Currently schools are owed 3.8 billion according to the Leg Analyst. Under 76 this money would be repaid over 15 years, currently I believe it is 5 years. Under 76 this 3.8 billion would not raise the minimum funding under 98, as it would now. Instead it would be repaid over 15 years as one time payments. This would mean an ongoing cut of $600 per student, 22,000 students in Simi, do the math. Also under 76 the governor could cut the budget four times a year for schools. The legislature would get 30 to 45 days to come to agreement on where to cut, currently they cannot get a 2/3rds vote on a budget once a year in that time frame. So if republicans refused to cut a deal, they in affect give total control to the governor. He can then cut school budgets four times a year. Once he cuts the school budget, it lowers the minimum funding level from that point on. In reality I think the 12 million dollar figure for Simi Schools to be cut may be too low a projection. I also think Districts may have to cut sports, arts, music, intervention programs etc, in order to build reserves in anticipation of the cuts that could come to their budget once the school year starts.

We need to know how much funding, from all sources, that SVUSD has received for the last 4 or 5 years. Then we can calculate a “per student” level of funding. Anyone know where to find the information?

Funding from all sources does not make sense, because not all sources can be used for all things. The property that was sold on Alamo and Tapo Cyn can only be used for building related things lasting 5 years or more for example. So, if the general fund was cut by 14 million, it would not be accurate to say the 14 million from the property sale made up for it. If you had 10 cents in one pocket that could only be used to buy food, and in the other pocket you had a $100 that could only be used to buy water, could we say that you have enough money to buy a ham sandwich because you have $100.10?

As much as I love Borders, that property would make a great High School now wouldn't it?

So Arleigh, are you saying that this prop 98 funding is all general fund, and does not include any categorical funding? IF it doesn't include categorical figures, then does that mean we are spending MORE than the prop 98 guarantees?

I am going to have to review these arguments.

Tim

Tim,
What I said was that you cannot just say lets count all the money, from all sources, and then make simple statements about it. School finance is very complex. I was just saying that if you count all sources, you must also factor in the restrictions on those sources. If you have a dollar that can only be spent on certain things, you cannot count that dollar along with ones that can be spent on anything. To say the 14 million for example should make up for classroom supply budgets would be wrong because it cannot by law, be spent that way. Looking at today's poll numbers on 76 is so far down that I think this entire blog will be academic anyway.

Arleigh:

Why is school finance have to be so convuluted? I think the real problem is no one knows what money can be used for what purpose without being a CPA. Is that really in the best interest of the public's right to know?

Scott

Well, it does make you wonder how districts operate without CPA's or proven CFO's on staff?

Tim:

It seems like an insider's game actually. I can pick up the city budget and tell you exactly how much went to this program. Seems pretty straight and narrow. My understanding is the city budget gets awards each year for how its presented.

I look at the school districts and I have a heck of a time figuring out what monies go to what. Maybe, they just need help in this area...

Scott

Tim and Arleigh:

These stats are from edsource.

Revenue ADA SVUSD
$6,214

Average Revenue District
$7,271

Average Revenue ADA Statewide
$7,251

Why is SVUSD below ADA revenue averages for both the state and districts? We are below by almost a 1,000 dollars per kid.

I want to know why?

Scott

I'm looking a little closer at the numbers...

How much the federal government contributes to: SVUSD: 223 ADA
District: 677 ADA
Statewide: 653 ADA

I guess it could be argued that we don't want to surrender local control 454-430 per student. Personally, I'd rather get an extra 430-454 for our students.

You'd think that because federal funds are so low, we'd have a larger portion of property taxes going to schools...

Wrong again.

Property taxes and fees (Revenue)
SVUSD: $1,945 ADA
District: $2,115 ADA
Statewide: $2212 ADA

Scott

Scott, School finance is so convuluted and that is why I took a class at UCLA to understand it. Not all Districts are funded at the same level for a variety of reasons. I saw the City of Simi Valley is giving $38,000 in tax dollars to the McDonalds on Tapo St. Why are my tax dollars being given to one of the richest corporations on earth? The City said they are too poor to give any more help to the schools, but not too poor to subsidize billion dollar corporations.

Arleigh:

I know, but the question is should school finance be that difficult to understand that citizens need to take a course at UCLA to understand it.

I am not aware of the McDonalds thing, but I do know that Tapo St. falls under the city's redevelopment zone, I think.

Based on the city's budget estimates over the last five years, the school district has received 1,228,406 in CDA funds because the city has decided to form redevelopment zones in certain areas of the city. (It's probably a little higher because I do not have the 03-04 budget)

The question I have is I go through the school's budget and I can't seem to figure out where the CDA money from the city went?

Arleigh,

Can you help me find the 1.2 million over five years? I hope city funds can go to the kids, but I'm not sure if its locked in a fund that no one can use...

Is there awards the school district gets in budgeting each year that I might not be aware of?

Why does out school district not have the level of federal funds on par with other districts in the state? It seems based on edsource, we are losing out on almost 500 bucks per kid.

Are we not being aggressive enough in going after federal funds that other districts have?

Based on edsource, SVUSD is shorted in prop 98 general fund money too when compared with other district? Why are we not on parity with other districts in terms of ADA revenue limit?

Scott

Arleigh:

I compared some districts and am wondering why Inglewood Unified gets more than Simi Unified.

Inglewood Unified: $6,980
Simi Unified: $6,214

If we want our state to have better per-pupil spending than alabama, then surely we want parity in funding with Inglewood Unified School District locally.

Why aren't our local elected officials getting more school funds to be on par with Inglewood?

Scott

Scott,
School finance has developed over about the last 50 years in California. To say that the school district in Simi is at fault for the funding system the state gave them does not make sense. The individual district is just following the rules handed down to them. I don't see any ballot initiatives by Arnie to simplify school funding. I think surplus property funds should be able to be used for anything, but that is not the rule for those funds. I see the Star came out on "No for 75" today.

I'm not saying that it's the school district's fault. I'm wondering why we don't have per pupil funding that's equivalent to Inglewood?

I used the term local elected officials to encompass everyone from our trustees to our state senator. This isn't even on the radar and I'd like to know why.

How can we be so vehement about state funding not being equivalent to states like Alabama, yet not really question why Simi seems to be getting the short end of the stick on per pupil funding when compared to a district just an hour away?

Scott

I'm not saying that it's the school district's fault. I'm wondering why we don't have per pupil funding that's equivalent to Inglewood?

I used the term local elected officials to encompass everyone from our trustees to our state senator. This isn't even on the radar and I'd like to know why.

How can we be so vehement about state funding not being equivalent to states like Alabama, yet not really question why Simi seems to be getting the short end of the stick on per pupil funding when compared to a district just an hour away?

I'm just asking for parity in funding.

Scott

I think the McDonalds issue changes the subject... The City isn't responsible for providing funding to its much larger cousin, the school district, even though it does to the tune of hundreds of thousands a year.

The larger question at hand is this: Why are Simi Schools getting short-changed?

To me, it sounds like the people in charge of making sure the district get its requisite funding, are not fighting as hard for it as Arleigh is.

If I was Arleigh, I would want to know why they keep letting me, and the kids of Simi Valley down. $1000 per kid? Unconscionable.

I'm just wondering why it's not an issue locally...

Scott,
In terms of why our funding is lower or higher than others is a function of history. It has to do with levels that were set after Prop 13, with Gann limits etc. Arnold had no equalization funding in this past budget, equalization funding is what gets a district like Simi caught up. It is Arnolds fault that Simi is behind Inglewood and Conejo because he did not come through. Heck, he won't even come to Simi to meet Bush at the Reagan library. Tim, I find it amusing that you are defending the City giving $38,000 of our local tax money to one of the richest corporations on earth. Seems like a good example of corporate welfare to me. Shouldn't that money at least go to help mom and pop businesses that are being put out of business in Simi by Wal Mart and the new mall? My wife and kids went to the mall and they said they had their time ruined by people smoking.

Arleigh,

Are you saying you'd rather debate McDonalds, than school funding? That's a little surprising, and I'm not sure we want to waste readers time on this.

All I will say is this: Do you know if the McDonalds on Tapo is corporate owned, or owned by a Franchisee? If it's a franchise, then it's a small business just like those you now seem anxious to protect. Does the City have a responsibility to keep Tapo street from being more blighted than it is? I think they do, and I think the money being spent there to increase shopping and sales tax revenue is important. Do we want the stores on Tapo Street to close, putting kids out of work? Then they might have to work and breathe up at the mall! Where is your humanity!?

But I think we need to know if the store is corporate owned or a franchise before we continue to speak about it out of turn.

Now, back to why Inglewood Trustees bring home the bacon better than SVUSD? Doesn't this trouble you? Arnold has been in office 18 months, and he's to blame? The Inglewood vs. SV funding is from the 03-04 budget (hardly under the Arnie watch). The question is why is Simi having to catch up? How come Inglewood gets more money in the first place? And I am sure this is but one example of the disparity.

The bigger question in my mind, is why is it that we bloggers are asking these questions, and the Trustees are not?

Tim

I compiled this list and ranked the Ventura County schools based on revenue/per pupil on the latest budget info available on the web.

Rank School 03/04 Revenue/ Per pupil
1 Mesa Union 7,757
2 Santa Clara Elementary 7,615
3 Santa Paula Elementary 7,504
4 Oceanview Elementary 7,431
5 Oxnard Elementary 7,179
6 Oxnard Union High 7,050
7 Santa Paula Union 6,917
8 Hueneme Elementary 6,891
9 Ojai Elementary 6,855
10 Somis Union Elementary 6,706
11 Fillmore Unified 6,567
12 Ventura 6,514
13 Ventura Unified 6,514
14 Moorpark Unified 6,506
15 CVUSD 6,480
16 Rio Elementary 6,470
17 Briggs Elementary 6,377
18 Pleasant Valley School 6,295
19 SVUSD 6,214
20 Oak Park 6,165
21 Mupu Elementary 6,093

How about we start a discussion about how we move Simi above 19 in the county? I'm definately interested in how we can raise per/pupil revenue to move up the rankings.

Scott

Do I want Simi to have more funding? Of course. Can I tell you all the reasons why we have a difference? No. If our District has the power to change it should they? Of course. Do I run SVUSD? No. Can I debate and think about many things at one time. Yes. So lets talk more about McDonalds. Even if they are a franchise should they not get help from their parent corporation, rather than the taxpayers of Simi Valley? How much profit did that McDonalds on Tapo make last year? Shouldn't the tax payers of Simi Valley know that before they give them $38,000 of our local tax dollars. I find it ironic that you guys are always saying the schools should make due and not ask for more money, but when McDonalds wants more money that suddenly is "For the good of the children." Yes I'm sure eating at McDonalds will benefit our kids. Should not the City have asked me personally before giving them my tax dollars? Can I opt out?

Arleigh:

I just want to help move Simi from 19 on the rankings. I mean what is the point of arguing for all these increases in taxes and fees as you have been to pay for schools, if it's not even going to help make Simi one of the best funded schools in the district?

I mean do you really want to increase my taxes, so Mesa Union can get to 8,000 in per pupil funding?

What about Simi kids?

Scott

It appears that the wealthier a community is, the less funding the school district (note Oak Park). Would parents be willing to pay a special assessment for each of their children in the district? It seems to be the quickest and most direct way to increase “per student” funding and the parents would get to vote on the priorities. It would be money that goes directly to the classrooms and the programs that the parents want.

Jerre,

So, your saying do a local bond to raise local per student funding?

Scott

Scott,
Of course I want to increase funding in Simi. That is why I was so angry when Arnold proposed nothing in equalization funding. Equalization funding is too bring a District like Simi up to the level of everyone else. What do you propose we do to get Simi more funding? Why don't you guys care that we are giving McDonalds $38,000 of our tax dollars with no oversight, we don't get to see their budget etc.? Did you see the new field poll today 11/1? Arnie is hurting his initiatives more than helping them.

Arleigh:

I'd be interested in testing out a trigger proposal. In years where equalization funding is lost in Sacramento, it would be tantamount to a property tax increase because property owners are then forced to make up the difference and are repaid by Sacramento for fronting the difference.

Therefore, it would be in the interest of Sacramento to focus in and make sure voters' property taxes don't have to make up the difference or face their wrath at the polls.

It also seems that the higher per-pupil districts get a lot more federal aid. I'd look into pursuing greater federal funding to make up the difference and move Simi up in per-pupil funding.

I want to clarify that I do not know if our district is pursuring fed funds aggressively or not. I would just say, if there is money on the table, it should be pursued aggresively.

Definately interested in everyone's opinion or counter proposal on this.

Scott

Scott: I am not proposing a local bond to raise funding. I am interested in seeing what parents, like you, might think of a special assessment to be paid by the parents for each student in the district. This has several advantages. One Hundred Percent of the assessment dollars will flow directly to the classrooms (without going thru Sacramento). The parents who pay the assessment get to vote on the priority list. It’s direct democracy. It’s an idea that could be implemented now, as opposed to other ideas that will be talked about for years without action.

Jerre, I see what your saying, like a fee on parents. Don't parents pay fees already for certain things?

Please elaborate.

Scott

A parents tax......

Sounds more like a useage fee, like a "toll road" for schools.

It's a tenable idea, but only if it covers everything. It woud have to raise enough money to cover band uniforms, instructional materials, capital equipment and everything else that schools are legally supposed to pay for, but that end up getting covered by the endless fundraisers.

It's worthy of debate. I think the only way you could sell it to parents would be that they are basically already paying it.

Tim

Arleigh,

This is a discussion with too much saturated fat...

Again, I think McDonalds keeps getting brought up to change the subject, but I would be pretty confident that if you went to City Hall, did a public records request and asked for the information regarding the redevelopment agency grant (loan?), you'd get it. I would think they would have costs, architectural drawings and the like for your review. When you get it, let us know your findings and we'll post them here in the blog.

Speaking of costs, architectural drawings, bids and the rest, I think it's interesting and inconsistent that you want the details and are asking for oversight on the $38,000, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME the SVUSD is STILL out of compliance with the Ed Code over publishing the oversight and details of the (taxpayer approved) $145 million in bond funds!

So let's see if I understand this - $38,000 to a McDonalds Franchisee to remodel their facade is a travesty, a betrayal of taxpayer interests and a payoff to the rich, while a violation of the law and a complete lack of information on the use of $145 million is acceptable?

Let's make a deal: You opt out of your share of the $38K, and I'll opt out of my share of the $145 million!

Can you explain this inconsistency for us?

Tim Keaney

Scott:

It just a question of how to increase funding, sooner rather than later. Waiting for the state, county or city to do it is not a reasonable expectation. They’ll still be talking about it long after your kids are out of the public school system. Tim’s point is valid – parents already pay for a great many things. But are parents interested in putting up enough additional money out of their pockets to make a difference in the classroom environment. Sure, they complain about the low levels of funding, but will they reach into their own pockets to make it happen. $400 per year per child would make a tremendous difference in the classroom. Would it cover everything everyone wants? No. But a thousand dollars each might. Look at it this way – the state and local governments are providing the base dollars. Would parents be willing to kick in more money knowing that it was going directly into the local school district?

I agree with Jerre that we need to pass a parcel tax in Simi to better fund our schools. My point about McDonalds is that I know about as much about running a McDonalds and the cities budget as you guys know about being a teacher and reading a school District budget. You guys are inconsistent. You want all these things with the schools, but if it is something business related, or endorsed by the City Council you don't ask questions. It is kind of like what is going on in Washington DC right now and the debate over pre-war intelligence. Do you guys want to know the truth even if W goes down over it? Or does truth only concern you when it is something you don't like or disagree with?

We get less federal funds because we have less Title 1 schools. We get less state funds because the state has never made permanent the equalization of the state support. Appearantly we are close enough to satisfy the Serrano V Priest decision that required 'roughly' equal funding. Even in the good years we didn't get equalization made permanent.

We do have less costs than other districts. We don't have a School Police Department like LA, the City provides our School Resource Officers. If having Schools like LA is what it takes to get a few more dollars, I'll pass thank you.

The 12 million (or whatever it is) is an artificial number, because its derived from a Prop 98 accounting quirk that created the 3.8 billion in the first place.

The Prop 98 formula was not designed for the massive loss of income that the state has seen. Prop 98 protected the schools against the cuts that would have come from the falling state income (a good thing), but then calculates new growth increments from the states income recovery, even though the state is not back to where it was before the recession. Schools were lucky to be protected, demanding the growth on the recovery is simply unrealistic - the state didn't have the money!!

And the state still doesn't. We are sitting here arguing over what we should be getting and the state is going further into the red. So we have two options - higher taxes or, more likely, a de facto budget freeze from no budget at all. If we don't fix this problem the state is going to implode - and this will not be good for schools.

Right - I think it's the structural financing of the state government that is fatally flawed. I think the reform of changing the payback formula is a good one.

I think in political terms, from a cynical standpoint, Schools could have gotten X amount more in the budget this year, which would have delayed the road construction projects. But how do you delay the road construction projects, which are needed for jobs, alleviating traffic and beter movement of goods. If they had paid back X of the prop 98 guarantee this year, instead of proposing it over 15 years, the education establishment would perhaps not only still be at the table, they'd be supportive of actual reform.

Hindsight of course, but we'll see Tuesday if the Governor's advisors earn their keep. Reform of any kind will be a long way off if they don't.

Tim

So I guess Arnold should have waited before cutting the car tax and losing 4 billion a year? Also, I guess in California we should be satisfied to be 44th in per pupil funding and second in large class sizes? Even though we are the richest state in the nation, world's fifth largest economy, we are about to implode because we are broke? Demanding that Prop 98, an initiative passed by the people, be followed, is unrealistic? Is fixing Prop 13 to make businesses pay their fair share, as Warren Buffett suggested, unrealistic? Can Chevron afford to pay a little more, I mean they did just report a record profit in the billions, thanks to all of us, should they pay their fair share? Of course I think Prop 76 will go down in flames along with the rest of Karl Rove's, I mean Arnold Schwarzenegger's, agenda. On Tuesday the people will speak.

Also, if we are so broke, how can the City of Simi Valley afford to give $38,000 to McDonalds, one of the richest corporations on earth? Oh I know, that is what we call an investment. Isn't giving kids a good education an investment, or is saving a buck more important?

Cathy Carlson from TO here: Well, I was wondering how long it would take before someone mentioned Title I funds! How come Arleigh Kidd didn't explain that from the get go? Thanks, Gregg. I knew that, too. Districts do NOT have to apply for Title I funds. It is optional. If they have enough poor kids and parents who don't even have high school diplomas, then they probably qualify. That is a rough outline for qualifications. If districts do take the monies, then they have to show accountability under the No Child Left Behind Act for Title I schools. It's simple: take federal monies and follow federal guidelines. Don't take the money and don't worry about having low acheiving schools meet certain levels. Some districts around the country are choosing independence over the stress of meeting federal standards and scrutiny. In California the federal expectations are so low, that the federal AYP, Adeqauate Yearly Progress, is only at 49% of the API. They finally raised it after being a generous 45% for 7 years. The educrats need to stop grousing over this! NCLB for California is not tough to meet!

Cathy here again: About MacDonald's, they are all franchises. I did some work years ago for their Corporate Real Estate headquarters in Palo Alto. The facade problems were the big thing then, too. Entrepreneurs must submit facades designs to both their City Halls and to MacDonald's Corporate Real Estate for approval. This can go on for years, which is a killer for a small investor. Note that the City of Thousand Oaks last month just gave a nice grant to the owners of the Denny's at the entrance of TO on Moorpark Road to improve the landscaping and facade. TO City Council mentioned it was an investment in public relations and a help to the small business owner. Why is Arleigh against government helping private enterprise? Would he prefer that the owner sign away his papers to the state in exchange for help? He has become such a radically lefty, I believe his toes must have turned from being "jar head" Marine green to a lovely shade of "commie pink". (He was a Marine reservist for 6 years. Why didn't he stick it out 'til retirement? I'm retired Naval Intel, by the way.)

For new readers, Arleigh Kidd is the Executive Director of the combined Simi and Conejo Valley branches of the California Teachers' Union, the CTA.

Cathy,

We may all agree or disagree with Arleigh Kidd, but I think it's important to also recognize and say thanks for his service in the military. It takes courage to sign up, and Arleigh did it because he thought it was best for him, and the nation. I will never begrudge him that.

Disagree on the issues all you want, but I think talking about his military experience is out of line.

Tim