School Board OKs Budget, Dissolves Special Ed Stakeholders Group (CA)

June 23, 2010

After months of wrangling over cuts, the Santa Barbara School District Board of Education approved a scaled-back $108 million budget Tuesday.

The vote was 4-0 with board member Bob Noel absent.

Earlier this year, the district cut about $6 million from its budget and in May had to fill another $3.2 million budget gap, based on less revenue from the state.

Officials fear more trouble looms in the coming months.

“It’s most likely only a harbinger of what’s to come,” said Deputy Superintendent Eric Smith. “The process of constructing next year’s budget will probably be more daunting.”

Like all cities and school districts throughout the state, the Santa Barbara School District is struggling with fewer dollars and less resources to serve students.

Earlier this year the board voted to eliminate 38 full-time teaching positions in junior high and high school, which increased class sizes in some cases as high as 34 students – cuts that saved the district about $2.8 million. The district also saved about $1.2 million by reducing maintenance at schools.

The board in recent years had already cut millions of dollars from its budget.

“Cash is becoming a big concern for us,” Smith said.

With the state of California facing a $19.1 billion budget deficit, board members are growing increasingly concerned that the state will dig deeper into the district’s pockets in the coming months. Statewide, the governor has proposed more than $2 billion in cuts to public education in the 2010-11 fiscal year.

“It’s the incredible shrinking budget,” Smith joked at the meeting.

In other action, the school board took the latest step in its efforts to overhaul the troubled special education program.

The board voted 3-1, with Annette Cordero in opposition and Bob Noel absent, to dissolve a stakeholder’s group formed last year by parents who were concerned about the district’s handling of special education. Instead the district has decided to form a special education Advisory Group, under the direction of the district.

Parents who spoke at Tuesday night’s meeting said there were concerned that dissolving the stakeholder’s group in favor of district-controlled group would be a slap in the face to all of their hard work over the last year.

“This group of parents feels responsible for a shift in culture in the special ed department,” said parent Tom Breem. “I am worried we are going to lose some of what we gained.”

Parent Marcia Eichelberger also disagreed with the idea of dissolving the group.

“We have come too far to lose the positive momentum we have had,” she said.

Activi st-parents have complained for years about the district’s dysfunctional special education programs, and its unwillingness of the administrators to listen to their cries for help.

Pressure from the parents forced the district to hire an outside consultant, which concluded that the special education program was in disarray. The consultant made a scathing 153 recommendations to overhaul the program.

Board members said they appreciated the work of the parents, but that the district needed its own advisory group to help oversee special education.

“The reality is that parent attendance has really sunk at these stakeholder groups,” said board member Susan Deacon. “I am concerned that there are very few parents attending.”

Board member Cordero, however, disagreed.

“I feel that if we dissolve the stakeholder’s group that we are losing something that cannot be replaced,” Cordero said.