98 replies to this topic

[Parizienne]

Regarding the $10/month parcel tax suggested in the district's survey. . .

I know many people on MyFolsom are against taxes. I came from a district where we did pay parcel taxes that were exclusively collected for the schools. It is a very effective way to maintain funding without total dependence on state monies and the mercurial legislature. When individual communities choose to invest in schools by paying such a tax, the message it sends to everyone is "We value education and we will take responsibility for assuring it's consistently funded for our children and community."

CSR, electives, and other services could be saved. I also think the school district should charge substantial fees to mall and home developers who build here because they certainly cash in on the reputation of the schools (as did they in my former community). They should help support the schools where they install their masterplanned mcmansions. It's the responsible thing to do. Everyone wins. Yes, it cuts into their profits, but it also makes sense for them to provide solid infrastructure to the neighborhoods they're selling.

Please also remember that this doesn't mean we are throwing money at the problem. We need to maintain what we have, and due to a state shortfall, we can't maintain it. More money is needed not because schools are demanding more, but because the state is providing less through no fault of the public school system.

A parcel tax is one way we can make sure the state doesn't always call the shots for our kids. That's only $120 a year. If they're paying $500 - $1000 in Granite Bay/Loomis, $120 a year is a bargain!

I am not 100% versed in the way these taxes work, however. Economics gurus, please feel free to elaborate on this. I only know that I've paid such a tax in the past and the quality of education in that community reflected the citizens' investment. Every penny was well worth it for the quality education my children received. In 2003, during the last big budget crisis, eliminating CSR wasn't even an issue for that district. There was no discussion. It was maintained and funded without controversy. Other services were maintained. Neighboring districts were laying off teachers, though. I think the parcel tax is something we should seriously consider.


For those who would say that only parents should pay such a tax, we all benefit from having an educated populace. It's not about who has kids and who doesn't. It's about what kind of people do we want running the system in 15 - 20 years? Well-educated ones, please!


Pari
Pari.

[Bill Z]

Regarding the $10/month parcel tax suggested in the district's survey. . .

I know many people on MyFolsom are against taxes.
For those who would say that only parents should pay such a tax, we all benefit from having an educated populace. It's not about who has kids and who doesn't. It's about what kind of people do we want running the system in 15 - 20 years? Well-educated ones, please!

Pari
Pari.

I wish we had intelligent people running things now.

[rightwingknot]

Actually, the CDE shows that supt's for a unified district up to 19,999 students (ours has around 19000) the average is $183,478. 20,000 students and up pay average of over $210,000 (including 3 or 4 of our neighboring districts).


In fact, these packages have been offered in past tight budget years, and there were never enough takers to make it worthwhile to the district (the net gain if only a few teachers take it is not sufficient to cover the costs).

Maybe so, but the circumstances are vastly different today.

Other than in 2003 when the association agreed to a 1.5% salary schedule reduction (which is still shy of .87% of being restored, ah-hem!) the district continued to receive COLA; thus, providing no incentive for teachers to retire as they continued to see a prospect of their salary continuing to increase.

Since that time, the state, shackled by the revenue restraints of Proposition 13, hammered by the funding requirements of Proposition 98, and infected by a liberal legislature [and willing governor(s)] that continues to spend our money like drunken sailors on every pet project they could think of in addition to locking into place permanent spending formulas for public assistance programs, the state which places a vast majority of its revenues on the backs of the people and corporations that create the very jobs we so desperately need, the state now finds itself as Pari put it in a in almost a financial suicidal catch 22. But I digerss....back to topic.

So, since 2003, teachers foresaw salary increases and thus postponed retirement. Today, the opposite is true. A reasonable person must conclude that the prospect of any salary increase in the next 2 to 5 years are slim to none. If that isn't incentive enough to retire, I don't know what is.

Salary is the largest expenditure by the district; it just makes sense to make the offer again. Currently, the district only offers a $1,000 one-time bonus for committing to retire. Laughable. They should get serious and explore this more fully. I think they would be surprised how many teachers close to retirement are on the fence and just need a bit of a push.

[Parizienne]

Hear! Hear!

Last year people I know audibly snickered at that $1000 "bonus." They need to make it attractive. If the trade-off is reasonable, people will take it. What benefit was there to taking $1000? After taxes, it would only be $700-$800. It's money, but it's not worth sacrificing what you would have gotten in retirement benefits for being patient and waiting a little longer. People want to know they're making a good, sound decision because retirement means -- that's it. That's your income. Why would you bargain that away for what amounts to chump change, relatively speaking.

I know this sounds ungrateful. It's not meant to be. I am far from retirement, myself, but no one wants to make a hasty decision now for a few extra bucks that would cost them more money in the long run.

Pari.

Salary is the largest expenditure by the district; it just makes sense to make the offer again. Currently, the district only offers a $1,000 one-time bonus for committing to retire. Laughable. They should get serious and explore this more fully. I think they would be surprised how many teachers close to retirement are on the fence and just need a bit of a push.

[gottasmile]

I received a email today that caused me great, great concern. A citizen attended the last school board meeting and related that our Superintendent, while interested in the survey results, would NOT use them to make any budget cut decisions. Thus, why in the @#*% did he put out a survey for parents and citizens if he did not have the intention of using said results to help make budgetary decisions; unless of course, the results he was hoping for did not pan out!!

Class size reduction cuts should not be made. If CSR must be eliminated, it must be only as a last resort! First priority must be to core academics and the learning needs of our children. Unfortunately, core academics does NOT include sports and music.

While I understand the connection to music and learning (there IS research), music should not remain while class size reduction is eliminated. If you want our children to succeed, and do well in the STAR testing, than you must focus on math, reading, science and english....the core curriculum. We must also look at the research (that IS out there too) that states there is a coorelation to significant increase in the learning ability of students when paired with a smaller class size, compared to those students in larger class sizes. So, lets not just use the 'statistics' and 'research' to save secondary programs, but ignore the same materials to eliminate higher priority issues....like CSR.

Plus, another point....no where in any STAR, or other California mandated testing, have I seen questions testing the knowledge/ability of a students football, soccer, music reading or music playing. Thus, it is secondary. While I hate to see good programs fall to the wayside, they are considered "extracurricular". The focus of our 'School Leaders' must remain inside the classroom and our core curriculum. The sports and musical needs of our children can be accomplished through parents and outside services that currently operate in our area. It does NOT have to be provided through our schools.

So Leaders of our Schools (entrusted to teach and lead our children), make sure you are making the "wise" choices. And Mr. Godwin....if you ask for our opinion...make sure you you use it as a tool to help you and your staff in the decison making process. We deserve at least that much.

[normajean]

true, there are no state standards for music, football, soccer, etc....but test scores alone do not make a well rounded adult.....how about we keep music and sports and eliminate all state testing??? that could save a few bucks!!!!

[pet lover]

Let's get a movement created! I am a school employee and will be happy to help pass on information that is within my legal rights and doesn't compromise my job. The largest and probably most important group the school district and board will listen to is parents. Please band together, elementary and high school to save our children!!!

[sunnyCA]

true, there are no state standards for music, football, soccer, etc....but test scores alone do not make a well rounded adult.....how about we keep music and sports and eliminate all state testing??? that could save a few bucks!!!!

Indeed! While I went to elementary school in NY where the per pupil funding was/is much better than CA and it was back in the day , I know we only did standardized testing in certain grades...I recall 2nd grade and 5th grade and then again in 8th grade.

I realize some testing is required by NCLB, but I wonder how much is required vs. actually done??? And, if either the federal or state govt's are requiring tests it would seem prudent to allow all but the minimum testing to be suspended during times of extreme financial crisis (and surely this would count as such).

When I mentioned it to the board last year as a way to save CSR for 3rd grade, it was dismissed and the board said they "had" to test. If that is the case, I wonder if the district can appeal that requirement, especially since they will be woefully underfunded by the govt's that are requiring it??!? Does anyone have any specifics on the testing that is mandated?

[keyplayer]

true, there are no state and federal standards for music, football, soccer, etc....but test scores alone do not make a well rounded adult.....how about we keep music and sports and eliminate all state testing??? that could save a few bucks!!!!

I have not commented much on all of this, but there are state and federal standards for music and it is not just extracurricular.

As my daughter went through before class size reduction (as most students did) I am not that attached to it. The research does not support it and losing class size reduction does not mean that kids won’t learn to read. It is very nice but kids do learn in larger classes. Even when California was supposed to be the best school system in the country we had classes in the mid to upper thirtys in elementary school. I would hate to see so many people lose their jobs but I'd rather keep the libraries open.

Unfortunately we cannot eliminate testing without some law changes. Some grades level tests are required by NCLB and some are required by state law. The school board cannot just choose to not do testing.

[Parizienne]

Larger class sizes work in communities that aren't diverse or who do not have a significant number of students performing below grade level. Some schools in our district might do okay with larger class sizes. Others would not. But - if we eliminated CSR, we would have to do it across the board or someone would probably file a discrimination lawsuit.

Plus, differentiated instruction was not something that teachers concerned themselves with in the past.

Now, we are expected to meet the needs of all learners. Gifted kids actually need to be taught! Back in the day, those who had mastered the lesson's concepts were often used as tutors to help struggling kids (NOT appropriate today), or pulled out a couple of times a week for enrichment. We mainstream more special ed kids into regular classrooms than in the past. We have way more English learners, and with all of these differences, class size reduction makes a HUGE difference in time the teacher can spend addressing these different needs. It's especially important with younger kids.

Pari.

I have not commented much on all of this, but there are state and federal standards for music and it is not just extracurricular.

As my daughter went through before class size reduction (as most students did) I am not that attached to it. The research does not support it and losing class size reduction does not mean that kids won’t learn to read. It is very nice but kids do learn in larger classes. Even when California was supposed to be the best school system in the country we had classes in the mid to upper thirtys in elementary school. I would hate to see so many people lose their jobs but I'd rather keep the libraries open.

Unfortunately we cannot eliminate testing without some law changes. Some grades level tests are required by NCLB and some are required by state law. The school board cannot just choose to not do testing.

[sunnyCA]

I have not commented much on all of this, but there are state and federal standards for music and it is not just extracurricular.

As my daughter went through before class size reduction (as most students did) I am not that attached to it. The research does not support it and losing class size reduction does not mean that kids won’t learn to read. It is very nice but kids do learn in larger classes. Even when California was supposed to be the best school system in the country we had classes in the mid to upper thirtys in elementary school. I would hate to see so many people lose their jobs but I'd rather keep the libraries open.

Unfortunately we cannot eliminate testing without some law changes. Some grades level tests are required by NCLB and some are required by state law. The school board cannot just choose to not do testing.

Exactly what I was saying...let's find out specifically which grades are required and which are not and only test those that are required, and/or lobby for a temporary easing of the requirements during a time when the federal and state governments are slashing education funding.

[the_professor]

Class Size Reduction IS happening, don't fool yourselves. They are talking about laying off every teacher with less than 5 years in the district (of course this is the worst case scenario). These budget cuts are BAD! Yes, there must be cuts but the right ones must be considered, not just the easiest. The next board meeting is February 5 at Folsom High. Go, ask questions...there was a teacher meeting yesterday regarding cuts and the teachers were saying what can we do - union reps said, Get the parents to the meetings! The board listens to parents. If you have children you have to get involved!

[Revolutionist]

If every man woman and child in RC and Folsom wrote a check to FCUSD in the amount of $100, that would provide $14M in funds, which is just about what we're talking about cutting between this year and next year.

Or, let's do it by students. 19,000 * $750 = $14.2M, and no further cuts will be necessary, at least for 2009-2010

Yes, we already paid our property tax, sales tax, income tax, but it is obvious the state has squandered that. So, vote out every single sitting legislator and open up your wallet.

Write a check for $750 for each student you have enrolled. For me, that's $3000. But at least we'll have a CHANCE of some sort of fiscal responsibility in the future and everyone can keep their pet program - assuming you follow through on the voting, otherwise it is just one more instance of rewarding poor behavior via bailout.

[Barb J]

If every man woman and child in RC and Folsom wrote a check to FCUSD in the amount of $100, that would provide $14M in funds, which is just about what we're talking about cutting between this year and next year.

Or, let's do it by students. 19,000 * $750 = $14.2M, and no further cuts will be necessary, at least for 2009-2010

Yes, we already paid our property tax, sales tax, income tax, but it is obvious the state has squandered that. So, vote out every single sitting legislator and open up your wallet.

Write a check for $750 for each student you have enrolled. For me, that's $3000. But at least we'll have a CHANCE of some sort of fiscal responsibility in the future and everyone can keep their pet program - assuming you follow through on the voting, otherwise it is just one more instance of rewarding poor behavior via bailout.

Revolutionist: If I honestly thought that the gov't would spend this money wisely and that every penny would be spent on the kids, I would gladly write my $750 check - we spend close to that already supplementing our school through fundraisers and donations to the PTA. The issue is that we keep throwing money at the problem and the problem just keeps getting bigger and bigger. When is enough enough? I don't think that by parents writing a check for $750 per child that we will have a chance of some sort of fiscal responsibility in the future - how do you connect the two? Yes, we could vote out every sitting legislator, but that's a few years down the road. I'm all about getting new blood into the system, that's why my vote for the school board reflected as such. Unfortunately all I've been hearing is why the ideas haven't worked in the past (golden handshakes - no one wanted to do it last time......well, maybe they'll want to this time if their job is on the chopping block. IT changes - policy, rules, blah blah blah....maybe you could change the policy!) It's a new day, things are much more dire than they were the last time around - let's look at making changes that matter, rather than dwelling on why they won't work!

Barb

[Bill Z]

When it comes to budget cuts, layoffs, etc, there is one very large problem.

Those who make the decisions where to cut, never cut themselves, the organization becomes more & more top heavy everytime this happens.

The resulting inefficiency eventually can cause collapse, at least for private industry, government instead, just continues to raise taxes to support it's ever growing monster bureaucracy and never really addressing the true needs of their "customers".

A perfect recent example, the state needs to cut expenses, there is talk of freezing pay raises, using IOU's to "pay" tax returns, and Arnie creates two new high level bureaucratic positions.