The state budget won
’t force many changes to the Morgan Hill School District budget
passed by trustees on June 6, but it could make it possible to add
some projects or programs.
The state budget won’t force many changes to the Morgan Hill School District budget passed by trustees on June 6, but it could make it possible to add some projects or programs.
“It should have minimal effect,” MHSD Business Services Director Fred Gallacinao said Friday. “We know that as with the basic budget that was approved, cuts will not be necessary, and restorations may be possible.”
The districts’ budget for next school year is $57 million and marks the first time in three years the MHUSD has not had to make deep cuts to staffing and programs. For the state, the $117 billion budget is the earliest legislators and the governor have approved the document in the last five years.
It’s unclear at this time to MHUSD officials how the recently passed state budget will impact the district, Morgan Hill Federation of Teachers President Donna Foster said.
“Next week, we (union leaders and district officials) will be going as a joint team to hear the School Services interpretation of the budget, and we will be better able afterwards to determine exactly what this budget will mean for our district,” Foster said Friday. “It is a little to premature to decipher it at this point.”
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has said the budget increases education spending by $379 per student, and that the total spending per student is at an all-time high of $10,325 according to a release from the governor’s office.
MHUSD’s new superintendent Alan Nishino said the governor’s statement is misleading.
“I really must address the $10,000 per pupil issue,” Nishino said. “In order to come up with that figure, the governor has lumped everything together. He has included the $50 million state library money, the $30 million from the committee on teacher credentialing, and he’s even included parcel taxes. We cannot use all those (funds) directly for our students.”
School Board President Shellé Thomas also took issue with the governor’s characterization of per pupil spending in California.
“The reality for us is that we get ADA (average daily attendance funds) of $5,000 per pupil,” she said. “If I had that $10,000, I’d be a basic aid district, not the low wealth district we are. We do receive a million from No Child Left Behind, but that benefits 1,800 students as it is school-based. The program itself can affect entire schools. But until we deal with real numbers, it’s just double talk.”
As a result of past budget cuts, the district is short staffed in many areas, including custodial and transportation staff and district office staff, a situation that concerns Nishino, who took charge of the district July 1.
“We need to get a good picture of where district is, which may be that we can just keep the status quo,” he said Friday. “There have been budget reductions in the past, and it looks like this state budget will not be adequate enough to backfill where those reductions were made. There may be some areas where we can make some compensation, but we’ll know more later. I am glad that a budget was passed.”
California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell shared Nishino’s mixed reaction.
“I’m pleased a state budget agreement was reached last night so that school operations won’t be impacted by a long delay in funding,” he said in a written statement released July 6. “I am, however, very disappointed in the lack of commitment to education reflected in this agreement. In fact this budget does not represent a significant increase in funding for our students. It barely keeps our schools afloat at a time when many districts are facing serious budget shortfalls. Nor does the budget include the $3.1 billion our schools were promised under Proposition 98 and the agreement reached with the Governor last year. I will continue to fight for significant new investment in California’s public school system so our schools will not continue to be shortchanged.”
Foster did say the adjustment to the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS) portion of the budget seemed to favor the teachers.
“We were glad that the burden wasn’t primarily on the individual teacher,” she said.
Thomas said she was not sure the STRS funding was clearly spelled out.
“If we’re (the district) still going to be responsible for a partial funding of STRS, if we will be responsible for 1 percent, that’s approximately $300,000 that’s a negative,” she said Friday. “We need to know before we can start rebuilding.”
And what is important, Nishino said, is that the district focus its efforts in the upcoming year on the success of its students.
“We must find the best ways to utilize our money to benefit our students,” he said. “The excessive reductions we have had to make in past years, while they may appear ‘far from the classroom,’ they have been felt in the classroom, and that is not what we want for our students.”
Marilyn Dubil covers education and law enforcement for The Times. She can be reached by e-mail at [email protected] or phoning (408)779-4106 Ext. 202.
