|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Officials of the Menlo Park City School District have known all along that even if a $360 annual parcel tax were approved by voters, they still would have work to do to balance the district’s budget.
That tax was approved by 78 percent of the voters in the March 7 election.
At a March 14 meeting, the district’s governing board took one step toward making $1.3 million in spending cuts over the next two budget years by approving the elimination of two full-time and one half-time non-teaching positions.
The positions that are eliminated are an accountant, an administrative assistant and a half-time receptionist. The clerical positions have been vacant since January.
Board members also got a look at what’s ahead in a report on the district’s current fiscal position from Chief Business Official Ahmad Sheikholeslami. His report suggests the district may not be able to continue giving annual raises to its teachers. In the past, teachers have usually received raises at the annual Bay Area rate of inflation.
The report says the school board should consider “tempering salary related increases until rate increases in pension contributions are stabilized. This includes exploring alternative compensation and benefit options to retain and attract talented staff.”
Mr. Sheikholeslami also suggests the district explore new sources of revenue and find ways to cut spending with “additional operational efficiencies and cost reduction measures.”
The district’s finance and audit committee is also about to discuss a policy for how to use any one-time funding the district receives, such as unanticipated state money or higher than expected property tax revenues.
Possible use of such funds could be to “restore eliminated programs, develop new programs, develop a pension reserve, or increase reserve levels,” Mr. Sheikholeslami’s report says.
“Controlling increased spending will be a key factor to the district’s long term stability,” the report says.
The projected budget shows the number of teachers in the district being reduced by making class sizes slightly larger throughout the district. Those, and other, cuts will save the district over $600,000 each year, with the cumulative savings by the 2018-19 fiscal year of $1.375 million.
Mr. Sheikholeslami said the board could chose to make different cuts when it actually adopts the next fiscal year’s budget in June.
Because the meeting ran late, the board has scheduled a special meeting for Tuesday, March 21, starting at 6 p.m. in the district office TERC building, 181 Encinal Ave., Atherton.
On the agenda are discussion of a new board committee on staff recruitment and retention, and consideration of the make-up of all board committees’ current membership.
__
You keep on giving them money and they will keep spending it. If your Child’s education is really that important to all of you then maybe you should take a look at what you are really spending and for what. If you sat down, took a breath and ran the numbers on how much you REALLY pay for your child’s public education you will find that your so called “public education” is really a Trojan Horse. It is fast becoming an unsustainable model that already is leaving lower income families in the dust and will soon rival the cost of a private education with half the results.
SB 807, which proposes to exempt teachers from state income taxes, offers a solution to the teacher retention problem. The text in SB 807 explores the cause of the retention problem. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB807
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. (a) This act shall be known and may be cited as the Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act of 2017.
(b) Pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 41 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, the Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(1) Research demonstrates the most important in-school factor affecting pupil achievement is the classroom teacher. Pupils with effective teachers are more likely to earn higher salaries, attend college, and save more for retirement and are less likely to be teenage parents.
(2) Over 30 percent of new teachers in California leave the profession in the first five years. According to the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, teachers leave the profession at a rate six times greater than other public employees, and 50 percent faster than first responders.
(3) The shortage of teachers in California is reaching critical levels in a number of teaching disciplines and geographic areas of the state and is projected to get worse with the oncoming wave of baby boomer retirements.
(4) Aspiring teachers in California often report the path for completing requirements for a preliminary credential, induction, and clearing a credential is uneven and costly. Some teachers face unexpected mandatory paycheck deductions and program closures for training required to clear a credential and legally teach in California, making it unnecessarily difficult to remain in teaching.
(5) Teacher shortages affect turnover within and across districts; and, on average, high teacher turnover rates have a negative impact on pupil achievement, and the effect is more pronounced in high-minority, high-poverty schools.
(6) The Teacher Recruitment and Retention Act of 2017 structurally addresses the current and growing shortage of teachers in schools and districts across the state by addressing challenges of entering the field of teaching, supporting novice teachers, and incentivizing effective teachers to remain in the classroom, recognizing the significance of their contribution to the children and the people of the State of California.
It has been reported that SB 807 would be the equivalent of a 4% to 6% raise in pay.
The District could ask for changes in SB 807 to include a revenue neutralizing element to offset the 4% to 6% benefit arising from teacher exemption from state income tax. An across-the-board salary reduction could effect that neutralization. This would make for a significant reduction in the unfunded liability of the CalSTRS pension fund.
Unfortunately, that does not address the issue of current retirees who are retroactively receiving subsidies to fund their 24K gold pensions.