Finding Ways to Cut Learning Is Never Easy : Budget: The fiscal crisis will mean unprecedented loss for the San Diego school system, but the responsible approach is to realize that some programs are more expendable than others.

In 21 years as a superintendent, I have never encountered cuts of the magnitude that the fiscal crisis in California will force us to make in San Diego city schools next year. Even with anticipated enrollment increases of 1,500 to 2,000 students and no cost-of-living salary increases for any employees, we still must cut $37 million--or 7%--to balance the budget.

How do we make cuts of this size without cutting positions and affecting what happens in the classrooms of our 121,000 students, when 85% of the budget is allocated for people?

There is no way.

Very little flexibility exists in the remaining 15% of the budget, which includes supplies, utilities, insurance premiums, gasoline, equipment and other fixed costs.

The politically expedient approach would be to make across-the-board cuts; everyone would experience some loss.

The responsible, but much more politically difficult, strategy is to establish criteria and to recognize that some programs are more important than others.

The cuts I am proposing to the Board of Education are the result of more than 50 hours of deliberation with top staff members. None of these recommendations leaves me with good feelings, but I believe they are defensible given the choices we are forced to make.

I was guided by two fundamental beliefs.

First, what is most important is the interaction between teachers and students. So, I strongly oppose increasing class size. We could save $5.4 million by raising class size by one student. However, I cannot justify doing that when elementary teachers already average 30 students and secondary teachers 35 students per class. Only one state, Utah, has higher average class sizes than California.

Second, I believe cuts should begin at the top, consistent with our goal to restructure the district and move more resources, decisions and accountability to the schools. Therefore, the largest cut I am recommending is $7 million from the central office. This 21.5% cut includes eliminating more than 40 management and supervisory positions and 80 other positions, along with major reductions in travel and conference accounts, consultants, supplies, equipment and staff development and training.

There will be few protests of these cuts until the central services now taken for granted are no longer provided.

The next-largest group of reductions is $4.2 million in textbook and instructional materials. We would still provide basic textbooks for all children, but we would reduce expenditures on curriculum development, staff training and the purchase of supplementary materials.

Special-education programs would be cut $4 million, or 4.9%. Almost half of that is from transportation. Classes would be moved closer to students’ homes, and many students would have to walk greater distances to their bus stops. Significant cuts are also proposed in special-education administration and non-classroom teaching positions.

We already spend less per pupil on facilities maintenance than other major urban school districts in California. Nonetheless, a $2.3-million reduction in deferred maintenance, a $1-million reduction in regular maintenance, and a $1-million cut in custodial and gardening services are proposed.

Integration programs are targeted for cuts of $2.6 million, or 6.3%. But these cuts could be penny-wise and pound-foolish. They would generate only $650,000 in savings because the state funds 80% of our integration budget. While I believe we must continue our strong commitment to honor both the spirit and the letter of our integration court order, some cuts can be made.

Most of the controversy has been focused on my proposed cuts in the nursing, counseling and elementary instrumental music program.

I have never suggested that nurses and counselors don’t provide important services to children, but there are few other choices if we are to maintain class size. And it pains me to recommend elimination of the elementary instrumental music program. I am an advocate for the arts. The arts must be a part of every child’s basic education.

However, we have never had an elementary instrumental music program for all students, so the tough choice was to recommend cutting the partial program so other, more important, basic programs can be provided for every student.

Resource teachers would be cut. They develop curriculum and instructional materials, give demonstration lessons and serve as mentors for new teachers. They would have to return to the classroom to fill vacant teaching positions.

In recent years, many district dollars have been earmarked to supplement basic skills programs, such as writing programs, the common core curriculum and Project AVID, which helps students who might not otherwise attend college. These programs would be cut in half; the remaining 50% would be allocated in block grants, leaving it to schools to decide how to spend the funds based on the particular needs of their students.

Money for students in the gifted and talented education program will also be reduced--from $60 per student to $48 per student.

The proposed cut for interscholastic athletics is $200,000 from a $1.6-million budget. A fixed percentage cut for all sports is unacceptable because it would reduce the budgets in some sports below a level that would meet safety standards. Therefore, the tough decision to eliminate some sports must be made unless increases in ticket prices and other forms of community support make up the difference.

Most of the other cuts I have proposed are less controversial. Nothing would make me happier than to have something magical occur in Sacramento that would make many of these deep cuts unnecessary. But the governor’s recent announcement that the state’s shortfall is now $12.6 billion suggests otherwise. I don’t expect miracles to reverse the impact of the recession or repair the structural fissures in California’s revenue structure.

The recession will ultimately end, but the gap between the cost of public services Californians need and the dollars generated by a flawed tax structure will not be closed without courageous leadership by our governor, legislators and other leaders who must make the case that we will only get what we are willing to pay for.

Our children deserve better, those living in poverty deserve better, the medically indigent deserve better, the mentally infirm deserve better.

Perhaps the lesson in all of this is for special interests to broaden their narrow focus and to strengthen their advocacy for long-term solutions to the daunting problems created by California’s fiscal crisis.

I am reluctantly willing to make the tough decisions, endure the loss of valuable programs and services and crisis-manage for one more year.

But the governor and the Legislature must guarantee an action plan that will bring this wonderfully diverse, culturally stimulating, rapidly changing state to its senses about the equitable distribution of its considerable wealth. They must provide the leadership, and we must find a way to provide the resources to finance the services that will enhance the quality of life for all.