School may be out for the summer in the Santa Barbara School Districts, but that sure didn’t make things any easier for the Board of Education this week. In a local version of a storyline currently playing itself out in public school districts throughout the state, the board was forced once again to wield its budget-cutting blade this year, thanks to the sick mess that is the California state budget. Less than two months after delivering a $3.1-million hatchet job on their $119-million annual general fund, the five-member board spent nearly four hours on the evening of Tuesday, June 17, reluctantly grappling with ways to cut just under $1.5 million more from a budget that has endured nearly $10 million in cuts since 2007. “Nobody wants to cut teachers, programs, principals, or assistant principals,” explained a visibly distraught Superintendent Brian Sarvis at the start of the meeting, “but cut we must.”
“When you take away more than $8.5 million in two years, pretty soon you run out of places you can cut.”
Specifically, heeding the advice of district Deputy Superintendent and chief bean-counter Erik Smith, the board, in the name of fiscal prudence, needed to come up with $1 million worth of cuts in the secondary district and $500,000 in the elementary district during Tuesday’s special hearing. With relative ease, unanimously passing simple budget craftsmanship tweaks like suspending contributions to deferred maintenance funds, capping the amount they spend annually on outside tech support, and hoping that the planned overhaul of the district’s embattled Special Education department will reduce litigation fees, the board was able to get about halfway to their goal before being forced to tackle what Board President Kate Parker called the “harder stuff.” After all, as Smith put it during the meeting, “When you take away more than $8.5 million in two years, pretty soon you run out of places you can cut.”
The gut wrench began in earnest as the board whittled away toward the final numbers in the elementary and secondary districts. Teaching positions, administrator jobs, and class-size reductions ended up on the cutting-room floor, while things like salary reductions, work furloughs, and making elementary district parents pay $250 a year for their children to be bused to school were adopted. Acknowledging that details would need to be worked out with the Santa Barbara Teachers Association — a process scheduled to begin on June 22 — the board tentatively approved doing away with a staff development day, something that equals an approximate half-percent pay cut for all district teachers but has the potential to save eight or nine full-time teaching positions. They also approved a two-day work furlough for all district administrators — roughly a one-percent pay reduction across the board — and accepted an offer from Sarvis to give up $10,000 of his salary. In a move that will equal the loss of an as-yet unknown amount of teacher jobs, the board also approved a class-size increase for kindergarten through third grade from a current 21.45-students-to-one-teacher ratio to 24-to-one. Furthermore, should the Santa Barbara Teachers Association not adopt the development day cut, the board fleshed out a “Plan B” that includes increasing the class sizes in kindergarten through third grade even further, all the way up to 25-to-one, as well as reducing assistant principal positions at both La Cumbre and Santa Barbara Junior High schools.
As bad as it was Tuesday night, it could have been much worse. Thanks to several million dollars in federal stimulus package funding, a healthy strategic reserve fund, and the controversial decision earlier this year to do away with out-of-district transfer students in the elementary schools — a move that should see the elementary portion of the district achieve Basic Aid funding status sometime next year — the sum of the cuts levied this week was actually markedly smaller than it otherwise would have been. That being said, with the current state budget woes still very much up in the air and all signs pointing to continued cash flow problems next year, the financial future of the district is anything but certain. Acknowledging the aforementioned situation, Sarvis opined, “I think we are definitely looking at further reductions next year … We haven’t hit the bottom yet.”
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.

Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
Previous Month


Comments
Discussion Guidelines
These are cuts which will have a direct negative effect on students. Why don't they lay off all those excess administrators? Some high schools have 6 vice-principals (for a school of less than 2000 students) !! This is very wasteful. Every school in the district should have only 2 administrators --one principal and one vice-principal. Save the teachers' jobs and important programs. Lay off some of these excess administrators instead!
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
CalReader (anonymous profile)
June 18, 2009 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't know where you live, CalReader, but no high school here has anywhere near six vice principals. And I don't think you can have high school experience if you think one principal and one vice principal can manage over 2,000 students and 100+ staff members. I suppose teachers might like it--there would be no way to do teacher evaluations....
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
Pimms (anonymous profile)
June 18, 2009 at 10:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As of earlier this school year, San Marcos High School had six vice-principals listed on its official letterhead stationary. Other high schools in California do make do with only one principal and one vice-principal. And yes, they do still have teacher evaluations. They just have a lot less administrative waste.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
CalReader (anonymous profile)
June 19, 2009 at 1:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My kids went to SMHS--Don't know about their letterhead, but they have four listed on their website and that's currently accurate:
http://www.smroyals.org/apps/pages/index...
Funding for one has been eliminated for next year. You can see a list of their assignments linked to the above website.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
Pimms (anonymous profile)
June 19, 2009 at 4:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm surprised that no one has commented on the School Board making elementary district parents pay $250 a year for their children to be bused to school. In my day (the 50s and 60s) there were neighborhood elementary schools and almost everyone walked to school. Now there are many areas of town that no longer have a local school, so their children must take the bus. These parents now must pay the price because the school district chose to close the schools in their neighborhood (in 1979). It's probably no coincidence that the closed schools were in the poorer areas of town and thus the parents who will be affected are those least likely to be able to afford paying $250.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
EileenHamilton (anonymous profile)
June 19, 2009 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I read the agenda attachment on the school board website (see http://www.sbsdk12.org/board/attachments...). It says that kids who are eligible for free and reduced lunches would also likely be eligible for free bus transportation. This is estimated in the attachment to be 65% of the bused kids, since 65% overall are eligible for free and reduced lunch prices. So, they are only expecting 35% of kids to pay for bus rides.
The numbers of assistant principals for each junior high are in the agenda attachment, but not for the high schools.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
Yves (anonymous profile)
June 19, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks Yves. I'm glad that the lower income parents won't have to pay this fee. What still troubles me is the School Board's math. They say that 65% of elementary students are eligible for free and reduced lunch and that it's likely that this percentage would be applicable to home to school ridership. They thus assume that 65% of the 533 students who ride the bus will be exempt from this fee. I think it will be a much larger number. My daughter attended Washington school (admittedly a while ago, she just graduated from SBHS - Go Dons). The kids who rode the bus to Washington were almost exclusively lower income kids. It's probably pretty much the same at many of the other schools.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
EileenHamilton (anonymous profile)
June 19, 2009 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The rising medical costs to all school districts is why the $$ is so short. Medical insurance companies like Blue Cross and Aetna have raised rates by 25-50% in the last 3 years. Until health costs are brought down to realistic levels, the lack of $$ will continue to divide us on where to cut.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
Georgy (anonymous profile)
June 19, 2009 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
i know first hand that no schools have 6 admin. and even those listing 4 is not accurate count of FTE. Some are part-time (and they don't indicate that on anything) or not even really admin - they say it on the website, but they are actually teachers, earning teachers pay (pretty much) but getting admin. experience. cheap labor for the district...
and Georgy is sooo right. the cost of medical insurance is strangling schools, (and probably others) which is indirectly affecting community, unemployment rates, children - our quality of life. Our med. insurance system needs serious reform... like that is going to happen anytime soon in this economic climate of everyone trying to just get what they can to maintain.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
tammy (anonymous profile)
June 22, 2009 at 11:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
With the Governator's proposed cuts and his promise to veto any budget that attempts to pay for reducing those cuts, there are going to be a lot more low income students. His cuts to counties mean that some parents will find themselves with no way to continue working due to the lack of affordable child care.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
LindaR (anonymous profile)
June 23, 2009 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment