Public School Spending

We read with dismay Weintraub’s misguided analysis of public school spending. Comparing the administrative costs of districts, he unfortunately used a 1989-1990 state-mandated report designed primarily to separate and identify revenues and expenses as they relate to special education programs. Since the unaudited report does not ensure uniform interpretation of the guidelines, its validity and value are questionable for the article’s purpose. A better data source would have been the annual “Comparative Analysis of District Income and Expenditures” prepared by School Services of California, which relies on auditable reports.

From the misleading data Weintraub drew an unfair conclusion that Pomona Unified School District spends twice as much as a “similar” district on expenditures outside the classroom. A less reckless comparison would have revealed that Pomona’s “administrative expenses” are far more inclusive than those of many other districts. For example, a significant portion of Pomona’s expenditures in the category went to early retirement incentive programs, a health clinic, furniture for new schools, and other costs not listed on the “administrative expenses” line of the comparison district’s document. If we in Pomona had done what many other districts do--that is, inappropriately prorated or shuffled non-teaching salaries to other parts of the report--our administrative costs per student would have matched the figure praised as “streamlined.”

Like most districts, we have suffered severe budget cuts in the past two years and have reduced or eliminated a host of valuable services and programs. Throughout this painful process, the commitment in Pomona has remained clear: Keep the cuts as far away as possible from the classroom.

LINDA M. STEVENS, Board President

IRV MOSKOWITZ, Superintendent, Pomona Unified School District