COMMENTS FROM

Community Meeting

February 2, 2006

For background, you can visit 2006/07 Budget Recap for AUSD.

Comments received at the Comments Sent to My Website Regarding Budget Reductions.

Items and item numbering is from the February 2nd Community Meeting.

Item #1 (CUT):

• Concern – ratio seems criminal
• Disastrous impact; EHS in particular
• Impact on most vulnerable
• Some students do not have choices; 600:1 is ludicrous; those with choices will opt out of public education
• Dangerous to reduce counselors; there are lines to see counselors now; timeliness of access is crucial, especial given the future impact to student’s lives
• CSEA given cuts; staff will not stay, it is not acceptable, we will not continue to pick up extra work as more and more staff are cut
• CAHSEE; Head Counselors working ahead; please come watch counseling teams at work
• HS related: dropping the ball at HS level; can’t cut services at high school level; served well at elementary and middle schools

Item #2 (SHIFT):

• No Comments

Item #3 (CUT):

• Athletic programs keep kids in schools; what happens to at-risk students? This is not a good idea
• Would girls’ sports disappear?
• Urge to look elsewhere for cuts – this will produce inequity for kids and their families. Especially for kids who can’t afford to pay and don’t want to step forward and let everyone know they can’t pay.

Item #4 (CUT):

• Program Specialist duties go to who?
• Reduction to program specialist; include in lawsuit/legal liability; pennywise, pound foolish; position was added when AUSD found out of compliance

Item #5 (CUT):

• Does mandated cost reimbursed cover the cost of health clerks?
• Demands of students still there
• Medical reimbursement $50-$75K

Item #6 (SHIFT):

• No Comments

Item #7 (CUT):

• Supplemental supports to students struggling most; criminal and detrimental an equity issue
• If career tech goes, where does student go for help?
• Without career techs/counselors – how will work get done?

Item #8 (CUT):

• What will this mean for environment for learning? It is their job to be students

Item #9 (CUT):

• No Comments

Item #10 (CUT):

• Paden 61 students - it is a luxury in times of cuts when they can be served in middle schools
• Not fair to fund program serving such a small number of students when cutting critical services to other students

Item #11 (CUT):

• Not prep periods, actually for troubleshooting tech issues – onsite support – support would be delayed; what happens to tech investment also volunteer to go to tech trainings

Item #12 (CUT):

• CSEA – work is not going away; kids are still there; people are human; clerical in service to kids; work cannot be piled on remaining classified staff

Item #13 (CUT):

• Who picks up work? This once again pushes work to remaining employees .

Item #14 (CUT):

• Concerns with equity – same as item # 3 above

Item #15 (CUT):

• No use of health broker
• No golf tournaments
• Thank you for putting budget on list

Item #16 (CUT):

• Not fair to fund program serving such a small number of students

Item #17 (CUT):

• No Comments

GENERAL COMMENTS

• Equity in closing the achievement gap; all items are detrimental to it
• CSEA – outsourcing concerns -13.7 FTE’s eliminated
• Be careful not to cut and perpetuate decline in enrollment
• Thank you for not putting repeats on the list (e.g., ROTC)
• How are we improving enrollment? Why are we declining?

END OF EXPLAINATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE PRELIMINARY LIST OF REDUCTIONS

At this point of the meeting participants were asked to provide alternative suggestions for the list.

ALTERNATIVES SUGGESTED

• Longfellow – how to best serve all students; consider size and level of all services – are we really serving Longfellow students well? Why not combine schools and provide better service. Longfellow closure will happen eventually (next year) - close it now.
• Longfellow and Paden luxuries we cannot afford – we can provide education at other schools
• Copy Center – identify other components that do not have direct impact on students; can it generate revenue? Can we do it for less and cut cost?
• Travel/Conference – district wide freeze/cut; do internally
• Food Services – encroachment – make it profit generating
• Public Information Officer
• Consultants – who are they? Why are paying for consultants - federal survey cards, health benefits administrator, etc.? Identify consultants doing work previously done by employees
• Mandated Cost Consultant – should we stop putting in claims?
• Training in-house (train-the-trainers) Distribute info in-house (fewer participants)
• Longfellow Principal – assign with other duties (not Principal at 2 schools)
• Other Departments – Lots of departments missing – can they cut?
• HS Vice Principals – Can they be reduced?
• Furlough – District furlough –can not be budgeted onto the ACOE list, but can it be something to consider
• Percentage reduction for all employees across the board instead of wide range of cuts
• Administrators – cut administrators – share the pain
• Building Permits – “pay to use” (e.g., sports programs)
• Public agencies tend to “nit pick” a budget and hurt everyone instead of organizationally making the wiser choice to one big cut such as closing Longfellow

In the Februrary 14th Board packet the Superintendent provided a responses to each of the alternatives suggested above.

TOP

Comments. Questions. Broken links? Bad spelling! Incorrect Grammar? Let me know at webmaster.
Last modified: February 10, 2006

Disclaimer: This website is the sole responsibility of Mike McMahon. It does not represent any official opinions, statement of facts or positions of the Alameda Unified School District. Its sole purpose is to disseminate information to interested individuals in the Alameda community.