What ever happened to the cuts they were going to make to the other areas of the budget. I remember a school board meeting where they looked at cuts but were told by the superintendent that they could not vote on them and they would be brought back to vote on at another meeting. Was that a farce? When will they be looking at those cuts?

This was my response:

Claire,

Those cuts were never seriously to be considered. Those were recommendations from Dr. Kayrell's advisory Budget Review Committee (BRC). For a couple years, I was the parent representative on the BRC until I realized  the purpose of the BRC was to provide cover for the Superintendent. The BRC is chaired by the Asst Sup. of Business Services, the district's CFO (Chief Financial Officer). The BRC is asked for input on the budget cuts process but they are never provided the information to provide useful input. The CFO spends most of the BRC meetings presenting the cuts Dr. Kayrell wants and then allows the last 15 minutes for the BRC to brainstorm while he actively discourages anything not in his plan.

In the school board's workshop, the CFO focused on two areas for cuts, busing and staff, and then allowed the board to brainstorm about the BRC's recommendations. Click here for my summary of the workshop.

Dr. Kayrell and the collective will of the board never intended voting on the BRC's recommendations. This was all done to appease Mr. Orozco and Mrs. Poulter's desire for transparency. The district will be transferring the busing to the city and the cuts to the staff have been exchanged for cuts to our kids' class time. This was the plan from the start and something I have been predicting. One thing I can say for the administration, they are predictable. This is why no public forums were held; the public just gets in the way.

I learned from a commenter on my Facebook Page, that this would result in 5 fewer school days each year for our kids. I have talked to a number of parents who favored larger class sizes over fewer instructional days. I have also heard from a few who believe the smaller class sizes are more important. One thing we all agreed on is someone - the administration, the school board or teachers - should have asked parents for our opinion. 

There is no report that the board or the administration has confirmed the agreement and we should wait until all the details are available. However, parents are already asking about what sacrifices the administrators, board trustees and superintendents will be making. Based on the promises made in the past by our administration and our school board President, Mrs. Lara, I believe they will honor their word and accept a comparable number of furlough days.

In the June 9th board meeting in 2009, the trustees authorized the reduction of compensation to board trustees and administrators. The reduction in their compensation was promised to be "comparable" to how much the teachers and classified employees agreed to. This move was part of the district's strategy to convince the teachers and classified employees to accept furlough days.

In April 2010, I told the board I believed the board and administration's promise that they would match the furlough days was an empty promise. Mrs. Lara, the current Board President, responded "We don't make any empty promises." Click here to read more

And in the April 29th board meeting this year, once again, we heard the administration touting their promise to match furlough days. Here's the link for this board meeting summary

I believe, and hope, the school board will require the administration to live up to their promise and share in the sacrifice they are asking the rest of us to make. 

During this same board meeting we heard from the site administrators' (principals) representative about how Federal and State mandates burdened the district to provide unfunded programs and services, programs such as transitional kindergarten and Common Core Standards. We often hear teachers and their union representatives complain about these same mandates. These Federal and State mandates, especially unfunded ones, are placing an undue burden on our school district budgets. This burden is magnified during the difficult economic environment.

The CTA (California Teacher's Association) is one of the most politically powerful organizations in our country. According to Mr. Orozco, the CSBA represents the largest body of elected officials in California. I don't agree with their stance on increasing taxes but I understand why these organizations use their power and influence to convince the people of California to make more sacrifices.

I'd like to see these two groups use their clout to push back on the mandates. What do you think would happen if the CSBA and the CTA were to tell the Governor, the President and their educational departments that we've had enough and refuse to follow any more unfunded mandates? Would California Department of Education punish every school district in the state? Would President Obama cut off all Federal funds for education to the largest state in an election year? How do you think Governor Brown and President Obama would respond to one of their largest financial supporters standing up for our kids?

I understand cuts have to be made and maybe busing is the best place. I wish they had at least considered my suggestion to fully evaluate the program after taking steps to increase ridership. Last year I took a lot of heat for questioning the safety of elementary school kids on the city buses. I now know that the buses will be exclusively for students on their way to and from school. I know the city bus drivers have all been properly screened.

My problem is not that the district has decided transportation is expendable. I have a problem with how I learned of this, by word of mouth. Last week we received a flyer telling us the new start and end times were an effort to deal with the budget but nothing about the busing was mentioned. None of my sources are employed by the school district or the city but I believe they are credible. In the past our school district has kept us in the dark about things such as the superintendent's contract extension and details of the new district office; it isn't too much of a stretch to believe we're in the dark again. Parents have to stick together to stay informed. If anyone can confirm or deny any of this, please do.

Assuming my sources are correct, a move like this has to have been in the works for some time. Our superintendents, a majority of our school board members, city council members, city manager, city and school district transportation managers had to of all known about this. Numerous approvals and planning  for an operation like this would have been necessary. If any of them were unaware this was in the works, they weren't doing their jobs. Why do we find out about this by word of mouth? Don't any of our elected officials believe we should have known about this some time ago? When was someone going to tell us?

Here are some other questions I hope to find the answers to:

• How much is it going to cost per student?
• Are the low income families who were receiving help with transportation costs from the school district going to have help now?
• Who will be setting the rules of conduct and who will be enforcing these rules?
• If there are kids causing problems for other kids, who is going to step in and take care of discipline?
• Doesn't our school board have to approve the elimination of busing before start and end times are changed?
• Don't we have the right to comment on this before the school board approves this?
• Am I the only one who is concerned?

However, I don’t see how these mandates prevent our school district from involving parents more in the decisions and planning for our kids’ education. I don’t see where the mandates require $15 million of our property taxes, money we authorized for fixing and improving our schools, to be used for a sports complex. Many of our neighboring school districts who operate under the same mandates have built stadiums and athletic fields for much less. I don’t know of any mandates that force our school district to spend $12 million on a new district office. I don’t believe mandates excuse misusing our kids’ resources and placing obstacles in the way of parents who want more details about where money is being spent.

It is true our elementary schools are earning outstanding test scores but our middle schools and high school aren’t doing as well. Many parents are taking their kids out of our schools and going to private schools and charter schools in neighboring districts. I believe with more parent involvement and a more cooperative attitude by our district leaders towards parents and employees of BUSD, we can provide parents the choice and opportunities they are looking for elsewhere and turn around our middle and high schools.

I am tired of hearing how the mandates are holding us back. We need leadership in our schools that will stop making excuses and start including parents in finding solutions that will provide our kids the best chance to succeed.

Brookside and Anna Hause will now be starting at 9:00 am and getting out at 3:20 pm on regular days (1:53 pm on those minimum days we all love so much...not!).

I am sure parents who drop their kids off at school on their way to work are going to have some issues with these new times. I wonder if the high school will be having a revised schedule as well, if not, Brookside parents picking up their kids will now have to deal with the high school traffic as well as traffic from the Taj Mahal.

Assuming the district will be eliminating transportation next year, what's the reason for the later start times. Do you think anyone in the district will ask parents what they think? I would love to be able to send the district an email or pick up the phone and call to get my answers but I'm not sure if I would be following the latest policy and would have to probably wait a month for an answer; I probably couldn't afford the documentation fees anyways.

AB 114 protected teachers from layoffs and tied the hands of school boards. Brown put in place triggers that would be activated if his budget failed to meet his unrealistic projections and AB 114 prevented teacher layoffs in this (2011/2012) school year due to state budget cuts, and it required districts to assume funding will remain at its current level next year; they can't cut programs. It left school boards with the only option to make up the budget gap is reducing the school year by seven days; even this had to be negotiated with the unions.

In January the governor told us the deficit was higher than he expected, about $9 billion. Now we learn the deficit is more like $16 billion and his government continues to overspend his own budget by an estimated $2.5 billion. He is asking us to pass tax increases to make up the difference and is holding our schools hostage.

In his May revision, released yesterday, he promised to actually increase school budgets next year. Yes, that’s what he said. He added one condition though, taxpayers have to pass his tax increase in November. He tells us that if his tax increase isn't approved by the voters, school budgets will be slashed even more than expected. Our school administrators, teachers and classified employees are putting a lot of hope in the voters allowing the government to take more of our money. Every story I’ve read concerning school districts in the state laying off teachers, has a teacher representative, administrator, or school board member expressing hope for passage of new taxes.

Governor Brown knows we are tired of the out of control spending and he knows the public will no longer support tax initiatives just because they are supposed to save our schools. He is now trying to put all the responsibility and blame for the survival of our schools on us. He promised to put an end to these kinds of tricks and he also promised to not raise taxes without the consent of the voters. I believe Brown knows the voters will not approve any more taxes. With the help of the legislature, he will increase our taxes and blame us for not supporting the schools.

It looks like the only promises Brown keeps are with his union supporters. Last month as revenues continued to fall, Brown extended union contracts representing tens of thousands of workers that increased the state's health benefits by 9.5%. Now he is talking about a 10% cut in state workers compensation, I’ll believe it when I see it.

We watch as our school district spends tens of millions of dollars on sports complexes and district headquarters while laying off teachers and cutting services. I understand the money spent on these facility projects primarily come from bond issues and other sources that restrict the use of the funds. Until I see our school district wisely managing our kids’ resources and until our legislatures do something to remove restrictions and mandates on the use of money they already have, I can’t vote to give them any more money.

Last time I voted to increase our taxes for our schools, I voted for Measure Z to fix the safety issues around our schools. What did we get in return? A $15 million sports complex (at least that was the last guaranteed maximum price we were promised); a $12.4 million district headquarters; larger class sizes; increased traffic around our schools; and our kids going to school on city buses. 

We will have top of the line sports facilities and new schools, but not enough teachers and kids with no hope of being prepared for college. With what the idiots we keep sending to represent us are doing to our economy, our kids, no matter how prepared they are, will have limited employment opportunities. I don't think our fellow Californiains are going to stop supporting these idiots and vote for a new direction until there is a complete collapse. We may not have to wait much longer, Governor Brown seems to be doing everything he can to bring about the collapse.

Through the years, I received very few comments to my writings but once I started posting to the Patch, that changed. There are many in our community who share my concerns and want to talk about them. I believe we can benefit from a platform where we can hold a civil and respectful public discussion to share ideas and work on solutions. However, the hostile tone of many of the comments about many of the issues presented on the Patch worried me. I needed a level of control to the discussion that I didn't have on the Patch to keep the discussion focused and productive.

I started posting to Facebook to reach more people and to host a civil and respectful community dialog. I believe parents and teachers need to work together to find solutions to address our problems. I want to hear criticism as well as suggestions, however, only civil and respectful comments will be productive. I believe in order to keep all sides engaged, we need to leave the past behind us, check our anger at the door and stop letting mandates and other obstacles get in our way. I have some ideas but I don't know all the answers and I can't do it alone, I've tried. I need open, positive minds from parents as well as teachers to find the answers. The status quo has to change.

I don't want anyone who brings productive thoughts and ideas to the discussion to feel uncomfortable when they express their point of view. I will begin actively moderating the comments on the Facebook page in order to keep the tone civil and the discussion moving forward. I hope I don't have to do much moderating, but when I do, I hope everyone understands what I am trying to a to accomplish and not take offense. If you do have a problem and want to take me to task, feel free to email me directly at OurFocusOurKids@gmail.com and say whatever you want in any tone. I promise to respond. Let's keep the discussion on Facebook and my website, civil and respectful.

Thank you.

The plans weren't perfect. Neither plan proposed any serious sacrifices for the administrators. Plan A's proposed cuts were so deep it was clear that Plan B was the only plan the administration really wanted considered. The board followed the administration's lead and approved Plan B. In hindsight, the entire process may have been a show to strengthen the administration's bargaining position. It made it easier for the administration to get the concessions they wanted from the employee unions.

Regardless of the motives of the board and Superintendent, the public was well aware of the proposed cuts as early as February and, when pink slips were finalized, we were better prepared. We had a better understanding why class sizes were increasing and transportation for middle and high school students was being eliminated. This time around has been much different.

There were no public forums. A list of relatively insignificant cuts proposed by Dr. Kayrell's advisory Budget Review Committee (BRC) was presented to the board in a workshop with limited public input. When board members not part of The Collective (the three board members who rarely show any opposition to The Superintendent), asked for details on the recommended items and asked for an opportunity to vote on the items, the administration told the board the BRC process wasn't complete. They were told when Dr. Kayrell was ready, they would be given the opportunity to approve the cuts. Dr. Kayrell called out the Non-Collective members by name and warned them not to "hold a gun to his head" during negotiations with the employee unions.

The board approved the preliminary pink slips and tonight, by a vote of 3-2, no surprise there,  they authorized the finalization of almost all the pink slips. We still haven't heard of any plan from the administration. What is so different from three years ago? Why does the district believe they can go this alone this time? What has changed? Well, it began right after the last budget crisis.

Here's how it happened:

* Contracts for The Assistant Superintendents were extended and their compensation increased

* Dr. Kayrell's Contract was extended and his retirement package improved

* The Assistant Superintendent of Business Services, the districts CFO (chief financial officer) was replaced and the traditional practice of limiting a new CFO's authorization level during a probation period was not followed by the board.

* The board reduced the public's access by limiting speaking time

* The traditional practice of rotating the Board President position among board members was ignored and The Collective remained in control of the chair.

Extending Dr. Kayrell's contract was the key development. He is now under contract for another 24 months with an 18 month buyout clause. This means our kids would have to pay him 18 months of salary to remove him. Since Dr. Kayrell will probably retire at the end of this contract and his buyout clause is prohibitive for a cash strapped district, he has become untouchable. He no longer needs any public support for his actions and he only needs to count to three, the number of votes he needs from the board.

Tonight, we are being expected to accept that The Superintendent and The Collective know what's best. Our kids, our teachers and classified staff are being asked to blindly accept more sacrifices. We know the administration wants to eliminate all busing and that they believe they must reduce staff but parents have no idea if there are any other cuts necessary or where additional cuts will be made.

Are there any cuts proposed for the administration? Will any of our Assistant Superintendents and their six figure salaries be reduced? How many school days will our kids lose? What a difference three years makes. Who's holding the gun now?