VoSD - Plan in the works for Cuts without Closing Sites

VoSD link to articles regarding reducing the costs at SDUSD without closing sites:

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/public_safety/pavement/article_9b91661c-00e5-11e1-a1a7-001cc4c002e0.html


However, apparently recent actions have resulted in reducing SDUSD's bond rating.  This will make it more expensive for SDUSD to borrow money to make payroll.

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/public_safety/pavement/article_3574c4e6-00e0-11e1-96f0-001cc4c002e0.html


Moody's SDUSD Credit Rating

Array of Recent VoSD Articles and BoE Video Link

Below are links to several Voice of San Diego articles regarding School Closure and a link to the video of the BoE meeting last Tuesday.

The U-T ran a front page article on the BoE meeting.  However, little new to this blog was presented other than comments from a consultant, Ron Bennett.  The comments from Mr. Bennett were not detailed enough to identify a potential path towards or away from insolvency or state receivership.

Video of BoE Meeting



http://www.sandi.net/cms/lib/CA01001235/Centricity/Domain/431/reports/2011/1025/video2.html
8:30 CPJMA performance
106:20 Ron Little on X Factor
116:05 Transportation 5-year Plan
178:10 School Realignment/Closure

VoSD Links


CPJMA performance photos
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/credentialed/article_d201eb68-fffa-11e0-b3d4-001cc4c002e0.html

How Schools were targeted for closure:
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/public_safety/pavement/article_0f71c7e0-003a-11e1-98d5-001cc4c03286.html

Declining enrollment:
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/clipboard/article_68ee3a56-0008-11e1-aeaf-001cc4c03286.html

Board of Ed meeting recap:
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/public_safety/pavement/article_c1ecc21c-ff9a-11e0-b5bd-001cc4c002e0.html

"Unfinished questions"
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/clipboard/article_7461e0a4-003f-11e1-a5b3-001cc4c002e0.html

MB Principal's Impact Report

The document below was delivered to the Realignment Committee as feedback.

From: Devicariis Susan [mailto:sdevicariis@sandi.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 10:47 AM
To: Barnett Scott; Hilgers Frederick; Merino Mitzi; Stover Philip; Tavasci
Magdalena; Castillo-Duvall Elizabeth; Turner Sherry; Martel Julie; Brian
Cantanzaro; Amy Monroe; jennifer tandy
Subject: Mission Bay Cluster Principal Feedback Report

Hello All,

The cluster principals met on October 25th to discuss the potential school
closure.  The principals wanted to make sure that central office folks
understood that there would be some impacts that would need to be addressed.
We all understand the need to right size the district and we will do
everything in our power to assure our families in the cluster are supported.
If you have any questions regarding our information, please let Julie Martel
know as she is our cluster leader.  Thank you for your consideration.



Susan DeVicariis
School Principal
Kate Sessions Elementary School
2150 Beryl Street
San Diego, CA 92109
858-273-3111

Mission Bay Cluster Principal Impact Report

Questions posed to SDUSD - RE: School Closure

SDUSD is seeking a specific recommendation from the MB Cluster.  However, consensus in the MB Cluster has been difficult to achieve.  In part, this is because there is not a common understanding of the situation.

The following questions were posed to Phil Stover and Scott Barnett:

Phil/Scott,

Thank you for the encouragement.  As you may have understood from my presentation to you last week and my discussions with each of you personally, there are a number of issues the impede the achieving consensus and provided a recommendation.  The biggest issue I have in driving consensus is that a sizable portion of the parents, teachers, and staff do not believe the financial situation is a dire as portrayed.  In addition, most do not believe SDUSD will actually close PBMS.  Regardless of the objective information I have provided or the testimonials from the two of you, they are still in disbelief. 

This being said here are the barriers I perceive to consensus or recommendation.  Almost all are a direct question from individuals attending our meetings or captured in discussion.  These do not represent my personal questions.

Transportation

• Reports from the LJ Cluster are that a survey has been conducted regarding whether or not families will attend campuses if they are not offered free or subsidized transportation.  The verbal account received by our cluster is that there are very few families that will transport their students to campuses without SDUSD provided transporation.  We want the results of this survey and any plans for a survey for our student population.  Ideally we want a survey conducted of our students population.
• We want the transportation demographics across SDUSD.  Although Roy MacPhail did not have them Thursday, it seems like simple mathematics.  I expect SDUSD knows how many students ride an SDUSD bus from where to where.  Provide this a table and I will do the rest.  I have the rest of the information in a database.
• There has been reference to "four" transportation plans.  We need to have the documents describing each of these plans and any results of preference or BoE discussion as well as the relative costs (esp. from unrestricted funds).
• There appears to be a plan to phase out SDUSD transportation over time.  The duration and specifics need to be provided.  This affects our timeline and details regarding a recommendation.

Policy/Preference Barriers to Changing the Recommendation (e.g. External Factors)

• Magnet status seems to be a strong factor to SDUSD with regards to school realignment.  In other words, it does not seem acceptable to discontinue the Magnet program at either MBHS or CP.  Without funding, the Magnet program status seems inconsequential and possibly biased against resident students.  Is this negotiable?  What are the terms of negotiation?
• The Federal grant for MBHS expiring in 2013 seems tied to Magnet status.  Please clarify if this plays a role in SDUSD's recommendation and explain the consequences of:  6 - 12 IB Academy as well as any other configuration at MB Cluster including merger with LJ Cluster.
• Services for Special Education are a considerable cause for concern, especially for BVT parents.  It appears that they are not a factor in decision making at SDUSD.  It appears that SDUSD will either provide new facilities at other sites or enable students with Special Education needs to attend BVT regardless of the Magnet program.  Please clarify who makes this decision and the factors involved.
• Clarify the admissions policy regarding Magnet programs as it pertains to residents of the MB Cluster attending a Magnet campus in the MB Cluster.  Describe or deliver the policy document that describes the procedure of selection.  Explain why the CP program was limited in enrollment below the Program Capacity of the site, who made this decision, and why.
• Will the MB Cluster be able to dictate policies at the new 6 - 12 IB Academy such as:  dress code, preparation requirements for attendance, enrollment in minimum number of IB classes, retention of IB trained teachers in exception of Post-and-Bid, reduction in support of remedial or non-IB preparatory coursework due to limited staff size/enrollment?
• What barriers exist at SDUSD to merging MB and LJ Clusters?
• Staff (certificated and classfied) at MB Cluster sites have a conflict of interest in any configuration change (jobs lost/reassigned).  Clusters were encouraged to include staff in voting and membership in committee.  This has recently been called into question by members of the cluster.  Are there any barriers to limiting voting of our recommendations to parents and community members without including staff?

Financial Tradeoffs

• The first feedback you received was that MB Cluster does not want its sites closed at all.  Teachers and parents are asking MB Cluster Officers if they can just say "no" to school closure.  They want SDUSD and the BoE to find other ways to close the financial gap.  Apparently, recent protests at Dana MS appear to have persuaded changes in the recommendation without any rationale.  Is all we have to do is wear red shirts for a day and we won't have to have our sites closed?  What are the repercussions of not closing sites?
• More specifically, Roy MacPhail indicated that SDUSD does not operate at full capacity under the State law and SDEA contract.  There is room to increase student:teacher ratio at the primary grades.  Please quantify the total savings required to operate SDUSD.  Then quantify the budget cuts contemplated to put school closure into context.  Next, quantify the savings if all classrooms were at the maximum student:teacher ratio and communicate the number of corresponding teacher layoffs.  Finally, quantify the savings if all X Factor funding were eliminated in AY 2012/13.
• If the target number of sites were closed, this was described as a $5M savings.  Quantify how SDUSD would be different than the above case given this appears to only increase the number of teachers by:  $5M/$90k = 55 teachers across the entire SDUSD.
• If we close more sites than is requested, indicate how we would benefit.
• Provide a complete list of recommendations for all clusters so MB Cluster can see that other clusters are participating the shared sacrifice.
• Provide a projection of where the students that currently attend MBHS and PBMS will attend public school when transportation is discontinued for our campus.
• Provide a projection of how SDUSD will provide education for the > 6000 students from Hoover, Lincoln, Morse, and San Diego.  Will Prop. S funds be used to provide additional facilities?  How will this impact Prop. S funds for the MB Cluster - either existing plans for Prop. S or funds to provide construction for 6 - 12 IB Academy.
• Provide financial plan for remodeling the Education Center at Normal Street and the source of funds.

Site Disposal

• As indicated, only one person in the entire dozens of hours of debate and discussion has raised interest in selling sites that are closed.  Please document discussions regarding site sale or direct us towards minutes (BoE) or in committee regarding site sale.
• Estimate the real estate value of sites already sold and their location.
• Provide direction towards lease value of sites leased and lease potential for MB Cluster sites as well as the remaining SDUSD sites considered for closure.
• Direct us towards the policy or law that will be followed for decisions, options, review, and bidding process fro site disposal.

That is the short list.  Let me know if you need any clarification to any questions.

Brian

---

From: Barnett Scott <sbarnett@sandi.net>
To: Amy Monroe <amydmonroe@hotmail.com>
Cc: Stover Philip <pstover@sandi.net>; Merino Mitzi <mmerino@sandi.net>; Family Catanzaro <pbcatanzaro@pacbell.net>
Sent: Tue, October 25, 2011 11:49:17 AM
Subject: Re: Board of Education Meeting TONIGHT 5pm
Will be discussing busing tonight and it will likely impact closing.
Do you know what questions have been asked that have not been answered that are relevant to the specific closure issues in MB cluster?
I think it may make sense to have Phil's team meet with the MB closure sub committee and ensure the relevant unanswered questions are addressed so then the entire cluster board will be able to make a recommendation prior to November 29th
Thanks
Scott Barnett
Sent from my iPad

Documents on School Realignment (Closure) to be Presented Tonight at BoE

Below is the presentation intended to be delivered tonight. Follow this link for a comparison with the presentation delivered to the MB Cluster on 09-19-11: http://mbcluster2010.blogspot.com/2011/09/mtg-sep-19-2011-elections-school.html

REVISED 10-24-11 School Realignment Update Presentation, 10-25-11

Questions Answered by SDUSD about School Closure

A number of e-mail messages and phone conversations have resulted in some clarity regarding aspects of school closure.  These are captured below as paraphrased conversations or as email question/answer.

Short Questions and Answers (General):
Answer from Deputy Superintendent of Business Phil Stover

• "[Does] PBMS need to close to meet SDUSD goals? " Our task has been to make recommendations regarding the closing of ten schools.  PBMS campus is one of them.  Others are now suggesting that we consider closing 20-30 schools.
• Strategy to move CP and impact on staff moving to BVT I have found out that indeed, if we move the Crown Point program and keep its CDC code, the program together with its existing teachers will move in toto.  Teachers will not be placed in excess or have to participate in a post and bid situation.
• What is the plan for busing at SDUSD?  As an aside, I just reviewed the transportation recommendations for Tuesday night.  None of the four include maintaining transportation for MBHS beyond a few years.  Certainly a number of students will find their own way to school, but a significant number will leave.  The board could direct that MBHS transportation be maintained, but I have not heard that discussed by them.
• [Brian] Many of your questions are indeed in the purview of our Board.  I do believe that transportation will be further restricted.  We will know more on Oct 25.  This will indeed have a dramatic impact on MBHS and its continued viability.  The age and condition of PBMS was a driver, in addition to a desire to provide a long term viability for MBHS.  Crown Point wants to grow.  So BVT campus provides that opportunity.  Other schools have capacity to house the BVT students.  The special ed program there can stay.  That is about it.  Nothing nefarious.  No one did any analysis of the relative value of any sites, using that data for decision making.
• my thoughts about our upcoming meetings….it seems more and more, as the district financial situation worsens that schools will be closed.  Therefore I think the most helpful information for the committee will be alternatives to existing recommendations.  Pushback in and of itself is everyone’s right, but in the absence of alternative suggestions that save the district money, my sense is that the recommendations will need to go forward.  It appears more likely that transportation will be severely reduced which, in the absence of change will devastate schools such as MBHS.  Please encourage your folks to come prepared to offer alternatives or options in addition to pushback. 

 

Short Questions and Answers (Special Education):
Answer from Executive Director Susan Martinez

•  "...I would appreciate it if you could give me a specific plan as to how you plan to relocate the Special Needs kids from BVT to the other elementary schools?  For example, how many to each school?  What support will be necessary for each school to accomadate the new students..."  At the present time there are no plans to move the special education classes from BVT.  Mr. Stover’s question to me was regarding the kinds of supports and services provided students with IEPs at BVT.  My response was, generally speaking, that any of the services could be provided at another site if necessary.

Magnet:  Why is it so important to SDUSD?  How does this impact MB Cluster and Site Closure?
Conversation with Magnet Director Carolyn Goohs

• Magnet programs are hoped to raise academic achievement and close traditional achievement gaps by attracting students that have a common interest (e.g. music, IB) from all over the district to a single site.  This commonality is expected to increase student interest and parent participation.  Data to support this hypothesis should be available, but has yet to be analyzed for MB Cluster sites.
• Magnet campus provide preferential enrollment to create a campus that reflect the economic and ethnic diversity of SDUSD.  MB Cluster in uniquely positioned to participate.  Due to its ethnic diversity, economic diversity, and moderate academic test scores, students of the MB Cluster tend to be favored in the enrollment process at local Magnet schools even though those schools are not expected to be preferential to residents.
• Magnet is a nationally recognized term that enables SDUSD to apply for grants.  This has directly impacted MBHS in two consecutive grants.  The second grant a three year, ongoing grant and expires in 2013.  It is very unlikely that MBHS will receive another grant due to this recent success.
• The plan proposed by SDUSD is to move the CP program to BVT specifically to move and maintain the Magnet program.  The SDUSD goal is that, even without specific financial support, the music program will be implemented at the former BVT site and that this will help close the achievement gap among students with traditionally low academic performance.  It is perceived that eliminating the Magnet component of CP (either at CP or BVT) will negatively impact academic performance as well as the image of SDUSD.
• MBHS is a Magnet campus with an IB program emphasis.  Current enrollment indicates that the percentage of students of hispanic ethnicity is significantly higher than the SDUSD average.  As a consequence, the Magnet department has an interest in increasing the percentage of students of asian ethnicity at this campus.  However, it is unlikely that this could be achieved by using SDUSD provided transportation.
• Transfer of the IB program to Muirlands and/or LJHS is administratively possible.  However, the impact on the grant funding is uncertain.

MB Cluster Meeting - School Closure

Last night the MB Cluster Committee met for three hours to discuss school closure.  The purpose of the meeting was:

• Review the Proposal from SDUSD to close certain sites,
• Review the findings of the MB Cluster Task Force the volunteered to investigate the issues,
• Review options for school closure considered by the MB Cluster Committee Task Force,
• Poll the MB Cluster Committee Members regarding their opinion on various options.

Polling


Polls regarding opinions (In Favor / Opposed) to various options were conducted.  The polls were taken from the Cluster Committee Members.  Committee Membership was apportioned according to the number of pupils at each site.  Eligibility includes:  parents of students, staff at sites, and community members residing in the attendance zone.  Ultimately, the principal of each site dictated how Committee Members were selected, be it by appointment or vote.

The concept of the Committee Member was to provide representation of the interests of the community, students and staff of the site.  In some cases Committee Members were established weeks prior.  In other cases they were assigned last night.

A straw poll was taken at the start of the meeting for various options.   The poll was designed to provoke consideration of the options as we reviewed the issues.  A final poll was taken at the conclusion of the meeting.  The final poll was not significantly different than the straw poll.

Recommendation

The MB Cluster Committee did not provide a recommendation to SDUSD.  Given the short amount of time, complexity of the issues, and challenge in achieving consensus a single recommendation was not produced.  Instead, the opinion regarding each of several options was considered individually as "In Favor" or "Opposed".

The opinion regarding each option may change dramatically under a number of conditions:

• Further consideration of the details of each option,
• Change in financial condition of the SDUSD,
• Impact of reduced busing on student enrollment,
• Further discussion within each site's community

Material Reviewed


Below is the material reviewed by the MB Cluster Committee.  The results of the polling are inside the document.


111019 Cluster Meeting (w Poll)

VOSD - What Happens if City Schools Go Insolvent

Recent article from the Voice of San Diego

Source:  http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/data-drive/article_990feeb0-f6cf-11e0-abf7-001cc4c002e0.html

by Keegan Kyle

Last week, top officials said the San Diego Unified School District is on the brink of financial collapse and may require a state takeover to remain afloat.
So what does that mean?
A takeover would push the state to loan the district millions of dollars to pay for its bills. Declaring insolvency would spur radical changes in the district's operations.
In exchange for the loan, the law requires local officials to hand over control of the district to the state. Ironically, it would either fire or relegate the top two officials that are sounding the district alarm, Superintendent Bill Kowba and board President Richard Barrera.
Here's how the beginning steps would unfold:
• The superintendent would be immediately fired and replaced by a state appointed administrator.
• The school board would lose all powers and become an advisory panel.
• The state administrator would essentially become the district's new leader and have the power to unilaterally make decisions, such as which property to sell, what academic programs to cut, which schools to shutter and who to lay off. After labor contracts expire, the administrator could impose district-wide cuts to pay and benefits.
No longer beholden to an electorate, the administrator could make politically unpopular decisions in the community that can be difficult for a board to make under pressure from parents and teachers. The school board, employees and residents could still offer their input on major decisions, but the administrator could ignore them.
After a few years, if the district appears to be on the right track, the state could return some control of the district to local officials. The district could hire a superintendent and the school board could get some its old powers back.
But until the loan is repaid with interest, the state would remain a fixture in the district's affairs. Though the superintendent and school board could make financial decisions, a state administrator or trustee could veto them.
The length of a state takeover depends on the size of the loan and the district's repayment schedule. The state issued a $100 million loan to the Oakland Unified School District in 2003, for example, and it's expected to be repaid in 15 years from now. (Randy Ward, the San Diego County Office of Education's superintendent, previously served as the state-appointed overseer for Oakland.)
The road to insolvency also isn't a quick one. If San Diego Unified or County Office of Education officials deem the district insolvent, its financial books would likely undergo months of review before the state writes a check. A state legislator would have to propose a loan and have it be signed off by the Legislature and the governor.
So what's next?
The dire warnings issued last week by district leaders marked a significant escalation in its battle with the state.
District officials are closely watching the state to figure out whether it will cut an estimated $30 million from the district's budget this year. The cuts are tied to economic indicators. If the economy improves and the state collects more taxes, it won't make the cuts. If the indicators fall below state goals, as they have been recently, the cuts will happen.
The district finds itself in this situation as a result of the state's financial condition and a series of self-inflicted wounds that compounded the state's woes, our investigation last month found.
Check out our reader's guide for a quick three-step wrap up of the district's money mess.
Keegan Kyle is a news reporter for voiceofsandiego.org. He writes about public safety and handles the Fact Check Blog. What should he write about next?
Please contact him directly at keegan.kyle@voiceofsandiego.org or 619.550.5668. You can also find him on Twitter (@keegankyle) and Facebook.

Letter from MB Cluster Chair to Community

Last night we engaged in a second meeting of our MB Cluster Task Force investigating the SDUSD proposal to close two of our campuses:  CP and PBMS.  We used this time to study many of the criteria evaluated by SDUSD that supported their recommendation for school closure.  Some members of the meeting and the community have wondered why I do not lead with more optimism.  Some have wondered why I seem to acquiesce to the proposal from SDUSD.

First, let me express that I have a long term view at SDUSD.  Aside from my long term residence in the community, I have four children from preschool age to seventh grade.  I am looking at a personal engagement in public education for another fourteen years with four children.  Second, I have seen the budget decline for the last half of a decade.  In the private sector and in the national economy, I do not see an economic turn-around that will happen soon and as such I only see the situation worsening.  If we deal with the situation at SDUSD one year at a time, I believe we will head towards a situation of declining resources crippling public education.  I believe we need to revolutionize how public education is delivered in our community.  We created this system, we need to change this system.  We cannot turn back the clock to when we were children, we need to move forward from where we are today in the conditions we have today with a different public education environment than we have today.

To be specific about school closure, in order for my to fight for these campuses, I require two things:

1.  I need to feel that it is morally the right thing to do.
2.  I need to feel that I have a winning strategy.

Morality

Morally, I am not clear that closing these campuses is wrong.  This relies primarily on the financial situation at SDUSD.  If we had lots of money, clearly there is no incentive to close the campuses.  The reason to close the campuses is that this part of SDUSD is "robbing" another part of SDUSD by keeping our campuses open. 

Take the administrative costs for example.  If it takes $300k to keep an elementary school open and it serves 300 students, then this is akin to adding $1000/student to the contribution you are making to that student's education.  The average size of an elementary school in SDUSD is 500 students.  The standard deviation is 180 students, putting approximately 70% of the elementary schools between 320 - 680 students.  It is pretty clear that BVT and CP are small.  They are smaller than the overwhelming majority of the elementary schools.  Given the administrative burden at all these campuses is not enormously different, one viewpoint is that our students are being subsidized or receiving a significant benefit that an overwhelming number of students in the district are not.  Who do you think at SDUSD would argue that they like having a large elementary school?  Probably none.  There are many that would be justifiable jealous of the few students at our campuses.  In light of the financial situation, morally this does not seem defensible.

One argument made to keep these campuses open is that they serve a community that would need to travel much farther to receive a public education.  This does not seem morally defensible either.  There are over 21,000 elementary school children that live in neighborhoods that do not have enough space for their residents.  No doubt all of these children need to travel as far as our children would to go to a new school if CP or BVT were closed.  Therefore this does not seem like a morally defensible argument.

Strategy

Regardless of the moral issues, there is strategy to consider.  From my viewpoint here are several layers of strategy in order of more powerful to least powerful:

A.  Use the criteria we are given and show that it was not assessed correctly.
B.  Use the criteria and show that the recommendation was wrong.
C.  Show that it is morally reprehensible to close the schools.
D.  Show that the politicians will get thrown out of office if they close the school.
E.  Create an emotional outcry that creates an emotional response in the BoE.
F.  The financial situation is not as dire as portrayed by SDUSD and there are other strategies that keep campuses open and enable SDUSD to keep operating.

A.  So far, we have shown that the criteria seems to be assessed accurately.  This argument is nearly dead.

B.  It is true that the criteria does not seem to be applied correctly.  This appears our most powerful argument.  We do not agree that the weight of each of the criteria is correct nor do we agree that some of the criteria are meaningful.  This is a relatively strong argument because it is based on our community's input and there is no good rationale for how the criteria were combined.

C.  I have yet to hear a good moral argument to keep our schools open in the face of the financial situation.  Every school in every neighborhood believes that they have good programs that will be destroyed if they are moved to another campus.  The BoE cannot easily choose between moving one program based upon a clear moral mandate.  I cannot either.  If we are to make this type of argument, we need to make it clearly in a way that demonstrates that compared to other campuses, it would be a moral crisis to close ours and morally acceptable to close others.  This is tough considering we are not well equipped to pass moral judgment on a school other than our own campuses.

D.  It is unlikely we can create a voter revolt.  I would love to succeed for other reasons, but I am not optimistic.  The only strategy that seems convincing is a voter revolt that threatens to recall the existing BoE in the next few months, not to wait until Nov 2012.  It seems likely that the BoE will act prior to Nov 2012.  However, it seems unlikely that we can catalyze the voters in city of San Diego to recall the BoE if we do not get our way.

E.  An emotional outcry is the most effective strategy.  It is the most often used in this district, from Title 1 to Special Education, to VAPA have used demonstrations at the BoE meetings to advance their agenda.  I am the wrong person to lead this emotional outcry.  The BoE has responded strongly to community speakers, the number of people that attend a BoE meeting, and how passionately they speak.  I will speak passionately about how the BoE is choosing a teacher contract over our schools.  I will speak passionately about how our community feels the BoE is just going to sell our school property to the private sector and how that will destroy our community.  I do not think either of those arguments will convince them to leave CP, BVT, or PBMS open.  To create an emotional outcry, we need an emotional leader for this effort and that needs to be somebody other than me.

F.  There are many that think that the financial situation is much better than what SDUSD and the BoE portray.  I am not one of them.  I have seen nothing credible from SDUSD that indicates that we are doing fine and do not need to close campuses.  In general, I will believe the administration on this issue unless I see another group that has analyzed the situation and has come up with another conclusion or I see that their assessment does not match my observations at the classroom level. 

The simple "sniff test" is to add up the costs to teach a classroom and SDUSD does not pass this test.  A teacher salary tops somewhere around $70k.  Assuming 30 students per classroom, this means $2.3k/student.  The total gross outlay to salaries (without benefits and pension) for 135,000 students in SDUSD is only $315 M.  Our SDUSD budget is $1800M (see pp 36-37 of The Budget Book for SDUSD on http://mbcluster2010.blogspot.com/2011/10/sdusd-budget-book-20112012.html ).  This seems like a very high overhead to pay.  As you likely know, overhead rates (GA + OH) in the private sector for large companies create a salary multiplier of 2X-3X.  The numbers at SDUSD indicate 5.7X.  This seems to indicate that it costs a lot more to deliver education to students than just the teachers' salary from benefits to additional people.  Why does it take so much more money than the actual teacher?  I do not fully understand the answer to this question.  However, benefits are over 25% of the entire budget of SDUSD.  Is this mostly pension?  Classified salaries (non teachers) are over 15% of the budget, while Certificated salaries (whether in the classroom or not?) are over 45% of the budget.

There is something huge about the overall budget that I do not understand.  I am willing to speak passionately on this issue.  I just think that making this argument to the BoE will not result in saving our schools.  They feel that they have already reviewed the budget thoroughly.

The root cause of our problems is that the obligations (contracts and legal requirements) for SDUSD have outpaced the revenue that taxpayers are willing to pay (e.g. Prop 13 and property tax surcharge).  The infrastructure we have created, that 5.7X multiplier on top of what every teacher takes home in a paycheck, creates an enormous burden.  The reason I am so passionate about breaking up the district is because we need a smaller community to deal with these problems.  Clearly we can't deal with them on the state level (e.g. Prop 13 is popular and the lottery was supposed to provide us money and does not).  We do not seem headed towards success as the second largest district in the State of California.  Potentially a smaller district will be able to change its obligations (renegotiate the contract), reduce the overhead (fewer layers of administration), and be able to assess local taxes to pay for education (like Mello-Roos?).

Where do we go from here?  I think the only strategy for convincing the BoE is (B).  We need to go to our meeting with SDUSD and tell them that their criteria make no sense and that under other criteria, different schools should close.  I am not particularly optimistic because I expect every other cluster to fight just as hard to keep their sites open.

I am willing to tell them about (F) as well and express that I am sorely disappointed in how much more it takes to run the district outside of really paying teacher take-home pay, but I doubt it will be effective.

Brian Catanzaro
MB Cluster Chair

Note from Scott Barnett Regarding School Closure

Hello Mission Bay Cluster families and staff:

I have received many emails regarding the proposals for school closing and realignment.

The details can be reviewed on www.sandi.net.

with the specific presentation at:

http://www.sandi.net/site/default.aspx?PageType=3&ModuleInstanceID=38029&ViewID=047E6BE3-6D87-4130-8424-D8E4E9ED6C2A&RenderLoc=0&FlexDataID=33346&PageID=27703

But the basic proposal for Mission Bay Cluster is:

-Close Crown Point School Site. Move Crown Point Music Academy program to Bayview Terrace site. This would occur by September 2012.

-Close PB Middle School Site. Co-locate PB Middle School programs on Mission Bay High site, creating a 6-12 IB academy, with appropriate separation of Middle and High School students. This would occur over several years and would require site design and construction changes, which would be paid for by Prop S Bond funds.


First a little background:

Financial Realities

As we face ever worsening finances with the guarantee of unavoidable budget cuts next year, my primary goal is for the district to avoid insolvency. Since joining the board in December 2010, I have been like a broken record in trying to warn my colleagues about the threats to our survival, but have had only limited success. I have inherited labor contracts which significantly increase costs to our district and state budget which reduced funding by over $100 million this year and which may cut $30 million more in revenues in January 2013.

Depending a on a number of factors mostly outside of our school board's control, our budget short-fall next year (12/13) will be from $60 million to over $100 million. I must honestly state, that I believe there is a real possibility of our district going into financial receivership within the next year, resulting in a State-appointed superintendent taking over. Our Board will receive a briefing on the current financial forecast and impacts Tuesday.


School Closure/Consolidations One Piece of the Puzzle

In order to address our financial challenges, school closures and consolidation must be discussed as part of both the short term budget solutions and the long-term viability of SDUSD. But it is just one piece of the puzzle. Additional reductions in transportation, review of how we deliver custodial, landscaping, administration and food services, and finding ways to generate more revenues are also key parts of the puzzle.

As you know there have been significant cut backs in transportation funding the last several years. This will likely continue the next several years as well, with the possible result of reducing the number of out of Cluster students attending MB/PB schools.

The Process

We must let the (rather short) process play itself out. This means allowing parents, the community, school teachers and employees review the staff recommendations, and seek creative responses and alternatives which we can present to my Board colleagues.


A Parent's View

Lastly, as a parent of two girls who are in high school and have attended SDUSD schools since Kindergarten, I know one of the most important decisions we make as parents is choosing where to send our kids to school. I completely understand the apprehension and anger over even the discussion of closing a school. But as an elected Board Trustee, I have responsibility for the education of 120,000 students, and the financial viability of SDUSD. My ultimate decision will be one which I think is in the best interest of the District as a whole, while doing everything I can to protect what currently "works" schools in neighborhood schools in Mission Bay Cluster.


Please participate in your Cluster's review of the school closure and consolidation proposals. Lets find creative responses I can present to my school board colleagues. Feel free to contact me with further input and suggestions.


Thank you

Scott Barnett,
SDUSD Board Trustee

Scottbarnettsdusd@gmail.com
Sbarnett@sandi.net

The SDUSD Budget Book - 2011/2012

Below is a resource used by SDUSD to communicate the financial status, academic performance, and demographics of SDUSD.

Budget Book SDUSD 2011

More Budget Cuts...To Be Presented at BoE Tonight

This was posted on SDUSD BoE website as a presentation from the Superintendent to the BoE regarding the status of the financial situation at SDUSD.

Budget Realities Presentation, 10-11-11

Why Send You Children to Public School?

I received an e-mail last year that expressed that public education is a failure and that private education is superior. That assessment is neither economically true (cost of public school is much cheaper) nor supported by academic research (test scores of similar populations of students with similar socio-economic background).

This article came across my desk. It offers one opinion regarding public education.

Why I Send My Children to Public Schools

Robert Niles
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-niles/public-schools_b_1002466.html
Posted: 10/9/11 03:15 PM ET

My two children, ages 14 and 11, attend their local public schools, and have since kindergarten. Why do I send my children to public schools?

1. Public schools work.
Every year, millions of American children graduate from public schools across the country, having completed the toughest curricula in our nation's history, surpassing standards that get tougher by the year. In our public schools, students can learn calculus, analyze complex themes by Nobel Prize-winning authors, study advanced chemistry, biology and physics, program computers, and perform music and dance in international competitions in front of crowds of thousands. Every year, public school students learn, graduate and go on to the world's best colleges and the world's most competitive jobs.
But what about all those news stories about bad test scores and failing schools? Aren't many kids falling behind?
It's true that we've got a huge gap between students in our country -- one that grows with each grade level as kids advance from kindergarten into high school. But that's not because we have an education problem in America. It's because we have a large, and growing, child poverty problem in our country.
The children whose parents can afford to send them to school with money for lunch, and who have the ability to help them with their increasingly difficult homework at night, typically thrive in the public schools, as they always have. But those aren't the majority of kids anymore in many districts.
If public education were broken, and our schools no longer had the ability to teach, then why is it you never find any of these "broken" schools in affluent communities? I wrote about this issue last spring, when I showed how the schools in my hometown of Pasadena, California were out-performing the California average in all major demographic categories -- white, black and Latino, poor and non-poor -- but the district's overall test score average was below the state average because the Pasadena schools have a far above-average percentage of economically-disadvantaged children attending them.
When we raise academic standards and increase homework requirements, we widen the gap between students whose parents studied algebra, geometry and calculus -- and can help them with that homework -- and those who don't have parents like that, or any parent at home, to help them.
Yet even students facing immense home challenges -- single parents, foster care, parents working multiple jobs who are rarely home, parents who can't speak English or who didn't complete school themselves -- are still learning and advancing in our public schools, even if they continue to trail those students who have the advantage of living with educated parents who earn a living wage, or better. Test scores in all socio-economic categories continue to rise in our country. Our public school teachers are doing their jobs. Our schools just need more teachers, and more resources to help close the gap between those children whose birth gave them a head start -- like my kids -- and those whose birth didn't.
2. Private schools aren't inherently better.
A University of Illinois study, published in the American Journal of Education, found that public school students scored just as well in math as students attending private schools, when you compared students of similar ethnic and economic backgrounds. The study followed earlier research that showed public school students scored slightly better (though within the margin of error) than private school students in the same income and ethnic demographic.
One of the ways that many private schools portray themselves as superior options to public schools is by cherry-picking the students they admit. It's easy to show off students with high test scores and impressive academic achievements when you admit only the students who are inclined -- through family support and personal initiative -- to score and perform well.
What the University of Illinois research did is to make an apples-to-apples comparison which showed that similar students do just as well or better in a public school environment than in private schools.
I don't want to talk anyone out of attending a private school, if that's your choice and you can afford it. But I do want to talk you out of believing that you have to choose a private school, if you want the best for your children's education. Your child can get an excellent education in the public schools, just as millions of other are getting. The data proves it!
3. Public school students score better than charter school students.
Many politicians, including education officials in the Obama administration, are pushing charter schools as a superior alternative to traditional public schools, which are accountable to the local community through elected school boards. Charter schools don't have to follow the same rules as public schools, and the idea is that greater freedom flexibility allows them to succeed.
Except that they don't. A Stanford University study found that students at charter schools were more likely to score worse than public schools students than they were to outperform those students -- 37% percent of charter schools did worse than comparable public schools, while only 17% did better. The rest, 46%, scored the same.
So, if you are a parent who picks a charter school over a public school, you're more likely to end up worse off than going to your local public school than you are to end up in a better-performing school.
4. Public schools are for everyone.
Public schools have to serve every child in a community. They don't get to cherry-pick only the brightest or wealthiest students. And that's a large part of their appeal to me. Attend a public school, and you're getting to know people from every corner of your community, not just people of the same religion or social class. In public school, you're part of the, well, public.
Public education offers every child in the community a chance at an education. While too many children remain limited in their ability to take full advantage of that opportunity due to circumstances at home, it's important to me -- and ought to be important to you -- that those opportunities remain available to all. Education ought to be about lifting up, not weeding out. Without a free, public education system open to all, those who are born without money and power never will have a chance to make their lives better by developing new knowledge and skills.
5. Public schools are under attack.
So public schools work, they teach as well or better than private schools, and better than charters. They're open to all and helping children from all races, ethnicities and economic classes. So why are so many stories and people so negative about public schools?
Here's my theory: Public schools are run by the government. They're the place where more people have more contact with government employees on a daily basis than any other public institution. Public school teachers are almost always members of labor unions, too.
So if you believe that government can't do anything right, or if you believe that people are better off without labor unions representing them, a successful public school system doesn't help you make your case, does it?
If you're a business leader and want to distract people from the fact that more Americans are slipping out of the middle class even as you and your colleagues are getting richer than ever, how convenient would it be to fund foundations and contribute to politicians who will blame poor test scores in the hardest-hit communities on failing schools, instead of the growing child poverty problem that's causing them?
Don't fall for their stories. The facts show that public education works. Teachers are doing their jobs, even as society makes it harder and harder for them. We should be rewarding our public school teachers with the extra help, recognition and, yes, pay they deserve.
Here's how you can help: Thank a teacher instead of trashing them. Offer to volunteer or contribute to a local school. If your school district is asking for a bond issue or parcel tax, vote yes. They need the money.
Don't sign petitions asking to transfer control of local schools from school boards elected by parents to private companies accountable to no one in the community. If you choose to send your children to private schools or to homeschool, that's fine, but please don't tell other people that their children can't get a good education in the public schools.
I'm sending my children to public schools because I don't believe in the people who are attacking our public schools. Sending my children to public schools is the ultimate sign of support, and helps keep me more deeply involved in a precious public resource that needs, and deserves, our support.
Public schools work -- for my children and the children of our community. That's why I send my children to public schools, and I encourage other parents to do the same.
Robert Niles also can be found at http://www.themeparkinsider.com
This post first appeared on SensibleTalk.com.

Is API the Best Indicator of Your School's Performance?

The API is published in a variety of places and is commonly used by the public to assess the performance of a school.  However, API is not an "intelligence" test for the school.  It is a complex figure of merit used to evaluate the overall performance of the school.  It is not an average score of the students at the school.  Read below some information about API from the State of California and how one person views the performance of the Pasadena Unified School District in light of apparently non-intuitive API scores.

What is API? (from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/documents/infoguide11.pdf )

The key features of the API include the following:
• The API is based on an improvement model. The API from one year is compared to the API from the prior year to measure improvement. Each school has an annual target, and all numerically significant subgroups at a school also have targets.
• The API requires subgroup accountability to address the achievement gaps that exist between traditionally higher- and lower-scoring student subgroups.
• The API is a cross-sectional look at student achievement. It does not track individual student progress across years but rather compares snapshots of school or LEA level achievement results from one year to the next.
• The API is used to rank schools. A school is compared to other schools statewide and to 100 other schools that have similar opportunities and challenges.
• The API is currently a school-based requirement only under state law. However, API reports are provided for LEAs in order to meet federal requirements under ESEA.

See the bottom of this post for a more complete description.

A closer look reveals the truth about PUSD school test scores
Robert Niles
By Robert Niles
Published: March 6, 2011 at 8:06 PM (MST)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-niles/public-schools_b_1002466.html

[This post has been edited to add information from the comments.] I'm sure you've heard the ongoing complains that the Pasadena Unified School District is "troubled" or "underperforming." Despite the fact that PUSD's state test scores have risen for the past several years, and are rising faster than the state average, critics point out that PUSD's average California API score, 758, still lags the state average of 767.

Let's take a look at what's really happening in the PUSD. Here are the district's latest average state test scores, broken down by racial, ethnic and economic group:

2010 API Growth Report
Student Category PUSD Average State Average
White 875 838
Hispanic or Latino 736 715
African American 712 685
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged* 724 712

(*These are students on the federal free or reduced-price school lunch program)

That's right, PUSD students outscore the state average in each of these racial, ethnic and economic groups. So how is it that PUSD's average is lower than the state average?

It's because the mix of white, Latino, black and poor students in PUSD isn't the same as for the rest of the state. PUSD is disproportionally Latino, black and poor compared with school districts across the state, and those students on average score significantly below the state average. (I'll get to some of the reasons for that in a moment.) More than 70 percent of PUSD students are on the federal free or reduced-price lunch program, compared with 10 percent in South Pasadena, 2.5 percent in San Marino and just one percent in La Canada. (According to state API demographic reports, San Marino and La Canada each have fewer total students in the free and reduced-priced lunch program than Pasadena's percentage of students in the program.)

Allow me to illustrate Pasadena's child poverty problem in another way. According the demographic data from the California 2010 Growth API reports, for students in grades 2-12:

La Canada has 3,042 non-poor (i.e. not in the free lunch program) students in its district.

San Marino has 2,445 non-poor students in its district.

South Pasadena has 2,885 non-poor students in its district.

Pasadena Unified has 3,631 non-poor students in its district.

These districts seems pretty similar, huh? Well, there is a difference:

La Canada has 35 economically disadvantaged students along with its 3,042 non-poor students.

San Marino has 64 economically disadvantaged students along with its 2,445 non-poor students.

South Pasadena has 327 economically disadvantaged students along with its 2,885 non-poor students.

PUSD has 10,013 economically disadvantaged students along with its 3,631 non-poor students.

So even though PUSD's economically disadvantaged students are, on average, outperforming their fellow students across the state, the higher percentage of those students in PUSD means that district's average remains slightly below the state average.

The truth is that PUSD is doing a better job than most districts in the state in closing the achievement gap. (And its white and non-poor students continue to score far above state averages, as well.)

Should our Latino, black and poor students be scoring higher than they are? Absolutely. But PUSD deserves credit for bringing these students' test scores above their corresponding state averages. Unfortunately, classroom efforts only can go so far.

In study after study across the country, researchers have found that test scores correlate strongly with parent income and education level. It makes sense. What happens to kids whose parents aren't home after school because they are working two jobs to earn enough money to pay the rent? What happens to kids whose parents didn't take biology, algebra or history because they were denied education themselves, and therefore can't help their children with their homework? What happens to kids whose parents can't afford to send them to school with a good breakfast or even a full night's sleep in their own, warm bed?

They suffer academically, despite the best efforts of teachers between 8am and 3pm, 180-some days a year. A school - and its community - must make an extra effort to help provide these children the academic, social and nutritional support that they aren't getting at home in order to raise their performance at school. And that extra support costs money.

Our neighboring districts have parcel taxes that help them provide extra money to support classroom instruction and student assistance. Despite winning 54 percent of the vote last year, Pasadena couldn't muster the 67 percent we need in the state of California to pass one for PUSD. So our teachers make due with less money per student than neighboring districts, once you factor out the money PUSD gets from the federal government for all those free and reduced-price lunches. (That money cannot be redirected for classroom use - heck, it barely pays for edible meals.)

This isn't a failing district. It's a district that's being failed by its community, which isn't paying living wages to nearly enough of its families. It's being failed by a community that refuses to tax itself to help pay for the extra support that its poor children need. (Remember that in California, Pasadena's property taxes don't go to PUSD. They're divvied up and spent on districts around the state.) And PUSD is being failed by a community where too many voters embrace a false narrative of school district failure when in fact PUSD is exceeding state performance averages in category after category.

PUSD is succeeding. We don't need to overhaul the district yet again. But we need to change the attitudes of more people in the Pasadena community, to gather more support for finding new ways to provide PUSD's at-risk students the support that they need, and deserve. That's how we will build upon our existing success and finally close this achievement gap. And that's how we'll make PUSD a national model school district in which all students - regardless of family background - excel to their full potential.

Robert Niles also can be found at http://www.themeparkinsider.com


Downloaded from the Dept. of Education for the State of California (http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ap/documents/infoguide11.pdf )

API Info Guide 11

Mtg: Sep 29 - Task Force to study SDUSD Closure Proposal

We met as a group of 20 - 30 people to discuss the proposed closure of Crown Point Elementary and PBMS.

The meeting was dominated by individuals expressing their opinions regarding which sites to close and in what combinations.  There was some limited discussion regarding the use of the sites after they were no longer used for public education.

Among the combinations discussed were:

• Close Crown Point and move the program to Bayview Terrace,
• Close Bayview Terrace and move the program to Crown Point,
• Close PBMS and create a Grade 6 - 12 IB program at MBHS,
• Merge the MBHS Cluster with nearby Clusters (e.g. LJ, Clairemont, or Pt. Loma),
• Separate several clusters from SDUSD to create a smaller district with the purpose of better local control over the sites that are closed as well as their use after they are closed.

Below is the presentation prepared for the meeting.  Few charts were reviewed due to lengthy discussion.

110929 Task Force

Below is a spreadsheet supplied by P. Stover from SDUSD regarding evaluation of sites for closure.

2010-11 Data With Rankings by IFPD w HS 092911

Official Minutes are listed below:

Minutes 092911

How Can SDUSD Improve Like Borrego Springs Unified School District?

Below is a Union Tribune article (Oct 3, 2011) describing the turn-around at BSUSD.  BSUSD is challenged

"The district faces demographic and geographic challenges that most districts can’t even imagine. It’s three schools cover a vast area of the northeast part of the county. Seventy five percent of the students are Latinos who speak English as a second language, and 80 percent qualify for free or reduced-price lunches"

What is the cause?

• Smaller district?
• Parental involvement?
• School uniforms?
• Code of conduct of students?

BORREGO SPRINGS — A year ago the county’s youngest and only Latina superintendent took control of the Borrego Springs Unified School District, a small and once proud educational system that had fallen upon hard times in the past decade.

Carmen Garcia was born in Mexico, the ninth of 10 children and the daughter of a farmworker with little formal education. She moved with her family from a small town near Guadalajara to Escondido in the 1980s and learned to speak English in the fourth grade. She came to Borrego from San Diego where she had been principal of a Roosevelt Middle School and the youngest principal in that district. Test scores rose 56 points there in her three years.

Test scores were among the worst in the county when Carmen Garcia, now 34, arrived. And so far, she’s made a difference.

“The year that she’s been here our test scores have gone up which is a really positive thing for us because we’ve been really struggling for a while,” said Patty Torres, a member of the school board.
Recent test scores show a dramatic improvement across the board although the district still has a long way to go. More importantly Borregans say, Garcia has instilled new attitude in students, parents and teachers.

“In her first year here she really has accomplished a great deal,” said Abby King, an alumni of Borrego Springs High School who is a parent of a seventh grader and a recent graduate.
“I think she is very determined and very focused. She has a plan and she has really stuck to coming back to the plan and that vision again and again.”

The district faces demographic and geographic challenges that most districts can’t even imagine. It’s three schools cover a vast area of the northeast part of the county. Seventy five percent of the students are Latinos who speak English as a second language, and 80 percent qualify for free or reduced-price lunches.

But there are only 500 kids in the system, which Garcia says enables the district to create individual learning plans for each. “We can track each students progress,” she said.

Garcia has instituted tougher disciplinary rules. Clothing is regulated — no more spaghetti-strap tops for girls or low-hanging pants for the boys, for example — and she would love to find a private donor who might consider buying uniforms for the kids. Cellphone use is forbidden, and fighting results in serious consequences.

“Previous administrations had become very relaxed as far as conduct and dress codes and cell phones and all of those things that distract from the academic day,” King said. Garcia has “tightened that up” significantly, she said.

“We hired her because we wanted change because something had to change,” said school board President Harry Jones. “We were a non-performing school (district) for so many years.
“Sometimes change is difficult but she is moving ahead and making improvements.”

He said Garcia has formed relationships with several universities. Cal State San Marcos, for example, has agreed to enroll all Borrego students who meet its requirements upon high school graduation.
During the first few months of her tenure, Garcia tried to meet with as many people in the community as possible. “I called it my listening, reading and learning tour,” she said.

She analyzed data and turned the information into four main goals: to pursue educational excellence for all students; to strengthen parent involvement; to solicit community, business and university partners; and to purse additional funds for the district and its schools.

Garcia signed a two-year contract for $120,000 annually and Borrego residents hope she stays longer. Garcia said she thinks it takes three to five years to fully effect change and that she will stay in her post for as long as it takes.

She puts in long hours. She moved to Borrego Springs in the summer 2010 but moved to Escondido after giving birth to a daughter in December.

It’s a 70-minute commute each way.

“It gives me a lot of thinking time and a lot of planning time,” she said. Sometimes she’ll listen to KPBS on the drive but the signal fades as she nears the desert.

API test scores rose districtwide this past year by 26 points bringing them up to 730 — still a ways from the 800 that the state wants for all schools, but a significant improvement Garcia believes will continue.

Parental involvement has been key, she says.

Torres said many parents of Latino students are responding to Garcia and becoming more active in their children’s education.

“They are more willing to talk with the administration knowing that somebody who speaks their language is in charge. There is no need for translation,” Torres said.

King said given the demographic makeup of the district the fact that Garcia speaks Spanish helps bring communication “to a whole new level.

“But beyond that she’s been able to clearly express what her desires are, what her plans to achieve them are in both languages,” King said. “I think people have embraced that and really want to see this district be the best it can be.”