Prop. 223 Poses Daunting Limit, Small Districts Say
Given her workload, school administrator Tamera McCracken dares anyone to uncover unnecessary overhead or bloated bureaucracy in the districts she serves.
By herself, she makes up the entire administrative staff of the 31-student Santa Clara Elementary School District, serving as superintendent and business manager for this district composed of one little red schoolhouse.
And without earning a penny more, she also serves as business manager for three other small school districts that dot the farm belt stretching between Somis and Santa Paula.
Still, if voters approve a June 2 ballot measure aimed at limiting the administrative expenses of school districts statewide, McCracken and other school leaders could find themselves scrambling to squeeze even more from budgets they say already are stripped to bare bones.
“There’s no way we could be in compliance,” McCracken said of Proposition 223, which would mandate that no more than a nickel of every educational dollar be spent on district administration.
“There’s nothing else we can cut,” she said. “We’re as lean as we possibly can be.”
Seeking to funnel more money to classrooms and campuses, backers of the Educational Efficiency Initiative want to impose a single budget recipe on all districts statewide, allotting 95% to school campuses while placing a 5% limit on administrative costs.
Supporters of the initiative, known in education circles as “95-5,” say it would cut bureaucratic waste and reinvest the savings at school sites, where the money belongs.
Districts that exceed the spending cap, even by a small amount, would be subject to fines of about $175 per student each year by the state Board of Education. The state board would be able to grant waivers to districts that prove they have done everything possible to trim fat but still cannot push below the 5% limit.
“I think parents want some guarantees that their tax dollars are going to be used where they really count and that’s the places where kids learn,” said Bill Lambert, director of governmental relations for United Teachers-Los Angeles, the union sponsoring Proposition 223.
“As we look at it, it’s either books or more bureaucracy,” he said. “This changes the spending priorities of California schools by putting the school sites first.”
But opponents counter that such an approach would do more harm than good.
*
They argue that the measure would force districts to shift administrative duties from central headquarters to school campuses, where already busy teachers would be asked to help pick up the load.
Opponents say small and medium-sized districts probably would be hardest hit, noting that they often spend more than the initiative would allow on administration, doing audits and other state-ordered paperwork. Some, they argue, could be forced to surrender their independence and unify into larger districts.
Most troubling, opponents say, is that the initiative could end up siphoning millions of dollars from rural and suburban districts, such as those in Ventura County, through a system of fines that favors big-city schools.
“If it passes, the larger districts will survive but some of the smaller ones are going to have difficulty,” said Hal Vick, executive director of the Simi Valley and Conejo Valley teachers unions. “One of the flaws of this measure is the assumption that one size fits all, and that just simply isn’t true.”
‘Short-Handed’
If enacted today, none of Ventura County’s 20 school districts would meet the 5% limit on administrative spending.
According to state audits of the 1995-96 school year, Oak Park Unified came closest at 5.15%. Simi Valley Unified spent 5.76% on administration, Conejo Valley 6.61% and the Oxnard Union High School District 7.26%.
True to form, the smallest districts had the biggest administrative costs, starting with Santa Clara at 16.18%, followed by Mesa Union at 11.24% and Santa Paula Elementary at 11.16%.
Those higher costs are attributable to economies of scale, where little districts have to provide the same educational services as bigger districts but have fewer students over whom to spread costs.
“We consider ourselves very short-handed,” said Nancy Carroll, superintendent of the 2,500-student Ocean View School District in Oxnard, which is run by two administrators and a handful of business and payroll personnel.
“On the surface the initiative looks great because it looks like it gets more money to the classroom,” Carroll said. “But when you understand the bureaucracy of public education, you see that many of the administrative tasks result from the number of state mandates that keep coming down.”
Rooted in the often-fractious politics of the Los Angeles Unified School District, the measure so far appears to enjoy plenty of popular support.
A Times Poll last month found that Proposition 223 held a 49%-to-30% edge among registered voters, and a 55%-to-26% edge among likely voters, once the initiative was summarized for them.
Even educators who think the initiative is a bad idea understand its popular appeal.
It’s hard to argue against a ballot measure aimed at slashing bureaucratic waste, they say. The problem, however, is that school districts could end up spending even more money by shuffling central administrative services to school campuses.
“The irony of the title is that this measure will make districts less efficient by forcing them to decentralize services,” Ventura County schools Supt. Chuck Weis said. “It’s just real wrongheaded thinking.”
Teachers Unions Split
Although Proposition 223 is sponsored by the teachers union in Los Angeles, it is not universally embraced by other teachers associations.
In Ventura County, the 1,700 members of the teachers unions in Simi Valley and Conejo Valley voted to oppose the measure, as did the 750-member Ventura Unified Education Assn.
“I see this as cookie-cutter approach that’s going to create more problems than it’s going to solve,” said Steve Blum, who heads the Ventura union. “It might be a good thing for big-city schools, but for the rest of us it’s not going to do any good. It’s one of those simple solutions to a complex problem, and those seldom work.”
Bill Lambert, governmental relations director for the Los Angeles teachers union, said he does not believe that sentiment is shared by educators across the state.
“I think a lot of union members have been cajoled and threatened by the administration” into opposing the initiative, he said. “But we think when people take a look at where the dollars are going to go, they will eagerly support the measure.”
Lambert says it is important for the public to know there is wide latitude in what is included in the 95% earmarked for direct school services.
It includes books, pencils and other supplies. It also includes salaries for teachers, nurses, librarians, security guards and principals, as well as staff development training and cafeteria and transportation services.
What’s not included are salaries for superintendents, personnel directors, business managers and data processors. Neither are curriculum development and instructional research.
Then there’s a gray area in the initiative that continues to be defined.
*
Take the tiny Mupu School District in Santa Paula, where the district’s lone school doubles as administrative headquarters and where the district’s site administrator also serves as the principal and a teacher.
What part of her salary should be paid from the 5% and what part from the 95%? And with all services delivered at the school site, how should the district determine whether a telephone call or use of the copy machine is an administrative cost or direct school service?
While those questions go unanswered, educators at the Mupu district grow weary of being viewed as somehow wasteful or top-heavy because they can’t meet a 5% limit.
“It really frustrates me when the small schools are viewed as inefficient, when in reality people do more jobs than one,” said Jeanine Gore, who wears all three hats for the 120-student Mupu district. “We invite anyone to come and find ways we can become any more efficient and frugal.”
If approved, the initiative would take effect in the 1999-2000 school year. At that time, school districts across the state could end up taking a lesson from some of Ventura County’s smaller districts, which a decade ago enacted a plan to trim administrative costs.
Sharing Personnel
Educators forged an agreement that allows some administrative personnel to be shared by the Mesa, Briggs, Somis and Santa Clara school districts.
That’s how Tamera McCracken ended up as business manager for all four districts.
“I think the perception started many years ago that there was a lot of bureaucratic waste, and the word really has gotten out that much of that has been taken care of,” McCracken said, adding that officials from other districts have recently asked her about the agreement.
“Obviously districts want to keep costs down and money flowing to the school sites,” she said. “But this isn’t the way to do it. We feel that when the community knows more about Proposition 223, they’ll understand what it’s about and vote against it.”
