Opinion: HARD TIMES AHEAD - Santa Barbara School District budget crisis to deepen in 2008

The year 2008 will be déja vu all over again. Millions of dollars in budget cuts must be made early in the new year. At the same time, 2007 saw the district administration's credibility crumble and its moral authority atrophy.

Just last April, the district administration sought and got $1.5 million in cuts. The educational community was shocked by teacher layoffs and decimated educational programs.

In June came the aftershock. It was revealed that the cuts had not been necessary at all. There had been an accounting "mistake." There was actually a $5 million budget surplus. This was a huge embarrassment, and confidence in the district administration plummeted. The only bright spot was that the surplus provided money to undo some of the damage caused by the April cuts.

Then the surplus began to disappear as "adjustments" were made to the books. It now seems that the surplus was also a "mistake" -- a $5 million overstatement. In a recent Interim Report, best-case estimates are that $1.5 million must be cut from the 2008-09 budget.

According to the Interim Report, the District's financial position over the next two years looks bleak. Projected deficit spending for 2008-09 ($1.5 million) will compound to a $5 million deficit in 2009-10, unless expenditures are dramatically reduced.

For the first time in memory, the district was required in December to notify the County Education Office, its fiscal overseer, that it may not be able to fulfill its financial obligations in 2009-10. Prior to this, the auditors filed a "going concern note" that said much the same thing. In short, the district's choices are: 1) either bring expenditures in line with revenues, or 2) face insolvency with the possibility of loss of local control.

A worse case scenario has the governor eliminating the 4.3 percent and 2.5 percent cost of living adjustments expected for 2008-09 and 2009-10. If this happens, as many experts predict, program and personnel cuts in Santa Barbara will have to be even more severe.

In short, the district administration has made a mess of things. Confidence is at an all-time low, and there have been calls for resignations. The district's two senior financial officers did in fact resign.

On top of the financial mess, other things have not gone well in 2007. Here are a few of them:

• There have been troubling declines in academic achievement. While San Marcos High School exceeded all of the state-prescribed growth targets in 2006-07, Dos Pueblos and Santa Barbara did not.

Academic Performance Index ratings for Santa Barbara High are a matter of particular concern. The white student subgroup, which has long ranked second to fourth among California high schools, dropped to 16th. The Hispanic/Latino subgroup continued to decline from the top 40 percent to the bottom 20 percent. The Socio-Economically Disadvantaged subgroup and the English Learner subgroup declined to the bottom 15 percent and 13 percent respectively. The achievement gaps at SBHS are among the highest in the state of California.

Little wonder. SBHS has had three principals in five years. The district administration has transferred key people to the district office. Schools need stable leadership, a need that many teachers, parents and staff feel has been undervalued. Indeed, one high-level transfer is viewed with cynicism, having been rushed through without School Board approval. Santa Barbara High's new principal reports that ". . . there is a trust issue with site and district administration. There is need for healing."

• Many view the district administration as being secretive and untrustworthy -- even manipulative. Budget documents have not been made available to the public in a timely manner, and public meetings have been scheduled at times when public participation is unlikely. The superintendent was not present to guide the budget process (he was on a junket in China). For some, that was a sign of indifference -- for others, arrogance.

• A recent staff presentation on school safety issues was seen as biased and prejudicial. It used Healthy Kids Survey data to rank high schools in terms of fighting, gang membership and feelings of insecurity. Conclusions were presented that could frighten parents away from particular schools out of fear for their children's safety. Yet, those conclusions were unwarranted by the data.

Worse, if schools were the same in terms of a particular safety issue, no significance was assigned to that issue. For example, the fact that some 350 high school kids district-wide responded that they had carried a weapon at school in the past 12 months was not even reported. The administration's grounds were that it would be "alarmist" to release such information. Clearly, some facts are taboo in the boardroom.

What is alarming to me is the administration's apparent unwillingness to take Healthy Kids Survey findings seriously. It has been sitting on these reports at least since 2004. The California Department of Education intends that the reports should inform the public and public policy.

In my opinion, the administration's handling of survey information about security issues at our schools is sure to exacerbate divisive "we-they" attitudes between school sites and the district office. And its "big brother"approach is far more embarrassing than are the facts it seems bent on withholding from the public.

The district's credibility is crucial. It has suffered repeated blows in 2007. District actions have exacerbated divisions between school sites and the district office, and this is taking a toll on academic performance. Trust is low, suspicion high. The district office is seen as spin headquarters that will do anything to avoid embarrassment. And, in the area of finance, there has been a complete credibility meltdown.

Diminished credibility means diminished moral authority. At the end of the day, the question is whether the district administration retains sufficient moral authority to lead the educational community through more traumatic budget cuts in 2008 and 2009. In my view, it is not clear that it does.

Of course, the administration and the board can impose cuts. They have the power. But wielding power without moral authority is bad governance. Its effects on the legitimacy of the institution will be felt long after the current cast of players has moved on to other things.

If the administration is to ask for draconian budget cuts, it should be prepared to implement equally draconian reforms at the district office.

The author is a member of the Santa Barbara Board of Education and an emeritus professor in political science at UCSB.