SCUSD "Wrong-Sizing" is FLAWED

If there were one word that could clearly and concisely define this entire ordeal it would not be "fair" it would be "FLAWED". It is the main theme that runs through every aspect of it.

The facts and figures Superintendent Raymond is using as the basis for his financial argument are flawed. He is not presenting the entire story. Whether or not his omissions are intentional or not, I do not know. I just know that he is only presenting part of the facts and the facts he has presented have been presented inaccurately so as to give merit to his proposal. These figures only include unrestricted funds. Restricted funds need to be included in this analysis. According to the rules governing the use of these restricted funds, around 75% of those restricted funds can be applied to certain expenses that they are currently only using unrestricted funds to pay for (such as teachers' pay for one).

As to the 2.5 million deficit someone asked SCUSD Interim Chief Business Officer Richard Odegaard to point it out to them on the Unaudited Actuals. His response was that it is more of a concept than a line item that you can go to.  A concept?
Really? Do you know that a concept is? A concept is an idea, it is a theory, a
notion. Before the board decides to close eleven schools I would suggest that
they base their decision on something more concrete than a notion.  Here a statement Richard Odegaard sent in an email: "A budget deficit that results from a fundamental imbalance in government receipts and expenditures, as opposed to one based on short-term factors."  He then went on to say:  "A government budget deficit occurs when a government spends more than it receives in tax revenue, while a structural deficit is when a budget deficit persists for some time." The district’s financial history shows that it has not operated in a deficit
persisting over time. Going back over more than ten years the district has operated in a deficiency no more than two consecutive years in a row. There
will be a year in the red, followed by a couple years in the black, followed by a couple in the red, then another in the black, etc.

Richard Odegaard said he cannot point to line item(s) representing the 2.5 million. He is talking about the guesses (projections)  - revenue and expenditures
- that will end up being the 2.5 million. They want to save 2.5 million NEXT year.  This year we just have to show them that we can spend more mindfully. We don’t need to be closing 11 schools. We need to not spend over budget this year. We do that by examining current budgets/expenditures. THEN we look at the history (trends over the past 3 years). The full summary reports are on the district web-site. We begin a deeper look at those sites/departments that have a history of spending more than is in their budget. There are too many sites and too many departments to look at all right away - we start with the first offenders. When it comes to projections, historically the district has been way off the mark. Last year
alone with regards to one revenue funding source they under-projected the
actual amount by 10 million dollars.

Keep in mind - the school sites in the aggregate have ALWAYS spent within their budgets....  central services, on the other hand......  We don't know until we begin to look at individual department budgets.

In short, they are attempting to apply a long term permanent solution to a temporary, short term problem.

Their choice of criterion used to decide which schools to close is flawed. To close a school based solely on maximum enrollment capacity is ridiculous and neglectful. The very criterion itself is flawed. A school should not be viewed in terms of it's maximum enrollment capacity. It should be viewed in terms of its optimal enrollment capacity or minimum enrollment capacity - those are terms more aptly applied to determining the operational efficiency of a school. A school operating at maximum capacity (or at least that which you have calculated) is in no way operationally efficient. The way in which you have determined maximum capacity is flawed - using all teachable space including those providing essential programs and services. Also, with regards to the inefficiency of split classes, it was the district's elimination of transportation services that was the primary contributing factor in the increase of split classes. It makes no sense to resolve this issue by
reinstating transportation for students of a closed school to another school.
The district’s recent enrollment capacity report has grossly inflated the
enrollment capacities over those contained in their report from just a few
years ago (2008-2009) by 3273 across the 11 schools broken down as follows:

Fruitridge  +406

James W. Marshall  +214

Washington  +265

Tahoe  +224

C.P. Huntington +251

Susan B. Anthony  +187

Bret Harte  +274

Joseph Bonnheim  +349

Mark Hopkins +304

Clayton B. Wire +406

Maple +393

In the case of James Marshall, according to the district’s High Performance Facility Assessment Report for the school the optimal enrollment
number stated was 552-672.

The superintendent's proposal contains no concrete plan with regards to how to handle traffic safety/transportation and priority enrollment. To stumble forward into these issues as blindly as they are doing  is just plain careless, irresponsible, and foolish.

The entire process in which the district has conducted this whole thing is flawed. They have completely disregarded the legislative intent and recommendations of the California Department Of Education's "Closing a School Best Practices Guide" with the exception of what they have interpreted to be the absolute minimum that is legally required of them. They have knowingly, willfully, and intentionally ignored the input of the communities and excluded them from contributing sufficiently in this process

Closing a school should always only be the absolute last resort. So before they decide to do so the board had better be absolutely certain that the facts and figures by which they are basing their decision are unequivocally and undeniably 100% accurate, and that they have absolutely no other alternative but to close these elven schools as you have exhausted every single other option possible. If not, they are obligated  to vote against the proposal and go back to the beginning and start this process over following the proper procedures and the proper timeline.