The SDUHSD Board met on April 20th at San Dieguito Academy. There are five items I’d like report on.
Capital Projects
Teacher Pay
Curriculum Transparency
Board Policies
Brown Act Violations
The Board Approved Additional Capital Projects
The SDUHSD has access to funds reimbursed by the State of California that can be used for capital projects. The Board manages this capital allocation as District needs change over time.
At this meeting the Board approved increasing the priority of three projects: improving the locker room at Torrey Pines High School, improving the Athletic Fields at Torrey Pines, and modernizing the Industrial Arts Building at SDA.
Because these funds are earmarked as capital for new construction projects, they do not impact the annual revenues and operating expenses of the District. We still have challenges balancing our annual operating budget, and the Board will be holding a budget workshop to discuss our finances and budget at an upcoming Board meeting.
Teachers Union Asks for a Pay Raise
By far the largest impact on our annual budget is labor costs, which total nearly 90% of our annual operating expenses. Our employees generally fall into one of three categories, certificated staff (teachers), classified staff (support services), and management. The certificated staff are represented by the teachers union, the San Dieguito Faculty Association (SDFA).
The District has a three-year contract with the SDFA that runs through the next school year (June 30, 2024) that covers wages, benefits, and working conditions for teachers. However, the contract allows the teachers union to “reopen” wages each school year, which means they can ask for an increase in pay and benefits for next year. At this Board meeting the union officially notified the District that they would like to negotiate wages and benefits for the third year of the contract.
The public has a right, by law, to know the opening position of the teacher’s union and the district. California Government Code 3547 (a) states that “All initial proposals of exclusive representatives and of public school employers, which relate to matters within the scope of representation, shall be presented at a public meeting of the public school employer and thereafter shall be public records.” Section (e) states: “The board may adopt regulations for the purpose of implementing this section, which are consistent with the intent of the section; namely that the public be informed of the issues that are being negotiated upon and have full opportunity to express their views on the issues to the public school employer, and to know of the positions of their elected representatives.” In the materials presented with the Agenda, however, the union and district did not quantify their opening “ask.” The teachers union position stated instead that their ask is simply to consider “negotiated wages and benefits”. In practice, this means that the public is never informed of any negotiated increases in teacher pay until the new agreement is actually negotiated and agreed. The public is kept in the dark throughout the entire process.
This is another instance where the District suffers from a lack of transparency. The public has a right to understand where and how we spend our money. I will do my best to make this process as transparent as possible within the law.
Curriculum Transparency
At the meeting, the Board voted to approve adding several new classes to the education curriculum, including a course titled Ethnic Literature. The topic of race and ethnicity and how it is taught in school can be a contentious topic. Board Trustee Anderson expressed her concern in approving this class without that information made available to the public, and suggested we wait until we have that before approving the class.
I agree with Trustee Anderson that we will need more information, but I recognize that the course may be modified in the coming months before school starts, as a detailed syllabus is prepared. The Board is required by both California law and our Board Policies to adopt specific instructional materials for each course, and to only do so after determining that the materials are effective and appropriate learning resources. Board Policy 6161.1 states: “The Board shall adopt instructional materials based on a determination that such materials are an effective learning resource to help students achieve grade-level competency and that the materials meet criteria specified in law. Textbooks, technology-based materials, and other educational materials shall be aligned with academic content standards and the district's curriculum to ensure that they effectively support the district's adopted courses of study.”
I am confident we will have a robust discussion of those materials at a future Board meeting once the draft course design is completed.
New Board Policies Adopted
The Board adopted a number of policy changes in our “3000” policy series that cover the business of the District. During this discussion, I took issue with some of the proposed changes, and I suggested several revisions to improve the policies as they apply to our District.
As one example, in our Board Policy on Campus Security, the proposal was to strike the sentence “The Board believes that reasonable use of surveillance cameras will help the district achieve its goals for campus security.”
I think that statement is true and should remain in our policy. Unfortunately, I could not persuade a majority of our Board to keep this sentence. What was particularly bothersome to me was that the primary objection to making any changes was not based on any substantive arguments but was instead based on the fact that the proposed elimination of this policy language “came from the CSBA”, which is the California School Boards Association.
As a reminder, the CSBA is a trade association that is made up of school board members from across California, some of whom become delegates on committees. As such, it is a politically influenced organization that reflects the views of that body, not necessarily the views of our local school board, district staff, parents, or community members. Because we don’t know 98% of the delegates to CSBA, their experience, background, views or opinions, we should not blindly delegate our duty to create policy to a trade organization based in Sacramento. Similarly, even though CSBA offers legal advice and counseling, I would always look to our own legal counsel (who knows our district and has worked with us for years) for legal advice about policy, not to CSBA. I will continue to advocate for what is right for our District, and not turn our local governance over to others.
Brown Act Violation
A member of the public noted that at our March 23 Board meeting the Board was provided a “Leadership Profile” to consider as part of the superintendent selection process. However, that proposed leadership profile was not provided to the public as part of our agenda packet, it was not provided to the public at the meeting even though it was provided to the Board, it was not posted on the website after the meeting, and it was not available when the member of the public went to the District Office to ask for a copy.
California’s open meetings law, known as The Brown Act, is intended to ensure that the Board does its business in public, and that the public has access to the same information that is provided to the Board. We as a Board need to do a much better job living up to both the letter and the spirit of this law. You have heard me use the word “transparency” repeatedly. I will keep fighting for public disclosure wherever possible. Sunshine remains the best disinfectant.