“Enrollment in Santa Ana Unified has fallen for the fifth straight year, down by 1,146 students this fall and a total of 7,300 students since the 2002-03 school year, according to new district figures,” according to the O.C. Register.
Here are a few excerpts from the Register article:
Orange County’s largest school district, which once had an enrollment of more than 61,000 students, now has about 53,700.
“It’s tough for us,” said Donald Trigg, Santa Ana Unified’s associate superintendent of business services. “We are in a state of declining enrollment and that means we have to keep cutting costs.”
Santa Ana Unified receives roughly $5,500 in state funding each year for every student enrolled. That means that the district has lost more than $40 million out of its $500 million budget over the past five years.
The enrollment decline is generally attributed to a dip in birth rate over the last decade. The dip hasn’t yet affected middle or high schools.
Some educators attribute the trend partly to young families escaping the county’s high housing prices and moving inland.
Besides Santa Ana Unified, the Cypress School District and the Huntington Beach City School District also are reporting enrollment declines, losing 320 and 210 students, respectively, this school year.
Why is it that other school districts in Orange County are reporting enrollment declines, but only the Santa Ana Unified School District administrators are panicking? Didn’t their ten year projections show that enrollment was going to drop? Did they not account for kids moving to charter schools, or moving to the Inland Empire?
Where is SAUSD really spending the money? It is well known that the SAUSD administrators who serve on Superintendent Jane Russo’s cabinet all have new offices and new furniture. Is the district shifting money around so that they can waste it in that fashion? Or worse?
SAUSD Trustee John Palacio emailed the following information yesterday:
At its Tuesday, November 13th Board Meeting, the Santa Ana Unified School District Board of Education will review and vote on proposed Budget Reductions for Fiscal Year 2008-2009.
The Superintendent is recommending nearly $16,000,000 in budget reductions.
Over the past 4 years, SAUSD has experienced over $100,000,000 in budget reductions.
The board meeting starts at 6:00 pm and will be held in the Board Room, SAUSD District Administration Offices, 1601 East Chestnut Avenue, Santa Ana.
Palacio asked that anyone with questions call him at 714-542-0589. You can also email him.
From what I hear, the SAUSD administrators are playing games with their budget even as they are supposedly cutting it. They are using grant money to keep high priced administrators paid, while cutting from areas including their school libraries. All of this needs to be closely scrutinized by the community.
A high student body requires a related budget to run the system. If the student body declines then the associated costs should decline.This means a reduction in staff and associated support items that were necessary to run the system with the high student body.
What are the concerns about reducing the budget. It is a question of business management applied by businesses everyday.
The reductions should not be related to student services and student needs. I am afraid that is what will probably happen. The redudtion should be in the area of bureaucracy and waste.
Since the size of the student population and the size of the budget dollars for SAUSD is decreasing, and the reasons for the large salaries of upper management has been the overall size of the budget and student/employee population and not just the responsibility of the job.
Then it would seem reasonable that management start taking pay cuts starting the next budget year as a reflection of the fact that the overall size of the budget, student population, and number of employees is shrinking.
I agree with Mr. Lomelei. The SAUSD is VERY Top Heavy and needs to cut Admin costs now. What is your opinion of the new board memeber?
The question that jumps to my mind is if part of the 16 million dollar reduction recommendation for next year takes into account the districts 5 million dollar loss for last years attendance fraud.
I have always been at a loss as to why the superintendent of SAUSD makes nearly as much as the superintendent of LAUSD, a district well over 10 times larger.
The SA superintendent has a free car, gasoline, insurance, and expense account. Assistant superintendents, directors and managers at the district office receive similar perks. Some have cars to take home and others receive special benefits in the form of expense accounts.
The Chief of School Police even has a district car to take home. The Lieutenant of police and both school police sergeants are allowed to ride school district police motorcycles home daily. All of the school police motorcycle cops and the school police dog officer are allowed to take their district police vehicles home.
Who else under the building service umbrella are allowed these special perks when the district is going into major debt. Building Services needs a serious audit along with every other department at the district office.
Art –
The chart accompanying the article tells a compelling story. The chart outlines the top 10 OC school districts that have lost enrollment since the 03-04 school year and SAUSD has not experienced the highest percent loss. SAUSD hovers at #3 with a 9% loss. The range is 11% loss to 5%.
SAUSD has slashed nearly $90 million due to loss of enrollment; have the other 9 school districts slashed similar dollars? Or is it that SAUSD has been the poor custodian of the millions it has been entrusted to handle?
SAUSD gets buckets of money because most of the schools are in PI or they are Title I schools.
That’s the dialogue that should be taking place – where’s the money? Don’t look for Jose Hernandez to take this fiscal matter on. He’s overly concerned about cell towers being installed on school property. Duh.
Someone needs to fill him in on the mayor’s plan for cell towers throughout the city. Hernandez sold out the Grant parents and he continues to remain dumb on issues that matter. Thank goodness his term expires next November.
SAUSD may be top heavy but it’s the BofE that stinks! Why do they consistently fail to make the Supt and admins ACCOUNTABLE?????
If 1146 students were lost and if state funding is $5500 each year then the net loss to the district is easy to determine. 1146 multiplied by $5500 equals $6,303,000. So where is the need to cut $16,000,000? Perhaps there is a need for some basic math instruction for the budget cutters or some truth as to what is actually going on in the district.
#16
I’d be jumping for joy if the district only had to cut $16 million. According to the numerous threads on this site, SAUSD has cut close to $90 million due to loss of enrollment.
According to the article SAUSD has lost 5,528 students. I’m scratching my head trying to figure out how that translates to $90 million.
Go figure.
Budget cuts are nearing $114 million!
Trigg’s comment “It’s tough for us,” makes me want to puke. The only good news is that he is taking early retirement.
When cuts are made, please remember that the teachers took a 4% pay cut for 2 years. The district and SAEA-the union-“made up” this debacle by granting 14% one year, with future COLA raises. Sorry, Charlie, but this is still a non-competitive salary curve. COLA in the OC is really about 10% year: real estate cost and gas dependency are among the highest in the world. Now, I have yet to hear of say 14 teachers living in a 2 bedroom apartment in SA, but it may be in the realm of possibility!
Santa Ana residents should wonder who actually “reports” the number of students in SAUSD schools. Of course the district is going to underestimate the amount of students to panic the community and use such information for leverage in future negotiations. Of course the Register reports such numbers as fact. Skeptical residents should examine the actual reports that the district files with the state along with its interim budget which is legally binding and subject to fraud if misrepresented. I would be willing to bet that the numbers the district reports to the state are different than what it tells the local community for which it has no legal obligation to tell the truth. We have all learned that you can’t count on school districts to report true figures. It’s all part of the shell game. Other districts do it too. So, how many students really are in SAUSD?
The loss of 7300 students at $5500 per student should have cost $40,150,000. Why has more than $100,000,000 been cut? At this rate the $500,000,000 will be zero in a few years and they can just close up shop. I bet the last to go will be the district office. We will need them right up to end to tell us what the final cuts will be. Never mind that classes have 45 students and teachers are being asked to pass students that have learned little or nothing. Keep the “important” people until the very end.
The School Site Councils, with funding in the hundreds of thousands of dollars have been misused by the principals in all schools (with the possible exception of the present principal at Monroe). The principals use it as their personal slush fund to pay for their own needs
This school board will never make the tough calls that need to be made. Many of the people who have posted, with the exception of #12, have made valid points. #12, you can’t possibly know what happens at the SSC of all the schools in the district and should probably direct your comments towards what you actually know to be true.
As for the district, many ideas come to mind. Lower the high school graduation requirements from 240 to 220 credits, like most other districts in Orange County. A huge amount of money will be saved, not only in teacher salaries for these required course, but also in expenses for all of the “make-up” courses offered for students who need to repeat courses that they have not passed. At some point the school board is going need to realize that not all students are going to be able to be successful in Algebra II. Politics. This school board needs to realize that having the highest graduation requirements in the county is a detriment. The students in this community need to be pushed to take these college preparatory courses, but not ALL students will go to college. It’s time to take a look at this.
At the district office, cut the teachers who are there as “coordinators” of programs such as curriculum. These are teachers who are far from the classroom, earning stipends, who in difficult financial times (especially), can easily be eliminated, as they were in the 1990’s. Ask any teacher what these “coordinators” have done for them lately and you won’t be surprised by the answers. Several million dollars could easily be cut if these positions were cut as not only would the positions be eliminated, but the secretaries, etc. that each of these positions have would also be eliminated.
Many of the posts have “done the math” and I agree with them. This district has mismanaged money for years. The teachers have shared in the pain with a pay cut to cover for district ineptness and now students will suffer. This is just the beginning. Wait until next year when the state further reduces school spending.
Post #12 summarized the SSC activities the schools precisely correct. Whether there is one or two exceptions (if any) misses the point. I have not seen the exceptions, but I have seen the deceptive techniques exactly described as the post was written and that they are routinely done by the principals at every school I am aware of. The money should be data directed and 85% of the money should be used for direct student services. When you consider the amount of money not spent properly multiplied by the amount of schools multiplied by the amount of years, that is easily 10
#14
Thank you for your corroboration.
#13
You claim:
#3 is asking for an opinion on the new school board member Jose Hernandez. Well, he’s the Musharraf of Orange County.
Hernandez, nicknamed the “Millionaire Immigrant” by the Grant parents, appears to be wrangling to run for school board in ’08. Until last evening’s school board meeting, Hernandez’s performance could be described as timid. That’s why last evening’s performance took some by surprise. By all accounts it appears Hernandez has drunk the Pulido Punch. As Pulido’s newest disciple, Hernandez’s task is to dog fellow school board member John Palacio in an effort to discredit his possible bid for Ward 3.
Don’t be fooled by Hernandez; he’s the latest Pulido puppet.
Musharraf?
Hernandez’s crusade to vote down 3 cell tower school sites cost the district a cool $3 million over a 30 year period.
SAUSD is faced with shaving $14 million from its budget and this dude turns away $3 mil in revenue.
Way to go Jose!