Comments on: School cuts: You’re not alone, Alameda

By: David Forbes

David Forbes — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 04:32:29 +0000

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

By: Eve Pearlman

Eve Pearlman — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:15:21 +0000

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.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:25:28 +0000

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?