Answers to some of the Press Democrat Questions

By Bill Carle

The following are my answers to some of the Press Democrat questions. They give you a flavor of some of my views. If you want additional information, feel free to email me at bcarle@cgfequities.com

As I stated during our budget hearings last year, class size reduction for K-3 should be a priority. It makes fiscal sense; it is not really an expense. Let me explain.

We receive considerable dollars form the state to maintain lower class sizes. Any students above 20 in a K-3 classroom, decreases the money we receive. The greater the number over 20 per classroom, the smaller the check from the state. Roughly speaking we would save $600,000 if we increase class sizes at K-3. This means cutting about 40-45 teacher positions. We receive about 2.5 million from the state for maintaining the lower class sizes. The net result is that we pay about $15,000 per year for each of the teachers needed for lower class sizes (taking into consideration the state payment we would otherwise lose). It is hard to argue that is a bad deal. In short, we get a great bargain for maintaining lower class sizes. And while there is evidence on both sides of the question of whether lower class sizes are educationally beneficial, it is not hard to imagine why most teachers say they have more success working with 20 1st graders, versus 30 1st graders, in a classroom.

Should completion of A-G courses be required to graduate from high school? Please explain your reason.

The problem with most graduation requirement systems is that one size cannot fit all. Of course, there is value in making sure each student reaches the highest level they can and to encourage them to maintain a class schedule which gives them the most options upon graduation. But even San Jose Unified that requires A-G, only had 41% of their students successfully complete the requirements in 2007-2008, (the latest data available). This was higher than the state average of 34%, but by no means anywhere near 100%.

If Santa Rosa required this we would have to provide an additional year of Math and Science for ALL students. This would cost approximately Two MILLION dollars, per year. At a time when we have to cut perhaps 5-6 times that, we should not be putting into place NEW programs of this magnitude.

And what impact would it have on our Career Pathway Programs, recognized as some of the best vocational training, relevant to today's workforce, in the entire state?

We clearly want to provide A-G for as many students as possible. We need to encourage students to reach for that goal and support them when they try. But requiring all students to complete A-G is fiscally unsound at this time and would have other detrimental impacts.

How can the structure of how education is funded in California be improved?

Clearly this is where the problem exists. Some say increase revenues, but the problem is there is no guaranty those revenues will find their way to schools.

There are four areas upon which, I think, we need to focus.

First, increase local control. Our teachers know what their students need. They know the populations. Local districts should have greater control over their budgets to address issues unique to each district. The lack of local control does not recognize the differences in populations from district to district. Let's put the accountability at the local level, where the voters have a clear say.

Second, collapse categorical funding. The state and federal governments love to "give" money to schools then attach requirements on where and how to spend it. We have had bills pass the legislature in the years I have been on the Board to address the needs of particularly large districts in the state, without regard to the needs of other districts. For instance, one bill gave money to all districts to buy certain textbooks. What if your district already did, or chooses some other textbook? You get the money, but since you don't use it for the specific purpose, it goes right back to the state. We have many programs that are funded by these categoricals, yet we sometimes do not have the need for the program and the money can't be used for other clear needs.

Third, stop unfunded mandates. When the state and federal government doesn't have money they can dangle at local districts through categoricals, they sometimes pass requirements, but fail to fund them. These are called unfunded mandates. And while, at the state level, we are supposed to reimbursed, through an application process, for money spent on these unfunded mandates, this becomes nothing more than an IOU from the state to be paid later (hopefully). We spend now and hope to get the money later. In the end, no requirement should be passed unless it is fiscally neutral, or the government passing the regulation pays for it up front.

Fourth, correct the special education funding mess. The federal government does not pay its fair share (an unfunded mandate). Our general fund overages total close to half of what we need to cut next year. If that were properly funded, we would be in much better shape. Further, special education should not be a disproportionate burden on one district over another. This should be spread out over our entire system. That way districts won't try to push off expensive special educational programs on other districts. The obligation is greater than any one district.

Sonoma County school districts have seen a drop of approximately 20 percent in funding from the state over three years. Looking back over those three years, where would you cut that 20 percent?

This question seems aimed at people who have not been on a Board, and, as a result, don't have a voting record to review.

My priorities for cuts in the last three years, and during the early part of the last decade are a matter of record; a record upon which I stand. The cuts were developed with substantial public input, more than I have seen in any previous budget process. However, virtually none of the cuts were in areas the majority of the Board or public thought was acceptable. Plainly put, we are cutting where there is no money to cut.

As a general compass, though, I weigh cuts based on the "distance" from the classroom and impact on student achievement and success. That necessarily means larger cuts in administration, which bore the highest percentage salary reductions in the last budget process. I do not favor shortening the school year or increasing class sizes, if there is any reasonable way to avoid those kinds of cuts.

Should Sonoma County's 40 school districts consolidate? Please explain your reason.

I have long stated that consolidation of some of the school districts in our County makes sense. Forty districts in a County our size does not. Sonoma County averages one district for every 1,776 students. What a waste of non-classroom resources. Surrounding counties' school districts are as much as ten times larger. When I first raised this issue 15 years ago, there was such strong sentiment for "local control" it was politically unpopular. I think we are closer to a public consensus that we must move in this direction. The County Superintendent is willing to work with any districts that want to explore potential consolidation. What needs to happen is a budgetary analysis of the impact on employee salaries. When you consolidate you are merging compensation systems. That could actually mean increased costs for some districts which might offset administrative and other savings. Without a detailed analysis, you cannot be sure of the financial value of consolidating any two districts. I am working on getting this done.

Should open transfer policies be tightened? Please explain your reason.

Many transfers are the result of policies required by state and/or federal programs or laws. For instance, some lower performing schools, as measured by certain tests, are required to allow students to transfer. As a district, we cannot tighten those policies. Many parents find it more convenient to drop students off at schools closer to work or have other transportation issues that dictate school choice. What is destructive is a change made because of perceived issues with one school or another. Often I find those transfers are based on inaccurate information. We need to communicate and educate more to let parents know what good programs exist. We also need to hear from parents if there are perceived problems that can be addressed, because all other considerations being equal, students should attend the schools closest to their home.