EDUCATIONALLY SPEAKING

Gay Geiser-Sandoval

Class size reduction is having an impact on our school district’s

budget, which was passed last Tuesday night. This impact will be felt

even more in the next two years. The question that remains is whether the

expense will result in corresponding student improvement. A recent

article in the Los Angeles Times suggests that, in most cases, the

benefit is not worth the cost. The students that benefit the most are

those who escape a disruptive child in their class. But a class of 27

well-behaved kids may not receive enough educational benefit to warrant

the additional costs.

As I sat through the budget meeting, which was attended by three

parents, I tried to identify those additional costs. There are 859.40

teachers this year as compared to 802 last year. While the budget

anticipates 300 additional students in the district, more teachers were

needed for the reduction of class size in kindergarten and ninth-grade

English and math classes. This year, the average teacher’s salary in our

district is $48,592, with benefits of $10,942, for a total of all teacher

salaries of almost $50 million. In 1998-99, those numbers included a

salary of $44,375, benefits of $10,224, for a total of $47.3 million. So,

the district needed an additional $2.3 million for teacher salaries this

year.

As you will recall, the teachers renegotiated their contract to allow

bigger increases for those at the beginning of their teaching careers.

Due to an enticing retirement package two years ago, coupled with

class-size reduction, many of our teachers are at the beginning of their

teaching careers. Over the next two or three years, the district will

need to come up with considerably more money for teachers’ salaries than

it did last year. The money provided by the state for class-size

reduction has remained almost constant, which means that teachers’

salaries will eat into the rest of the budget pie.

Another added cost of class-size reduction is the need for more

classrooms. Since most schools do not have modular construction, a room

that once served 27 students now houses 20 students. As more of the lower

grades are reduced, schools that could once house 900 students will be

able to house only half that amount. As a result, school sites have been

reopened, programs have moved from one site to another, and expensive

portable classrooms have been added to some campuses.

More indirectly, where a principal’s salary covered working with more

than 900 students three years ago, that same labor cost is now serving

half as many students. More principals are needed as more school sites

open up. Our elementary schools now range in size from 264 to 865

students. Only the largest school has an assistant principal, even though

the other schools range in size from 264 to 737 students.

A more surprising comparison is in the clerical staff positions

assigned to each elementary school. One school with 264 students has

2.057 clerical positions, while one with 528 students has 1.28 positions.

The school with 737 students has less clerical staff than the one with

264; the school with 865 students has only 2.68 clerical, even though it

has more than three times the number of students as the smallest school,

which has 2.057.

The issue of classified staff, which is essentially everyone but the

head honchos and teachers, came up at the board meeting, with respect to

the high schools. Those numbers are even more skewed at the high school

level than at the elementary school level. The clerical positions at the

four largest high schools are either 9 or 10, even though the student

population doubles from largest to smallest. In other words, at one high

school, the ratio of clerical to students is 1:122, while at another it

is 1:247. However, it is more skewed if you add in the other secondary

schools, where the ratios are 1:88 and 1:80. The principal/assistant

principal ratio also varies at the conventional high schools between

1:595 and 1:368, down to 1:80 at one of an alternative school. The

counseling staff varies from a high of 1:556 to a low of 1:40. The

highest counselor-to-student ratio may explain why that school’s students

had a six-hour wait to change their schedules.

This year, district funding may change from one where the funds come

from the state, based upon the number of students we have enrolled and

seated in desks (i.e., seat time) to one where the funds come from

district property taxes, plus $120 per student from the state. If

property tax funds rise, the district will have the same amount of funds

available, whether the students it serves are from inside or outside the

district borders. For this reason, the district has decided not to accept

student transfers from other districts without a good reason. However,

those already enrolled can stay throughout their K-12 education.

Interestingly, the secondary school listed above with the most favorable

ratio of clerical, principal, and counselors to students, draws 30% of

its students from outside the district. Its general fund allocation per

student is over $5,000.00, whereas another high school’s general fund

allocation is about $2,732.00 per student.

The inequities in clerical and classified staff with respect to the

conventional high schools were pointed out by one of the board members.

She makes the point every year. Once again, district staff agreed to look

into it. The budget was passed unanimously. I’m wondering if the

inequities will ever be rectified. Maybe that’s why just about everybody

stayed away from the budget meeting. I might be happier if I hadn’t

mathematically analyzed the budget figures. Or, if my ninth-grader didn’t

have 36 kids in her math class. Does that equal 20 to 1?

GAY GEISER-SANDOVAL is a Costa Mesa resident. Her column runs Mondays.