LAUSD Budget Update June 18 th Budget Update June 18 th The Los - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
lausd
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

LAUSD Budget Update June 18 th Budget Update June 18 th The Los - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Aug 06, 2023 380 likes •799 views

LAUSD Budget Update June 18 th Budget Update June 18 th The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) pays its bills District (LAUSD) pays its bills almost entirely with money from the State. As a result, Californias deepening budget

slide-1
SLIDE 1

LAUSD

Budget Update June 18th Budget Update June 18th

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) pays its bills District (LAUSD) pays its bills almost entirely with money from the

  • State. As a result, California’s

deepening budget crisis has deepening budget crisis has required severe budget reductions. Today we will discuss: y

  • Our Instructional Vision
  • The Problem
  • The Solution
slide-2
SLIDE 2

What can parents, guardians, and communities do to help? to help?

Learn about why LAUSD needs a parcel tax Learn about why LAUSD needs a parcel tax Lobby state and federal elected officials personally and in writing E f t tt d f t d t Encourage perfect attendance for students and teachers Volunteer to work in our schools Contribute to LAUSD’s non‐profit Educational Foundation to support individual schools or programs individual schools or programs

6/18/2009 2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

PART 1 PART 1 INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL VISION

6/18/2009 3 6/18/2009 3 6/18/2009

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Basic Tenets of Educational Reform Include… Basic Tenets of Educational Reform Include…

Standards Instruction Assessment

6/18/2009 4

A C C O U N T A B I L I T Y A C C O U N T A B I L I T Y

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Raising standards alone will not make a Raising standards alone will not make a difference unless we provide teachers and principals with the information they need principals with the information they need to make sure students are prepared to meet h d d those standards.

President Obama

6/18/2009 5

March 10, 2009

slide-6
SLIDE 6

The Vision

  • 95% of students at “proficient” level

95% of students at proficient level

  • Students possess social and emotional behaviors that

t “ ti ” l i support “active” learning

  • A “unified” system of educational services

A unified system of educational services – Every “ED”

  • Student Support Services perceived as a necessary

component for successful schooling

6/18/2009 6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

The Outcomes

  • Maximize effect of Good First Teaching for all students

Maximize effect of Good First Teaching for all students

  • Targeted instruction and interventions for at-risk learners
  • Significant improvements in pro-social behaviors
  • Reduction in over-representation of diverse student groups in low
  • Reduction in over-representation of diverse student groups in low

academic performance, special education, suspension/expulsion, and alternative education

  • Overall improvement in achievement rates
  • Maximize efficiency and return on investment

6/18/2009 7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

What is Response to Intervention (RtI2)? (RtI2)?

  • “An ongoing process of using student

g g p g performance and other data to guide instructional and intervention decisions”

6/18/2009 8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Problem Solving Process

Define the Problem Define the Problem

  • Defining Problem/Directly Measuring Behavior

Evaluate Evaluate

  • Response to

I t ti (RtI)

Problem Analysis Problem Analysis

  • Validating Problem
  • Identify Variables that

Intervention (RtI)

  • Identify Variables that

contribute to Problem

  • Develop Plan

Implement Plan Implement Plan

  • Implement As Intended

6/18/2009 9

Implement As Intended

  • Progress Monitor
  • Modify as Necessary
slide-10
SLIDE 10

Tiers of Service Delivery

B h i l S t Behavioral Systems

Tier III: Intensive Interventions (Few Students)

Academic Systems

Tier III: Comprehensive/Intensive Interventions ( Few Students) Students who need Individual Intervention ( ) Students who need Individualized Interventions Tier II: Targeted Interventions (Some Students Some Students) Students who need more support in addition to school-wide positive Tier II: Strategic Interventions (Some Students Some Students) Students who need more support in addition to the core curriculum addition to school wide positive behavior program addition to the core curriculum Tier I: Universal Interventions (All students; all settings All students; all settings) Tier I: Core Curriculum (All students All students)

6/18/2009 10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Model of Schooling

  • All District instruction and
  • All District instruction and

intervention services have a “place” in this model. p

  • If it does not fit in the

model, should it be funded? , Should we do it?

  • All supplemental and

intensive services must be integrated with core.

6/18/2009 11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

CST English Language Arts

Ca liforniaS ta nda rdsTe s t-E nglis hLa ngua geA rts G ra de2

  • 5

g g g P e rc e nta ge

  • f S

tude nts S c

  • ring a

t E a c h P e rform a nc e Le v e l

80 100

23 25 28 29 22 22 22 23 25 23 25 9 10 14 14 15 5 8 6 8 9 12 16 17 20 9 11 11 12

33 39 43 44 20 21 26 28 29 27 34 38 40 45 29 30 31 33 37

9 6

28 20 40 60 dents

31 29 29 27 30 31 34 34 35 37 34 31 34 33 35 37 35 36 36 25 23 19 18 16 27 22 24 21 23 20 18 16 15 20 18 18 18 16 13 12 10 7 19 23 25 16 19 22 21 18 22 22 23 25 20 21 20 23 25 32 27 16

40 20 Percent of Stud

16 15 13 12 10 22 18 14 15 12 12 13 10 7 16 16 16 13 10 20

100 80 60 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08

6/18/2009 12

Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5

slide-13
SLIDE 13 MUIR MIDDLE SCHOOL PI = 5 BELMONT SENIOR HIGH PI = 5 DREW MIDDLE SCHOOL PI = 5 MANUAL ARTS SENIOR HIGH PI = 5 FREMONT SENIOR HIGH PI = 5 SANTEE EDUCATION COMPLEX PI = 2 HUNTINGTON PARK SENIOR HIGH PI = 5 BETHUNE MIDDLE SCHOOL PI = 5 BELL SENIOR HIGH PI = 5 ROOSEVELT SENIOR HIGH PI = 5 EDISON MIDDLE SCHOOL PI = 5 LOS ANGELES SENIOR HIGH PI = 5 CARVER MIDDLE SCHOOL PI = 5 WEST ADAMS PREPARATORY SENIOR HIGH PI = No

Top 50 Secondary Schools with

HOLLENBECK MIDDLE SCHOOL PI = 5 GARFIELD SENIOR HIGH PI = 5 SAN FERNANDO SENIOR HIGH PI = 2 BANNING SENIOR HIGH PI = No STEVENSON MIDDLE SCHOOL PI = 5 SUN VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL PI = 5 GAGE MIDDLE SCHOOL PI = 5 LOS ANGELES ACADEMY MIDDLE SCHOOL PI = 5 HUNTINGTON PARK SENIOR HIGH PI 5

Schools with Highest Percentage of S d

WOODROW WILSON SENIOR HIGH PI 5 VIRGIL MIDDLE SCHOOL PI = 5 JAMES MONROE SENIOR HIGH PI = 5 BELVEDERE MIDDLE SCHOOL PI = 5 SOUTH GATE SENIOR HIGH PI = 5 BERENDO MIDDLE SCHOOL PI = 5 VISTA MIDDLE SCHOOL PI = 3 ROBERT FULTON COLLEGE PREPARATORY SCHOOL PI = 5 HOLLENBECK MIDDLE SCHOOL PI = 5

Students Scoring Below Proficient on

FRANKLIN SENIOR HIGH PI = 5 EL SERENO MIDDLE SCHOOL PI = 5 GARDENA SENIOR HIGH PI = 5 FOSHAY LEARNING CENTER PI = 5 WILMINGTON MIDDLE SCHOOL PI = 5 SOUTH EAST SENIOR HIGH PI = 2 NIMITZ MIDDLE SCHOOL PI = 5 WOODROW WILSON SENIOR HIGH PI = 5

CA Standards Tests

KING MIDDLE SCHOOL PI = 5 SOUTH GATE MIDDLE SCHOOL PI = 5 FRANCIS POLYTECHNIC SENIOR HIGH PI = No PACOIMA MIDDLE SCHOOL PI = 5 HOLLYWOOD SENIOR HIGH PI = 5 ROBERT E PEARY MIDDLE SCHOOL PI = 5 CARSON SENIOR HIGH PI = 3 SYLMAR SENIOR HIGH PI = 5

English Language Arts 2007 08

6/18/2009 13

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% SAN PEDRO SENIOR HIGH PI = 3 NARBONNE SENIOR HIGH PI = 2 JOHN F KENNEDY SENIOR HIGH PI = 1 JOHN MARSHALL SENIOR HIGH PI = 1 # Proficient & Advanced # Below Proficiency

2007-08

slide-14
SLIDE 14 MANUAL ARTS SENIOR HIGH PI =5 SOUTH EAST SENIOR HIGH PI =2 WEST ADAMS PREPARATORY SENIOR HIGH PI =No HUNTINGTON PARK SENIOR HIGH PI =5 SANTEE EDUCATION COMPLEX PI =2 FREMONT SENIOR HIGH PI =5 CARSON SENIOR HIGH PI =3 GARFIELD SENIOR HIGH PI =5 SOUTH GATE SENIOR HIGH PI =5 FRANKLIN SENIOR HIGH PI =5 GARDENA SENIOR HIGH PI =5 WOODROW WILSON SENIOR HIGH PI =5 BELMONT SENIOR HIGH PI =5 ROOSEVELT SENIOR HIGH PI =5 MANUAL ARTS SENIOR HIGH PI 5

Top 50 Secondary Schools with

DREW MIDDLE SCHOOL PI =5 HAMILTON SENIOR HIGH PI =2 JOHN MARSHALL SENIOR HIGH PI =1 BANNING SENIOR HIGH PI =No HOLLYWOOD SENIOR HIGH PI =5 GRANT SENIOR HIGH PI =5 SYLMAR SENIOR HIGH PI =5 SAN FERNANDO SENIOR HIGH PI =2 CARSON SENIOR HIGH PI 3

Schools with Highest Percentage

FRANCIS POLYTECHNIC SENIOR HIGH PI =No EDISON MIDDLE SCHOOL PI =5 MUIR MIDDLE SCHOOL PI =5 HOLLENBECK MIDDLE SCHOOL PI =5 ROBERT FULTON COLLEGE PREPARATORY SCHOOL PI =5 SAN PEDRO SENIOR HIGH PI =3 BIRMINGHAM SENIOR HIGH PI =No ABRAHAM LINCOLN SENIOR HIGH PI =5 DREW MIDDLE SCHOOL PI =5
  • f Students

Scoring Below

GAGE MIDDLE SCHOOL PI 5 LOS ANGELES ACADEMY MIDDLE SCHOOL PI =5 NORTH HOLLYWOOD SENIOR HIGH PI =No CARVER MIDDLE SCHOOL PI =5 NARBONNE SENIOR HIGH PI =2 JAMES MONROE SENIOR HIGH PI =5 BETHUNE MIDDLE SCHOOL PI =5 BELL SENIOR HIGH PI =5 FRANCIS POLYTECHNIC SENIOR HIGH PI =No

Proficient on CA Standards

PACOIMA MIDDLE SCHOOL PI EAGLE ROCK SENIOR HIGH PI =4 NIMITZ MIDDLE SCHOOL PI =5 ROBERT E PEARY MIDDLE SCHOOL PI =5 CHATSWORTH SENIOR HIGH PI =No SUN VALLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL PI =5 STEVENSON MIDDLE SCHOOL PI =5 FOSHAY LEARNING CENTER PI =5 GAGE MIDDLE SCHOOL PI =5

Standards Tests

6/18/2009 14 14

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% SOUTH GATE MIDDLE SCHOOL PI =5 KING MIDDLE SCHOOL PI =5 BELVEDERE MIDDLE SCHOOL PI =5 PACOIMA MIDDLE SCHOOL PI =5 # Proficient & Advanced # Below Proficiency

Mathematics 2007-08

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Corona Elementary School

46 students scored proficient/advanced who had 0 absences

6/18/2009 15

46 students scored proficient/advanced who had 0 absences

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Corona Elementary School

6/18/2009 16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

6/18/2009 17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Change Model g

Consensus I f Infrastructure Implementation

6/18/2009 18

Implementation

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Office of Curriculum, Instruction, and School Support (OCISS) Infrastructure Support (OCISS) Infrastructure

PreK‐12 Language Acquisition (SEL/EL) PreK–12 Literacy/Language Arts PreK–12 Mathematics P K 12 S i PreK–12 Science PreK–12 Social Studies PreK–12 Instruction Support Facilitator pp PreK–12 Counseling Coordinator R I C d RtI Coordinator RtI Expert Access to Core/EL Expert PSA Coordinator School Options: Problem Solving/Data Coaches Instructional Coaches Intervention Specialists

slide-20
SLIDE 20

PART 2 THE PROBLEM THE PROBLEM

6/18/2009 20 20 6/18/2009 20 6/18/2009 DRAFT_

slide-21
SLIDE 21

An overview of California’s financial crisis.

Worst economic crisis since the Great Depression has created massive unemployment and budget deficits for governments across the country. across the country. More than 706,000 Californians have lost their jobs in the past 12 months. Huge drop in corporate, sales, personal income, property, and

  • ther taxes has impacted Sacramento.

Voters rejected the bailout measures on the May 19 ballot Voters rejected the bailout measures on the May 19 ballot.

6/18/2009 21 21 6/18/2009

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Public education is suffering because of this crisis.

“California schools are grossly underfunded. California’s public schools ranked 47th among states in per pupil public schools ranked 47 among states in per pupil funding and at the bottom quartile in spending as a percentage of per capita personal income – and that was before losing over $5 billion in ongoing, core instructional funding. “California ranks last among the states in the number of school staff per

  • student. California would need to hire 96,000 additional teachers, 9,000

administrators, 42,000 librarians, counselors, nurses, instructional aides and 66,000 janitors, bus drivers and security guards to reach the NATIONAL AVERAGE in student to staff ratios ” NATIONAL AVERAGE in student to staff ratios.”

Source: Education Management Group, a coalition of school districts, county

  • ffices and statewide associations

6/18/2009 22 22 6/18/2009

slide-23
SLIDE 23

We have taken multiple cuts from Sacramento.

June March April May June

Total Deficit

2008 2009 p 2009 y 2009 2009

2008‐09 Total $700 9

Initial Cuts $427 1 million Round 2 $140 4 million Round 3 $133 5 million

‘08-09

Total $700.9 M

$427.1 million (Approved) $140.4 million midyear (Approved ) $133.5 million Initial Cuts $596 1 illi Round 2 $142 million Round 3 $68 illi Round 4 $62 8 illi

2009‐10

08 09

$596.1 million ($320 million approved) $142 million (May 19th Election failed) $68 million (May 29th) $62.8 million (Transportation May 29th)

Total $869.5 M 2010‐11

‘09-10

2010 11 Total $1,009.8 M 2011 12

‘10-11

6/18/2009 23 23 6/18/2009

2011‐12 Total $1,142.4 M

‘11-12

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Our ratio of employees to students has also contributed to our challenge. contributed to our challenge.

According to our analysis, if the District had maintained its proportionate ratio of d lt t t d t f 2003 t 2009 LAUSD ld h 11 500 f adults to students from 2003 to 2009, LAUSD would have 11,500 fewer employees.

690 000 710,000 730,000 750,000

Enrollment

84,000 86,000 88,000

FULL TIME EMPLOYEES

610,000 630,000 650,000 670,000 690,000 72 000 74,000 76,000 78,000 80,000 82,000 Enrollment 72,000 FTE

6/18/2009 24 24 6/18/2009

slide-25
SLIDE 25

In addition, we have not changed our workforce calendar to 10 months to match the decline in schools that operate year round in schools that operate year round.

Year Round Schools Year Round Schools

200 00 220.00 240.00 100 00 120.00 140.00 160.00 180.00 200.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 ‐ 2001‐02 2002‐03 2003‐04 2004‐05 2005‐06 2006‐07 2007‐08 2008‐09 2009‐10 2010‐11 2011‐12 2012‐13 6/18/2009 25 25 6/18/2009 Year Round Schools

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Finally, we support our employees, but we need to acknowledge the tradeoffs that we are making.

Even as revenues have declined, through the Health Benefits Committee, the District followed the unions’ lead to prioritize improving LAUSD’s health benefits

acknowledge the tradeoffs that we are making.

District followed the unions lead to prioritize improving LAUSD s health benefits

  • package. Over the course of three years, the District’s concessions will have

added $216 million in benefits costs to the operating budget (all funds).

$947 $980 $960 $980 $1,000

Health and Welfare Agreement (In Millions)

$859 $867 $878 $893 $860 $880 $900 $920 $940 $780 $800 $820 $840 FY 08-09 FY 09-10 FY 10-11

6/18/2009 26 26 6/18/2009

Old Agreement New Agreement

slide-27
SLIDE 27

PART 3 The Solution

6/18/2009 27 27 6/18/2009 27 6/18/2009 DRAFT_

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Our goal has always been to protect the classroom.

Our Approach

  • 1. Leverage new revenues – Stimulus Funding
  • 2. One time items (delayed textbook purchases)
  • 3. Non‐labor reductions (consultants, travel, etc.)
  • 3. Non labor reductions (consultants, travel, etc.)
  • 4. Hiring freeze
  • 5. Right Size Central Office & Local District
  • 6. Program Reductions
  • 7. Borrowing (Certificate of Participation, Worker’s

Compensation fund)

  • 8. Priority is to minimize the impacts on the

classroom

6/18/2009 28

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Federal Stimulus Breakdown

GUIDELINES

i l I ( i ll i d d) f d

Total Amounts

  • $312.1

million

  • $151.6

million

Title I (Economically Disadvantaged) funds are split 50/50 between fiscal years. Funds must be used for Title I purposes only. LAUSD must share a portion of the overall funds (or services) with local i h h l b i

million

Title I

million

IDEA private or charter schools because money is allocated by the number of poor children that live in the area, not only the number that attend LAUSD schools.

  • $513.2

million

IDEA (Special Education) funds are split 50/50 between fiscal years; a portion will go to general fund.

Fiscal Stabilization Money is to be used for

million

Fiscal Stabilization

Fiscal Stabilization—Money is to be used for programs such as Title I‐Economically Disadvantaged, Title II‐Teachers, Title III‐ English Learners, and other federal education

6/18/2009 29

purposes or reforms.

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Of the 60% we are allowed to use to reduce the deficit we have been able to prevent 6,500 job

Total Amounts

Available for 2009‐10 $

p j losses.

  • $312.1

million

  • $151.6

million

$34.4M Available for

Title I IDEA

2010‐11 $34.4M A il bl f

50% less mandatory set asides

  • $513.2

million

Available for 2009‐10 $358.8M

million

Fiscal Stabilization

May be available for 2010 11

6/18/2009 30

2010‐11 $154.4M*

*We do not have a guarantee from Sacramento that we will receive the remaining $154.4 M in October

slide-31
SLIDE 31

To balance the 2009‐10 budget, we tried to spare the classroom by reducing consultants, delaying purchasing and freezing discretionary expenditures

d d d d l $ ll Reduced outside contractors and consultants = $38 million Delayed purchasing new math ($29.5 million) and English Language Arts ($70 million) textbooks g g ( ) Used savings from Workers’ Compensation fund Used ending balances and flexibilities from frozen programs Froze all travel costs Froze all travel costs Froze facility rental expenses

The Superintendent and Board have created review processes to ensure we are maximizing all dollars to save jobs.

6/18/2009 31

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Since March 15th we have been proactively able to save 6 326 jobs able to save 6,326 jobs.

We have been able to accomplish this through early retirement, school repurchases,

Notices rescinded or positions reassigned

Title I stimulus, decentralized programs, and resignations.

March 15 Reduction in Force Notices * Elementary Teachers (1,996 permanent) (1,605 non‐permanent) 3,601 1,996 (permanent) Secondary Teachers 1,872 Total 1,336 (Math 675) (Science 276) (Social Studies 322) (English 599) Math 675 Science 276 Social Studies 114 English 271 Support Service Personnel 498 120 Administrators 2,875* 2,874 Total 8,846 6,326 6/18/2009 32

*278 administrators were placed in teaching positions as a result of norm changes and reductions in programs.

slide-33
SLIDE 33

94% of our certificated workforce will have jobs next year jobs next year.

Certificated Positions Remaining

6%

Total Certificated Positions 2009-10 Reduction in Certificated Positions

94%

6/18/2009 33

Note: We have over 400 vacancies for teachers in Math, Science, & Special Education

slide-34
SLIDE 34

91% of our classified workforce will have jobs next year jobs next year.

Classified Positions Remaining

9%

Total Classified Positions 2009-10 Reduction in Classified Positions

91%

6/18/2009 34

slide-35
SLIDE 35

We will talk about the remaining recommendations to resolve the solution.

Year Total Initial Deficits Board Approved R d ti & Federal Stabilization & IDEA Dollars Remaining Reductions to be Approved Reductions & Adjustments IDEA Dollars Approved 2008-09 $700.9M $569.2M $0 $131.7M 2009-10 $869.5M $333.0M $393.2 $143.3M 2010-11 $1,009.8M $327.3M $188.8 $493.7M 2011-12 $1,142.4M $298.8M $0 $843.6M

6/18/2009 35

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Budget deficit solutions for 2008‐09: $131.7M

  • Categorical Program Reductions: $75.2 M

New recommendations based on increased deficit figures for 2008-09 include: g g $

  • Deferred Maintenance: $28.0 M
  • Borrowing (Certificate of Participation) $21.4 M
  • Additional Central Office Reductions $2.3 M

dd

  • a Ce

a O ce educ o s $ 3

  • Supply Balances (Instructional Materials Account) $4.8 M

6/18/2009 36

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Budget deficit solutions for 2009‐10: $143.3M

  • Cancellation of elementary and middle summer school and intersession, and

New recommendations based on increased deficit figures for 2009-10 include: y , limited high school classes = $33 M

  • Transportation cuts across the board = up to $16 M
  • Central office streamlining = $17.3 M
  • Moving some non‐school staff to a 10 month calendar= $12 M
  • Deferred maintenance = $25 M
  • Categorical program reductions = $40 M

6/18/2009 37

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Initial budget recommendations for 2010‐11 $493.7M & 2011‐12 $843.6M deficits $ $

Y T t l I iti l B d A d F d l St bili ti R i i d ti t

Problem

Year Total Initial Deficits Board Approved Reductions & Adjustments Federal Stabilization & IDEA Dollars Remaining reductions to be approved 2010-11 $1,009.8M $327.3M $188.8 $493.7M 2011-12 $1,142.4M $298.8M $0 $843.6M

Recommendations 2010-11 2011-12 2009-10 Ongoing Items 215.4 219.3 Deferral of textbook adoptions (ELA) 20 40 Streamline business operations 14.2 20.4 Basis Change and Differentials 7.6 7.6 Move central programs to other funding (e g SRLDP 10 schools) 37 49 8 Move central programs to other funding (e.g. SRLDP, 10 schools) 37 49.8 Consolidation of schools 5.4 10.9 Reduce routine maintenance 17.5 32.6 Reduce transportation budget 18.8 27.9 S h l S t St ffi R ti 36 7 45 1

6/18/2009 38

School Support Staffing Ratios 36.7 45.1 Subtotal Recommendations 372.6 453.6

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Remaining Budget Deficits for 2010‐11 & 2011‐12 2011 12

To balance the remainder of the budget in 2010-11 & 2011-12 we will have to continue to reduce many programs To avoid this situation we are going to pursue a continue to reduce many programs. To avoid this situation we are going to pursue a parcel tax and ask all employees to share in the sacrifices.

O ti A R d i t i l l O ti B W ki T th Option A – Reducing programs to prior levels & Shared Sacrifice

  • Parcel Tax (if it does not

pass in 2010-11 we will have to reduce these

2010-11 2011-12 K-3 Class Size Reduction (29:1) 47 3 47 3 Option B – Working Together

a e to educe t ese programs and services and or take additional shared sacrifices to close the $121.1 M)

K-3 Class Size Reduction (29:1) 47.3 47.3 Full Day Kindergarten 46.5 Arts & Music Program 14.4 28.8 School Safety & Cleanliness 20 20 S h l Ad i i t ti & S t 10 9 20 9

  • Additional Shared

Sacrifice

  • 1% salary reduction

School Administration & Support 10.9 20.9 Salary Reduction 28.5 226.5 Total 121.1 390

6/18/2009 39

  • 1% salary reduction

= ~$40 M

slide-40
SLIDE 40

How else can unions help?

LAUSD’s unions can help save more jobs

  • Work together to educate the community about the need for a parcel tax

LAUSD s unions can help save more jobs.

  • Work together to educate the community about the need for a parcel tax
  • Jointly advocate in Sacramento for legislative changes & no more cuts to

education P t hi h l tt d t

  • Promote higher employee attendance rates
  • Freeze step and column (automatic raises)
  • Most Central and Local District office employees switch from year‐round work

schedule to B‐Basis (10.75 months) work pay schedule = ~$21 million (As a result of fewer year‐round schools.)

  • Unpaid non‐work days, also known as furlough days. One day = ~$15 million

6/18/2009 40

  • Salary reductions 1% = ~$40M
slide-41
SLIDE 41

What can parents, guardians, and communities do to help? to help?

Learn about why LAUSD needs a parcel tax Learn about why LAUSD needs a parcel tax Lobby state and federal elected officials personally and in writing E f t tt d f t d t Encourage perfect attendance for students and teachers Volunteer to work in our schools Contribute to LAUSD’s non‐profit Educational Foundation to support individual schools or programs individual schools or programs

6/18/2009 41