Part of the Bay Area News Group

School cuts: You’re not alone, Alameda

By epearlman
Wednesday, April 9th, 2008 at 9:53 am in Off-Island Life, Prop. 13, Schools.

Alameda schools may suffer from budget woes, but in this, at least, we’re not an island. The megalopolis to the south of us has mega-problems. You can read here what Steve Lopez of the Los Angleles Times has to say about the impact of $100 million in cuts to Los Angeles schools.

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

  • Mark

    Eve,

    This article confuses me. My understanding is that recurring expenses such as salary, must by law be accounted for in a budget with recurring funding streams like taxes. Therefore, how is the scenario Lopez describes possible?

  • Eve Pearlman

    This is a good question. My understanding is that, in order to fund positions, there must be a predictable, ongoing funding stream to the district. I don’t why there is that requirement, but I do know there are districts where educational foundations fund particular staff positions, like say counselors or music teachers. In Alameda, my understanding is that, because of concerns about equity, school sites have not been encouraged/allowed to fund site-specific positions.

  • David Forbes

    Mark & Eve,

    I know of no law that states that there needs to be a recurring revenue stream identified to fund a position. We don’t know how much money we’ll receive for the upcoming year, but every teacher that did not receive a ‘pink slip’ is guaranteed a position next year so I’m not sure that this position would be feasible. We may get less than the Governor’s January budget proposes or we may get more.

    However, from a practical standpoint, no District would be prudent in adding to its roster if a funding source, say an Ed Foundation or a PTA, hadn’t donated funds for a whole year for a teacher. If that position required a multi-year funding source, then the funding source would/should be identified.

    Hope this helps,

    David Forbes