School Closures: Economic Necessity? (edit this)
I was at a meeting with a community leader who was arguing that none of the schools in his neighborhood should be closed. His argument was that school closures would impact his neighborhood more than other neighborhoods.
He did not give me the chance to say this: School closures impact every neighborhood-no matter which one they occur in.
Not only do parents need to figure out where they have to schlep their children-but school closures impact parents’ plans for after-school care, possibly before-school care, the length of time that a child can get after-school help from his/her teacher, relationship of the parent to the school (critical to the success of the school and the child) and how fast can the parent get to the child due to an illness or an accident at the school.
Good schools don’t just educate the child-but they provide for an anchor for the child (and his/her parent(s)) as they grow and thrive. They also provide meeting spaces for the community-and as wellstone for that community to come together.
But here are the hard facts:
1. Federal and state funding for education has been reduced. SFUSD faces what they call “encroachments” in key areas-special education, child development and transportation. “Encroachments” means that the district is spending more money in a key area than they are getting from the state or the federal government. Most of us will agree that special education is critical. Child development is also critical since the children who are four years old in the Child Development Programs are the kindergarteners that the District sees the next year. Transporation has been cut dramatically.
2. The student enrollment at SFUSD has declined by 800 students per year. This year, our student enrollment went down by 1,000 students. The Mayor’s Office released a study showing that a large portion of the problem is that there are less families with children living in San Francisco (one out of four families). Anyone who tries to rent or buy a home in San Francisco immediately can figure out why-there is a dearth of affordable housing that can house a family of three or more.
The primary source of funding for the District comes from the State for student attendance. For each student that comes to school each year, the district gets approximately $7,500. If less students attend, the District gets less funding.
So where do we cut? According to a survey by UESF, the district spends more money on consulting fees than almost any other urban school district in California. We are also have bigger staff in key departments than in districts that are similar or larger in size-the Budget Office, Reproduction Office and Superintendent’s Office.
But even those cuts are made, the District will still be facing a projected shortfall of $8 -$10 million.
If schools needs to be closed, then the District needs to create a process that allows plenty of time for the community to discuss the criteria (in meetings located in their neighborhood) and need to create goals on how they can use this challenging time to create stronger schools and a better education for all students.
There are some very outstanding schools on the closure list. Those shouldn’t be closed. There are also schools on the closure list that are struggling-those schools should be strengthen or closed. Even if they are in our neighborhood.
Because in the end, we have to remember that our mission is to create quality education for all students. And we need to use the challenging times ahead to create an even better education for our City’s future leaders.
December 28th, 2005 at 2:18 pm e
Yes, school closures are an economic necessity at this point. I agree with most of what you say here, but I think it is important to mention that much of that “consultant” money which you have targeted for possible cuts is not money from the general fund. A large part of the district’s budget is categorical funds - this is money which cannot be spent for other than its intended purpose, such as special ed funds.
If you look at any BOE agenda, you will see a section called “consultant services contracts”, followed by a long list of “K resolutions.” Although the term “consultant” conjures up images of the bad old Rojas days, when a “consultant” was likely to be somebody’s brother-in-law who had been awarded a no-bid contract for just under the legal limit requiring board authorization, and who was scamming the district, essentially running out the door carrying big bags of money, and with the district receiving little or nothing in exchange, but this is not the case today.
Those K resos are primarily of two types - XX School, to pay for a program or individual to address a specific need, as determined by the school site council, or for a program or individual to provide services to be paid for by a grant. The school site council consultants are usually paid for with general fund money, which could in theory be cut, but wouldn’t that just be cutting more of the academic and enrichment programs which go directly to the kids? Is that how we want to save money?
The other consultants are paid for with grants, and although it may add up to a lot of money when you lump all of them together, there is really nothing to be “saved” in cutting these consultants, because those grants are all categorical funds, not general funds, and that money could not be redirected to other general fund expenses - it would merely be eliminated from the budget if those consultant positions were cut. School Health Programs is an enormous department, maybe the largest in the district, and every single employee who works for SHP is paid for by a grant, with the sole exception of the department head, Trish Bascom. This department has a budget of literally millions of dollars, and much of it may appear to go to “consultants” - but again, cutting those positions does not save the district money, because it is all grant money. It couldn’t be diverted to pay for other classroom expenses.
So, less money could be spent on consultants, but that would not necessarily free up that money to pay for other things, like keeping schools open. In many cases, that money would just disappear.
December 28th, 2005 at 4:59 pm e
My kids’ former elementary school has an enrichment program offering many options in arts, sciences and other disciplines to students — enrichments not affordable under the basic site budget.
Enrichment options include motor skills (fun physical activity, kind of like tumbling), visual arts, drama, chorus, science, gardening, cooking, architecture, African dance, calligraphy and others.
All of these programs are led by consultants. Some are paid for by PTA money and some by K reso funding. P.E. has also been provided by a K reso-paid consultant (this should change as Prop. H funding kicks in). The programs would not be available to students if they had to be provided by staff.
Things are never as simple as they seem.