Someone wanted outrage last week. Well, there is plenty of outrage to go around, especially with two reports showing the utter devastation that budget cuts and our economic downturn have caused to our educational system, both K-12 and the UC system.
At a local level, we have had some cutbacks to K-12, but Davis has mainly come out of this all right, presuming that the voters pass Measure A in May. However, statewide the news is pretty grim.
UC is facing another $500 million in cuts, and that could result in any number of things, from higher tuition to fewer classes to fewer students at the UC level.
Meantime a new California Department of Education report indicates that the number of school districts, K-12, in danger of insolvency has been growing sharply.
The worst part of the report is that the list of schools does not take into account the new round of budget cuts that loom in state school funding should the Governor’s tax extensions not pass.
The Governor had hoped to avoid further K-12 cuts, which have totaled tens of billions in the past three years, but reality will hit home if the taxes are not extended.
“The emergency confronting California’s schools is widening and deepening,” state schools’ Superintendent Tom Torlakson said. “As disturbing as these numbers are, unless the Legislature moves to place the governor’s tax extension plan on the ballot, they are just the tip of the financial iceberg facing school districts up and down the state.”
Superintendent Torlakson noted that the certifications do not take into account the impact of the state’s failing to extend temporary tax increases, adopted two years ago and are set to expire July 1, unless placed on the ballot by the legislature and approved by voters in a special election.
According to a release from the California Department of Education, “The California Department of Education semiannually prepares Interim Status Reports for the Superintendent on the financial status of the state’s 1,032 LEAs [Local Educational Agencies], comprised of school districts, county offices of education, and joint powers agencies.”
The certifications are classified as positive, qualified, or negative. A positive certification is assigned when the district will meet its financial obligations for the current and two subsequent fiscal years.
A qualified certification is assigned when the district may not meet its financial obligations for the current or two subsequent fiscal years. This certification allows the LEA’s county office of education to provide assistance to the LEA.
A negative certification—the most serious of the classifications—is assigned when a district will be unable to meet its financial obligations for the remainder of the current year or for the subsequent fiscal year. This certification means the LEA’s county office of education may intervene in the LEA’s finances.
The numbers used to arrive at the certifications preceded the Governor’s Budget proposal, and therefore do not reflect the potential loss of temporary tax revenues, and the new proposed multi-billion dollar funding deferral.
“Schools face the daunting challenge of up to $4.5 billion in additional cuts if tax extensions are not placed on the ballot by the Legislature and approved by voters in June, an additional cut of 10 percent.” added Torlakson. “This would be devastating to an education system that has already sustained $18 billion in state funding cuts over the last three years – a loss of one-third of the annual budget for schools.”
Obviously, the Davis Joint Unified School District does not face this problem, but according to a report in yesterday’s Sacramento Bee, “There are 13 school systems on the state’s “negative certification” list, derived from analysis of data on 1,032 school districts, county offices of education and educational joint powers agencies, up from 12 the previous year but down from a high of 16 in 2008-09. The largest of the 13 is Hayward Unified School District. Sacramento’s Natomas Unified also makes the list.”
Furthermore, there are another 97 educational agencies that are on a “qualified certification” list, which would mean that they are in danger of being unable to meet their obligations.
Worse yet, these are some of the biggest in the state: LA Unified, Oakland Unified, Mount Diablo Unified, Santa Ana Unified, Elk Grove Unified, San Juan Unified. Sacramento City Unified, Fontana Unified, Garden Grove Unified and Stockton Unified.
These schools account for 30 percent of the state’s 6 million K-12 students, according to Superintnedent Torlakson, who are attending schools in districts that are either already in financial straits or in danger of being there.
Meanwhile, UC teeters on the brink, as well.
Last week, UC Regents heard grim predictions would affect both students and faculty.
“The painful truth is that we are at the point of compromising educational quality,” UC Santa Cruz Chancellor George Blumenthal told the Board of Regents.
According to an article this weekend in the LA Times, “He was among several campus leaders who gave the board forecasts about reduced class offerings and staff layoffs that are likely next year. Among other areas, some key required courses may be offered only once a year, making it harder for students to graduate on time.”
UC President Mark Yudof announced last week that the system will make about 17% cuts to their offices and cut their budgets by $50 million – this coming after years of accusations that cuts were being made to students and faculty and staff while UC Regents and upper administrators were getting bonuses and huge increases to their base salaries.
However, even though $50 million sounds like a big number, it’s about 10% of the overall cut that the Governor is cutting from UC’s budget IF the state voters extend the temporary taxes for five years. Otherwise, it is worse.
UC is already planning to increase tuition by 8% for next fall and now, despite promises not to go above that, they may have to do exactly that, in addition to trimming enrollment and laying off employees.
One possibility discussed is that student fees would double in the next five years, but that may be the worst case scenario.
“Regent Richard Blum said he did not want to cut enrollment and said UC should take a serious look at the high tuition and high-aid policy several states already have for their public universities. ‘I think it is the only way out of this mess,’ ” the LA Times reported.
On the other hand, the Times reported, “Regent Eddie Island said the board should not act precipitously; he said he expects the state economy to recover in the next few years.”
“We must not take actions that will essentially destroy the very thing we are trying to save,” Regent Island said.
Davis residents will get to vote in May by an all-mail ballot as to whether they should increase their current $320 per unit parcel tax by an additional $200 per year. That would cover half of the state’s educational cuts and avoid a large-scale cut back on programs, and a layoff of teachers and their support staff.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Davis residents will get to vote in May by an all-mail ballot as to whether they should increase their current $320 per unit parcel tax to an additional $200 per year.”
Question:
Are all registered voters going to receive a mail-in-ballot or only the ones signed up for mail-in-ballots?
rusty, according to the Recorder’s office every registered voter in Davis will receive a ballot.
[Call if you need more information: (530) 666-8133]
This is going to be an interesting year – to see how voters come out on the issues of the school parcel tax and the state tax extensions. What I hope is gov’t is taking a lesson from all this, and beginning to realize they must be more fiscally prudent, preparing better for worst case scenarios – but I admit that is probably a vain hope… it is just so easy to spend OPM (other people’s money).
One of the biggest problems I see is the pigeon-holing of funding – such as separating facilities money from operating expenses. This has resulted in new courthouses being built as court personnel are being laid off; the UCD stadium is built at a time when it was hardly prudent from a fiscal perspective to do so; the DHS stadium is rebuilt with fancy pressbox as other more important buildings in ruin are left to rot, new elementary schools are built that are not needed which results in the closing of Valley Oak, and so forth. I understand the reason to pigeonhole was bc infrastructure is neglected. But at times it would seem prudent to call a halt to some of the massive overbuilding of facilities that result in no money available to operate them; the closing of other perfectly good facilities to make way for unnecessary new facilities, and so forth. Overexpansion at the expense of financial prudence just doesn’t seem like good fiscal policy to me… or to put it another way – no building new facilities unless 1) there is going to be enough money to operate the new facility; 2) the new facility is not going to displace a perfectly good existing facility; 3) employees are not being laid off/services reduced…
“What I hope is gov’t is taking a lesson from all this, and beginning to realize they must be more fiscally prudent, preparing better for worst case scenarios – but I admit that is probably a vain hope… it is just so easy to spend OPM (other people’s money).”
The Federal Gov’t sure isn’t getting the message. The GOP only wants to cut $61 billion and an even bigger joke is the Democrat’s proposal of a
$4 billion cut. That would be like one of us claiming they were going to cut their budgets by the amount of change in their pocket.
Musser: [i]. . and the state tax extensions.[/i]
Unless the legislature has acted in the last, oh, three hours, we’re not going to get a vote. Republicans right now are afraid of their own shadows.
E.R.M.,
Please engage in more research on the hard work and private fundraising conducted by organizations like: The Blue and White committee and Brown Construction to renew the High School stadium.
[i]”Regent Eddie Island said the board should not act precipitously; he said he expects the state economy to recover in the next few years.”
“We must not take actions that will essentially destroy the very thing we are trying to save,” Regent Island said.[/i]
Great… let’s not advantage of the need to downsize so we live within our means… let’s wait it out. This is wrongheaded thinking.
In year 1966-1967, the state spent 54.9% of the general fund on education.
In the 2011-2012 school year, the state is expected to spend 54.4% of the general fund on education. The difference is immaterial. What has changed?
Not the number of employees… In year 1976-77 the state employed 213,794 FTEs. In the 2011-2012 year this number will be 357,526. This is a 67% increase. Compare this to the population growth of CA in 1977 (23 million) and today (37 million). This is a 61% increase… so the number of state employees materially tracks about the same growth as the population. The difference… is the cost of these employees.
The total state budget going from $12.6 billion in 1976-77 to $119.2 billion in 2009-2010 (846% increase) is evidence of this.
OSD: “Please engage in more research on the hard work and private fundraising conducted by organizations like: The Blue and White committee and Brown Construction to renew the High School stadium.”
Are you saying that no DJUSD funds whatever went into building the new stadium? That was not my understanding from what I read in this blog or the Davis Enterprise…
Jeff,
It’s not appropriate to make those kinds of comparisons between pre- and post- Prop. 13 budgets. Prop. 13 was passed in 1978, and swapped lower property taxes for for higher state taxes and applying more of the state budget to K-12 education.
In other words, the whole funding structure changed such that your numbers hide higher local property tax contributions that were made pre-1978.
Another thing: A good chunk of the state budget is also financing interest on bonds and infrastructure, so you can’t apply that to state salaries.
wdf1: [i]”It’s not appropriate to make those kinds of comparisons between pre- and post- Prop. 13 budgets.”[/i]
I picked 1976-1977 for that reason. State education spending per general fund dropped after prop-13 and then increased to the same level.
I get that comparisons are difficult to make. If I had more time to do the research I’m sure that I could prove an increase in state worker compensation exceeding any other reasonable metric.
Regardless, how can you defend a 846% spending increase with prop-13? Is it not obscene?
David — What you missed (and almost everyone else misses) is the impact of the cuts on the community college system in CA. The enrollment in community colleges has skyrocketed as unemployment and UC and CSU costs have gone up. At the same time, community college budgets have been slashed, so course offerings have been drastically cut. It is now impossible for students to get the courses they need at community college so that the [u]minimum[/u] amount of time it is taking before students are ready to transfer is now about 3 years.
Robin W: Thanks for bringing up this point. I agree 100%. We need to maintain the community college funding while we continue to reduce the zillions given to the top-heavy, bloated salary and benefits monster UC system. The community colleges are more efficient, and I think more effective, at providing the first two years of undergrad education. I haven’t talked to a single parent of a 4-year college student that does not lament having wasted money on their little darling’s first two years. The kids report too many uninspiring GE classes taught by assistant professors, and too many social distractions that ruin their study habits. And we get to pay many thousands more for that privilege.
I think many smart parents are keeping their kids at home another two years to attend a JC, while requiring them to find some part-time work. By the time they transfer to a 4-year college, the kids have baked into semi-capable adults. Along the way, some of these kids learn a trade at the community college, and then enter the workforce with a 2-year degree.
I think we need to enhance the 2-year community college format – increasing the amount of trade-related offerings – and start to deemphasize the need for every kid to earn a bachelors or higher degree.
I would agree with the assessment of community college – except for the transfer problem. 4 year colleges often make the transfer process difficult (my son went through this), give misinfomation, and only seem to want to skim off the top 20%, when in fact many below that top 20% very much qualify for a 4 year college/university. I know Sac City College was working on this problem at the time my son was going there, so perhaps things have gotten better (I certainly hope so).
Nevertheless, our community colleges are very student oriented, do a lot for learning disabled students, and give good return for the buck. The downside is they do not have a lot of the advanced scientific resources that a university has. At one time I know there was talk of having all students attend community college their first two years, and have the UC and CSU system handle the last two years and graduate school. Don’t know what happened to that plan. Perhaps it needs dusting off and brought up for consideration again…
I think the past governor signed a bill that requires the CSU and UC systems to create agreements to simplify the transfer process. I do some research on this and post back. I need to because I have a son attending JC.
To JB: Make sure you investigate this issue. And when the time comes for the transfer, double check everything. In my son’s case, the UCD counselor insisted my son had to have a 3.5 GPA to transfer to UCD for computer science. We double checked with the Sac City transfer counselor, she looked it up, and it only required a 3.2 GPA. That mistake cost my son an entire unnecessary extra year marking time at Sac City. The Sac City transfer counselor then made it a point to track back through a bunch of other Sac City students who had been advised by this UCD counselor, to see how many times the UCD counselor had gotten this wrong for other students. At the time, there was a huge uproar about how difficult UCD and CSU were making the transfer process from Sac City. Sac City was definitely working on the issue – and I give high marks to Sac City. It was a wonderful school, my son had a very positive experience there. He went on to UCD, and successfully graduated w a degree in Math. Yet he was almost kept from transferring to UCD bc of the pentient of this UCD counselor to only want to skim off the top 20% from Sac City students. Just be forewarned you may have to be a pro-active parent when the time comes to transfer…
Jeff Boone: [i]Thanks for bringing up this point. I agree 100%. We need to maintain the community college funding while we continue to reduce the zillions given to the top-heavy, bloated salary and benefits monster UC system.[/i]
With a failure to put the tax extension on a June ballot, California community colleges will make further cuts in their budgets and offerings. It is increasingly likely that a student should count on a minimum of 3 years to complete an associate/transfer program. I also suggest having your son register the first minute that he is eligible. Because of the high student demand, community college classes are filling extremely fast, often within minutes.
Here is the Senate bill that Governor Arnold signed. It is for CSU only. I think I remember that some of the UCs have individual transfer agreements with some community colleges.
[url]http://www.smc.edu/projects/37/sb_1440_bill_20100219_introduced.pdf[/url]
wdf1: Yes, I have one son attending Chico State, who decided to change his major from teaching to ag, and is now attending Butte Community College. My other son is pursuing a degree in music production and was looking at attending Chico, but decided he wasn’t ready to leave the nest and is going to Sac City his first 2-3 years. Both report that they are satisfied with their experience at the community colleges except for the difficuly getting the classes that they need. Because they have the typical young male mind lacking capacity for scheduling details, we do prod them to be the first out of the starting gate to grab their classes.
JB: [i]Regardless, how can you defend a 846% spending increase with prop-13? Is it not obscene?[/i]
You haven’t adjusted for inflation. And again, you have to isolate the portion of the budget that pays for salaries, not other stuff. Prison spending has definitely gone up in that time (three strikes, mandatory sentencing, etc.).
[i]I picked 1976-1977 for that reason. State education spending per general fund dropped after prop-13 and then increased to the same level. [/i]
1976-77 was definitely before Prop 13, which passed in 1978. Can you show stats for education spending immediately after Prop 13? I know that the state was able to absorb a lot of the funding loss to schools in the first year or two after because the state had a revenue surplus at the time.
[url]http://learningmatters.tv/blog/documentaries/first-to-worst-the-challenge-of-proposition-13/1505/[/url]
Consider this report from an article in the Sac Bee today regarding Berkeley’s holistic review of applicant: “Context is critical in holistic review. A student who takes three Advanced Placement courses, for example, would be seen as ambitious if his high school offers only three AP courses. But a student who takes three AP courses at a school that offers 20 might not be viewed as favorably.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/03/24/3499621/uc-berkeleys-holistic-application.html#ixzz1HX63mUFp
UC Davis will begin using the holistic review process. DHS has 16 AP Courses currently. Do we really need so many, especially since the large offering can actually be detrimental to students during the application process?
[i]UC Davis will begin using the holistic review process. DHS has 16 AP Courses currently. Do we really need so many, especially since the large offering can actually be detrimental to students during the application process?[/i]
There are some parents and teachers in the district who agree with you for various reasons. But this doesn’t change the budget. If you do away with AP courses, you’re really just switching them to regular sections.
A somewhat related argument is made that DJUSD ought to cut the Spanish Immersion program and save the district money. The answer is that it doesn’t. Spanish Immersion teachers (who are all fluently bilingual) don’t get paid any differently from other monolingual teachers.