With regard to the SD Unified budget deficit, of course the 800lb elephant in the room is the busing program. That comment comes as no surprise to anyone that actually takes a few months to think the pros and cons of the busing program through. A few questions are in order. How much does the busing program cost us in total? Ans: Way too much, but it will never be publicly disclosed in the budget. Estimates are at $10M per year. What are the results of the program? Ans: Poor Numbers approaching 60% of kids bused to a school outside his or her district go on to fail the state high school exit exam. What's the cost to all the other kids in the district not receiving this expensivie perk? Ans: Unknown, but it's heavy... no summer school, deferred maintenance all over, not enough books, and so forth. What are the benefits of transporting an estimated 10,000 kids (this number isn't available either)around the city everyday? Ans: It's probably helpful to a small percentage of kids that realy want to buckle down and learn. However if the buses stopped running tomorrow nearly all of those kids would figure out a way to get to their chosen school by their own means. The rest to make a pun who are "just along for the ride" should not be receiving this public benefit anyway. School Busing has been a SD Unified program for 35 years. Did it raise standards or graduation rates? Ans: Never measured, but it's a protected idea of district administrators whose time has come for an honest review of cost vs. benefit in light of program cuts district wide. Is SD Unified under some type of court order to ship kids all over the city? Ans: No. If it were, it's time to go visit the judge because what we have is not benefiting the 10,000 kids receiving the benefit nearly enough to justify the costs borne by the 125,000 students who are not. Maybe the kid "just along for the ride" truly benefits from the program and keeps society from bearing the costs of another failed student among us? Ans: It's 30-45 minutes each way from Southeast San Diego to Scripps Ranch High. That kid could be home studying for the extra hour per day he or she wastes on the bus at the expense of all the other 135,000 kids in the district. Is it time to completely re-think the program? Ans: Left blank intentionally. Maybe there are a whole of good reasons to keep the program for another 35 years? Ans: If there are, they are subtle.

Instead of letting people go, why can't we look at changes to the benefits? If employees had to pay a portion of their benefits or a little higher copays, I'm sure that would save the district funds. The unions need to look at this as well as I know they fight for the benefits and we still all need them but it's better than people losing their jobs.

Close elementary schools that cannot sustain enrollment levels of greater than 300. If our pupil counts are decreasing, then so must the number of schools. It is expensive to run an entire school with less then 300 students, yet we continue to keep these schools open. If you look at how many actual neighborhood students attend these schools there is even less need for some of these schools. Precious resources are wasted busing students to these schools just to sustain them. If the demographics of the area don't support an elementary school, then the school should be closed. This is difficult for parents who want their children to attend a school within walking distance, but neighborhoods change over time, particularly, Ocean Beach, Pacific Beach, and Clairemont. Busing students from another neighborhood just to keep the school open isn't the best use of resources. We need quality schools in areas were students live. Parent involvement is higher when students attend schools where they live. As the gentlemen stated in the earlier post, if it isn't improving student achievement, then there isn't justification for the program. Many of these small elementary schools get over-formula teachers because it is difficult to make the class size numbers work out due to the small numbers of students in each grade level: Below is the listing of small elementary schools and the number of regular education teachers they qualify for: Barnard (9), Bay View Terrace (9), Cabrillo (8), Cubberely (9), Crown Point (9), Cadman (6), Franklin (9), Rolando Park (7). Contrast this with a school that have as many as 46 teachers. Many of these small schools are in neighborhoods with other small schools within blocks of each other. One could be closed and the remaining schools would benefit from the additional enrollment. For Example: Cadman Elementary is near to Alcott, Whitman, and Tolar. Students could easily go to one of these other schools. Many parents in other areas take there children much farther to attend school. School Board Members: Please consider closing some elementary schools.

I am writing to oppose any cuts to the GATE Seminar program. Reason: Our children are our garden. During times of drought, we humans, should pay special attention to those individuals that offer the best hope for our future nourishment.

I know that we could have the programs we need for our children and save jobs by having a District Wide implementation. For example by saving on all materials/supplies and having control on what it is being spent. We could save extra dollars on what the money is being spent on. I believe that many of us spend and waste alot of materials and maybe spend on things that don't need to be bought. We could trim alot on ALL of the spending. I do agree that we could save money and time by sending our kids to their neighborhood school. I also suggest that we stop building new schools that we do not need. We should utilize the schools and services that we already have and not incur other expenses. I think we should have the medical coverage for one employee and one family member and then have the employee pay part of the benefits for any additional family members.This is my opinion.

1. San Diego Unified could cut some monies from its excessive costs by requiring parents to pay for bus service - especially for those choosing schools outside of their area - and by requiring students to pay the full cost of 6th grade camp. Although I work for the district, my own children have attended schools in East County, where I have always had to pay for bus service and 6th grade camp. How is it that SDUSD is compelled to provide these services for free, if other districts charge parents for costs? 2. Eliminate multiple administrative positions at the secondary level, by replacing Vice-Principals in charge of disciplinary issues with Dean positions at the lower teacher salaries. 3. Provide medical benefits on a per-family basis, eliminating the double benefits to married couples where both parties work for the district. 4. Salary: I would not agree with a pay decrease, including furloughs that would decrease pay. Teacher salaries are not unreasonably low, however, living in San Diego is expensive, and many teachers must work two jobs just to pay basic living expenses (not to mention the money they pay for classroom rewards, manipulatives, & decor). In addition, the requirements to become a teacher (education, tests, training, costs) are so extensive, that salaries should be higher to compete with equally demanding professions in the private sector.

Cut the Balboa Park program. Kids who return from it have no memory of what they were supposed to have learned; the activities are only nominally tied to the alleged curriculum. Sixth Grade Camp is terrific, but if we can only keep one OCILE program, I vote for Old Town, which is an amazing learning experience for all kids. If you must close schools, close the schools that are performing poorly. It's not so much about size as eliminating what isn't working. A small elementary school that is raising scores and has an active community surrounding it should be favored over one which has not consistently shown growth. Cut staff at Normal Street and other administrative zones before you cut teachers. Teaching is what school districts are all about. We can all live with less bureaucracy. What we might think is a necessity probably can be eliminated with less pain than cutting teachers. Cut all of the area/regional/cluster leaders. Good God, how many times do we need to reconfigure these things? how much good do they truly accomplish? they are most certainly not worth the money, as schools don't really benefit at all. If you want to reduce salaries, reduce principal salaries. Times are tough. Give them a lower base with the promise of a small bonus if goals are met. I have no problem with Kaiser being the generic health insurance and teachers having to pay extra to keep Pacificare or whatever else they prefer. And if you haven't eliminated double insurance for two spouses employed by the district, go for it. I have no idea why you have been paying twice for me and my spouse to be insured all of these years. Eliminate all but the most essential consultants. Eliminate conferences. Cut the superintendant's pay and staff. Do not under any circumstances negotiate a superintendent's contract that gives him/her money if the contract is breached. Consider hiring from within. You cannot, I think, eliminate more busing. Special ed busing is necessary, though probably a good 1/2 of the kids who are on the sp. ed bus could be walking. VEEP buses are gone.

I don’t what is spent on the Best Doctors program, but I feel it is a waste of money. I have utilized it and found it to be extremely generic. The intake person makes you feel special, but what I ended up getting back was nothing more that some information that could be looked up on the internet. You would get better advice by requesting a second opinion from a doctor in your insurance group. I suggest we cancel it.

Can someone explain why our schools have nurses and in some cases even assitants to the nurses? In the era before cell phones a sick kid went to the nurse so the nurse could call his parnet for pickup. All kids have phones of their own now. From what I have observed all that our nurses do at the high schools is hand out blue cards authorizing partial day absences for trips to the doctor or dentist. That's attendence and not nursing and requires no special training. What else do they do all day long?

Instead of SDUSD paying the military to have JROTC on our campuses, SDUSD should be getting paid by the military to allow access to our students. If not at a profit, then the military should be paying at minimum the costs of the program, but we should absolutely NOT be paying the military from funds that are meant to educate all children.

If furloughs are put in place, I'm hoping employees will have the option of taking the un-paid time off over the entire school year. Easier to manage financially than having to take off all at once, or over a short period of time. Perhaps 1/2 a day a month, for 8 months? Or 1 day every other month (or two)? Could be required to complete the 4-days by May. For employees who only receive the one paycheck once a month, this could be vital.

One idea would be to look at ways to INCREASE REVENUE through grants, non-state sources of funding, etc. This might help offset some of the cuts. The next thing I would do is to go back to one set of administration in the "small schools" campuses like San Diego High, Crawford, Kearny, etc. We could keep the same tracks and electives but one principal and admin teams. Next, I would consider shortening the number of games by one in each sport. Next, I would eliminate the STAR test. Lastly, I would go to "cold lunches" one day a week. I agree with another poster on eliminating busing and encouraging children to go their neighborhood schools. I would also look at closing down some schools with low enrollment.

SDUSD needs to reconfigure itself. The district is too big and the needs are bigger for our San Diego students. Line up elementary, middle schools and high schools into three smaller sections to the unified school district east of the 805, west of the 805 and west of the 5. Don't hire another superintendent but use the area superintendents to take charge of the smaller reconfigured sections to this unified school district. Lower the number of v.p.'s at middle schools that are doing well academically and have administration use their certification to get back in the classroom and teach to keep classroom numbers lower. Stop having so many administration meetings, use the vast technology available at our district to keep admin on school site or have telecommunication conferences in the afternoon so it does not keep administration from the important role of supporting the classrooms and teaching in the classroom themselves. Support academic electives that have proven necessary and work for our students. Busing program needs rethinking, gentleman who posted above is right, busing budget needs disclosure.

Consider another early retirement offer which might interest just enough employees who were just a year short for the offer last year to make sense. A survey could go out to get an idea of how many would take the offer. Seems unusual to offer it so soon but times are tight. Worth looking into.

SUMMER SCHOOL PRINCIPALS Summer school sessions have been cut back substantially, possibly totally next summer. The number of principals needed for summer school is far fewer than in the past. However, we still employ principals to work in the summer. If it is a contract issue that they are paid for 11 months, perhaps we need to revisit the contract. On the other hand, I know several principals who would choose to stay home with their families and take less pay by not working summer school, if they were give the choice. Principals,however, are not give that option. They must work. We could employ only enough principals to cover the limited summer schools. I worked at a summer school with 7 teachers and we had 3 principals on site! This is a waste of valuable resources. Could we please take a look at this issue?

Year Round (YR) schools need to be on the same track as our traditional schools. There would be an initial cost of converting schools from YR to traditional, but in the long run, we would save money. Year round schools cost SDUSD extra money since they do not end their year until the beginning of the next FISCAL year. Thus the district has to absorb the cost of the two weeks for any counselors, nurses, VP's, and classified, whose positions were being cut due to lower enrollment projected in the new FISCAL year. In addition, if an employee transfers to a traditional site, or if a position is grant funded but the funding ends on June 30th then the cost is charged to the district to keep the employee the extra weeks in July. Plus, when an employee transfers from a traditional to a YR school, and doesn't start until September, the employee has to "make up" the time on the breaks - which usually means they aren't working with students, but rather doing administrative work. Parents who have students in year round and other students in traditional track have difficulty scheduling vacations, babysitting and family times. If something isn't good for families, then it isn't good for education. Please take a look at the performance of the year round schools and make a decision based on their performance. If the data doesn't support keeping the program, then cut it! PS. I agree with the previous blogger about cutting OCILE for 6th graders. I have three SDUSD children who all didn't get much out of the program. The original science curriculum from the 60's is gone, replaced with diversity training. Diversity is best taught through day to day interaction with classmates, sports, and doing project based instruction within the classroom.

District could save a great deal if we extended the school year by 22, or so, school days. This could be done by: 1=creating a total district school calendar 2=eliminating summer school and intersession school. Savings of not having separate curriculum, staffing, paperwork, busing schedules, etc. for summer school. 3=Student achievement would increase due to extended same teacher instruction.

Speaking only from my observations at the HS level as a parent and Substitute teacher at many of our schools, I can say that the bussing issue has greater negative impacts than positive. Why? Well here are some examples: 1. You eliminate the "community" aspect when you take kids out of their neighborhoods and bus them 15 miles from home. Kids have no affiliation with the school. 2. You increase the gang violence in schools by mixing-in kids from different neighborhoods. You actually think that kids from the South East actually getting along with kids at City Heights? 3. You don't hold the schools accountable for improving their academic status. Instead you move some students, but maintain substandard structure at the school. Regarding the comments that one poster had about JROTC, she is completely misinformed. My son has been in JROTC at Mira Mesa for three years and I know that their JROTC books, uniforms, supplies, equipment and 50% of their teacher's salaries are paid by the military. In my opinion, you are already getting some great benefits for a very small financial contribution. In closing, here are my suggestions: 1. elimination of bussing, or cost gets paid by parents that choose that option. A drastic savings. 2. Eliminate the Balboa Park program. This is a no-brainer. 3. Increase medical/dental co-pay, teachers already have a very good benefit package. 4. Restructure your "Academy" schools like Kearny, SDHS and Crawford back into standard high schools. Their 4-school structure has not reaped-in any benefits and it could be argued that the initiative is a complete failure. In addition, they are severely top-loaded with multiple Administrators (Principals, VP's and admin).

I concur with "Krodger", another look at the Golden Handshake might be beneficial. Some of the more senior employees might reconsider retiring with the threat of larger class sizes, payroll reductions, etc. Regarding class size, you have already taken the scientific approach, and everyone knows smaller class sizes achieves higher performance levels. If it’s not broken, don’t fix it. Give the children a solid educational foundation early in their career. All these fluctuations with the size of classes will have an affect later on in the child’s educational development. This means more problems for the SDISD in later years. If the child doesn’t pick up on the basics early in his career, you are going to be doomed to readdress the lack of basics later in his/her career. The child should be your main objective.

I agree with closing small schools under 300 students, there are a number of elementary schools that have very small student enrollment and have other elementary schools close by--they need to consolidate and eliminate the cost of keeping so many schools open. Make parents pay for busing---At some schools 60% of the kids are bused in, that makes no sense at all. Please DO NOT eliminate OCILE, this is a tremendous program that offers to much for so many and the cost savings does not support eliminating it! Also in favor of reconfiguring district into smaller districts that could be run more efficiently

When is someone going to look at the processes performed in our school offices? We have very qualified personnel performing tasks that are time consuming and should be automated. One of the most unproductive and costly processes is the annual registration packet fiasco that happens in every school. Forms and flyers are copied for each student, collated and either mailed home or delivered to students to take home. In elementary, these packets are known as “first day packets”. The packets contain some required information and some not required. Then after all these packets are distributed, this wonderful booklet “Facts for Parents” shows up and is supposed be distributed. This booklet contains several of the forms that were already copied and sent home in the registration packet. For instance; the Zero Tolerance Form, Student Connect Responsibility and the Photo/Media Release Contract. Most schools never distribute the “Fact for Parents” to the entire population and they end up in the trash. If this booklet is going to be issued, it needs to include all the forms required for registration except the Enrollment Card. It also needs to be available in May not August. Coronado School District has the entire process for registration online and has for several years. Another way to save money would be to utilize the applications that are available on ZANGLE. The current version of ZANGLE includes an application to track lockers, however, very few use it. ZANGLE includes an application for passes called a “Summons”. This application not only produces a pass for any number of students but supplies the classroom # and teacher name and can be sorted for ease of distribution. This eliminates many hours of looking up student records. ZANGLE includes an application for tracking the forms returned/not returned from the registration packets. Many schools create EXCEL files to track this information or do it by hand. ZANGLE appears to have an application for ASB funds; SDUSD has a contract with “Blue Bear” for this application. Let’s Work Smarter; Not harder. Let’s use the tools we have on hand and stop purchasing outside applications to supplement our lack of knowledge of a system for which we paid an incredible amount of money.

I think that the transportation program needs to be closely evaluated. On the one hand, I think providing school options outside of one's neighborhood is an important one, but in the current budgetary climate needs to be reexamined. Since it is an empirical question, the potential amount saved should be relatively easily calculated. Perhaps this isn't cut entirely, but closer school choices can be made. This is an 82 million dollar issue, per page 286 of the Budget Book. Less time traveling, longer sleep periods, closer to home, are all potential benefits. A $20 million dollar issue is instructional materials. I am sure this issue has already been examined, but I think it is critically important that we do whatever is necessary to maintain reasonable teacher:student ratios. If we hit 29.5:1 in elementary school, our kids have very little chance of success. Renegotiate textbooks and other related costs. Move to on-line learning. In short, it is my opinion that for our kids to have a chance at education, we have to continue to make difficult choices to maintain a decent teacher:student ratio or else many families will be looking at their educational options, further reducing enrollment in SDUSD. Since I am writing, I also think that breaking the school district into more manageable parts (perhaps 3 smaller districts) should be considered. Whether this would indeed result in cost savings is another issue, as there may have to be duplicate administration. However, there may be greater oversight of the budget, and surprise over-runs (as with the 16 million dollars this year) may be more easily avoided. The amount of items on the Board's agenda is overwhelming, and it is no wonder problems happen. I am curious to find out whether the Board itself feels that it is able to handle the workload it needs to handle, and if each decision is given the attention it deserves? A sample from a recent Board meeting goes from facility management to special education services, hiring fiscal consultants. Once contracts are signed, what kind of oversight and accountability of billing ensures? Are we sure our tax dollars are used wisely and efficiently?

We need to consider that providing medical/dental coverage for the employee plus their entire family is not a fiscally sound idea. Providing coverage for the employee and maybe + 1 makes more sense. Since we (teachers) have been working without a contract since July 2008, this should be considered for the new contract. I prefer this over taking a pay cut or furlough.

I've lived in the Clairemont area for 10 years and have noticed the kids in the neighborhood have all grown, moved on to high school or are in College. The area around Lafayette & Sequoia is now filled with empty nesters or about to be. The elementary age kids have certainly declined. The need for 2 elementaries within blocks of each other is unnecessary. The plan to join the 2 schools last year was an excellent idea that would have saved money. Parents rallied together without dealing with the painful reality that if they kept the school open one more year what would the outcome be in the long run. Well, this is it, an evermore struggling school district. We procrastinated and now a financially- strapped-district is in even deeper debt. Please, see the obvious answers and don't procrastinate. Be problem solvers not problem nurturers and procrastinators. Cutting hours of the taxpayers is ludicrous since that's how the state generates it's money, through the taxpayers!That's like cutting off your nose to spite your face. And I am sure other neighborhoods with several elementary schools can relate.

Investigate cost savings a Health Savings Account (HSA) would provide to the district. This option would allow the district to reduce overall coverage costs, while giving employees the ability to save for future qualified medical and retiree health expenses on a tax-free basis. The U.S. Treasury website provides information http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/public-affairs/hsa/

Increase co-pay for doctor visits from $5 to $20 for employees. Insurance costs for employees will bankrupt this district. No other employer pays costs for families. SDUSD cannot afford this. All employees' pay should be on direct-deposit. Eliminate the Senior Exhibition graduation requirement - this is nonsense since seniors have already received college admittance info and it is extremely time-consuming and costly. One packet is 26 pages. Employees are assigned to handle just ONE assignment for months - ridiculous. Saturday School should be used for instructional time not for babysitting since teachers get paid $40 an hour. Students are just sitting around. Parents have made it clear that extracurricular activities are a priority and since District must pay for those activities then eliminate Old Town and Balboa Park. Dr Grier stated these are accessible with free Tuesdays, on bus routes and by class field trips. Just like families have tightened their belts the Trustees have to do the same. Eliminate the police department and contract with SDPD for school police just as many cities do with the Sheriff's Department. Too many executive directors - don't need a Drop Out Office - merge with another. Community Relations can merge with another office. The County of San Diego has 1 employee but SDUSD has 3 in this office. Streamline curriculum. Too many specialized classes benefiting few students. ICC is not doing its job. Courses were approved in September '09 which is against Board Policy.Courses were approved for which there is no funding so students have to buy guitars to enroll or buy karate outfits to enroll. No funding then eliminate course. These are frill courses that the District cannot afford. Mandarin Chinese program is unfair - busing for students and expense per student in not equitable. Nice but the District can't afford it.

Some More Things I would do to save money: * Consider four day school weeks and add an extra hour to the school day. This would save transportation costs, custodial costs, lunch costs, and lighting costs. Fridays could be used for extracurricular activities. * Consider charging a small fee for certain electives. School districts in Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Indiana, and other places do this. Reduce or waive the fee for students who qualify for free or reduced lunch. * Consider eliminating Saturday school detention, and replace it with weekday school detention. This would save Saturday staffing costs. * Consider reducing the summer school to a few campuses. This would save air conditioning, energy, and staffing costs. * Put computer switches and other equipment on timers and turn off the networking equipment after hours. Even if it was off 10PM - 6AM at each campus, this might add up to significant savings. * Get the students to do cleaning of the school. This will save janitorial costs. Schools in Japan do this. * At high schools with industrial arts classes, have one period in which the students get credit for performing maintenance tasks to the schools. This would reduce maintenance costs. * Consider furlough days for office staff, IMC, and other non-academic positions * Consider making spring break and part of winter break furlough days for teachers * Consider adjusting school start times so that transportation and buses do not occur during "rush hours". I bet high school students would not mind a 11-6PM school day! This would reduce fuel consumption. * Consider asking the charter schools if they would like to rejoin the district as a district operated school. I hear that it is less expensive to run a district run school. * Consider making inclusion the default placement for grades 9-12. The more students with special needs in high school classes would reduce segregated programs for these grades and improve their performance. * Consider decreasing the internet bandwidth between sites from 6MB to 4.5MB/sec. This would reduce the cost of one T-1 circuit per site. * Consider cutting the "double period" remedial english and math classes from high schools. * Consider increasing the class sizes slightly. * Consider making vice principals part time instead of full time. * Consider a trimester calendar (5 periods) and have some electives some of the trimester periods and others on other periods. This will allow more classes while not having to hire the same teachers all year long! For example, industrial arts could be offered in trimesters 1 and 2, home economics 2 and 3, and theatre 1 and 3. Del Norte HS in Poway is doing this. * Consider reducing the number of staff used for statistics and research about the kids progress for data reporting. * Consider reducing the hours of IMC, Wiggin Center, and certain offices at ed center. * Consider daytime games for football and other sports instead of night time when possible. * Consider waterless toilets in the mens restrooms. This would save water. * Reduce the amount of liability insurance * Curtail new textbooks and software upgrades * Reduce catering at conferences, staff trainings, and other staff events * Make only one menu for the school lunch (staff and students get the same meal) * Consider raising the price for school lunches * Offer older tenure track faculty early retirement * Consider hiring part time staff for electives. This means you will not have to pay benefits * Consider encouraging children to go to their neighborhood school over being bused somewhere.

I'm 31 and a 8th generation San Diegan. Most of what I know about Balboa Park is because of the Balboa Park Program. I also had a great teacher which I'm sure would fight to keep this program active. I remember all of my teachers from Mrs. Hood in Kindergarten to Mrs Durrand in 5th grade(who we through a surprise Baby shower for) all at Valencia Park Elementary. Mrs Lona Davies was amazing. I can still remember the lyrics to Dr. Lundgrens songs and I remember art projects by Mrs. Cohan... My point is to invest in your staff. Your teachers make the difference in the students. Good teachers who feel valued motivate children to enjoy learning. After all, that's what school is all about right? Extracurricular programs such as band, athletics and clubs will need to pay their own way. They can no longer be subsidized when class programs are being cut. Investigate the four-day week. Add the educational minutes by eliminating some of the minimum days and by lengthening the day. Close the district office one day a week, too, and reduce salaries by an equivalent amount. Cut district office staff to the bone. Yes, people will lose their jobs, but those people are not in the classroom. If that means the superintendent needs to open her own mail, too bad. He gets paid $250,000 for a reason. Also, if they hire a new super, enforce a clause in his/her contract dishonoring any 'buyout' should their term not be fulfilled. Keep P.E. at the elementary schools — because kids are getting fat — but drop it in high school. If you can't drop it, then give P.E. credit to kids who play a sport, and then you can eliminate a teacher or two. Sorry, but high school P.E. is a waste. Cut transportation. No one told you to move to the country, so there is no reason to get a free ride to school.

12 month classified staff already have a modified work schedule with six unpaid furlow days. And now you want to add four more? Pretty soon we will be 11 month employees, not 12.

As we are faced with deficits each year we see cuts from central office to the schools and support sites. It gets to the point of multiple cuts over several years continues to make us less efficient in our mission. I would suggest the following ideas to save the district a lot of money for next year and keep our staffing at the current level. 1. Our district should implement a four day, ten hour a day work week. This would save millions of dollars in not using electricity, low pressure gas, large quantities of water, gasoline, diesel, supplies, etc. I know this would be difficult for many to adjust to this change but it has been proven to save very large amounts of money and especially peoples jobs. This would also be good for the environment since we would not be driving on Friday to and from work in our private vehicles and school buses would also not be used that day. Recently 80% of the employees of the state of Utah have gone to this schedule and the savings is very impressive and it was far more than what was projected at the beginning of the transition. 2. Turn off every other light in all support rooms and support areas where the instructional process is not being taught. Inside hallways, staff lounges, supply rooms, counseling centers, etc. This would also save a lot of money over a year. Not only in electricity but the replacement of fluorescent tubes, ballasts and labor. 3. No overtime unless pre-approved and only for approved contracts or absolute emergencies.

Before cutting away at any busing program, make a thorough and conscious evaluation of the real benefits versus detriments. I am a proud product of the busing program, and IT DOES WORK-- despite the criticism of most people who claim otherwise. Not only was I in the GATE program all the way through high school, I took pretty much all the Advanced/AP/Honors classes I was possibly allowed to, AND... graduated with a 4.0 + GPA, was accepted into some of the best universities, graduated from one, and am currently finishing a graduate degree (with no plans to stop there). (By the way, my three siblings all had the same results-- so, no, I am not the exception to the rule). In any event, for all those who are so opposed to children from disadvantaged communities being transported to "nice" schools, may I offer a suggestion? How about making the schools in disenfranchised communities UP TO PAR with schools in well-off communities. Yes, that would mean making an actual investment of time and resources on serious program improvement, more staff development and trainings, BETTER and MORE MOTIVATED teachers AND ADMINISTRATORS, more PARENT PARTICIPATION and INPUT, more testing preparation, the establishment of more GATE/Seminar programs, etc. This will not only cost LESS than the busing program in the long-run, but it will also eliminate a need for it altogether because children will be able to stay and prosper in their neighborhood schools, it will substantially produce better schools-- AND better results via student achievement and high graduation/college acceptance rates. Note that a child's success in school is dependent upon a multitude of factors, just as multiple social, political, economic, and personal/family issues are what stand between them and their achievements, so a MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH is what is needed; this does not happen in a vacuum. (Despite having graduated from high school more than ten years ago, I am thoroughly familiar with current, government-mandated documentation that schools have to produce in terms of accountability. Undoubtedly, these documents provide a real and sad reflection of the situation). Now, I can tell you right off the bat, an area where the district can certainly make serious changes is in their AGONIZINGLY long, bureaucratic hiring process. Streamline applications, consolidate tests for open vacancies. Digitize all correspondence in order to eliminate an additional waste of resources and man-hours. Or even better, incorporate the updates on applications/test results onto the candidates' on-line account, since any potential employee has to check frequently for new openings anyway. Make employees earn their keep, instead of just having them work semi-efficiently until their probationary period is over (and then inefficiently thereafter); receiving attitude from long-time staff that think they can treat people a certain way because they know their job is safe is not only a reflection upon the district, but a wrong approach in your hiring practices. There is too much complacency and mediocrity, especially among office staff. Don't eliminate summer school. Instead of making it a potential punishment for underachievers, keep it as continuous learning opportunity for all. I cannot believe schools still take the first couple of months of their fall semesters to review everything that was forgotten over summer. THAT is a total waste of time and resources. Kids do not need that additional idle time in the summer anyway, most do nothing educational that keeps their minds engaged. Make the school year go year-round, and you will see there will be no chance for their interest in school to wane in the first place.You may even see the graduation rate increase. Don't cut art/music programs, they are just as much of a necessity as the basics-- and, even now, children are leaving school with sub par skills in English and math-- this should tell you that what the district has been doing thus far is NOT WORKING. Make learning truly interesting, make it multidisciplinary, offer real-world applications for what they do-- especially with higher-level math and science, that tend to be a turn-off, even to good students. Cut salaries/establish a salary cap for top-tier administrative and executive-level staff, beginning with the superintendent, members of the school board, principals, vice principals, and program directors. Eliminate the petty politics that poison the efficiency of schools at a local level. Many principals are on a power-trip, and do not have a genuine interest in their schools. I know this from first-hand accounts of their reluctance to have their schools participate in FREE programs that benefit their students and the local community. That, simply put, is a shame, an embarrassment, and a waste of money. Again, MAKE THEM WORK FOR THEIR MONEY; demand concrete results, innovative approaches, actual research for the implementation of successful programs. There is no reason anyone, even a superintendent, can justify an exorbitant salary, if there are no results to back up their actual efforts. Make any raises CONTINGENT on real results. Audit constantly to keep your expenses in check-- it also aids in the timely discovery of potential problems and offers the district a fair chance to curtail already-present problems. (Plus, it keeps you from being embarrassed once again by the local media because of your accounting department's pre-historic record-keeping practices). Overall, the San Diego Unified School District has a long way to go in order to successfully function as an entity that produces constant and equal results. Hopefully, this is just the beginning of a truly productive and engaging dialogue between the district and the community.

Why is aftercare free? I don't think the city of San Diego or the State of California should be paying for daycare. If 5000 students are in aftercare every day their parents should be paying something for it. Even $1/hour would be $5,000 per hour. 3 hours per day x 5 days per week = $75,000 week or $300,000.00 per month. Or, $3 million dollars per year. I just don't understand why it is acceptable that free childcare is being provided.

I would really like to know the impact on the budget for busing. When you think about the cost of gas, insurance, employees, maintenance, number of students on the buses, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this cost more than any other in the SDUSD budget.

All schools should have a work experience teacher so students can earn graduation credit through job experience. Seniors with more than enough grad credits should be on shortened days and go to community college or go to jobs. Don't pay teachers for courses these students do not need.Main factor in dropouts is the students needed to work (61% of SDUSD students are at poverty-level) and could not do both. Save money and help students.

The teachers union seems to be living in another world. The private sector has had wage freezes, pay cuts, reduced hours, higher health insurance costs. My property taxes are the same as they were when I bought my home and its value has dropped by a third. I still have to perform and be judged on my performance just to keep my job, forget about increased pay. The union seems unwilling to do the hard work the rest of the world has to do: cut pay and benefits, lay off teachers based on how well they do their job- not how long they've been doing it. As professionals, I would think that good, effective teachers would want to see their less productive peers go- and not just junior level teachers. Most teachers are also parents and certainly tax payers. From a parent's point of view I'd think they would agree to take some financial hits like the rest of us in order to save some other services. As taxpayers, I'd assume the teachers would benefit from a reduction in taxes. How about if you teach in CA you pay no state tax? No property tax? Lower pay with less taxes should make it viable. Also, there has to be savings in processing costs for all the tax filing paper laden processes.

Considering that the vast majority of students who are bused are done as part of a federal mandate, you can't simply eliminate busing in a district the size of San Diego Unified. However, there must be ways to make the system run more efficiently. I think that is where we need to concentrate our efforts in that area. Bring in a someone form the outside with a fresh perspective to analyze the system and map out the most efficient method of getting kids where the need to be. Perhaps some parents do need to be charged...for those few students that the district is not legally required to transport to the school of their choice. The board needs to make some tough decisions and close smaller schools. Set a cut off---350 or 400 minimum students. Cut the Ocile Programs. 6th grade camp is terrific especially for those students who never had the opportunity to travel anywhere, but if something must be cut...there is a place to start. Put the whole district on the same modified Year-Round calendar. Children get up to speed much quicker if they don't have such a long gap in the summer. 4 two week breaks during the year and a 6 week break in the summer or something similar. Make Kindergarten half-day. Rethink whether the new Schools within a School concept all require their own Principal...each at their very high salary. Don't just ship consumables automatically every year. Make sure the teachers actually use all the stuff before you buy and ship it. I am fairly sure most schools have boxes of unused materials just sitting on shelves. Since many schools don't have A/C,and are suffering through, I suggest we turn off the A/C at the ED CENTER to help save on the utility bill.

1.Place "eligible" seniors on a four period day so they do not take up space in unneeded electives. 2.Decrease busing by providing it for only special ed students. Provide bus passes for VEEP students. This would be a win-win for us and the city. 3. Make all staff, who are not at sites, be assigned to a site. Everyone else would be at the ed center. 4. Provide Option II program at all high school comprehensive sites.This will enable our many 18 year old students to graduate on time. 5. close down small elementary schools and rent out the facilities. 6. Close magnet schools that are not showing progress. 7. Consolidate the "small high schools" ( Kearny, San Diego Hi., Crawford, Lincoln )and hire one Principal to oversee each site. Have a "program manager" oversee each individual school. 8. check out a year-round calendar; it might be cost-effective but I'm not sure.

La Jolla Elementary has a farmers market that brings in quite a bit of money for their school. Perhaps other schools could have farmers markets too?

Increase the minimum required FTE for full benefits. Almost nowhere in the private sector does a person working 20 hours per week receive full benefits and this is something the District/Unions should consider as well. We would not need to entirely take away benefits for these employees, but even only paying for half the benefits would result in millions in savings. Based on the current number of employees with an FTE between 0.50 – 0.749; below are a few calculations as to what these reductions could possibly save the District: 0.50-0.599FTE No benefits – Savings of $4.4M 0.50-0.749FTE No benefits – Savings of $14.8M 0.50-0.599FTE Half benefits – Savings of $2.2M 0.50-0.749FTE Half benefits – Savings of $7.4M

1. All school sites are closed for One week in Spring and one week for Thanksgiving. All Central Offices should be closed as well, especially maintenance and custodial there is about 1000 employees in those areas. 2. No more Half Sick Leave everyone should get in the American Fidelity Program pay about $35 a month for any disability. To many people abuse the Half Sick Program you get at 8 hrs a month of sick that should be enough. 3. Combine sick / vacation to “Paid Time Off” also known as PTO, and not have 3 separate banks. Like Vacation, Sick & Half Sick Time. Example: Person is out sick, but runs out of sick time. But has lots of vacation time available. Person will start to get half sick time. With PTO they will only pull from all time accumulated. And not from Sick/Half Sick. I think Half Sick can be easily abused. Also, only have 1 form to fill out for time off. Do you know how much paper we can save from all these different forms we have to fill out for time off. 4. No more PPI for managers. They need to use sick/vacation. District is in a Crisis. 3. Both spouses / partners that are employed by SDUSD, only one should be covered not both. Unless they provide separation/divorce certificate then be able to enroll at any time as individuals. 4. No more Paid Administrative Leave, no other companies really provide such a thing for employees. More money being wasted. If the person comes back then maybe get back pay.

Despite a projected savings of $3.1 million if athletics were eliminated, the domino effect could have far-reaching consequences. Sports provide scholarship opportunities. Students whose neighborhood high school does not offer football, basketball, softball, baseball, etc. can transfer to a high school that does. If the district eliminates athletics, don't be surprised to see La Jolla High parents enroll their student athletes in private schools. Scripps Ranch, Mira Mesa, and University City High school parents could transfer their students to Poway (the newest high school in Poway Unified desperately needs students and would welcome ours). Henry parents could transfer their students to Grossmont. These resourceful parents would probably arrange to pay for buses to transport their students (much like the parents of Marshall Middle students have been doing since the new campus opened). If just 200 students at each of the five schools mentioned transferred to private schools or other districts to play sports, SDUSD would stand to lose $4,946,000 (1,000 students x $4,946 ADA per student). Consider also the effect this would have on AYP and API.

Eliminate School Police. When trouble happens on a campus, it's usually other L.E. on the scene first, not School Police. Does SDUSD really need detectives pulling down big overtime paychecks? Do we really need 54 officers for 18 high school campuses? Do we really need a CHIEF of Police making more than $130,000 a year???

It's time to look at after hours long term rentals. Maybe it's time to renegotiate some of the rental agreements. Also, there are a lot of outside SDUSD groups using school facilities without compensating the district. Many do not go through the rental office to pay for custodial or overhead. All outside entities should pay something for the use of facilities, at least pay for custodial time or utilities. This is in the procedures but not followed at all sites.

We need to look at what the educational system is “supposed” to accomplish; preparing our kids academically to be successful college students or employees in their chosen profession. With this in mind, why is the District footing the bill for athletics? I agree, athletics provide an incentive for students to maintain their grades, but why not have parents “pay to play” and still maintain the grade requirements? If a young lady wants to cheer, she is required to fundraise or her parents are required to spend, out of pocket, @$500/for uniforms, but yet if a young man wants to play football, his parents are required to spend, out of pocket, @$30 spirit pack. Not only are athletics expensive, but is this not a Title IX equity issue? Transportation, here is another unnecessary expense. If parents are truly interested in having their child attend a school outside their neighborhood, they will find a way for their child to get there. I have been transporting my child for 9 years to a school outside our neighborhood and will continue to do so for the next 4. This is because I take an interest and value education; thus, I provide the transportation. OCILE, an unnecessary expense. I agree with the former superintendent of schools, in that students can receive these opportunities through field trips. My child participated in Old Town and Balboa Park and wasn’t impressed with either; in fact, the comments made to me aligned with boredom. My child didn’t participate in 6th grade camp due to the wildfires. Did this have any effect on the educational experience? Absolutely not. Small schools; why is the District not considering school closures of low enrollment elementary schools? This is wasteful spending; these students can be provided an alternative school of attendance. How can the District afford to staff a school with Principal, Nurse, Teachers, and Classified Staff and pay utilities for a school of less than 400? It shouldn’t be able to do so. During these difficult budgetary times hard decisions have to be made. I implore the board not to do the biding of the teachers unions, but make the hard decisions that will benefit and sustain the District in the long run. It is impossible to satisfy everyone, teachers, staff, parents, students and communities and that is okay, but make the smart decisions regarding where cuts need to be made. Students need to be educated prior to playing sports or receiving a bus ride to a different school, which more often than not does not increase their educational experience and remember we as parents can provide transportation, and visiting Old Town, Balboa Park or Palomar Mountain.

I am responding to Kelly C's posts. Sorry, but I'm not in the education field, and I would like to know more about what the federal mandate is to bus kids all over the city with just the barest of requirements being placed on the kids or their parents that they perform to high standards at the school of their choice. When did the mandate come down and what is SD Unified doing to get out from under it would be my first questions. My guess is that the federal mandate, if there even is one, predates the birth of every single one of the 135,000 kids in the district today. So how about we declare victory on the busing program district wide and get back in the teaching business. I will pay for the transportation of my children as may be needed.

In the midst of a $80 million dollar deficit should our board members being taking field trips to China and asking us to pay for it? Sheila Jackson should be ashamed of herself. I have had to cancel planned trips in this current economy and so should our board. They need to seriously think twice before spending any dollar. http://www.10news.com/news/21546912/detail.html

Brief responses: China trips were paid for by China and the board members at no cost to district. Bussing is less expensive than double sessions where the kids live. Prop MM & S did not provide funds for these facilities. Cutting programs from the still valid Carlin (Voluntary Integration)court order could be overturned. There are a lot of good ideas here that involve serious negotiations which cannot be resolved until the parties (district and unions) declare impasse or agree. Good thinking all! Keep them coming!

When discussing the possible Magnet School Transportation cuts, please consider the situation of each magnet school. Fully dedicated magnet schools depend on the transportation to attract students from the entire district. I have a daughter that attends Longfellow Spanish Immersion School. What is the District's plan to help Longfellow maintain its student body if over 1/3 of the students can no longer attend the school because of lack of transportation? What is the long-term goal for Longfellow? Also, how will the local Longfellow neighborhood handle over 200 additional cars driving in and out every morning and every afternoon? Longfellow does not have a parking lot much less a drop-off/pick-up area that can accommodate that many additional vehicles. If a change must be made to transportation, consider the whole picture, the whole district, while keeping the individual schools in mind. Don't lose sight of how the dedicated magnet schools contribute to the overall success of the SDUSD. Each magnet school needs community and SDUSD support to survive.

Perhaps it is time to revisit the structure of the property tax in this state! Too many properties are greatly undervalued on the tax roles which has significantly reduced state revenue. I believe that is the main reason CA schools are having major budget issues year after year! Since when does owning a home for a long time exempt you from paying your fair share to educate the next generation?

Cut the Cluster Support Teachers having office space at Ed Center and relocate them to the sites: Per the Special Education Web site: Cluster Support Teachers (CSTs) are assigned to elementary, middle and high schools to proactively support special education services at the school site level. CSTs are responsible for: Collaborating with special education staff. Serving as liaisons with staff and parents. Helping principals in matters regarding special education processes, procedures and compliance. Supporting new teachers in acquiring additional teaching skills. If they are assigned to elementary, middle and high schools,and are to support school sites, why are they also given office space at the Ed Center? The costs are not needed for 2 places for them. The office space could be utilized for other staff and cut down on the cost for rentals of facilities and purchasing more cubicles and computers that are needed. Cut excess unnecessary spending and use of district facilities!

I beg to differ with Mr. de Beck's statement that "China trips were paid for by China and the board members at no cost to the district." Go to this link http://www.hanban.ca/bridge_introduction.php?lang=en and read the instructions.

I once asked a teacher how to save money in the schools, and she told me that if 4 year olds were not allowed to attend kindergarten, the savings would be astronomical in terms of avoiding behavioral and developmental problems in more advanced years. She attributed the vast majority of her behavoir and developmental problems of children in 4th grade, to underage children who started school as 4 year olds. They are not mature enough and their immaturity relative to their peers causes problems long after the kindergarten year is over. This seems like an easy problem to fix and it will align California with most of the other states in the union.

I agree with those who support the end of busing. Busing children out of their district does not make sense. The Civil Rights era has ended. No school is better than another. Parents need to participate in making their neighborhood schools better instead of relying on teachers and administrators. Education starts at home not at school. The district should also consider having the employees pay for health insurance instead of the District because that allows us to have more choice and save the District money.

Regarding the blogs that advocate eliminating San Diego Unified School District’s 6th grade camp program at Palomar Outdoor School, perhaps those bloggers should read Richard Louv’s book "Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children From Nature-Deficit Disorder." Louv advocates strongly for more opportunities for children to connect with nature. Naturalist John Muir spoke to the fact that all humans in our overly industrialized, overcrowded, “over-civilized” world need the respite and revitalization that is found in natural settings. In 1901 he said, “Thousands of tired, nerve-shaken, over-civilized people are beginning to find out that going to the mountains is going home; that wilderness is a necessity; and that mountain parks. . .are useful not only as fountains of timber and irrigating rivers, but as fountains of life.” Is this not more true in 2009 than it was in 1901? Consider charging parents a percentage of the costs on a sliding scale, find corporate sponsors, allow schools to increase their fund-raising, but keep the opportunity for all 6th graders to benefit from the Palomar Outdoor Education experience, and of “the transformative power of experiential education and its ability to reach kids in a way that can shift them, despite previous school experiences, challenged background, or diagnosed condition.” Yes, some parents will make the time or have the income to provide camp experiences for their children outside of the school setting, but I wonder how many of the approximately 8500 sixth graders in San Diego City Schools would ever see Palomar Mountain or go to any camp if it were not for this program.

I agree with many of the comments listed so far. The elephant spoken of earlier with regards to busing is an unnecessary expenditure by our district. We should not be providing buses for Magnet schools so that less than half empty buses are providing transportation to schools that parents are choosing to go to. If parents want to enroll in these Magnet programs, then THEY should pay for it. The VEEP program is no longer mandated by law, so let's keep students in their neighborhoods. This will allow schools in all areas of the district to flourish, instead of taking out all of the students with informed/involved parents that causes a drain on the schools. Another area for easy budget reduction is the far too numerous Resource Teachers at the Education Center. Why did we spend thousands of dollars training these "experts" on programs such as Data Director, when the money should be used at school sites EXCLUSIVELY. I find it ironic that we have so many positions being approved by this board that are not located at school sites, while they talk about the necessity for supporting teachers and students directly. By talking to my children's teachers and administrators, they do not see any direct support from these numerous positions. At the last Board Meeting alone, we have the following "essential" positions: Chief Human Resources Officer (are they hiring anyone?), Chief Special Projects Officer, Contracts Compliance Manager. Please TRIM the FAT at the Ed Center before considering anything that actually occurs at school sites!

Why did the Board of Education appoint a Consultant as interim Chief Officer of Special Projects at an annual salary of $122,000 to $156,000? Why is this interim Chief allowed to decide which staff to cut? He is targeting personnel who provide safe and secure schools through reducing gang activity and increasing positive relationships with community members and businesses. What kind of governance is the Board providing?

Why do staff get "vacation" days? It seems like we have enough time off during the year. When there is a "vacation" day the staff member gets paid plus a substitute. I wonder how much would be saved if vacation days were eliminated? Last year after I was laid off I got a check from the district for over $1,000 for all my unused vacation days.

Please.. please do not think about making kindergarten half day program... This will force many families with both parents working to look for alternatives and end up using day cares and kids will lose much needed education... This is against the basic purpose of school... ALl other administrative cuts (do not cut teachers or their salries, they are the core to the education system). Cut any program thats more costly than the benefots it gives... cut all if needed.. kids will still be learning lot it spending most of the time with teacher...

I see very detailed and to the point comments. If any parent is incharge of this budget cutting.. I am sure they'll never cut the school time or teachers... Besides these 2 all are supplemental and can be reduced... But who'll be reading and implementing these comments.. I am sure it would be some special contractor drawing 100K+..

ELIMINATE TELEVISED BOARD MEETINGS The first Board meeting was televised on January 12, 2002 at a cost of $4,500. The rationale was to return civility to Board meetings. Approximately $95,000 from the General Operations budget was spent to televise these meetings through the end of the 2001-02 school year. Without a doubt, nine years later, the cost has increased. In light of the current budget crisis, televising Board meetings is a frivolous and unnecessary use of district funds. Apparently $11,000 was spent last year to replace chairs on the dais because the old ones “didn’t look good on TV.” How can you justify that this was done in the best interest of the district and for the good of all students?

ELIMINATE THE SUMMER COMMENCEMENT CEREMONY During the current fiscal crisis the district cannot afford to reward bad behavior. Having a summer commencement ceremony year after year sends the wrong message to our high school students who apply themselves, work hard to earn the required number of credits, and meet all graduation requirements in a timely manner. AUDIT POSITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN “ELIMINATED” WHEN IN REALITY THEY ARE BEING TRANSFERRED TO OTHER COST CENTERS An inevitable outcome of budget cuts is that departments “eliminate” positions. This looks good on a spreadsheet but provides a false illusion because oftentimes these positions are merely transferred to other cost centers. Another prevalent practice is transferring employees whose positions actually have been cut and employees administratively reassigned for disciplinary reasons to the HR cost center. These employees may be assigned to work in HR, but more often than not, they are assigned to school sites or central offices and receive their regular pay. Unfortunately no funds are budgeted for this HR cost center, so where is the money coming from to pay these people?

“We want to bring a unified cluster voice to the district decision making table.” Subject: Meaningful Cluster Participation in the Budget Decision Process Dear San Diego Unified School District Board of Education, Two weeks ago, district staff gave a budget presentation in our cluster asking for additional input from our community members via the district’s website budget crisis forum. While we appreciate the intent of this request, in reality, it is does not represent a meaningful opportunity to participate in the budget decision making process. In fact, in our experience, individual voices are all too often perceived and dismissed as minority factions (i.e. parents supporting a special interest such as athletics/VAPA/GATE/special education/technology/second language, etc.). If, as the district staff predicts, the budget crisis is going to severely affect our students’ learning environment, then we want to go beyond mere input. We want to be part of the group that frames the budget solution for our cluster; we want to bring a unified cluster voice to the district decision making table. Just as the San Diego Education Association is often asked to participate or at least observe the work, now it is time to extend that same opportunity to cluster governing organizations. Granted, seeking cluster-level solutions to district-level problems is a whole new way of thinking for San Diego Unified. Nevertheless, since 2006 the Point Loma Cluster Schools Foundation (PLCSF) has worked to unify its cluster of ten schools. Our strategic plan was developed by a group of cluster staff, parents, teachers and area superintendents to support an engaging and empowering learning environment for more than 6,000 students. Recently, other clusters have taken up similar work. Furthermore, this move towards cluster level governance is an important response to the budget crisis. In fact, it is one of the few strands of silver in an otherwise dark cloud. The work to strengthen the community voice at the cluster level speaks to addressing a critical flaw in the current system. Without meaningful participation by the cluster learning communities, the district lacks the full power of the organization to frame the right questions, let alone propose and implement a long term solution. Consequently, the PLCSF is asking the Board of Education and the San Diego Unified School District to deliberately engage cluster communities as colleagues in the decision making process and, ultimately, to consider a level of budget control at the cluster level. One size fits all solutions are no longer tolerable. We must do better at addressing the educational needs of our individual diverse communities. Executive Board Point Loma Cluster Schools Foundation Ten Unified Schools One Unique Cluster www.pointlomacluster.com

Why do we have Year-Around Schools - it seems like we have Many Schools with Low enrollment...why not put all students back on the Traditional Calendar and End Interssions - I'm sure this should be a "HUGE SAVINGS"..Close down low enrollment School & rent out the Facilities and or Utilized Central Office staff at the Sites, Cut out Excess Spending

1) Scale down the upper management positions (all exec. directors become directors, all directors become program managers, etc.). 2) Do all central office departments need to be 12-month? 3) Give classified employees the option to reduce their hours (at least on a temporary basis).

Please spare the music programs! My son is an 8th grader at Marston Middle School and his time in jazz band and just taking music class is a major feature in his life. His teacher Mr. Kent has just been a terrific role model and an inspiration for my son. My son has been enthusistic about music class since 6th grade and he is looking forward to band at Clairemont High. He is also in the GATE program. I would rather pay an extra fee directly to the school to maintain these programs. I'm afraid that if these programs go away my son will lose his enthusiasam for going to school. Additionally, the prospect of large class sizes and no GATE programs leaves me considering home schooling. Has the Board considered at any fee-for-service models regarding the music and sports programs?

Benefits costs are very high. I agree with Elizabeth B. The Health Savings Account - HSA - will save the district money.

I am alarmed to see that the district has again proposed to cut (eliminate) librarians and library technicians from schools. At a meeting last night I believe I heard that the savings would be 1.6 million to eliminate the only personnel who keep the centers of information open and functioning in our schools. In what seems like an annual ritual, the board proposes that libraries and librarians are not places of learning (classrooms), when in fact, future citizens (our students) need to embrace libraries as a centers for their continuing life-long education. Learning does not by definition take place only in the confines of one physical place (a classroom), or using one particular source of information (a textbook) or from one particular person (a classroom teacher). That simplistic model of education has been defended as a rationale to make the difficult cuts that have been made to schools and school libraries over the past 5 to 7 years. Interestingly, right now the state is looking at the results of over 60 studies showing that student achievement is greater at schools where school libraries and librarians play an active and supported role in their educational program. Standards for student achievement in information literacy and library programs are on the horizon in California. Coupled with Williams Act legislation which mandates equitable access for all students to materials necessary for student academic success, I don't think cutting library staff is a good idea. I would propose instead that SDUSD encourage more young, enthusiastic, and talented teachers be trained to fill the positions that have been vacated by senior library teachers over the past few years. Helping students access, process, and use information successfully will go a long way to closing the achievement gap we continue to face. So in short, I believe the district can and should become more fiscally lean and mean, but also can and should become more proactive in promoting ways students can become prepared for their future in an age of information overload.

I think there are a few things that the district could do to save funds in the long term. One is to outsource custodial and landscaping services. End busing outside of attendance area except in cases of overflow or to a non-program improvement school. Close elementary schools below a certian enrollment. End small schools at the high school level. Lease technology instead of purchasing. Not only would you not have to pay for all new equipment in 5-7 years, but it would cut on the maintenance of the equipment. As maintenance is usually included in a lease of equipment. The district might also want to investigate corporate partnerships/sponsorships in order to increase revenue.

I don't think making people pay for benefits is a way to help. Most people who work for the district can barely make it because they don't get cost of living monies. I think busing would be a way to save money, I think the district office could also cut out the area superintendants..I don't see the point when nothing we say can get fixed. They just come in and "listen" and it ends when they walk out the office doors. Also cut the days where they send teachers to trainings, that is what they go to school for isn't it?

(1)I endorse John de Beck's idea of cutting 6 days out of the school year to save $60 million (by his estimates). I would offset the lost instructional time by eliminating 12 half-days. In my previous East Coast school district, we had 5 full days of school every week. Teachers did NOT get a half-day every week for prep time. (2)Eliminate the OCILE program. It's nice to have in flush times but it is by no means essential. (3) Eliminate free busing to Magnet Schools. Use means-testing. If parents can afford it, let them foot the bill for busing if they choose to send their children to an out-of-neighborhood school. I'm sure most would prefer to pay for busing than have their magnet school closed. (4) If VEEP is no longer required by law, let's stop providing free busing for it. Maintain the CHOICE program but let parents figure out how to get their children to and from school. Our focus should be on improving the neighborhood schools that these children are fleeing.

I have been a teacher for the past 20 years in the district. I am also a parent of two magnet school students. We live in Scripps Ranch and my sons are transported to The Language Academy near SDSU where they are learning Spanish. I am willing to pay the cost of transporting my children to the Language Academy. I wonder why that is never an option? The district goes from total transportation, to elimination, never is there any investigation regarding how many parents are willing to pay for their children's transportation. However, if that were eliminated, I would figure out a way to get the boys there. I have been to Old Town, Balboa Park, and 6th grade camp. Old Town was absolutely fantastic! The Balboa Park experience was a waste of time. They only spent about an hour and a half in each museum each day. 6th grade camp was an amazing experience. I always wonder why when they talk about cuts, it is all or nothing? I would keep Old Town, eliminate Balboa Park, and charge for 6th grade camp. Make students fund raise for the cost of camp and pay their own way. How about scaling down the experiences? How about 21/2 days for Old Town, 3 days for 6th grade camp? That would cut the cost in half and, 3 days of camp would be easier to fund raise for than 4 1/2. When people discuss stopping transportation of VEEP students, they always say the schools are too crowded in their neighborhoods and you would lose staff at the schools where students are transported. I'm pretty sure that is not true in all cases. How about if there is room for students at their home schools, they don't have the option to be transported, and if there is not, the transportation continues to the schools that have room? That would cut the busing costs, but not completely eliminate the VEEP program. Plus, couldn't the VEEP students opt for the no child left behind program? I have some students in my class who miss the bus often and then miss the whole day of school. Wouldn't that child be served more effectively by attending a school that he/she could walk to instead of missing the full day of school? That also costs the district money each day that student misses the bus. Let's look at cutting state testing. That is a huge racket. How about testing every other year? Imagine the savings to our district! If we continue with the benchmarks at each level, that should be a good indication of where they are during the in between testing years. And while we are on the topic, do we have to get the benchmark test packets every year? I saved mine last year to use again this year as we have scanned answer sheets. That is a complete waste of money not to mention paper. I think having 3 principals assigned to one summer school with 6 classes is a waste of money. How about paying them teacher salary for those assignments and have 2 of them teaching a class and only one of them being principal? Think of the class sizes with 2 extra teachers. That could make a huge difference in the students' success at summer school. How about mandatory departmentalizing of elementary school teachers? Not only would students get teachers who could focus on one or two subjects, and become specialists in that area, but they would also save tons of money on teacher guides and manuals and science kits. Right now every elementary teacher gets teacher guides for every subject every few years. What if teachers were either English/Social Studies teachers or Math/Science teachers? You could cut the costs of teacher manuals in half! I believe the students would get a lot more planned, focused instruction as well, if the teacher wasn't responsible for 5-6 subjects each day. I think all schools should go to a modified year round. I work at a year round school and my sons attend a year round school. I can't tell you how many students take time off in June and July due to family reunions, family vacations, the beach, the fair, and many other activities. The district must lose tons of money for ADA during those months. How about the whole district beginning the first day of Septmeber, the whole district off for 1 week of Thanksgiving, 2 weeks at Christmas time, 2 weeks at Easter time, and all are all out by the end of June? That would eliminate all of the red tape with year rounds starting past the fiscal year yada yada. And please, no more last day of school on a Monday. Tons of kids begin their summer camp on the Monday and again the district loses ADA. These are some cost cutting suggestions that I hope you consider. Thank you.

I would suggest combining schools in neighborhoods that don't have enough children to fill them to capacity. Then use busing for students who would no longer be with in walking distance of their school. Magnet program busing should be eliminated. I blame the busing program for lowering the quality of schools here in Clairemont, causing the flight of many of us to the University City schools and elsewhere. Parents create good students ready to learn, schools reflect the communities they are in, or should anyway.

There are 90+ FTE Health Technicians. The HT position is 20 hours/week, or .5 FTE. Most of the actual people doing the job are .5 FTE, meaning there are probably around 180 Health Technicians. Each of them receives insurance benefits. If each of the Health Technicians actually worked 40 hours/week (half time at each of 2 schools), the cost of the insurance benefits for the Health Technicians would be cut in half. Instead of paying benefits for 180 or so Health Technicians, the District would pay benefits for around 90 Health Technicians. In many cases, the RNs also divide their time between two schools. Ideally, the HTs and the RNs could be teamed up to alternate at each of the same two schools. Since the students are not on campus 40 hours/week, the HTs' and RNs' schedules could be arranged so that they could still have some overlap for communication and continuity. That wouldn't save the projected $3.8 million proposed by eliminating the Health Techs, but it would make a dent. It would also help protect the health of the students and not add to the burden of the already overworked RNs.

The cost of gas has gone way up. I would charge students for busing. It should be a sliding scale based on family income. In many other school districts in California students pay a bus fee to off set the costs. Also, if the school district could go paperless, that would save a lot.

fire teachers that have letters of reprimind and bad performance some schools have a lot of students that bring low grades and the school like emerson/bandini is the worst school of teacher performance.