SCSD and San Carlos Teacher's Association Reach Impasse

I have consistently written on your and other San Carlos blogs about the need to reduce government spending. I have also asserted that people who work for public organziations and governmental agencies should not be EXEMPT from our current economic downturn. People who work in private industry have been laid off, have had salaries and wages reduced, have had benefits reduced, and have been forced to work longer and harder to replace staff reductions in these companies.
Why should public employees be EXEMPT?
In my mind, they should not.
San Carlos families whose income is produced in the private sector have had to learn to live with less.
We as a society can not continue to spend money we don’t have.
If the US govenrment or the CA state government were individuals, they both would be bankrupt.
I believe San Carlos teachers need to face the same reality, people in private industry have faced over the past 2 years – either aceept reduced compensation or lose jobs. The SCSD needs to do the best they can with the money they have – that’s life that’s reality.

Arn,
You are way off base. As a mother of three children who have gone through San Carlos schools, I believe you are lacking a basic understanding of just what life is like for our teachers. Additionally, you are painting some very broad strokes by classifying all government workers as a single entity.
First, the amount paid to our teachers does not meet the traditional definition of “government spending”. They are not logging hours behind a desk at the DMV. This is a small group of local professionals who have been underpaid from the get-go. Unlike other areas of government, teachers have decided to take less because they are putting what they believe in ahead of making money. Additionally, many of these teachers that you want to take a cut, put a decent amount of their own money back into their classroom and for their students. What other government worker takes money from their own pocket and puts it back into the hands of the public?
San Carlos schools have been on shoestring budget for longer than I care to remember. The amount of effort that goes into just getting by each year with the different fundraising events and volunteerism from this community is staggering.
I understand tough times and I understand the need to cut spending, but just as in life there are exceptions to every rule.

Arn-
While the opinions you express in your posts are full of appealing rhetoric, I think there are a few clarifications that need be acknowledged (and for the record, I am NOT a public employee):
1) What evidence do you have that public employees are exempt from this downturn? Benefits changes, salary freezes, retirement changes, headcount reductions, etc. are options that are on the table for a number of public officials. As Bob’s mentioned in his post, SCSD has already eliminated five admin positions — would those families agree that they are immune from this downturn?
2) What is your mantra during good times? That is to say, if public employees should face the exact same realities as private employees in downturns, then do you argue just as vociferously for pay hikes and 401k plans and stock options for public employees when the private economy is booming? Or is the argument that public employees should only be exempt from success, not hardship? I would argue part of the risk/reward trade-off a public employee makes is sacrificing greater riches in good times for greater security in bad times. Increasing the risk of public employees without addressing the reward will skew the quality of workers available for public jobs.
3) Finally, from a macro perspective, why is it a given that the public sector should always mirror what the private sector does? When the private sector is hurting, that’s when the demand for public services is at its height. It’s times like these when public entities like the police department or youth and adult programs are most important. Cutting important programs like this when times are tough exacerbates rather than fixes issues.

Hi Bob,
Great posting. I think it is interesting that in most every district in the state, the teacher union is going to impasse with their school district. Knowing as many teachers as I do, I know that most of them understand the dire financial situation and that they want to work collaboratively to help make things work. Craig Baker, the SCSD has reached out to try and find a collaborative solution.
Given the pattern happening among all of these districts reaching impasse with their respective teacher union, I cannot help but wonder if this is happening because of the CTA (California Teachers’ Association). Most teachers I know want to work with their district. I think what we are seeing is the Union Leaders forcing these confrontations so that school districts must “impose these cuts” on the employees. It seems like political maneuvering among the union leaders so that they can maintain their power base.
And who gets hurt during this process? The vast majority of teachers that really want to do the right thing, the children, and every taxpayer because our real estate values are closely correlated with the quality of our schools.
Each school in the district is a charter school. Here is a radical idea–teachers could vote to disband their union representation. Teachers deserve to be treated better than this.

JJ – I am glad you find my rhetoric appealing !
Yes, the SCSD has cut 5 administrative positions but the SCSD still faces a budget defecit. If the number of teachers and/or their salaries are off limits from any cuts, what do you suggest SCSD do to eliminate the budget shortfall? Should more administrative positions be cut or should administrative salaries be cut? Should the people that clean the schools and cut the grass be laid off or have their wages reduced? I believe the SCSD is open to any suggestions as to how to make ends meet. Seems to be all employess of the SCSD should share the pain of the current economic realities.
Nothing in my post suggests that teachers should not receive the benefit of an improving economy. If the economy improves, personal incomes will increase, tax revenues to state and federal governments will increase – which will allow state and federal governments to send more money to local school districts. If and when revenues increase to the SCSD, then teachers in their next contract negotiation can request salary and benefit increases which I am sure the SCSD will be happy to approve provided the money is there. Yes, you are right – back in the old days – government employees accepted lower salaries in return for greater job security. However I am not sure this is the case now. I have seen studies that indicate government salaries are at the same level or even higher than the same job in the private sector. Even Williw Brown commented in his SF Chron column a few weeks ago that the trade off has changed – that it is no longer true public employees receive lower compensation than private employees. I also believe teachers own homes and invest in stocks and mutual funds. When the economy improves, their net worth will increase just like it will for non-teacher employees.
I agree when times are tough, people need more help. And in an ideal world, there would always be enough money to pay for everything everyone wants and needs. But it is not an ideal world.
I believe we have reached a tipping point where government spending is out of control and unless we fundamentally chnage our approach, things will get a lot worse than they are now.
I believe review of the fable “The Goose that Laid the Golden Egg” might be instructive for those who legislate in Sacramento and Washington DC and for those that live in San Carlos too! 🙂
Tammy
For the record, I am the father of two young adults who attended San Carlos public schools. I have a Master’s Degree in Chemistry from the University of Michigan. I taught while in grad school so please do not suggest that I have no understanding about education and the demands on teachers.
Yes some of my comments have been painted by a broad brush. I believe the problem is widespread and is found in all areas of government and public activities. The budget problems of our state impact our school district. All levels of government are interconnected so what effects federal government effects state government effects local school districts. The problem of ever increasing government spending must be attacked at all levels.
So if the number of teachers and/or their salaries are off limits from any financial cuts, then what is your suggestion to solve SCSD’s budget shortfall? Should only administrative positions in the SCSD be cut? Should we pretend the problem does not exist and hope it goes away? I believe the letter from the SCSD superintendent posted on Seth’s blog points out the reality of the situation. Where else can the SCSD reduce expenses? Should we sell a school site? How do you pay teachers with money you don’t have?
Trust me, I understand the value and importance of education to our community and our nation. But I also understand that unless we proceed as a nation and society under sound financial principles moving forward, our kids and their kids will not have much of a future as they work to pay off our massive national debt. Failure to deal with current economic realities and continuing to spend more money than we have will only lead to even more serious problems in the future.

Arn-
I appreciate the thoughtful response. Two quick additional thoughts:
1) I didn’t mean to imply that teacher salaries, etc. are off the table. I agree that realistically those sacrifices will have to be made. I only wanted to point out that SCSD employees and teachers have hardly been exempt from the realities you originally outlined. They very much have and will feel the squeeze of this budget environment. I think Chris had an excellent post indicating that this is part of the process and most teachers are willing to work out a solution.
2) I don’t think you necessarily suggested this, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense to run a school district based on economic cycles where you massively cut in bad times and then rehire in good times. Education is a public good, not a software package or private enterprise. The quality of education a 3rd grader gets today shouldn’t be drastically different than what they receive next year or the year before. That’s why, IMO, it’s very important to define an education that reflects the needs of the community independent of budget constraints and then find a way to make it work. If the money from the state doesn’t adequately meet our collective educational goals, then we need to supplement it with additional revenue. This is why building reserves, giving to SCEF, and passing supplemntal educational parcel taxes are so important — they help ensure high quality educational experiences for all students that go through the system — not just those who go through in good times.

JJ I agree with your point #2 completely! The problem is that when the good times roll and the streets are paved with gold, most government agencies spend every penny they get and then budget future years based on the high revenue years instead of say average revenue over a 10 year period. The state of CA fell into this trap during the dot com boon. In the late 1990s, many sold their stock options generating lots of revenue for the state. The state then made budgets assuming that this additional revenue from the sale of stock options would continue forever instead of the one or two year event it turned out to be. What happens is that in good years, new programs and entitlements are created and then they are almost impossible to take away in down years. Once a government entitlement is created it is next to impossible to remove. So if government agencies including schools in good years did not spend every penny they got but instead put some away in a “rainy day” fund then there would be money available to maintain services in down years. EXACTLY!

Though Arn’s comments appear bombastic, the notion that the public sector needs to think about how it spends money does resonate for me. We have all witnessed examples of excess spending and/or questionable fiscal management this year among some town public entities. I can see why people like Arn–and to some extent I–feel as we do.
That being said, I am struck by how public schools must now look to other revenue streams beyond federal and state funding to make ends meet. For example, if you were to look at the SCSD, right now about 8% of all revenue comes from sources other than federal and state funding–i.e. private funding (either through fundraising, running other businesses, etc). Charter Learning Center, a San Carlos public school that receives less funding from the state compared to other schools in the district (making do with even less than district dependent charter schools), has more than 20% of its revenue coming from sources other than federal and state funding.
It looks like the SCSD is borrowing from the Charter Learning Center model and starting up a comprehensive afterschool and summer program as well. This will allow SCSD to more than double its percentage of non-public revenue support and be close to the 20% mark as well.
I applaud their efforts to be creative and to find alternate revenue streams to support school programs. However, all the time they are spending raising money through these other programs is time taken away from focusing on student learning.
Perhaps, just the fact that these schools are getting into the business of running businesses seems to imply that communities are either not able to–or not interested in–fully supporting public education. Will this be the new model of public education going forward?

I just wanted to make one narrow point regarding good economic times and bad economic times. It is unfair to lump in school districts (particularly this one) with other government agencies (particularly the State and Federal) who can be fairly criticized as to spending everything they have in “good times.” Our school district was extremely prudent in those good years (which are all relative as schools are concerned given our incredibly low amount of finding compared to other states), and in fact this district was criticized by some at the time for building up too big of a financial reserve. We had a 14% reserve just three years ago (much more than required by law and more than many other districts), and it was the fact that we did that (along with the support of the community in terms of the parcel taxes and educational foundation) which allowed us to avoid some of the most painful cuts that other schools and gov’t agencies have done. But the cuts to education from the state have been so severe that it’s impossible to avoid painful cuts in San Carlos, but our situation is relatively better than many others.

Arn-
I mostly agree with your last post. The only thing I’d add is that the blame doesn’t fall solely on government agencies or officials. We bear a significant burden as well every time we vote on a proposition that mandates spending or limits revenue. While the proposition system may be well intentioned, it’s resulted in a fiscal mess in our state.
Chris-
You seem quite knowledgeable on the school system here. What federal funding does our school district receive, as I didn’t think we participated in NCLB.

It shocks me that Sacramento or other groups would criticize public agencies like school systems for maintaining a large reserve. That is something that I certainly did not know. If one looked at the past budgets of the SCSD, you would find that the Board and school district did an amazing job balancing the needs of the kids with prudent fiscal management and oversight over the last several years. It is one of the reasons why I think Seth is correct that districts should not always be lumped in the same category as other agencies. In this instance, the SCSD took excellent care of their finances over the last several years.
JJ-you are correct there is little federal funding for San Carlos Schools. The district did apply for, and successfully received, federal stimulus money last year so I know that this is a small part of their funding. And, you are correct that the overwhelming majority of funds come from the State at this point.

Seth
I subscribed to your blog several months ago and based on what you have written in your blog, I believe you and the other SCSD Board members are doing the best they can in a difficult situation.
As you correctly point out the financial mismanagement which effects our school district has occured at State and Federal levels.
Unfortunately, the SCSD is “low man/woman on the totem pole” and SCSD only gets what the State and Feds send us.
I believe the SCSD Board is exploring all options to 1) increase revenue and 2) control costs.
Let’s face it. NO ONE wants to reduce teacher salaries. NO ONE wants to reduce the number of teachers in San Carlos. I certainly do not!
That being said, SCSD only has a finite amount of revenue.
As sad as that may be and as much as we wish it were different, it is reality.
I believe the SCSD Board will explore any and all options.
After this analysis is complete, the Board will determine that there is X number of dollars available to pay teachers and provide benefits in the coming fiscal year. I am confident the SCSD Board will do everything it can to make X as BIG as possible.
It seems to me the Board should present these numbers and this reality to the SC Teacher’s Union and obtain Union input on how their members want to deal with the reality of X dollars.
Let’s assume X is 5% less than last year’s amount.
It seems to me the Union has a simple choice:
1) Reduce the number of teachers 5%.
2) Reduce salary and benefits across the board 5% thereby preserving every teacher position in the school district.
3) Some combination of #1 and #2 to achieve the needed 5% reduction.
Option #2 seems to best solution to me.
It will preserve jobs for all their fellow teachers.
This will not go on forever.
The economy will improve, the SCSD will find additional sources of revenue, and existing sources of revenue will provide more money in the future and teacher salaries can be increased when the revenue is there to pay for it. But for now, we can only do what we can do.
I imagine many readers who do not agree with some or all of what I have written may think I am somehow anti-children or anti-teacher, this is not true. My youngest son graduated from Central in 2003 or 2004. Despite the fact that I have no children currently attending San Carlos schools, I still donate $250 every year to the White Oaks PTA Walk-a-Thon. I know $250 is not a lot of money and I am sure many give quite a bit more. But I also believe many residents give NOTHING. It is my way of giving back to the school both my sons attended and to the a community I have lived in since 1986.
And if my comments seem strident or rhetorical or bombastic, it is only because I am very concerned about the direction our nation is headed.
We can not continually spend money we do not have and let future generations pay for it. Trying to provide our children the very best education and trying to prevent them from being buried by debt they had nothing to do with creating are NOT OPPOSING principles – both principles are aimed and providing our children and their children the very best possible future – something WE ALL WANT.

Well, since nobody has addressed this, I feel it is worth bringing up. At the last SCEF meeting I attended, I learned that the average assessed home value in San Carlos is about $400,000. I found this really shocking, as a relatively new homeowner here. Since most of the other families I know here are working parents with school-aged kids paying considerable property taxes, we tend to assume everybody else here is, but that’s clearly inaccurate. No wonder we have to do so much school fundraising. If education is really a priority, more people need to pay up, especially because they are enjoying enhanced real estate values because of the schools here.

The property tax issue raised in one of the comments is a result of the Passage of Proposition 13 in 1978.
Proposition 13 passed with 65% of the vote! 65 PERCENT.
Proposition 13 clearly had the overwhleming support of the majority of Californians.
I am kind of suprised to hear that a recent home buyer was not aware of Proposition 13 and the significance of same on existing homeowner and new homeowner property tax amounts. I discuss Proposition 13 with all my buyers and sellers so they understand how it works. Of course, many already know.
That being said, further information can be found at:
http://www.californiataxdata.com/pdf/Prop13.pdf
I would like to respond to and I quote “more people need to pay up”.
I purchased my home and have lived in San Carlos since 1978.
I have paid property taxes for 32 years!
So from my perspective, I have been PAYING UP for a long long time.
My youngest of two children graduated from Central in 2004.
And I continue to PAY UP.
And I will continue to PAY UP for as long as I own my house in San Carlos.
Now, I am sorry if some folks think, I haven’t PAID UP enough.
Should we form some kind of committee in San Carlos to determine how much each of us should PAY UP? What will be the criterion be to determine who has PAID UP enough?

Arn – the property taxes are not just for the schools. If you are still paying at the 1978 level, your property tax is not keeping up with the cost of police and fire services, among other things.
And if you feel that you have paid enough, how do you think those with no children feel about paying for the schools?
Popularity of a proposition doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do. It just means that it is the popular thing to do.
The better way would be to have a formula that ties in to actual services, rather than an arbitrary connection to property sale price at a given time.

Arn — I know about prop. 13, but thank you for your concern. I’m happy for you that your taxes are based on your 1978 purchase price. However, it is only fair that community members understand that the assessed avg. home value in San Carlos is so low, as it explains why the schools and city services are broke and will continue to be underfunded … btw, I was speaking to a San Carlos kindergarten teacher (since 1971!) the other day who remembers the pre-prop. 13 days, back when schools had nurses, school buses, cafeterias, full days (not like the once-a-week half days here) and parents weren’t asked to fundraise around the clock.

OK, I understand my position on financial issues facing San Carlos is not a popular one. I understand I am in the minority.
If I undertand school funding correctly at the current time, little funding for eduication comes from property taxes except for SCSD bond issues.
I am going to write about classroom size. I know it will be like touching the proverbial third rail and I am sure I will be criticized for it.
Let me ask everyone a question, especially the parents of kids currently attending San Carlos public schools:
When you were in public school during grades K – 12, what was your average classroom size?
In the 1960s, I attended public schools in Mt. View, Los Altos, San Francisco and Queens NY. The average classroom size at that time was 30-32 kids. Despite being disadvantaged with 30+ kid classroom sizes, I was able to obtain a good enough public education to attend Colgate University in Hamilton New York (National Merit Scholar) and graduate school at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor (Teaching Assistantship).
I would bet most adults in San Carlos experienced similar classroom sizes going to school.
I would also note that during this time period California public schools were among the highest rated in the nation. Today, California schools are among the lowest rated schools in the nation. So maybe classroom size is not a direct factor in the quality of education?
If classroom size of 30 was OK for us, why can’t it be OK for our kids?
I understand state law mandates 22 classroom size K-4.
But from an education standpoint, I do not believe it is the only way to go.
I am sure most state teacher unions pushed the CA legislature to make the change to 22 ten several years ago. 22 is not cast in stone. It doesnt’ have to be the #.
If we have 4 classes of 22 kids, we could make 3 classes of 30 kids.
This would result in a 25% decrease in teacher demand.
Now I know some will argue teacher effectiveness goes down as class size goes up. But it seems to me going from 22 to 30 would not decrease teacher effectiveness 25%, maybe 5% maybe 10%.
So maybe just maybe 22 classroom size is a LUXURY we can not afford at this time. I for one do not believe our kids would suffer major harm from attending larger classes. What do you think, honestly?
I imagine this one change alone would eliminate the financial pressures on the SCSD in a heartbeat.
I suspect in 1971, classroom sizes in San Carlos were closer to 30 than 22. Maybe if we had 30 now, we would still have some of the things Carline wrote about.
For those that have been in the SCSD since 1970 – either teachers or administration, I would be very interested to know how much the SCSD spent per child in 1970. Let’s take that amount and adjust for inflation to come up with 1970 cost in today’s dollars. Let’s compare that number to our actual 2010 cost per child. Hope that makes sense.
If the inflation adjusted 1970 cost per child is HIGHER than our 2010 cost per child, then I will take back every I have said about spending too much money and will jump on the bandwagon and I will write a check to SCEF right now. I will consult with Carline to determine the appropriate PAY UP amount! Just teasing you Carline – Peace 🙂
If the inflation adjusted 1970 cost per child is equal to or less than our 2010 cost, then maybe my crazy notion that we are spending money ineffectively or just spending too much money period will gain greater support in the community.
If we don’t have data back to 1970, let’s look at 1980 or any other date.
We need to put this in perspective in order to get a clearer understanding of what is going on.
I believe this calculation should be made including funds raised from the public thru PTA or SCEF if possible. Both ways would be good.
If anyone is able to get the data and make the calculations, I think it would be very informative to everyone in the community.
It would be interesting to get those figures for the City too.
I imagine all San Carlos residents or maybe just property owners recently recived a letter from the City indicating that Garbage rates are increasing 11.86% and Sewer rates are increasing 7%. I believe that the costs for both of these sevices were increased within the past 2 years.
So even though I am a grumpy old man hanging on to my Prop 13 property tax amount, I will pay these higher fees along with everyone else.
Did you receive a salary increase of 7% or 11.86% this year?
Bottom line, it just seems to me the government appetite for money will NEVER be satisfied. No matter how much we pay, government will always want more.
This will not stop until like the movie NETWORK we tell the government “We are madder than hell and we are not going to take it anymore!”.
Maybe the majority of Californians or Americans will never get there. But my sense is things have gotten so far out of control more and more people will take a look and question how much money we are spending.

Arn, et al — I can address some of the questions brought up by some of these comments. With regard to class size, I suspect Arn is correct that class sizes back when we were kids were indeed higher. And also, there is frankly mixed evidence on the correlation between class sizes and student achievement, although it is a very difficult thing to study. However, times are different now in a few ways. First of all, the populations of students is much more diverse than it was 30-50 years ago, particularly in California. Secondly, a lot of development in educational methods have revolved around the effectiveness of “differentiated education”, meaning training a teacher to effectively address different kids needs differently in his/her class. (It’s quite a skill, and we have many teachers in San Carlos who do this quite well.) In speaking with teachers, many of them will tell you because of this (appropriate) emphasis on differentiated instruction, the relative need for a smaller class size is more important. But as I said, evidence is mostly anecdotal here and it is mixed. It is interesting to note, however, that California class sizes are, on average, higher than the U.S. national average.
However, to be clear, class sizes are not mandated by law to be small. Some years ago, the State of California gave a financial incentive to school districts lower class sizes to 20-1 in grades K-3, and until recently those financial incentives exceeded the costs of the extra teachers required. However, those incentives have been modified in the last year, which is why you’ll see many districts increasing class sizes. You also state that just increasing class sizes would fix the SCSD budget problem — that is not true. Increasing class sizes is something we will likely do, but even a fairly dramatic change in class size would only cover a part of our current financial deficit (note that once you look at middle school in particular, the dynamics are very different with multiple specialized subjects, etc.). So, the SCSD (unfortunately) needs to do things such as salary reductions and elimnating or reducing certain programs and services.
To your question about finances, although I don’t have the per-pupil data, I can tell you that in 1970, California spent approximately $400 more than the national average per student on education, whereas now California spends approximately $1,000 less than the national average. However, those are averages — keep in mind that pre-Proposition 13, the differences in fundnig among school districts in the state was very large because they were based on property taxes. So, there’s no denying that there was more money for schools in the “good old days,” but there was a bigger difference between rich and poor districts.
Now school districts like ours are absolutely reliant on other local ways to bring in money, such as our parcel taxes and the Educational Foundation. Of course, I’d always encourage everyone to donate to SCEF! It is partly what sets San Carlos apart from many of our neighboring districts who are suffering worse than we are.
I realize this is a complex topic, so I’m happy to have a phone call (or meet for coffee) with anyone who is interested in chatting further. Send me an e-mail to srosenblatt@sancarlos.k12.us.

oops — messed up my own e-mail address…it’s srosenblatt@sancarlos.k12.ca.us

Hi Arn,
I have some data for you about per pupil spending in California going back to 1996. As you can see (below), next year per pupil spending will average about $4,900 in San Carlos for the 2010-11 school year. This is below the per pupil average going back more than fifteen years. And, as we all know, 2010 dollars give you far less purchasing power than it did back in 1995.
In addition, it is also far more expensive to educate children today compared to fifteen or twenty years ago. ADA and Special Education requirements have added on extra costs far beyond what was expected fifteen years ago. It is not accurate to do a straight “apples to apples” comparison.
Finally, California has historically funded public education less than the majority of other states in the country. For additional historical data, please check out this website:
http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Articles/Article.asp?title=california%20comparison
—Chris
Expenditures per K–12 Pupil in Fall Enrollment for California
Over the Last 10 Years
California Rank U.S Average
2005–06 $8,486 29 $9,100
2004–05 $7,935 30 $8,717
2003–04 $7,745 27 $8,340
2002–03 $7,580 26 $8,065
2001–02 $7,055 31 $7,532
2000–01 $7,018 24 $7,296
1999–00 $6,333 27 $6,824
1998–99 $5,666 36 $6,455
1997–98 $5,580 31 $6,174
1996–97 $5,191 36 $5,949
Data: National Education Association (NEA) Rankings and Estimates.

To clarify, the per pupil spending of $4,900 is based on state and federal funds only. This is similar to the NEA estimates. With local funding, it is about $7,000 per child in San Carlos. Still well below the national average of $10,000 for those states with just federal and state funding.
Chris

Since we pay directly for garbage and sewer, why can’t we do the same for public safety since that is indeed the largest part of the city’s expenses? That way we can decide how much we want to pay for what we get, rather than basing it on home values.