As I am sure everyone is aware, we are in the midst of very difficult times. We are trying to balance our budget with the help of our Budget Advisory Committee (BAC) and any other help that we can find. The fact is that we made “reasonable” reductions several years ago and are ONLY left with “unreasonable” options/reductions. NO one likes or supports what we are engaged with at this point. It does and will affect our primary mission with our students. However, in the midst of all this it gets pretty confusing and requires a clear understanding of accounting.
As part of our discussions, you will see on page 16 (and footnote 10 on pg 43) of our audit that we have a fund balance of $72 million. Remembering that accounting principles require us to show left over money in one year (fund balance) before it is used / budgeted in the subsequent year – can be confusing. In fact, we have often talked about “one-time” and federal stimulus funds – which more technically might be called “fund balance” or a portion thereof.
So as a result, we do NOT have $72 million available, since it is essentially spent in the current year and has been budgeted since this past spring for this school year. Or it is part of the state and federal requirements for reserves, etc. The point is that we do have almost $11 million that is in that fund balance that CAN (and we would recommend) be used to resolve our coming budget deficit in 2010-11. In fact, the BAC has been discussing this issue and will give it further consideration this week at their meeting.
We are looking at ALL resources, including our fund balance, to resolve our budget deficit that has been passed to us by those in Sacramento. However, even on our best day, we are well short of the mark and have NO choice but to affect every portion of our operations. As I said at the beginning and have stated before we do NOT like this situation but we cannot avoid making choices to keep this District solvent and maintain the trust and integrity with our community.
If the fund balances are budgeted to be used in each subsequent year then why do these balances continue to increase year after year?
ReplyDeleteWe are extremely frustrated with the amount of testing our elementary students have to endure. This week, students had to take a Topic Test, Math Benchmark Test, and a SCOE test. One day, they tested and prepped ALL DAY. This is not why we became educators. Testing makes learning a chore and not a joy. :( We have estimated that we give approximately 140 tests in a 185 day school year--YIKES! Please help us eliminate tests that are not necessary. We need to have children become great critical thinkers, not test takers.
ReplyDeleteWhen push comes to shove, and I fear it will, please understand that furloughs and wage reductions are not the answer. This will create the public perception that Sacramento's funding is adequate, perhaps even that teachers make enough (too much?) money to absorb such reductions. Layoffs and closing schools will manifest in the necessary real pain that parents and the community need to experience in order to motivate them to raise taxes and/or participate politically to effect change at the state level.
ReplyDeleteWhen thinking about layoffs are "we" looking at the administrative level? Does this District need so many assistant / deputy superintendents?
ReplyDeleteIt sure seems we are "top" heavy!
Just a thought!
Which positions are more important? Teachers (who work with students and make the biggest difference) or those at the administrative level? If students are our priority, which is more important? It seems like teachers should never be laid off, but yet are always the first. Interesting
ReplyDeletePlease clarify the small article that came out in the Press Enterprise yesterday which stated 33 elementary teachers will be laid off.
ReplyDeleteToday the Press-Enterprise had two articles about decisions being made by the Board. The first about teacher lay-offs. The second about hiring a program improvement consultant.
ReplyDeleteI don't think money should be used for consultants when teachers may possibly be laid off.
Additionally, today, February 1 teachers and other 'stakeholders' were invited by Mr. Fine to a budget discussion on non-personnel cuts for a meeting tomorrow, February 2.
Shouldn't we have been given more notice? Also, would you not want us to have information prior to the meeting so our in-put could be informed?
Couldn't this meeting wait a week?
This does not feel like a sincere effort for meaningful dialogue.