March 3, 2009
Dear Colleagues,
Below, please find two items:
1. VTA 2009 Budget Minority Report - this report was presented to the Board at the February 26th board meeting by Randy Wiens, one of three VTA member on the District Budget Committee
2. VTA flyer encouraging your participation at this Thursday's Board meeting - much is at stake
We are all feeling the stress and strain of the budget crisis, budget cuts, upcoming layoff notices, testing, report cards and the usual tension that this time of year always seems to bring. By actively participating at Board meetings either by your presence or speaking this will not only help to show support for your fellow teachers but will also better educate you to the political side of education. As much as we like to work within the confines of our school & classroom we all have a responsibility to better understand how the educational system works. Join me and countless other VUSD educators at this Thursday's Board meeting!
Respectfully,
Jan O' Reilly
VTA President
www.vistata.org
______________________________________________________________
2009 VTA Budget Minority Report February 23, 2009
Submitted by VTA appointed Budget Committee Members:
JB Barton
Ron Ferreirae
Randy Wiens
Introduction:
The VTA applauds the VUSD Board decision to create a district budget committee to recommend a 2009-2010 budget proposal. The original task of the committee was to find approximately $16 million in cuts brought on by the dismal state and federal economy, but the state approved budget last week modified that target to $11.7 million. The committee was made up of parents, teachers, classified employees, site level administrators, PTA, DELAC, district level administrators, and appointed community members.
It was the unanimous recommendation of the committee, as it was with the 2008 committee, that an “ongoing” committee, one that meets regularly instead of just in crisis times, be established. The 2009 committee further recommended that other committees (curricular, facilities, bond oversight, Adult Ed, DAIT groups and others) be “ongoing” and make regular budgetary reports/requests and recommendations to the budget committee. The Budget Committee regularly found itself discussing/debating the financial merit of educational programs without expert input from those who implement or oversee those programs.
The VTA thanks Business Services and specifically the finance department for working with the committee and for providing requested information. It should be noted that Ed Services was decidedly less cooperative with the committee, providing only general information, inaccurate information, and sometimes no information when requested.
The VTA would like to thank the VUSD Board for approving the unanimous recommendation to send a resolution to the Governor requesting fewer cuts to public education.
The VTA would like to specifically recognize Board Members Carol Herrera, Elizabeth Jaka, and Angela Chunka, for attending all or most of the committee’s 14 meetings and those of the facilities sub-committee.
VTA also enthusiastically supports the committee’s decision to not recommend elimination of class size reduction (CSR) at the primary grades. This may be the only district expenditure that has a direct, positive impact on every student who is educated in our district. The academic, social, and emotional benefits to our youngest students cannot be overstated. In addition, it makes no financial sense to make any changes to class size reduction—elimination of the program would mean the loss of over $6 million in revenues from the state, while using the flexibility that the state has offered would still result in the loss of up to nearly $3 million in revenues.
Budget Committee Process:
The committee followed Board direction to review the budget and make recommended cuts. The magnitude of this year’s cuts made the task of cutting as far away from the classroom as possible and minimizing employee layoffs unachievable.
The committee experienced many a spirited discussion and debate. Emotions at times ran high as recommended cuts hit friends and colleagues, some sitting on the committee.
The 2008 Budget Committee was undermined by Administrative recommendations never brought forward to the committee for discussion or debate that were then adopted by the Board. The 2009 Budget Committee requested “all” (District Administration included) potential recommendations be forwarded to the committee for review this cycle.
Budget Recommendations:
The VTA members of the committee painfully concur with the budget recommendations being forwarded to the Board and acknowledge that these recommendations combined with Board determined categorical flexibility funds will reach the $11.7 million target in cuts and a balanced “ongoing” budget.
As in 2008, VTA continues to recommend full utilization of categorical funding to minimize general fund encroachment. It was discovered that the $135,000 Edusoft Program and $178,000 of other such expenditures could be moved to the categorical side of the ledger. This action would free up needed general fund dollars. The transfer of Newcomer and ELD expenditures from TIIBG (Targeted Instructional Program) to EIA funding freed $390,127. The transfer of salary (Teen Parent Program) from the General Fund to the CAL Safe Program freed $93,000. VTA continues to ask if there is more.
VTA last year recommended the re-creation of District Level Curriculum Committees and applauds the progress made in this direction. It is not the purview of the Budget Committee to review curriculum. But it is the purview of the Budget Committee to receive such reports and recommendations of budgetary significance from such committees. High cost programs should be scrutinized for educational value and cost effectiveness before purchasing. VTA further recommends these committees have broad range representation that includes more parents, teachers, SSC and SGC representatives. VTA adds that these committees should meet regularly prior to or post School Board meetings.
As in 2008, it is still unclear to what extent school site councils (SSC), shared governance committees (SGC), or site budget committees were made a part of the budget discussions or recommendations. More of this kind of participation is needed.
The VTA concurs with the Budget Committee that getting loans from vendors or banks in order to purchase programs it can’t afford (Successmaker) demonstrates fiscal irresponsibility.
Budget Cuts reached through Contract Negotiations:
VTA membership has modified previous contracts to help bailout the District in hard times (sometimes self imposed). Delayed pay raises, increased out-of-pocket expenditures for health care, elimination of retirement incentives, 0% pay raises despite COLAs, direct per diem pay reductions, and $3 million in reserves last year that had been set aside for pay increases are some of those bailouts. VTA, regularly near the top in pay among county school districts just 20 years ago, has now fallen to 33rd in the County, down from 26th a year ago, while Administrators’ pay remains significantly higher. Last year’s budget committee recommended, and the Board approved, funding “put-backs” go to the employees yet this (.68% COLA) ended up being used to help meet mid-year cuts this year. VTA continues to recommend making employee compensation a priority in order to keep our best employees and to maintain a competitive draw to the most qualified job applicants in the future. It is in the best interest of all that VUSD remain solvent, but to continue achieving this on the backs of employees will not pay dividends in the end.
The Budget Committee’s proposal last week was close to the $16 million cut figure but half was in one-time savings, millions short of the “ongoing” requirement needed for County approval. Some committee members recommended negotiating employee pay-cuts, freezing step and column, raising class size, eliminating/reducing CSR, and other contractual items. These proposals were noted but not pursued due to the necessity of required negotiations, the lack of time for such negotiations before the deadline, and the unclear need for such measures.
VTA is currently in negotiations with the District, the details of which are unknown at this time. While VTA has modified contract language in the past to help the District balance economic shortfalls, it has only done so when all other solutions were exhausted.
What can still be done?
Federal stimulus dollars to the States must be analyzed and tapped for possible use.
The fiscal impact of the newly adopted State budget must be further studied (Is it still $16 million? Is there more categorical flexibility?). Adult Ed funding flexibility must be explored.
Reducing site level FTE allocations must be considered. (Release periods must be reviewed.)
The District is currently reluctant to utilize reserves to help bridge the gap for “ongoing” cuts. The District currently has $5.5 million in undesignated reserves above the required 3%, has a $1.8 million set aside in reserves for the Special Ed SELPA settlement that could be tapped, and nearly $2 million in reserves being unused to open the new high school at a reduced enrollment. These reserves could be pooled and divided over the next three years to be used toward budget cuts now and in future years and still maintain the mandatory 3% threshold.
The Lindamood Bell (LMB) Question:
LMB was the number one item submitted for cuts last year by the stakeholder group surveys. Yet it continues to be budgeted at $3.4 million annually.
Test scores have continued a steady rise over the last seven years, not unlike the County and State as a whole, and experienced no spike during the $10 million LMB investment era.
It continues to be the number one program targeted for elimination/reduction in teacher surveys conducted this year by VTA.
As in 2008, the 2009 Budget Committee was provided erroneous data, data that inflated the cost effectiveness of delivering LMB services.
Questions submitted by the Committee to Ed Services and LMB continue to go unanswered:
Can LMB services be provided in a way that is more cost effective?
Why is LMB not recognized as a State Adopted Intervention Program?
LMB costs were to decline after the first or second year. Why has this not happened?
Must the direct instruction provider of five students have a higher paid credentialed facilitator that has an even higher paid LMB Oversight Coordinator to manage services?
CSEA aides (at their rate of pay), VTA certificated teachers (at their higher rate of pay), and LMB (at their unknown rate of pay, some certificated and some not), all read from the exact same scripted education program. Is this cost effective? (The educational effectiveness of LMB should be researched by an independent committee. The structure of this committee should be broad based and be representative of all stakeholders.)
The LMB budget includes costs for “re-certification”? Is this necessary and how often must teachers be “re-certified”?
Why does LMB continue to charge over $2500 per teacher (1100) for training after three years of such training?
If not now, at what point will the VUSD trained/certified LMB providers be able to take over the program as was originally planned?
Is the cost of LMB prohibiting the purchase of any other needed intervention programs?
Why did Ed Services and LMB fail to respond to Budget Committee requests?
VTA concurs with the Budget Committee’s recommendation that LMB funding be eliminated. This will fiscally enable the District working with the DAIT group (making recommendations by late March-April) to develop an overall (state adopted/ county approved) intervention program with available funds for implementation. This new intervention plan already includes the new cost of at least two curricular adoptions. Should LMB choose to resubmit a more cost effective program that meets the new intervention plan specifications, then and only then, should the Board consider their services. Should the Board now or at any time in the future use LMB, it needs to carefully scrutinize the contract and closely audit, monitor, and independently evaluate the program.
VTA Certificated Budget Survey Results (percentages are approximate):
Nearly 700 VTA employees responded in a hasty 7-day survey.
77% rated CSR as a high or highest funding priority.
9% stated CSR should be a low funding priority or eliminated.
6% rated LMB as a high or highest funding priority.
80% stated LMB should be a low funding priority or eliminated.
10% rated NovaNet as a high or highest funding priority.
37% stated NovaNet should be a low funding priority or eliminated.
2% rated Ventures as a high or highest funding priority.
54% stated Ventures should be a low funding priority or eliminated.
66% supported the delay of opening the new high school.
84% supported offering an early retirement incentive.
71% supported eliminating or reducing the number of teachers on special assignment (TOSAs)
90% supported streamlining District level Administration for increased efficiency.
66% supported streamlining Site level Administration for increased efficiency.
81% opposed the elimination/reduction of high school co-curricular activities.
77% opposed the elimination/reduction of middle school co-curricular activities.
90% opposed contract modifications to meet budgetary reductions.
Note: The specific list of items being considered for cuts/reductions can be found on the district website.
return to www.vistata.org
_______________________________________________________________
VUSD TO VOTE ON BUDGET CUTS
Where:Foothill Oak Elementary
When: Thursday, March 5, 2009
Time: 7:00 pm
The School Board will be meeting to continue the budget cuts this Thursday. Please come and make your voice heard.
Cuts made at the last School Board Meeting included:
Eliminate Class Size Reduction (K-3)
Close Vista Focus Academy
Reduce Middle School sports
Cut back on Elementary bussing
Close the IMC
Cut and reduce District Administrators
Reduce Librarians
Next Board Meeting Topics to include:
Lindamood-Bell Reading Program
Teacher Lay-offs
Budget review
Class Size Reduction (K-3)
Please note, should the Board decide to eliminate K-3 CSR this will mean class sizes will increase up to 32 & 120-150 probationary and permanent teachers will receive layoff notices!
Middle & high school teachers please show your support for your fellow teachers by attending this important meeting.
Come prepared to pull a hold card and speak regarding your site and grade level concerns! Your voice is important …
return to www.vistata.org