Let's Talk About School Finances

School budgets are in the news... school budgets are always in the news. Either we're spending too much or not enough; we're throwing good money after bad; we're financing the wrong programs, or we need to create new programs to help failing students. We are not sure which side of the debate that you're on, but we figure everyone can agree on some things -- or at least one thing -- a lot of money is spent inefficiently.

Veterans of the Sacramento High School debacle note that when things started going south, consultants, advisors, and additional administrative layers were added to the problem, dragging more and more financial resources along for the ride. At the same time, programs were cut, most notably a reading program that successfully moved remedial readers several grade levels in a year. But in keeping with this district's model, money was continuously pumped into a failing school without any consideration being given to the administrative incompetence that created the mess. Apparently, the SCUSD does not like to hold its administrators accountable for their failures. Case in point, Sacramento High School and VAPAC.

Let's begin, briefly, with the tenure of the former principal of Sacramento High School. She began at the school as a protegee of the previous principal, Richard Owens. She became principal of the school after ranking last on the list of possible candidates given to the faculty committee for review. She was removed from her post as principal around the time the St. HOPE takeover and the state reviews started, hidden somewhere deep in the bowels of the Serna Center, out of harm's way only to resurface as the principal of the Community Day School. Word on the street is that she has tanked that assignment and will force the district to punt her once again. Could a SCOE takeover of that program be far? And, more than likely, she will retain her position in the district.

Now, let's examine the curious, continuing saga of VAPAC. The Director created a position for herself and her son, written into the charter and presumably, to them, irrevocable. Neither has had previous experience running a school. The CFO, her son, has no background in education, administration, or finances. Apparently, however, this lack of experience qualifies them for salary and benefits approaching $250,000. Or, roughly, 10% of the school's operating budget. Neither, of course, should approach these levels of compensation unless they are maxed out on the salary scale, and even then, the salary levels are far above what the pay scale mandates -- the director position tops out at $97,000; the CFO position $92,000. According to the budget, however, both individuals make $138,000 and $129,000 respectively. Now, granted these figures could be misleading considering benefits and other compensation, but we have yet to see a salary package that offers $40,000 in benefits. Nevertheless, if this is part of their salary package, the district is once again throwing good money away ... at your child's expense.

Of course, the larger questions to be answered are: Who approved this salary package? And if The Son, with little or no experience in education and educational finances, can be maxed out on the salary scale after two years of questionable performance, who approved that move? Additionally, who reviews the performance of either of these individuals? Of course, for a school with no principal, no library, no general use computer lab, no real lunch program to speak of, and a host of other notable deficiencies, spending this much money on a CFO -- the only school to have a CFO -- seems ludicrous.

What this actually looks like is nepotism, created to benefit one person, financed with your tax dollars, and approved by the district. Explain to us how this is good for students?

"You ever have the feeling that you've been ripped off..."