Comments on: This week in OUSD: Budget cuts for next year, closure savings, and possible new attendance boundaries

By: J.R.

J.R. — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:02:22 +0000

Tony never got the memo “socialism fails”, because sooner or later, the people who actually work for a living(based on exchanging goods and services on a voluntary basis for money)will run out of money, or seek to avoid having their money misappropriated and or wasted by near useless bureaucrats who subsist off of The public treasury and flourish by trading votes for cradle to grave support from that same public treasury.

By: livegreen

livegreen — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 21:25:51 +0000

I said it months ago: Tony Smith can make Full Service Community Schools work, but only if the funding to do it comes from outside grants. Not by paying more administrators by cutting site based funding.

He’s killing his own vision by doing this.

Less administrators, more $ to the the kids for academics & a stable learning environment!

By: J.R.

J.R. — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:45:21 +0000

“OUSD Parent wrote “Why is OUSD talking about budget cuts again especially after 30 passed”?

Certificated Personnel–down over 200 from 2011-12 to 2012-13 (@2300-2100)
Classified Personnel–down about 40 from 2011-12 Management and Confidential Personnel up from 398 to 435 from 2011-12 to 2012-13.

So, there are hundreds of fewer employees to supervise, 5 fewer sites but an additional 37 managers (an 8% increase) according to the district’s own documents”.

The learning of not even one child is being improved in any way shape or form, and yet the taxpayers costs continue to escalate.

http://oaklandlocal.com/article/ousd-has-fewer-students-teachers-yet-more-administrators-year

Is this good leadership? NO!

By: OUSD Parent

OUSD Parent — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 18:28:50 +0000

Why doesn’t Oakland ever seem to come out on top when measures, such as Prop. 30, pass? I understand that 30 wouldn’t necessarily give more money to districts, but rather it would avert deep cuts in spending. Why is OUSD talking about budget cuts again especially after 30 passed?

By: livegreen

livegreen — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 22:57:49 +0000

Katy, Re the coming years Budget Cuts, is this the reason School Sites are being asked to cut $30,000-$50,000 from their budgets for next year?

Was any of this predicted by the District before? Related, is the 8.5% increase in Healthcare typical or higher than past years? (If higher, why?)

Further details on this would b helpful. These budget cuts are going to have real impact on schools and programs for our children…

By: Doug Appel

Doug Appel — Wed, 19 Dec 2012 14:28:33 +0000

I thought this article might be of interest to readers of this blog:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/ct-met-school-closings-1217-20121219,0,4037886.story

By: Gordon Danning

Gordon Danning — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 02:30:21 +0000

1day At A Time:

My understanding is that OUSD pays principals less than many districts. Plus, frankly, being a principal is a pretty awful, thankless job.

By: Jim Mordecai

Jim Mordecai — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:09:43 +0000

Doug:

One of the reasons that FCMAT reported for the District budget lacking fiscal control was the concept of “position control”. Position control means that when you hire someone you have real money identified to pay the person you hire.

There was near the end of State Administration an expense contract was given out to establish position control.

I suggest the District should bring a suit if it paid for something it never got or fire the personnel that didn’t follow the structure that was established. District problem is once they fire the accountable personnel, they might not know if they have the money to fund the positions they’ll need to fill and the extra money that may be required to train personnel to carry out the job properly.

“The 1st interim shows the district maintains a multi-million dollar set aside for audit adjustments–which can only reflect the finance department’s doubts about the accuracy of their data and/or procedures.”

I support the “multi-million dollar set aside” because he State is 2 or 3 years behind in doing there $400,000 yearly audits and in June will be an additional year behind. Since the State take-over, the District has never passed a State Controllers’ audit because District records were never complete. on top of the cost of the audit, the District has to pay for being out of compliance state and federal regulations. How much they pay is always not clear because procedure is to appeal audit findings and wait years to get a ruling.

Being in the position of repaying $100 million loan that requires by law to pay for an expensive State Controller audit is like the song says: “16 tons and what you get another year older and deeper in debt.”

The District is trying to get out of another year older and deeper in debt circumstance. Because of the State audit backlog, the District initiated a strategy of skipping two years of audits and begging forgiveness of the years skipped. The hope is that the strategy will work and the District will be out from under State Controller audits. It would then have the same type of audit that all the rest of the state school districts not under receivership perform.

Jim Mordecai

By: Doug Appel

Doug Appel — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:34:00 +0000

1day
No word just yet on where the new managerial positions are–or whether they actually exist or are just budget slots.
The District is also investigating the discrepancy between the numbers of certificated (educator) positions reported on the first interim report and other district records which show a less of a decline.
None of this surprises me all that much. Some discrepancy (typically 1 or 2 percent) between documents which represent snapshots taken at different times is normal. A 10% discrepancy is more worrying and throws significant doubt on the accuracy of the district’s data in other areas of finances. I was informed earlier this week that the district has not had a completed audit since 2006. The 1st interim shows the district maintains a multi-million dollar set aside for audit adjustments–which can only reflect the finance department’s doubts about the accuracy of their data and/or procedures. But they are certain that they can’t afford to fund the 14 positions that were consolidated at different sites at the beginning of the year….Makes you wonder.

By: 1day at a time

1day at a time — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:30:33 +0000

Gordon, that’s sobering. Why is the pool of principal candidates so slim?

the common core standards and the assessments used to measure their mastery are suppose to focus on thinking skills much more.

@Doug. 37 more managers? What positions? That sounds like 3 or 4 new departments. Any insight?