What isn't hard to them?

Both the Manteca Bulletin and the Sun Post have spouted the standard cliché: "The schools are 'facing' budge cuts and it's hard to choose what to cut."

It's not hard.

I attended one of those budget cutting brainstorming sessions and about half way though the exercises (breaking up into groups, listing priorities, etc) I realized that no one in the room knew what we were trying to accomplish. We were trying to save $10 million. But ten million out of what? Sure it's "hard" to do something when you have no idea what you're trying to do!

So I buttonholed Superintendent Messer, "What's the size of this budget that we need to save ten million from?" I mean, if the budget is $11 million, then cutting $10 million pretty hard! Messer had to think about this but eventually came up with a rough figure of $170 million. So ok, we need to save 10 million out of $170 million? Simple, I suggested, "why don't we just cut everything by 6 or 7 percent and that would do it." Messer looked at me like I had just given out the secret of the H-bomb. He stammered something about that being simplistic but had to admit "that would work."

He's damn right it would! (the actual cut needed is 5.9%. But not all costs are payroll costs so it would be a little more maybe 7 to 9 percent. But cut some waste with it and it's back to 5% or less, and so on.)

During the presentation Messer said part of the problem is "declining enrollment." Fewer students -- less money. (Schools in California are paid for each student that actually attends school each day, like a head count. Called ADA or average daily attendance.)

That lead to this Q&A session with Mr. Messer:

Q: You said declining enrollment was bad?
A: Right, we get less money.
Q: So if enrollment goes up would that be good?
A: ehhh...
Q: I mean, we were told a few years ago we have to vote for the Measure M bond tax increases because the "problem" was increasing enrollment -- that there were more and more kids going to school -- So we need more money to build more schools. So is increasing enrollment is bad?
A: eh.. yes!
Q: So enrollment going up is bad and enrollment going down is bad?
A: Well, yes...
Q: Ok, so is this a fair statement of your position? No matter what happens it's bad? Is there anything that can happen that wouldn't be bad? How about (I made a flat hand gesture) if enrollment doesn't change at all?
A: That would be "ok."
Q: Because the bureaucracy doesn't like change of any type?
A: Yes, because of the state bureaucracy...
(note I didn't say "state," I was meant at every level, including the school administration. But lets move on.)
A:... because of the planning, and kids don't come in neat packages of 20. If kids came in neat packages of 20 then maybe it wouldn't matter. But if we have 23 kids, what do we do, we have to open a new class just for 3 kids....
Q: How many classrooms are there?
A: ehhh... a lot
Q: In theory, there should be no more than 12 classes of odd numbers of kids, one for each grade and even then... (I started yammering on the math which proves that there's no way that can really be a problem...)
A: Then we'd have to do busing. You don't like buses do you?
Q: (I thought I was asking the questions!) Well, I like buses better than some of the alternatives!
(we move on to the next subject)

During this workshop, various groups such at the teachers, yard monitors, janitors, bus drivers, etc were there and each group made suggestions to present to the group. This led to my last question:

Q: Do you think there's any chance of this process working?
A: ah, well...
Q: By "process" I mean this meeting -- where each group gets to make a suggestion to cut someone other than me.
A: (laughs) That might be what happens. That's where we'll have the third level meetings.
Q: I mean, each group is making suggestions that are essentially "cut the other group." Why not have each group stand up and tell us why they shouldn't be cut?
A: That might ... sort of... happen!

With that cryptic comment hanging out there we moved on...

Note that if all that's needed is to cut everyone's pay by 7%, that's less than the last two raises everyone got. So, worst case scenario, everyone could work for 2006 wages. Horror of horrors. How will they cope?

That suggestion of course violates the tenets of the American Labor Religion. (Thou shalt not ever accept any cut in pay no matter how modest) At some point Mr. Messer did agree that he would give up his $600 / month car allowance (no kidding!) and he would readily accept a cut in pay -- he wouldn't mind, but he wasn't sure they could do that because some people are already making so little, etc. He's just looking out for the little guy I was told.

The school district isn't a "jobs program." And how does a bus driver survive on $40,000/ year?

In a 2001 article about education Scientific American used California as an example of how NOT to do "class size reduction" -- it was money down a rat hole.

Also, last month the board decided to save some pennies and stop videotaping the meetings. The public doesn't need to know anything; just trust them. But at the same meeting they voted to keep paying school employees even when they aren't at their jobs if they are serving the nation in the military. I could see keeping them on the roles for when they get back, but paying them for years? Since when is it the mission of the school district to fund foreign wars? That's the fed's job!