Cuts and more cuts threaten school budgets

Funds for busing and transitional kindergarten at risk

The governor's recently published budget proposal is further complicating the already difficult task of planning for next school year, according to the head of the local elementary and middle school district.

For starters, by calling for the elimination of funding for home-to-school transportation and transitional kindergarten programs, the K-12 portion of the proposed budget sends mixed signals to his district, said Craig Goldman superintendent of the Mountain View Whisman School District.

Mountain View Whisman is required to provide bus service for its significant population of special education students. On top of that, a recently passed state law mandates that the district begin offering transitional kindergarten classes next year for students who fall within a specific age range.

And that's not even considering the likelihood of further trigger cuts, Goldman added. Gov. Jerry Brown's budget promises windfalls to K-12 education if voters approve tax increases in November and heavy cuts if they don't. Goldman, a pragmatist, has his district planning for the worst, while hoping for something not quite as bad.


The district can barely pay for its transportation program right now, Goldman said. When the governor's $1 billion in trigger cuts went through in December 2011, the district lost about $250,000 -- half of its transportation budget. If the governor's proposal to eliminate transportation funding goes through, that loss will be doubled.

"We don't have the luxury of eliminating special education transportation, nor do we have the ability to completely cut out regular transportation," Goldman said. That means Mountain View Whisman will have to dip into its general fund to support its bus routes, weakening its ability to absorb any trigger cuts that could come in November when voters decide on Brown's tax proposals.

Transitional kindergarten

Without the $300,000 Goldman anticipates Mountain View Whisman needs to begin unrolling the transitional kindergarten program next year, there is no way he will be able to staff those classes -- which are meant to provide a smoother transition from preschool to kindergarten for students with early birthdays.

"We are moving forward as if transitional K is happening, but because of the governor's proposal, we need to be prepared that the program may be eliminated," he said. "We do not have the luxury of running a program for which we have no funding."

Paul Hefner, communications director for California Department of Education, acknowledged the "incongruity" between the state law -- which requires all elementary school districts in California to begin introducing such classes in the 2012-13 term -- and Brown's proposal. Hefner said that the district will not be required to provide the program if the state does not provide funding.

It's against California's constitution to require schools to implement a state-mandated program without state funding, he noted. A "trailer bill" will soon be written, which will likely do one of two things: amend the governor's proposal to eliminate funding for transitional kindergarten, or change the state law requiring school districts to begin implementation of the program next year.

Trigger cuts

While the governor has proposed to do away with the funding for both home-to-school transportation and transitional kindergarten outright, he has also proposed a series of what are called "trigger cuts" -- cuts that would only go into effect if voters do not pass his proposed tax increases of nearly $7 billion.

If voters pass his tax package, California schools will get a boost of $6.9 billion in funding -- paid for in higher taxes. However, if his tax package is rejected, schools will lose $4.8 billion in a trigger reduction.

Goldman said that planning next year's budget with the specter of such heavy trigger cuts looming over his district isn't making things easy.

"A huge portion of the budget is based upon the voters' passage of tax initiatives in November 2012, after the school year has started," Goldman said. Because the cuts would be triggered in the middle of the school year, it would be very difficult to make any meaningful adjustments to staffing levels, which account for the vast majority of the district's expenditures. "Those cuts would be draconian at a time where we would not be able to negotiate with faculty and staff in a manner that would result in savings for that school year."

Goldman isn't the only one upset by the prospect of the heavy trigger cuts to schools. Dan Schnur, who served as an aide to former Gov. Pete Wilson, identified Brown's budget as a "ransom note" -- a quote that was used in headlines for stories in both the Christian Science Monitor and Bloomberg Businessweek.

Hefner rejected the notion that the governor is holding the state's school's hostage. He said, rather, that Brown is doing what he has to do to "ensure we don't have further cuts to education."

An official statement from Tom Torlakson, the state superintendent of public education, said that the governor's budget "makes it clear that meeting that obligation (to our state's schools) will require additional tax revenues -- both to prevent new cuts and to finally turn the tide after years of devastating reductions to school budgets statewide."


Like this comment
Posted by Old Ben
a resident of Shoreline West
on Jan 16, 2012 at 11:43 am

Hey, they might not be able to read or write, and they CERTAINLY won't have a clue as to what "critical thinking" is, but they'll be able to buy groceries downtown with their food stamps, and Hanger One will shine on, and billions of dollars will go into a high-speed rail system that they'll never use.

It's a good thing that DoD and CIA seeded so much venture capital into this Valley, because long-term thinking just isn't in the Silicon Valley skill set AT ALL.

Like this comment
Posted by Sabrina
a resident of The Crossings
on Jan 16, 2012 at 5:02 pm

/ Brown is doing what he has to do to "ensure we don't have further cuts to education." /

I don't understand that. Cutting school funding now to avoid cuts later...? Does anyone know the economics behind that?

If we taxed the wealthiest Californians (who are most able to pay) I am certain that there would be enough money to fund public education (which is a long-term investment for everyone who lives in our state). Shame that our governor lacks the backbone to stand up to the corporate interests of the most elite class of Californians.

Like this comment
Posted by JW
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jan 16, 2012 at 6:33 pm

Remember when they just spent millions of dollars to "pretty" the intersection of Stanford Ave and El Camino. Yeah, me too. It doesn't look or act much different. Where in the world are our priorities?'

Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jan 16, 2012 at 7:02 pm

@Sabrina how about we tax you some more.

Like this comment
Posted by District Insider
a resident of North Whisman
on Jan 16, 2012 at 7:03 pm

Interesting Goldman is complaining about shortages of funds. when the MVWSD CFO just got a $20,000 raise/bonus as well as Asst. Superintendent Totter.

Dig deeper Nick.

Like this comment
Posted by Earl Richards
a resident of another community
on Jan 17, 2012 at 12:32 am

Brown is blackmailing Californians. Why does Brown always pick-on the most vulnerable and the public services? He should close commercial and corporate tax loopholes, introduce an oil extraction tax, an oil corporation, windfall-profits tax and trim the service-debt interest paid to Wall Street. These taxes have to be rolled-back. These budget cuts will prolong the recession.

Like this comment
Posted by Member
a resident of Jackson Park
on Jan 17, 2012 at 10:17 am

Preparing for the worse... What does that mean exactly, School Closures, Pink Slips, what?

Like this comment
Posted by mv dad
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jan 17, 2012 at 6:36 pm

And remind us why in the world did MVWSD turn DOWN federal funding for Title I program last year in a district with a high % of low-income students and several schools that are more than half low-income kids? Are there plans to take the federal funding next school year? What is the amount that the district does not have this year from Title I funds?

Like this comment
Posted by Steven Nelson
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jan 19, 2012 at 4:58 pm

Thanks "Insider". I confess - I actually spoke before the Superintendent's performance review (closed - but public can comment before) to say that he had been doing a reasonable job and better at communication, so they should keep him and give him a COL (inflation) raise. I guess they thought I meant a "10% raise". I guess their understanding of current inflation and tight finances is different than mine.
- Goldman's contract is a public document and you can request to have it sent to you, if you enjoy reading that stuff (I do and they did last year).

It seems there is NO WAY they want to get the federal funds and strings that go with it. There are several schools in the category that would require MVWSD to provide transportation, private tutoring program $ and so on. I wish it were an easier decision.

Like this comment
Posted by Ned
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jan 19, 2012 at 5:51 pm

I guess there's extra money lying around since the teachers are now paying more for their benefits and haven't gotten a raise in years.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Burger chain Shake Shack to open in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 2,705 views

Eat, Surf, Love
By Laura Stec | 3 comments | 1,005 views

Couples: So You Married Mom or Dad . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 974 views

The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 2 comments | 628 views