Sunday, March 13, 2005
Monrovia School Link ~ Number 112 ~ March 13, 2005
The focus lately has been on the Jill Selak affair, but coming up is an even more crucial problem for Monrovia schools - a serious shortage of money. Worst case? Well, according to Linda Dempsey, the district's chief business officer, it could - emphasis on "could" - result in closing one of Monrovia's schools.
~ brad@sacklunch.net
I've known for a while that the district's money was tight, so I stopped by to get the latest from Linda Dempsey, the district's Chief Business Officer. While she said the school's budget for next year should be up a bit, though "up" in this case follows "down" from the previous year, so from a two-year perspective, the up is much less significant. Beyond that blip, Dempsey does not paint a very cheerful picture.
The problem the district faces is this: In 1995-96 a wave of children hit the Monrovia School District. Kindergarten enrollment was 587, the highest it had been in at least 20 years. Since then that wave has been moving through the grades and has now hit the high school. But behind the wave has come a trough. Kindergarten enrollment has been falling steadily since then, and the trough is also working its way through the grades. In a few years all the wave students will graduate from high school, and all that will be left will be the trough students.
And why does this matter? Fewer students means more money per student, right? Unfortunately not. Because the district gets money from the state on the basis of ADA, or "Average Daily Attendance." If there are fewer students attending, the district gets less money.
This drop in the student population is due to at least two factors, according to Dempsey. She said that there has been an overall decline in the birth rate throughout the state. Fewer kids being born, fewer kids going to school. She said half the districts in the state have lower enrollment. In addition, the price of housing in Monrovia (and throughout the area) has increased dramatically, making it more difficult for young families to move in to town. Instead, they're moving to San Bernardino and Riverside counties, which, as a result, have growing schools.
In fact, Dempsey said she heard a speaker say recently that the nearest affordable housing is in Adalanto. Where's that?, I asked. Somewhere north of Bakersfield, she replied. Well, maybe the speaker was engaging in a bit of hyperbole there, but certainly the cost of housing is going to make it tough for young families to move into the community.
Adding to the district's financial problem is the state's financial problem.
Dempsey said that under Proposition 98, the schools are guaranteed a percentage cut of the state's revenue, but, as we all know, the state is probably in worse financial shape than the district.
Because of that, she said, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed a change in how the state calculates its giving to the schools.
Currently, she said, the schools' cut of the state budget is estimated by a state analyst, who guesstimates how much the state is going to bring in that year. Then, at mid-year, the analyst brings back a revision to the estimate, and if the state's income is higher, then the state gives the schools more money.
Schwarzenegger, she said, is proposing that the state make the first payment based on the estimate, but not make the mid-year correction. So, I said - trying to understand - if the state has more income than expected that means the district's income won't be adjusted up... Right, Dempsey said. And, I asked, if the state has lower income than expected that means the district wouldn't be adjusted down. Well, yes, Dempsey said, clearly uncomfortable with the idea. And, frankly, I agree with her. If you believe in the health of the California economy, it seems reasonable to think that the mid-year correction would generally favor giving the schools more money.
Also - if I understand her correctly - she said the state is proposing to shift the cost of administering the teachers' retirement program to the districts.
So, to sum up, Dempsey's worst case scenario is if 1) enrollment continues declining, and, she said, "unless there is a turnaround in kindergarten, enrollment *will* continue to decline"; 2) if the district doesn't get all its Prop 98 money; and 3) if the state shifts the cost of administering the retirement program to the districts.
To help, you might contact your legislators, and maybe that would help squeeze a few more dimes out of the state, and hopefully the state's economy will continue to recover, but still there's that enrollment problem...
So, if things continue looking the way they look now, what can the district do?
Nothing pleasant, it appears.
The district has already been cutting. Dempsey said that in the 2003-04 year, the district cut $1.5 million from its budget (interestingly, it cut $100,000 just by switching lights and stuff off), but mostly it saved by cutting non-teaching positions.
But that's barely a start.
The district is already considering shifting some students at the Canyon Oaks site back to the regular schools (though it is planning to keep the child development and preschool there). That would save some administrative and teaching costs.
Also, MUSD might bring back some of its special needs students who are currently attending other districts. As I understand this, various districts specialize in teaching students with different needs, so perhaps students with problem A would all go to Alhambra schools and students with problem B would go to San Gabriel schools, and so forth. The problem is that for students who are sent elsewhere, the district does not get the ADA, which obviously goes to the school educating the students. Also, it needs to pay the additional cost for transporting those students. So if there are enough students with a particular problem, such as autism, Dempsey suggested, it might make sense to host them here.
Actually, that's not bad, is it? Well, less pleasant things to come.
The district, she said, may need to shift students from school to school. That saves money by allowing the district to hire fewer teachers. For example, if you have two-and-a-half classrooms of kids at one school and two-and-a-half classrooms of kids at another school, you can either hire six teachers (three teachers for each school) or you can transfer half a classroom of kids from one school to the other. By doing that you can hire just five teachers. Three at one school and two at the other.
Speaking of moving students, the district may simply eliminate all student transportation.
Also, the district currently participates in the class size reduction program, which mandates an average of 20 students per elementary classroom. Even though the district gets money for this, the money doesn't cover the cost of the program, so out it may go. Dempsey said it may be necessary to raise elementary class sizes to an average of 30 students per classroom.
Teachers wouldn't be the only ones hit. Dempsey said the district may need to cut non-teaching staff as well, and then stretch the remaining people to cover more ground.
And the worst case, Dempsey said, would be to shut a school. That, she said, "would be a pretty drastic measure with an impact on students, parents and staff." No kidding.
"Well," I said, "You're certainly living in exciting times."
"Want to trade jobs?" she asked.
Uh... not really.
This newsletter is also on the Web at www.monroviaschoollink.com.
The focus lately has been on the Jill Selak affair, but coming up is an even more crucial problem for Monrovia schools - a serious shortage of money. Worst case? Well, according to Linda Dempsey, the district's chief business officer, it could - emphasis on "could" - result in closing one of Monrovia's schools.
~ brad@sacklunch.net
I've known for a while that the district's money was tight, so I stopped by to get the latest from Linda Dempsey, the district's Chief Business Officer. While she said the school's budget for next year should be up a bit, though "up" in this case follows "down" from the previous year, so from a two-year perspective, the up is much less significant. Beyond that blip, Dempsey does not paint a very cheerful picture.
The problem the district faces is this: In 1995-96 a wave of children hit the Monrovia School District. Kindergarten enrollment was 587, the highest it had been in at least 20 years. Since then that wave has been moving through the grades and has now hit the high school. But behind the wave has come a trough. Kindergarten enrollment has been falling steadily since then, and the trough is also working its way through the grades. In a few years all the wave students will graduate from high school, and all that will be left will be the trough students.
And why does this matter? Fewer students means more money per student, right? Unfortunately not. Because the district gets money from the state on the basis of ADA, or "Average Daily Attendance." If there are fewer students attending, the district gets less money.
This drop in the student population is due to at least two factors, according to Dempsey. She said that there has been an overall decline in the birth rate throughout the state. Fewer kids being born, fewer kids going to school. She said half the districts in the state have lower enrollment. In addition, the price of housing in Monrovia (and throughout the area) has increased dramatically, making it more difficult for young families to move in to town. Instead, they're moving to San Bernardino and Riverside counties, which, as a result, have growing schools.
In fact, Dempsey said she heard a speaker say recently that the nearest affordable housing is in Adalanto. Where's that?, I asked. Somewhere north of Bakersfield, she replied. Well, maybe the speaker was engaging in a bit of hyperbole there, but certainly the cost of housing is going to make it tough for young families to move into the community.
Adding to the district's financial problem is the state's financial problem.
Dempsey said that under Proposition 98, the schools are guaranteed a percentage cut of the state's revenue, but, as we all know, the state is probably in worse financial shape than the district.
Because of that, she said, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed a change in how the state calculates its giving to the schools.
Currently, she said, the schools' cut of the state budget is estimated by a state analyst, who guesstimates how much the state is going to bring in that year. Then, at mid-year, the analyst brings back a revision to the estimate, and if the state's income is higher, then the state gives the schools more money.
Schwarzenegger, she said, is proposing that the state make the first payment based on the estimate, but not make the mid-year correction. So, I said - trying to understand - if the state has more income than expected that means the district's income won't be adjusted up... Right, Dempsey said. And, I asked, if the state has lower income than expected that means the district wouldn't be adjusted down. Well, yes, Dempsey said, clearly uncomfortable with the idea. And, frankly, I agree with her. If you believe in the health of the California economy, it seems reasonable to think that the mid-year correction would generally favor giving the schools more money.
Also - if I understand her correctly - she said the state is proposing to shift the cost of administering the teachers' retirement program to the districts.
So, to sum up, Dempsey's worst case scenario is if 1) enrollment continues declining, and, she said, "unless there is a turnaround in kindergarten, enrollment *will* continue to decline"; 2) if the district doesn't get all its Prop 98 money; and 3) if the state shifts the cost of administering the retirement program to the districts.
To help, you might contact your legislators, and maybe that would help squeeze a few more dimes out of the state, and hopefully the state's economy will continue to recover, but still there's that enrollment problem...
So, if things continue looking the way they look now, what can the district do?
Nothing pleasant, it appears.
The district has already been cutting. Dempsey said that in the 2003-04 year, the district cut $1.5 million from its budget (interestingly, it cut $100,000 just by switching lights and stuff off), but mostly it saved by cutting non-teaching positions.
But that's barely a start.
The district is already considering shifting some students at the Canyon Oaks site back to the regular schools (though it is planning to keep the child development and preschool there). That would save some administrative and teaching costs.
Also, MUSD might bring back some of its special needs students who are currently attending other districts. As I understand this, various districts specialize in teaching students with different needs, so perhaps students with problem A would all go to Alhambra schools and students with problem B would go to San Gabriel schools, and so forth. The problem is that for students who are sent elsewhere, the district does not get the ADA, which obviously goes to the school educating the students. Also, it needs to pay the additional cost for transporting those students. So if there are enough students with a particular problem, such as autism, Dempsey suggested, it might make sense to host them here.
Actually, that's not bad, is it? Well, less pleasant things to come.
The district, she said, may need to shift students from school to school. That saves money by allowing the district to hire fewer teachers. For example, if you have two-and-a-half classrooms of kids at one school and two-and-a-half classrooms of kids at another school, you can either hire six teachers (three teachers for each school) or you can transfer half a classroom of kids from one school to the other. By doing that you can hire just five teachers. Three at one school and two at the other.
Speaking of moving students, the district may simply eliminate all student transportation.
Also, the district currently participates in the class size reduction program, which mandates an average of 20 students per elementary classroom. Even though the district gets money for this, the money doesn't cover the cost of the program, so out it may go. Dempsey said it may be necessary to raise elementary class sizes to an average of 30 students per classroom.
Teachers wouldn't be the only ones hit. Dempsey said the district may need to cut non-teaching staff as well, and then stretch the remaining people to cover more ground.
And the worst case, Dempsey said, would be to shut a school. That, she said, "would be a pretty drastic measure with an impact on students, parents and staff." No kidding.
"Well," I said, "You're certainly living in exciting times."
"Want to trade jobs?" she asked.
Uh... not really.
This newsletter is also on the Web at www.monroviaschoollink.com.
Comments:
Post a Comment
