School Districts*

Recommendations 7

• R01
  Consolidate Conejo Valley Unified School and Oak Park Unified School Districts The Conejo Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) Board of Education supports the Ventura County Grand Jury's conclusion that the achievement of greater efficiencies in the delivery of public education is a worthy goal. However, CVUSD does not intend to pursue the Grand Jury's recommendation for consolidation with Oak Park Unified School District (OPUSD). The Board believes that, in this case, consolidation would be in conflict with our obligation to remain responsive to local community concerns while meeting the learning needs of our student population. The public expects school districts to operate under local community control. Larger districts across the state and nation have focused on decentralization and increased school site autonomy in answer to community concerns. In Ventura County, efforts to create greater efficiencies through neighborhood school closures and unification have been rejected by the public. Communities are endeared to their local schools and districts for good reason. Over the years, parents and students have participated in the creation of local school district policies, traditions and values, thereby contributing to the unique settings in which students thrive. In addition, CVUSD and OPUSD, at $643 and $880 respectively, are two of the lowest per student administrative cost districts among the twenty studied by the Grand Jury. Both are high performing and efficiently operated. CVUSD is unwilling to risk losing the benefits of local control for what could likely be minimal improvements in operational efficiency. Recommendation R-01 will not be pursued.
• R1
  Several recent research studies indicate that the economic benefits of increasing school district size do not yield the fiscal benefits expected. Two recent studies are cited below: "Several recent studies have concluded, however, that the economic benefits of ٠ increasing district size diminish as the size of the district grows, and that there is an optimal size of a school district beyond which per-pupil expenditures begin to rise. William Duncombe and John Yinger's 2003 study of 12 actual consolidations in New York state concluded that doubling the enrollment of a 300-student district is likely to produce a net 22.8 percent savings; that doubling the enrollment of a 1,500-student district is likely to yield a 3.2 percent savings; and that little or no savings are to be expected for mergers of districts already enrolling more than 1,500 students. A good recent summary of the scholarly literature on this topic by Matthew Andrews, Duncombe and Yinger reached the same conclusion, finding, "Sizeable potential cost savings may exist by moving from a very small district (500 or less (sic) pupils) to a district with approximately 2,000 to 4,000 pupils," but the authors noted that per-pupil spending actually starts to go up again when district size reaches 6,000 students." School District Consolidation, Size and Spending: an Evaluation By Mr. Andrew J. Coulson /Mackinac Center for Public Policy, May 2007 In 2002, a research team led by William Ouchi, a professor at UCLA's Anderson ٠ School of Management, examined nine different school systems, including the United States' three largest districts. The research team found that the centralized management of schools brought about by consolidation actually led to administrative bloat, not streamlining. For example, in the highly centralized Los Angeles Unified School District, only 45 percent of education dollars were spent in the classroom (p. 59). Education expert Mike Antonucci explains, "Paradoxically, the larger a school district gets, the more resources it devotes to secondary or even nonessential activities." He refers to this phenomenon as "mission creep," in which secondary administrative support services subvert a district's primary purpose of educating students (p. 60). Focusing on theoretical economies of scale, consolidation proponents overlook the negative constraints of large school districts. Former Clinton Administration assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Education and Education Commission of the States senior education analyst Kent McGuire cautions that such "negative mechanisms" include shifting resources away from core educational activities (p.61). Policy Report Jan. 2004 Competition or Consolidation? The School District Consolidation Debate Revisited by Vicki Murray, Ph.D., Education Analyst, Goldwater Institute, and Ross Groen, Education Researcher
• R02
  Consolidation of support services with the Ventura County Office of Education (VCOE) (technology, purchasing, facilities, transportation) The Conejo Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) intends to pursue the Grand Jury's recommendation for consolidation of support services with VCOE. At present, CVUSD, like other districts throughout Ventura County, works collaboratively with the VCOE to consolidate the aforementioned support services. With respect to technology, we work in tandem on administrative and instructional software selection, infrastructure design and installation, staff development, business and student data systems support, and much more. Similarly, CVUSD works closely with VCOE on purchasing systems, support for facility construction and shared use of facilities for staff development and special needs student classrooms. Finally, CVUSD and VCOE work cooperatively on the transportation of special needs students. In the future, CVUSD will continue existing collaborations while exploring opportunities for additional consolidations of support services. Recommendation R-02 will be pursued. Fillmore Unified School District Office of the Superintendent Unified Scho 627 Sespe Avenue • Fillmore, CA 93015 Phone (805) 524-6038 • Fax (805) 524-6060 July 8, 2009 Ronald J. Zenone, Foreman RECEIVED Ventura County Grand Jury JUL 1 4 2009 800 S. Victoria Ave., L#3751 Ventura, CA 93009 VENTURA COUNTYGRAND JURY Dear Mr. Zenone: On May 18, 2009, the Grand Jury issued its report entitled: School District Administration: Is the Cost Too High?. In that report, the Grand Jury required a response from the Fillmore Unified School District (FUSD) to recommendations R-01 and R-02. I have reviewed the report with the FUSD Board of Education on June 16, 2009 and per the requirement, I am submitting the following response: Recommendation R-01: The Grand Jury recommends that the VCOE, the Districts, and the VCCSDO should investigate ways to consolidate or unify some of the 20 public school districts with the potential to save millions of dollars in administrative costs. FUSD supports the Grand Jury's concept of saving educational resources by reducing costs where possible. When the Grand Jury's report was discussed with the FUSD Board of Education, the data presented was invaluable as we compared our administrative costs with other similar Districts. Our analysis found that our costs were appropriate for a District our size with the same demographics. The Board considered the potential consolidation with other Districts in Heritage Valley and the potential savings that could occur if such a consolidation occurred. The Board does not wish to pursue consolidation with the Districts recommended in the document. Fillmore is a unique city, established in 1888 and incorporated in 1914, and possesses tremendous community pride. The Board believes that any benefit from consolidating our Districts would be diminished in the loss of identity and would diminish the community pride that already exists. Further, the Board expressed that the local control of the Fillmore/Piru community to make decisions in our small district would be lost in the consolidation into a larger District. Our small size allows us to make decisive, timely changes when needed, which we believe provides greater support for the unique characteristics of the community we serve. Therefore, Recommendation R-01 will not be implemented for the reasons cited above. Recommendation R-02: The Grand Jury recommends that the VCOE should coordinate efforts with individual districts to consolidate support services such as Information and Technology, Purchasing, Facilities, and Transportation to help reduce costs for all of the Districts and the VCOE. FUSD supports the Grand Jury's concept of saving educational resources by reducing costs where possible by consolidating support services. We believe the Ventura County Office of Education already does this in a variety of ways. Some of those services include: Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Consortium Bilingual Teacher Training Program Cal-Safe/Teen Parent Program Career & Technical Education Countywide Foster Youth Services Program Countywide Internet Access, e-mail, and web hosting services Countywide Wireless Network Countywide Student Academic Competitions Gateway Community School - serving students from throughout Ventura County Graphics Reproduction Services Migrant Education Specialized Services for Special Education Students Special Education Programs serving students throughout Ventura County Student Management System Hosting Student Assessment Management System Hosting Regional Occupational Program serving students throughout Ventura County School Health Services Standards and Practices Special Education Transportation Special Populations Educational Support Testing and Assessment Support In addition to this sample of services provided by the Ventura County Office of Education, school districts in Ventura County have joined together and formed several "economy of scale" joint services organizations, including: Coastal Schools Employee Benefits Organization Special Education Local Plan Area Ventura County Schools Business Services Authority Ventura County Schools Self-Funding Authority These are just a few of the consolidated support services provided to school districts in Ventura County. As you can see, the Ventura County Office of Education is committed to providing the leadership to create cost saving services and support to all local educational agencies. Fillmore believes that Recommendation R-02 has been, and will continue to be, implemented and expanded in Ventura County. Respectfully, Jeff Sweeney Superintendent cc: Honorable Kevin J. McGee, Presiding Judge Superior Court of California, Ventura County Fillmore Unified School District Board of Education HUENEME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT 205 N. Ventura Road (805) 488-3588 Port Hueneme, CA 93041-3065 JERRY DANNENBERG, Ed.D. DEBORAH DESMETH ROBIN I. FREEMAN DEBRA B. REEVES SUPERINTENDENT ASSISTANT SUPT.-HUMAN RESOURCES ASSISTANT SUPT.-ED. SERVICES CHIEF BUSINESS OFFICIAL June 12, 2009 CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Mr. Ronald J. Zenone Grand Jury Foreman 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, California 93009 Subject: Grand Jury Report, School District Administration: Is the Cost Too High? Dear Mr. Zenone: On behalf of the Hueneme Elementary School District Board of Trustees, I am writing to you in response to the subject Grand Jury Report dated May 18, 2009. Before responding to specific recommendations, I would like to make a few observations regarding your study of school district administrative costs. In looking at your study, it became apparent to me that you were not comparing apples to apples. Depending on the size of the schools in each district, some support staff cost assigned to a district office (such as to the Hueneme Elementary School District Office) is charged to the school site. For example, in the Oxnard Union High School District, a nurse and a psychologist are assigned to each school site, thus lowering the cost assigned to the district office. To get a more accurate picture of the costs of operating our local schools, I would refer you to the Ventura County Office of Education website: www.vcoe.org. In the Administrative Services Division, click on School Business and Advisory Services, then on Forms and Reports. The VCOE has a series of books for Selected Pupil Enrollment. This data will give you a clear picture of which districts are putting more money into the classrooms. Using this data, you will clearly see that the Hueneme Elementary School District puts more money into instruction and instruction-related areas (pages 17 and 18) than any other district in the county. On pages 21 and 22, you will see that we have the second lowest cost, countywide, for General Administration. Finally, on pages 28 and 29, you will see that we spend more money for teachers' salaries than any other Ventura County district. Your study did not look at the long-term health of each school district's financial situation. It did not consider the issue of unfunded obligations in the future. The question I would ask the Grand Jury is: Why should the children of the Hueneme Elementary School District have funds diverted from their classrooms to help the Oxnard Union High School District pay for its unfunded liability for lifetime medical benefits for 496 former employees, at an estimated cost of $230,000,000? RECEIVED JUN 1 6 2009 VENTURA COUNTY BOARD OF TRUSTEES SHALA J GUDINO. PRESIDENT • DARLENE A. BRUNO, CLERK • ELAINE K. GARBER, TRUSTEE • DONNA L. BRANSTROM, TRUSTEE GRAND JURY AEL (RALPH) RAMOS, TRUSTEE Mr. Ronald J. Zenone, Ventura County Grand Jury Foreman Grand Jury Report, School District Administration: Is the Cost Too High? June 12, 2009 Another issue that would be of concern is that, in the Oxnard Union High School District's contract with their teacher association, they have a formula that gives a percentage of any new general fund money to teachers in the form of a salary increase. Any savings generated by the Grand Jury recommendations would have no benefit to the children in the Hueneme Elementary School District. From the example above, it is clear that one cannot look at a single aspect of a school district's budget. The entire budget, services offered, salary schedules, and present and future financial obligations must be considered to get the total picture of the health of a school district. Response to Grand Jury Recommendations
• R2
  The cost to consolidate school districts as recommended was not included in the Grand Jury's report. Considering the evidence of the cost associated with the recent attempt to move just one high school from one school district into another district, the costs of the recommendations in the Grand Jury report seem astronomical and could possibly offset any potential savings for many years to come. Some potential costs would include legal fees, election fees, buyouts of personnel under contract, fair hearings, mediations, contract negotiations with labor groups, etc.
• R3
  The Grand Jury's recommendation to consolidate/unify Hueneme, Ocean View, Oxnard Elementary, Oxnard Union High School and Rio school districts does not include a sound educational reason for creating larger school districts that support the best interests of the students currently served by each school district. In contrast, Ocean View suggests that the Los Angeles Unified School District and the Oakland Unified School District are models which clearly demonstrate how large school districts are detriments to the academic and social-emotional progress of the children served. These are models that the Ocean View Governing Board does not wish to replicate or emulate.
• R4
  The Grand Jury suggests that Ocean View School District should consolidate with the school districts in the Oxnard plain. However, all of these school districts, except Ocean View, are designated as "Program Improvement" school districts by the State of California because many of their schools have not met the minimum academic achievement levels designated by the state. The Ocean View Governing Board specifically implemented several programs to ensure the academic progress of its students. Maintaining low class size and preserving high academic standards for promotion were, and will continue to be, key mandates for the school district. These governance decisions are fundamentally different from the other school districts. Therefore, the Ocean View Governing Board suggests that Ocean View's schools have distinctly different educational needs and its community would not want to be represented by trustees residing outside of this community.
• R5
  The current public education governance model requires elected Board members to reside in the community served by their school district. Any consolidation of school districts would potentially erode this protection of fair representation. The Grand Jury recommendation under R-01 will not be implemented for the reasons listed above. R-02: The Grand Jury recommends that the VCOE should coordinate efforts with individual districts to consolidate support services, such as, Information and Technology, Purchasing, Facilities, and Transportation to help reduce costs for all of the Districts and the VCOE. The Ocean View Governing Board agrees with the Grand Jury's finding to coordinate efforts with individual districts to provide services. VCOE currently provides many services to all of the school districts throughout Ventura County and serves as the lead agency for many committees and services. In addition, several school districts have agreements that allow for a coordination of services dependent upon the specific needs of each district. Recommendation R-02 is already under implementation. Please feel free to contact me at (805) 488-4441 if you have any additional questions. Respectfully submitted. Manay Nancy J. Carroll, Ph.D. Superintendent Ocean View School District . • . . . Ojai Unified School District 414 East Ojai Avenue, P.O. Box 878, Ojai, CA 93024 (805) 640-4300 • Fax (805) 640-4419 • www.ojai.k12.ca.us June 16, 2009 Ronald J. Zenone, S. Victoria Ave. L#3751 Ventura, CA 93009 Dear Mr. Zenone: This letter is written in response to the Grand Jury report titled, "School District Administration: Is the Cost Too High?" This letter is written to meet our district's obligation to respond to the report within sixty days of its publication. The following constitutes Ojai Unified School District's responses to the