Browse archives: 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | 1998 | 1997 | 1996 | 1995

Published on 05/18/1998 All articles from this issue

School district officials oppose three initiatives in upcoming election

printer friendly version

By Linda Taaffe / Town Crier Staff Writer

Local school officials say propositions 223, 224 and 227 could shift local control from the community to the state level and penalize Los Altos districts with their "one-size-fits-all" mandates if passed at the general election Tuesday.

The board of trustees at both the Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District and the Los Altos School District have unanimously adopted resolutions opposing Propositions 223 and 224.

Proposition 223

Proposition 223, known as the "Educational Efficiency Initiative" or "95/5," would limit each school district's administrative spending to 5 percent of its total revenues starting in fall 1999 if passed. The other 95 percent of district revenues would have to be used at school sites. Districts would be required to report their expenditures to the State Board of Education.

The board of education would fine districts that fail to comply an amount equal to 5 percent of their average daily attendance - about $200 per child or $4,000 to $7,000 per class. The board would redistribute fine money to districts in compliance.

In the Los Altos School District, which currently spends about 7.9 percent of its budget on administrative costs as described by the initiative, school officials would have to cut about $525,000 - or about 2.9 percent of the budget - to reach the 5 percent cap.

"I don't know how much leaner we can get," said Kristine Salmon, board member at the Los Altos School District. She said small districts, such as the elementary district, which has 3,165 students, have the same responsibilities as large districts. Because of this, administrative costs tend to be at a higher proportion of the total costs of the district.

The Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District, which has about 3,000 students and operates on a $20 million budget, currently spends about 8.2 percent of its budget on administrative costs as described by the initiative. School officials would have to cut about $773,000 to meet the 5 percent cap. If fined, the district could pay about $600,000 in penalty fees, said Robyn Phillips, associate superintendent of business services.

The United Teachers of Los Angeles, which is sponsoring the proposal, says the initiative would redirect district money to create higher per-student spending. Critics say about 90 percent of California's public school districts would not be able to comply with the initiative.

Proposition 224

Sponsored by the Professional Engineers in California Government, Proposition 224, also called "Competitive Bidding Initiative," would change the way public works projects are done. Currently, schools can make local decisions to hire private experts. Professional services, such as engineers and architects, don't have to be hired through competitive bidding.

Under the initiative, any contract $50,000 or more that is funded by state money would have to be competitively bid. By using a formula, the State Controller would run a cost comparison between private and state agencies, and contracts would be awarded to the lowest bidder.

At the high school district, where contractors are in the midst of completing a $58 million renovation project at both schools, officials say consultation work could end up in the state's hands, delaying materials and construction.

"The state is not up to speed and is understaffed. This would be no improvement. We have already experienced delays through state approvals," said Rich Fischer, superintendent of the high school district, during a regular board meeting March 23.

Opponents say under the best scenario, school construction would be delayed about six months if the proposal passes. Under the worst case scenario, it could be delayed at least two years.

Supporters say the initiative would ensure quality work at the lowest price, level the playing field so small firms can compete with those that are well connected, and would hold firms responsible and liable for their mistakes.

Proposition 227

Proposition 227, also called the "English as the Required Language of Instruction Initiative," could end bilingual programs in California's public schools, requiring approximately 1.4 million limited-English pupils to be placed in an immersion program for one year, where they would learn in both their native language and in English before being transferred to all-English classes.

Brigitta Sarraf, associate superintendent of educational services at the high school district, said the initiative "is not going to have an effect on how we do business."

She said less than 10 percent of the district's students are classified as limited-English pupils. She said about 123 students at Mountain View High and 150 students at Los Altos High speak languages other than English. Of those students, most are at least semi-fluent in English and not eligible for bilingual education.

Carmen Gomez, a bilingual teacher at Los Altos High, said the initiative would remove local control from school districts, thus eliminating the ability of local schools to determine the most effective way for teaching students.

Gomez said the initiative offers no resources for students who don't learn English within one year.

Charlene Luks, director of pupil services at the Los Altos School District, said the initiative would "have a minimum impact" on the grammar school district because the district does not have a bilingual program currently.