Tuesday, March 10, 2009


What: Superintendent Carlos Garcia will be making comments with regard to the announcement today from the City Controller and Mayor Gavin Newsom that SFUSD should qualify for $23 million of the City’s rainy day fund.

When: Tuesday, March 10 / 5:45 p.m.

Where: Irving G. Breyer Board Room / 555 Franklin Street

Who: Superintendent Carlos Garcia and SF Board of Education President Kim-Shree Maufus

Why: SFUSD recently announced that it would send out pink slips to teachers, principals and paraprofessionals due to the $51 million budget shortfall in mid-year and 09-10 school year cuts.

The $23 million is 25 percent of $92 million currently in the fund. The school district is eligible for up to 25 percent of the total if two conditions are met: The school district must be getting less money per pupil from the state when adjusted for inflation and must be facing significant teacher layoffs.

The rainy day fund was created in 2003, when voters passed Proposition G. It requires the city to save revenue above 5% growth year over year, during good economic times.


  1. Great for this year, but how soon will the Rainy Day Fund run dry? Then what?

  2. And he is milking this headline like mad.

  3. Rachel -- if you are reading this, I hope you and the other Board Members (hey, send them over to this blog too!) are still keeping the pressure on to make sure that every dollar at the District is well spent.

    You mentioned several areas that the Board was looking at for savings... other parents here have mentioned other ideas.

    I for one, would like to see every school evaluated for the efficiency and quality of programs -- schools should not try to do everything and as a result waste resources, not in these times... this is a different type of recession, and its scary.
    Painful choices have to be made so all schools need to work together to see what each school can do better with the same amount of resources, which means combining forces. Principals need to get out of their heads that they are in charge of their little fiefdoms, and protecting their pet programs. Think bigger and wider.

    As for the District office... are we sure all conference and travel expenses are necessary, are all the Assistant Assistant whatever Superintendants really necessary, are all the consultants being hired necessary, etc.

    Lots of stuff gets papered over with a District this large, and I'm not in anyway saying people are intentionally mispending funds, its just that often times, people do things the way they always have and forget to look for a better but less expensive way.

  4. I'd like to know why the District is no longer promising that they will rescind ALL letters.

  5. I have a question -- if Principals are cut, then who will take their spot? Aren't all schools supposed to have 1 Principal?

    Also- principals are unionized right, so are the layoffs also strict seniority?

  6. Re cost-cutting at the local level of the school, I'm trying to think of anything that would not be a painful cut at either of my kids' schools. Because the budgets are managed locally, they are gone over with a fine-toothed comb by the parents, teachers, and administrators on the site councils. SSCs understand what the needs and priorities are to teach the kids at that place. They know the quirks of each place. They know what works and what doesn't. Surely they could imagine lots of ways to use any extra money that might fall from heaven, but the real creativity emerges in trying to squeeze the last drop of water out of each little stone on the plate to maximum effect for the kids. I'm just not seeing the waste at that level, at least.

  7. Me again - yes I agree, at the local site level, the schools are probably very conscious of spending money on supplies, staffing, etc.

    I think its higher up the food chain, so to speak, where there may be a disconnect.

    On the other hand, schools are sometimes very attached to programs that maybe the time has come to let go, because there are limited resources.

    Even if the State could fund schools at 100% level of last year, what about next year? Its possible to cut a bit more out of the budget of other areas but then taxes must be increased. And taxes can only be increased so much before it becomes self defeating -- definitely a difficult time right now. I don't know how anyone could be an economist.. I'd be depressed every day.