In response to the opinion by R.G. Fagin and Todd Wetherell, published in the "Tracy Press," Saturday, August 3rd, I'd like to offer my gratitude to the board and administration for a job well done in bringing the needed facilities in line with a growth rate that made their job that much more difficult. Fortunately, they had Mello Roos taxes and Developer Fees with which to fund the accomplishment.
Facilities are, without a doubt, important, but definitely not all that is required for a good school district. Much more is needed. Keep in mind that when Socrates taught Plato, no building existed – yet much quality learning still took place.
While the majority of the article goes on to discuss facilities implementation, Misters Fagin and Wetherell also discuss API scores and student programs such as GATE. As a former teacher, I would often scratch my head in disbelief at some implementations of "Gifted and Talented" programs. While a noble idea, how much does it really mean when 40 percent of the student body is deemed gifted and talented? In my opinion, each and every child is a gift, and deserves the fullest opportunity.
Let's also take a closer look at the district's API scores of late. Between 1999 and 2000, Jefferson District API scores improved. The overall state ranking of Monticello improved and the ranking among similar schools of both Jefferson Middle and Monticello improved. Furthermore, both schools met their target growth and received awards. Between 2000 and 2001, however, both schools slipped in ranking among similar schools and no awards were received. Over the two years between 1999 and 2001, Monticello has improved in both statewide and in similar school rankings, while Jefferson Middle has remained with a net zero improvement.
These results are consistent with the recent findings regarding the ineffectiveness of the Class Size Reduction program in California schools – especially at the fourth through eighth grade level, into which the board has dedicated large sums of money. The research indicates that any gains made by reducing the number of students per classroom were negated by the inexperience of new teachers introduced into the system to accommodate the reduction in class size.
The comparable API improvement at Monticello is also consistent with the presence of a primary music program there. During the time that Monticello had a dedicated music teacher, their API improved. This is exactly the indication of the research that clearly states the positive effect of music education at an early age.
Deeper analysis of the budget reveals some more interesting facts. In addition to the General Fund, there are several other funds involved in the budget process – the most significant of which is the Capital Facilities Fund. (Developer Fees) Over last year and this coming year this fund will have received revenues of over $3.3 million, with an ending balance of almost $3.6 million, including a budget surplus of over $1 million. That surplus includes $80,000 in interest earned. I inquired of the board as to why the interest earned could not be used from a surplus to fund the music program. One board member informed me that the interest was restricted – and it would be akin to siphoning off funds. I responded that it could instead be viewed as good money management. It turns out that a clause at the end of Government code GC 66006(1) section (a) reads:
"Any interest income earned by monies in the capital facilities account or fund shall also be deposited in that account or fund and shall be expended only for the sole purpose for which the fee was originally collected."
I find this clause to be absurdly restrictive, and will be contacting my state representatives regarding this absurdity. Are you reading this, Assemblywomen Matthews and Senator Machado? I'll be in touch. I can understand a clause limiting the amount of interest that could be used for other purposes, but as it stands, this clause, that completely restricts the use of interest earned, minimizes motivation to secure a higher interest rate on these funds.
Why shouldn't $57,127 of this money be able to be used to maintain the music program – that evidence suggests has led to the improvement of API scores – not to mention having expanded the experience and potential of over 800 students per year? Well – it turns out that the money still can be used. Despite the existence of the clause restricting the use of interest earned, the same code section also states that these funds can be used for purposes other than the intent of the fees as a temporary investment. I have pointed out that an investment in grant funding acquisition would be applicable, and that the district should utilize this surplus to fund attempts to acquire grant monies that can be used to maintain the primary music program.
One can only wonder why the same board members, who did such a good job ensuring quality facilities for the district students, will not put forth the same effort toward ensuring the education fo the complete child. Perhaps it is due to the latter being something that cannot be touched — or more importantly, is not easily quantified on a resume.
Dan Wells is a candidate for the Jefferson School District board.