Summary
Two annual special taxes funding the Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) will expire in 2007. BUSD is currently drafting language for a parcel tax ballot measure to replace those two taxes with one annual special tax extending beyond 2007.
BeSMaart (Berkeleyans Endorse School Management Accessibility, Accountability, Responsiveness and Transparency) is recommending changes to the school district's draft measure. This Kitchen Democracy issue asks whether the BUSD should adopt BeSMaart's recommendations.
Documents
- Full Ballot Measure with BeSMaart proposed changes indicated File size: 0.7MB
Background
In 1986, Berkeley citizens first approved a parcel tax, the 'Berkeley Schools Excellence Project' (BSEP), which provided funding for class size reduction, libraries, school music program, maintenance, teacher professional development, and technology support. BSEP was renewed in 1994. In 2004, a two-year supplemental parcel tax for schools (Measure B) was approved by citizens. Both BSEP and Measure B sunset at the end of 2006.
The School Board is in the final stages of drafting language to reauthorize these two measures. The final language of this Measure is to go before the School Board on Wednesday June 7. Final approval is scheduled for the June 21 meeting. The proposal combines the two measures into a single measure to continue the current tax rate for an additional ten years. For 2007, the measure is estimated to generate $19.68 million.
The current BSEP and Measure B parcel taxes finance about 1/3 of all teachers (about 140 teachers), virtually the entire music and library staff and materials, limited discretionary funds to each school site, and limited funds for parent outreach, teacher professional development, and program evaluation. The proposed renewal Measure is virtually identical to the existing Measures.
In 2000, a small Berkeley organization, BeSMaart (Berkeleyans Endorse School Management Accessibility, Accountability, Responsiveness and Transparency) formed to encourage the school district to take steps to ensure that district funds be used efficiently, effectively and that expenditures be evaluated to see whether they achieve the objectives they were allocated for. BeSMaart has recently proposed language changes to the school district's draft measure. To date, there has been no Board support for these changes. The Board did briefly discuss Issue 5 at their last meeting and found that appropriate monitoring and auditing functions were already included in the draft language for the Measure. The Board also discussed Issue 3 and determined that the "severe fiscal emergency" provision was necessary and that the board had acted responsibly in the implementation of the existing parcel taxes.
Issue 1. How much should the Berkeley Unified School District be allowed to deduct from the special parcel tax for administration and overhead costs?
The proposed parcel tax provides that 2% of the measure ($395,0000) is allocated to fund public information, translation services for district families, and support for the Planning and Oversight committee" (the citizens committee tasked with oversight of the parcel tax).
In the current BSEP and Measure B, and in the draft language for the new measure, the school district assesses the class size reduction funds a "direct support" charge per additional funded teacher (i.e., to fund the additional expenses attendant to supporting the additional teachers hired through these class size reduction funds). This charge is currently 3.75%. It also deducts indirect support at the state calculated rate (currently 6%) from the remainder of the specific funds (music and art, school libraries, school discretionary funds, parent outreach, etc.). Regarding direct support, the draft language states that revenues for class size reduction "may be spent for all costs attendant to them, including operational and professional development costs, and other costs associated with the opening or maintaining of classrooms to reduce class sizes." This is the same language as currently exists for both BSEP and Measure B.
BeSMaart has proposed that the School District be limited to 2% for administrative costs and 1% for its independent audit committee and independent auditor from this special parcel tax.
BeSMaart's proposed language states that money for class size reduction is: "only for those expenses which directly affect student learning including salaries of certificated teachers and other staff who directly work with students on student learning and education, in-class supplies necessitated by class size reduction, and shall not include any maintenance costs, administration costs, costs associated with overhead, or costs for the physical plant and furnishings."
Issue 2. Should the size for classes be described as a "goal" or a specific average?
The proposed measure states that a "goal" for class size reduction will be based upon a district wide average of 26:1 for the elementary schools and 28:1 for the secondary schools and 20:1 in K-3 grades.
BeSMaart recommends that the word goal be erased but that the remainder be kept the same, namely that class sizes be based on a district wide average.
Issue 3. Should the school district be given the flexibility to increase class sizes if there is a fiscal emergency?
The proposed measure states: "the reduced class sizes shall be maintained throughout the duration of the measure except in the case of a 'severe fiscal emergency'". It goes on to state that a "severe fiscal emergency" can only be declared by a 4/5 vote of the Board, only for "unforeseeable events", and only with the concurrence of the Alameda County Office of Education (charged under State law with fiscal oversight of school districts).
BeSMaart's proposed language would eliminate the "severe fiscal emergency" provision.
Issue 4. Should the school district be limited in how much of the funds can be shifted from one stated purpose to another?
The draft Measure states that: "Up to 10% of the allocations for libraries, music and visual and performing arts programs, and parent outreach services may, on approval by the Board, be redistributed among these purposes provided no purpose receives more than 15% over its designated allocation in a given year."
This means that for the library program allocation of $1.4 million, the Board could reduce this amount in any one year down to $1.26 million or increase this amount up to $1.6 million.
BeSMaart proposes that allocation changes of less than 10% can be made, but anything more must be brought back to the voters for approval.
Issue 5. Should the ballot measure language require that an independent audit committee monitor the school district for efficiency, effectiveness and actual achievements?
The draft measure provides for three forms of oversight of the measure:
- "A District-wide Planning and Oversight committee, composed of parents/guardians, staff members, students, residents or community members, representing all school sites shall review ... district compliance with the terms of the measure". The measure goes on to describe in detail the reports that the District must provide the Committee regarding expenditures and revenues.
- Each year, an independent auditor must be hired to determine that the provisions of the measure have been satisfied including that the revenues and expenditures have been properly allocated and expended. This is in addition to the state legal requirement for an independent audit for all of the districts finances and financial operations.
- The District Audit Committee reviews the independent auditor's report.
BeSMaart's proposal has specific language guaranteeing the independence of the audit committee and directing that the audit committee shall review the district to insure that the district is safeguarding its assets, is accurately reporting financial information, that funds are used efficiently and effectively, and that expenditures achieve program objectives.
Issue 6. Should the duration of this special parcel tax be 10 years or 4 years?
The draft proposal provides for a 10 year term before it comes back to the voters for review and renewal.
BeSMaart's proposal is that this parcel tax should only be for 4 years, so that it comes back to the voters for review and renewal sooner.
The current proposal is for 10 years. The prior BSEP was for 12 years
Yolanda Huang
BeSMaart Organizer
BeSMaart: Berkeleyans Endorse School Management Accessibility, Accountability, Responsiveness and Transparency, a community organization formed in 2003.
BeSMaart Positions on BUSD's Proposed Parcel Tax for November, 2006 Ballot
1. Overhead, direct & indirect
This parcel tax is for enrichment and additional services for children and should directly benefit students in their classrooms and not pay for the school district's overhead, administration and maintenance. We are already taxed another $4 million a year in a separate parcel tax for maintenance, so permitting overhead costs is double dipping. What the school district does is use special parcel taxes to cover regular obligations so general fund monies can be spent on something else. Taxes for schools are the highest portion of our property tax bill and Berkeley pays the highest parcel taxes in the State of California for schools. Let's cut out these other costs so our children really benefit.
2. Class sizes goal or promise?
We in Berkeley have taxed ourselves heavily because we know that smaller class sizes means better learning. But, while the parcel tax says "class size reduction", BUSD's draft language reduces small class sizes only as a "goal". "Goals" are not enforceable. BeSMaart advocates that 26:1 (elementary) and 28:1 (secondary) class sizes based upon a district wide average, be the commitment to which BUSD is held. A district average standard provides enough flexibility at individual schools. However, by having an average class sizes as a commitment, not a mere goal, BUSD can be held accountable for how it uses our tax dollars.
3. Eliminate fiscal emergency exception
Beginning in 2001, class sizes in Berkeley rose dramatically because of the existing fiscal emergency exception. Yet, the school board approved every administrative salary increased requested by the Superintendent. BUSD remains in fiscal jeopardy even today, because BUSD cannot meet its mandated 3% reserve. BUSD must practice better efficiency and effectiveness. It cannot ask us for additional funding for class size reduction, and then, when the Board has failed to properly budget, divert this parcel tax to pay for something else. This is especially unacceptable when BUSD has refused to implement an independent performance audit to evaluate the district administration on its level of efficiency and effectiveness. Loopholes such as this "fiscal emergency exception" should be eliminated. These monies should be used as promised, to keep class size small.
4. How much should BUSD be allowed to shift from one program to another?
While BUSD tells us that 24% of the monies will go to enhance student learning, such as libraries, music and visual arts, site discretion monies, and parent outreach, it reserves the right to shift up to 10% of the money each year from one category to another. Over the course of several years, the shifts of monies could be significant. BeSMaart believes that if the total shifted, no matter when the shift occurs, is in excess of 10%, the matter needs to go back to the voters. BUSD should not tell us that the money will go to music and visual arts and libraries, while reserving the right to shift the money to other programs. BUSD should be held accountable to the representations and promises it makes.
5. Audit Committee
This is the most important issue. BUSD needs to be objectively evaluated for efficiency and effectiveness, and how well it achieves its program objectives. Students are constantly tested and graded. BUSD's administration should also be evaluated and graded on in its performance. This is the norm. One of the reasons BUSD has had numerous financial crises over the last 25 years is because it is not regularly reviewed for efficiency and effectiveness and has significant inefficiencies and waste.
BUSD claims that its audits meet state standards. However, BUSD's current audits do not investigate whether the money was well spent. For example, if $500 is allocated to buy books, BUSD audits only check to insure that the money was spent on books and do not verify whether the books could have been purchased at a cheaper cost, or whether the books were used much. Performance auditing would look into these issues.
Please read BUSD's versus BeSMaart's language for an independent audit committee. BUSD's language is so vague, general and lacking in detail that there's no enforceability, because there's nothing to enforce. BeSMaart's language is specific, detailed and clear. The tasks to be done are laid out. The process is described, and the criteria for forming the audit committee is spelled out. This is real accountability.
More money that is wasted does not improve children's learning which is why BUSD needs an independent audit committee which will evaluate cost effectiveness, efficiency and whether the expenditures achieved program goals. One (1%) percent of the total parcel tax would be allocated to this.
6. Length of parcel tax
A 4 year life for a parcel tax provides for more frequent review. BUSD's preferred 10 year life makes it easier for the school district, but ten years is almost the entire time a child is in school. Lots can happen during that period. Good democracy means more frequent voter review. Let's practice good democracy.
BUSD School Board
The school board members have been invited to present their perspectives, and Kitchen Democracy has not yet received a response. We will post their comments on this page as soon as we receive them.
Dan Lindheim
Planning and Oversight Committee Chair
Note: The Planning and Oversight Committee (P&O) is an independent committee established by the BSEP statute, made up of parents and staff representing each of the various school sites, to plan and oversee the implementation of the Measure. The Board also delegated authority to the P&O to oversee the implementation of Measure B.
Kitchen Democracy participants should be clear that KD is presenting no position in opposition to BeSMaart. My own comments are not that opposition. I do not represent, nor am I employed by, the District. Apart from my own views (some positive, some negative), I have been instrumental in bringing BeSMaart views to the Board and the Superintendent for consideration. I indicated to Kitchen Democracy that I would be happy to present an independent view based on my involvement in overseeing the current parcel taxes and my observations regarding the development of the new measure, but that I am not commenting as BeSMaart's opposition.
Issue 1:
All organizations have overhead and administrative expenses. Trying to put an arbitrary cap on them doesn't make them go away. It costs money to supervise, train, and administer over 140 classroom teachers and virtually the entire library and music program. Most grants, whether governmental or from foundations, allocate between 20% and 30% for overhead. This measure, which funds over a quarter of the district's budget and over 1/3 of its classroom teachers, allocates less than 10% for overhead and administrative expenses. Contrary to the BeSMaart statement, these funds are not for maintenance and there is no "double-dipping".
Conceptually, any marginal costs necessary to implement the measure's provisions should be acceptable expenditures. As economists and business people know, calculating marginal (as opposed to average) costs can be difficult in practice. KD readers should note that through the insistence of the P&O Committee, the "direct support" charge was reduced from approximately 10% during most of BSEP to 3.75% under Measure B (and for the last years of BSEP). This reduced rate would continue under the new measure.
Whether a 2% or 6% charge for overhead and administration is the exact amount to cover the additional marginal cost requirements of the new measure is difficult to determine. It should be noted that most school parcel taxes in California provide for 100% of the parcel tax proceeds to go directly to support the district's general fund, without the detailed specifications as in Berkeley, At worst, the new measure would be providing for one or two percent of the measure to support the district's general fund.
Issue 2:
I too would much prefer to remove the word "goal". That said, the district's legal counsel has been adamant that the District must retain the word to avoid the possibility of legal action should the district wide average exceed 26 or 28 by some minimal amount. It should be noted that "goal" was also used in both BSEP and Measure B.
Whether "goal" or not, every BSEP and Measure B class size reduction dollar has gone to hire substantial numbers of additional teachers and to reduce class sizes. Class sizes this year with Measure B do meet the 20:1 class sizes for grades K-3, 26:1 for grades 4-5, and 28:1 for grades 6-12.
Issue 3:
The draft language exists so the District isn't forced into having no other choice than to declare bankruptcy if "unforeseeable" financial downturns hit the district. Teacher compensation (class size reduction is hiring additional teachers) is a substantial part of the overall budget and if that part of the budget can't be touched, it may be very difficult to find reductions in other budget categories sufficient to stave off bankruptcy.
Issue 4:
BeSmaart's proposal is trivial. Instead of allowing the Board to increase library funding to $1.6 million in any given year, per BeSmaart it only can increase to $1.54 million. Also, BeSmaart has no language requiring Board approval of allocation changes.
Issue 5:
The three forms of separate and independent audit and review functions should be sufficient to ensure that the Measure is being properly implemented and that the revenues and expenditures are being properly raised and expended.
Issue 6:
No organization could function, let alone plan for the future, if one-third of its key employees were subject to termination every 4 years. In this case, no school system could function if 1/3 of its teacher force were subject to termination every 4 years, especially with 2/3 of the voters required to avoid termination. Moreover, it is not the school district that would have to wage an election every 4 years; rather, it is district parents and community members who raise the campaign funds and run the campaign. It is an excessive burden on the community to have an election every 4 years.