with over a hundred local leaders (representatives from the county, cities, and schools) who all felt strongly that something must be done. Also, these sorts of meetings are happening in other parts of the state as well. Ironically, some of the fixes may need to include using the very system which is broken in order to fix it. For example, it will likely take a public initiative to fix and limit the public initiative process. Some of the specific efforts that were discussed include:

  • Proposals within the State legislature itself to address some of these issues (although it’s unlikely that the financial issues can be addressed from within the legislature, as for example it would take a 2/3 majority of the legislature to put an initiative on the ballot to remove the 2/3 majority budget requirement)
  • Proposals to prevent the State from dipping in to local sources of money
  • Proposals to allow counties, cities, and school districts to work together (almost like a separate agency) to raise local funds independent of the state
  • A proposal for a California Constitutional Convention to effectively re-do the Constitution and in so doing, presumably include a lot of these reforms
  • Proposals, including the one with which my colleague Mark Olbert has been involved, to reduce the parcel tax threshold from 67% to 55%.

Obviously there are many different flavors of reform, and if anything I think the danger is that there may be so many initiatives on the ballot in the upcoming elections that the public may be very confused (and bombarded by campaign messages from all sides) that chances of passing may be diminished. However, it’s important to keep an eye on all of this, and get involved in what you support, because clearly we need to do something to fix this state.

These Budget Issues Affect Real People

Probably the lowlight of yesterday’s Board meeting was our budget discussion. As I reported in early November, we continue to have a serious budget crisis due to the continued decrease in revenue from the State. And unfortunately the State appears to be in a new fiscal crisis and most people believe it will cut local school budgets even more. As it stands today, we have a $1.5 million hole to fill over the next two years to avoid deficit spending and remain above the legally required 3% financial reserve level.

The good news here is that Dr. Baker has been both creative and aggressive in addressing these problems. He is looking at additional funding sources, and in fact just secured a grant from the Sequoia Healthcare District for about $44K, and he had designs on a number of other grants. Of course the District will also do what it can to support the San Carlos Educational Foundation to maximize its fundraising this year.

However, fundraising alone will not solve the problem. As I have previously reported, this will be a difficult budget season this Spring as we will need to revisit cost reduction measures for next school year, including potential program cuts, class sizes, etc. Also, last night Dr. Baker proposed, and the Board reluctantly but unanimously approved, interim budget cuts this school year. Those cuts included the elimination of 5 positions at the District Office — including 4 layoffs and a resignation that will not be backfilled. Although we all recognized that this move was necessary (as they are cuts farther away from the classroom), we approved this with a heavy heart. I know all of these people personally, and they are all great folks in our community who have contributed so much of themselves for our district. It was one of the sadder moments in a Board meeting since I’ve joined.

We must remember that what the State is doing to us (and every other school district) is devastating, and one way or another, this affects real people and their lives. Although I have faith in our Governance Team’s leadership to do everything possible to minimize the impact to our students and to our staff, it’s unfortunately inevitable that the pain will continue for a while.

Dr. Baker – No Longer the “Interim”

In June I blogged about the hiring of our new Superintendent. At the time, because of the short time frame we had, we assumed we would hire an “interim superintendent” for a single year and then go out for a broader search for a permanent Superintendent. Well, we got lucky and found someone in Dr. Craig Baker who could have been that permanent Superintendent. I am extremely excited about everything that Dr. Baker has accomplished in the last five months, and it quickly became clear that he is the right person to continue to lead this District. That sentiment is universally shared among administrators, teachers, other employees, parent leaders, and other community members. He has quickly established himself as one of the best superintendents in the entire area.

Last night the Board agreed that it will forgo a new superintendent search and instead work with Dr. Baker to extend his contract. Despite the monumental issues that we face, he has done an incredible job and accomplished so much in such a short period of time. A natural leader, he is a thoughtful, out-of-the-box thinker. He is a great communicator, and he works as hard as anyone I’ve seen. It’s been a pleasure to work with him, and look forward to his making a giant difference in San Carlos for years to come.

Update on Boundary Changes

This week has been a big week with regard to the proposal to change boundaries in the San Carlos School District. Almost two weeks ago I posted information about the initial proposal that came out of the enrollment subcommittee.

Since that that time, we’ve had a community town hall meeting, multiple school site meetings, and a board meeting last night to discuss the specifics. In general, there continues to be broad support for these changes, including among board members, school administrators, and parents. However, a number of concerns were brought up by both current and future parents about some of the changes. Our Superintendent spent a ton of time this week meeting with folks to explain the problem we’re facing and the goals of a solution like this. Although there was a fair bit of misinformation floating out there, Dr. Baker has cleared most of that up and I believed addressed most of these concerns.

There were some good ideas that came out of these meetings, the most practical of them being that there may be a few streets in the current Arundel area to be moved that are most naturally associated with Arundel though their walkability, etc. Obviously a modified plan needs to ensure that the enrollment numbers work out, but the Superintendent is likely to propose some minor changes in that part of the plan. Also, the Board agreed to delay the final vote on the proposal until January 21st. By that time, we should have a new proposal with enough time for both the Board and the public to digest it.

This continues to be an essential action that we must take, and I’m excited it’s nearing its completion. If anything, I consider this to be a very conservative and gradual plan, as it doesn’t affect current students or their siblings, and still gives preferences to new students in affected areas to have first right to their “old” school. So, if anything we must think of this as a long-term plan with its full effect not happening for 5-7 years. And we also must expect that in the next few years, we will continue to have enrollment issues at some of the schools. But all in all, this is the right decision and puts us on the right track. Later this year and in th future we will continue to address other issues such as ways to increase capacity in general in our schools, middle school boundaries, and other enrollment-related items.

Boundary Changes are finally happening!

Today the Superintendent mailed to parents a letter describing the current proposal to move elementary school boundaries in the San Carlos School District. This plan was presented to the Board on November 3rd, and the Board was generally supportive of the changes, which have been a long time in the making. This proposal was also based on recommendations by a community-based enrollment and boundary sub-committee formed earlier this year, a demographic study completed last year, and significant public input and discussion over the last several years regarding the mismatch in capacity and service areas in our four K-4 elementary schools.

This attached note lists what streets would be affected, but the changes would be roughly as follows:

  • The area between Howard St. and Brittan Ave, between Cedar and El Camino would move from White Oaks to Brittan Acres
  • The east side (above Bransten Rd, which is where I believe everyone on the East Side lives) would move from Brittan Acres to Arundel
  • The canyon area west of Devonshire/Exeter/Madera would move from Arundel to Heather

Here is a link to the map.

Currently, there are between 52-64 students in each of those areas, so this shift would basically result in a net area increase to Heather and a net area decrease to White Oaks. However, we’re not actually shifting any kids. If we were to enact this change, it would only affect future students, not current students. If a student is in an existing elementary school, they have the right (by Charter School law) to stay in that school through 4th grade, So, in practice, this boundary change gets phased in over five years as only new students within these affected areas start going to their assigned schools.

There are three important meetings coming up that I encourage you to attend:

  • Community Town Hall – Monday, November 30th at 7:30pm (San Carlos Library, Room A, 2nd floor): The Superintendent and Principals will answer questions regarding the proposal
  • School Board Meeting – Thursday, December 3rd at 7:00pm (Central Middle School Library): The Board will discuss the proposed changes
  • School Board Meeting – Thursday, December 10th at 7:00pm (Central Middle School Library): The Board will likely act on the proposed changes

Note that part of the proposal which will be discussed and likely acted upon at the Board Meetings is the list of “preference items” for groups of students that may enroll in our schools. For example, the proposed policy will continue to give preference to students residing within a school’s “boundaries”, to siblings of current students, and to students generally who reside within the SCSD.

No one considers this boundary change the panacea for our enrollment issues. Besides the fact that it would take five years to take full effect, there are a number of other issues we need to tackle in the next year or two, including middle school boundaries and whether or not we can increase physical capacity at any of the schools.

On a related note, the administration has already begun its process of “pre-registration” for incoming Kindergarten students, and all reports point to the fact that it has been a much smoother process than in years past.

I encourage everyone to attend the Community Town Hall and the Board meetings if you can.

New Field for Arundel

In a special meeting today, the Board approved a project at Arundel School which has been long overdue — the installation of an 80′ x 150′ grass field and surrounding track on the school’s upper playground. This is an effort that the school and its PTA have been working on for years, as this was always an intended project from the Measure E Bond issuance a number of years ago. This will be a great addition to the school, and it will have no net budget impact as the funds will be paid from this bond issuance and not the general fund. The work starts next week and will go through the holidays.