Vantage point: Wishful thinking doesn’t help kids
By:
CSBA President Martha Fluor
Published: August 1, 2011
The best thing that one can say about the recently completed budget process is that it could have been a lot worse. In this day and age, that almost counts as a successful campaign. And while I’m pleased that CSBA played such a vital role in defending the interests of school districts and governance teams, I’m not entirely happy with the outcome—and neither should you be.
We agree that the level of school funding contained in the budget—even with the possibility of midyear cuts—is probably the best that could be achieved under the circumstances. We are greatly disturbed, however, by a provision in the budget package that prohibits school districts from adopting budgets that prepare for the very real possibility of midyear cuts. Instead, schools have been told to assume that the level of funding temporarily provided in the budget and contingent on higher revenue projections will be maintained throughout fiscal year 2011–12.
The restrictions imposed on districts in Assembly Bill 114 also prohibit them from having to demonstrate that they can meet their financial obligations for the next two years as part of the annual budget review and approval process. Instead of asking school districts to base their budgets on realistic budget numbers and conduct prudent planning, AB 114 requires local school leaders to base their budgets on wishful thinking. More than 140 school districts are on the fiscal watch list for having a qualified or negative budget certification because of their weak financial health, and these districts need every tool available to them to make the hard decisions necessary to balance their budgets.
Gov. Jerry Brown’s signing message further says that AB 114 “provides schools the authority to shorten the school year by up to 7 days” as a means to reduce costs. Actually, the bill merely authorizes schools to ask their teachers if they would agree to shorten the school year. The signing message further states that “School boards may nevertheless need to make reductions due to cost increases, loss of federal funds, enrollment declines or other factors,” and that the legislation “does not interfere with these local school board decisions.” However, the law is very clear: “Each school district budget shall project the same level of revenue per unit of average daily attendance as it received in the 2010–11 fiscal year and shall maintain staffing and program levels commensurate with that level” [emphasis added]. Any school district that relies on the governor’s signing message— and not the law—could find itself in court.
CSBA supported the governor’s proposal for a gimmick-free budget that contained a balanced mix of spending cuts and revenue extensions. I joined the governor at a press conference, asking Republican legislators to provide the votes needed to allow California’s voters to decide on revenue extensions. CSBA wanted the kind of budget that the governor wanted for the state—balanced, honest, and free of the smoke and mirrors that have plagued state budgets over the years. We want the same kind of budgets for schools. The governor and Legislature should repeal the provisions of AB 114 that make this impossible.