Only 39 school districts have indicated they will have a hard time balancing their books within the next two years, according to the latest reports filed with their county offices of education.
That low number may mask the difficulties many districts will face amid flattening revenues, rising pension costs and, for many, declining enrollments. And some districts may be too optimistic about the extent to which Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget revision in May will solve their problems, said the head of the state agency in charge of keeping districts fiscally solvent.
“When given the choice, districts will generally choose the ‘rosy glow’ position regarding the state’s economy. Right now, there is a ton of mixed messaging out there about how revenues will look at the May Revision,” Joel Montero, CEO of the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, wrote in an email.
Twice each year, following the passage of their budgets on July 1, the state’s 1,094 districts file updates, the first one in the fall and the second in March. The updates state whether they are on track to balance their budgets for the current year and the following two years. County offices of education must review and verify they are accurate.
Last Friday, the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team posted a graph showing that 38 districts had self-certified as “qualified,” meaning they foresee difficulty paying their bills in 2018-19. One, San Miguel Joint Union in San Luis Obispo County, self-certified as “negative,” meaning it is struggling to remain solvent this year or the upcoming year, and the rest signed off as “positive,” signifying they foresee no problem ending the third year with a required 3 percent budget reserve. The number of qualified reports may creep upward to around 45 districts after county offices have reviewed them, Montero said. They have until early May to do so. In 2011-12, reeling from the Great Recession, 176 districts were certified as qualified.
Three districts were negative and 31 were qualified in the first interim report last fall. The slight uptick – seven more “qualifieds” last week – surprised some financial consultants who work with school districts because conditions have worsened since the fall. In his initial budget for next year, released in January, Brown lowered revenue forecasts by nearly $2 billion for the current year and budgeted only $744 million more in general funding for K-12 schools in 2017-18 – an amount that won’t even cover districts’ additional teacher and school employee pension obligations, which will increase by $1 billion each of the next three years.
“The number (of qualified certifications) is really low,” wrote John Gray, president of School Services of California, a Sacramento-based consulting firm for school districts. Many districts he has worked with will have to make cuts in the third year if there’s any decline in revenue, he said.
The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office hasn’t changed its prediction from last fall that final revenues for this year will be higher than Brown projected, and many districts are hedging their bets, counting on the LAO’s analysis. “If you look at this from a historical perspective, you can see why,” Montero wrote. “January budgets are historically the governor’s low-ball position and it ‘always’ gets better,” Montero wrote. But at this point, with revenues behind projections, he added, it looks like the Department of Finance could be closer to the mark.
The 38 “qualified” districts include Los Angeles Unified and San Diego Unified, the state’s two largest districts, but also a number of small districts with a unique set of problems. The San Bruno Park Elementary District in San Mateo County faced high special education costs for students’ out-of-district placements, while the Santa Rosa City School District discovered a big budgeting error. Newark Unified in Alameda County, with 5,845 students, has been experiencing an enrollment decline of 100-plus students per year, leaving it with $700,000 less in base funding, said Chief Business Official Bryan Richards. The district will create a multiyear plan to eliminate deficit spending, and is counting on new housing to bring in more revenue, he said.
Source: Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team.
The number of districts with a “qualified” financial status has varied significantly over the past 15 years. The 38 with a preliminary qualified status in the latest report is more than twice as many as a year ago but less than a quarter the total in 2011-12, when 176 were designated as qualified.
Both San Diego Unified and Montebello Unified failed to tighten their belts earlier and now are facing austerity: San Diego gave layoff notices to 850 teachers this month and still faces a deficit in 2018-19, while Montebello Unified, amid instability and complaints about its chief business officer, gave layoff notices to 333 teachers. L.A. Unified’s issues are enormous and unique. It continues to experience a big drop in enrollment, partly to charter schools, yet has not cut back in staff, and faces more than $1 billion in unfunded retiree health benefits.
Other districts with less publicized potential problems will wait until after the May budget and, if they have to, lay off probationary and temporary teachers, which they have hired in abundance in the past few years, said Kevin Gordon, president of Capitol Advisors Group, an education consulting firm. School district administrators are reluctant to certify their districts as qualified, Gordon said, because it looks bad to their bosses – school board members.
And self-certifying as qualified requires fortitude in the transition to what’s likely to be a period of level revenues, said Michael Fine, the chief administrative officer and number two administrator, behind Montero, at the fiscal crisis agency.
“Going qualified during the Great Recession made you part of a large group, but being one of the first to decide to go public now, you are still relatively alone,” Ron Bennett, School Services’ CEO, said in an email.
Joel Montero and John Gray are members of EdSource’s board of directors.
To get more reports like this one, click here to sign up for EdSource’s no-cost daily email on latest developments in education.
Comments (4)
Comments Policy
We welcome your comments. All comments are moderated for civility, relevance and other considerations. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.
LynnDee Alexander 6 years ago6 years ago
I can’t stand seeing districts complain when they low ball teachers pay, especially those coming in with 23 years plus, and relocated down to care for elderly family, but yet we are paying some of these big wigs and district level jobs $150,000 plus. The entire California ed system needs to be worked on or it won’t get better.
Jenny 6 years ago6 years ago
I agree with Jonathan’s comments. As a seasoned employee, poor management at all levels is a major contributor to poor financial health with school districts.
SD Parent 6 years ago6 years ago
Thank you for setting the record straight. San Diego Unified largely dug its own budget hole by not using additional funding that came in during the recovery to operate in the black but instead using it to expand programs and especially to give employees pay increases. In fact, the district just approved another 4% retroactive raise in November 2016, even though at the time it noted that it had had to make $24.6 … Read More
Thank you for setting the record straight. San Diego Unified largely dug its own budget hole by not using additional funding that came in during the recovery to operate in the black but instead using it to expand programs and especially to give employees pay increases. In fact, the district just approved another 4% retroactive raise in November 2016, even though at the time it noted that it had had to make $24.6 million in budget reductions in 2016-17 (in addition to the deficit-spending already included in that budget) and it was already projecting deficits of $85 million in 2017-18 and of $135.3 million in 2018-19.
Yet the San Diego Unified superintendent and school board are publicly blaming the state for its financial problems, saying its because of the increases in CalSTRS, CalPERS, and Prop. 98 adjustments–and that the state just doesn’t invest enough in education. (They do have a valid point on that last one.)
For those watching in Sacramento, this is what “Local Control” under LCFF looks like. Although the San Diego County Office of Education sent the superintendent and school board a letter advising against these most recent pay raises (as well as some of the district’s risky ideas for balancing its various budgets)–and expressed its concern over the district’s solvency if it proceeded with the pay raises–the board went ahead with the increased spending anyway (which added at least $28 million to the deficit). I suggest that county offices of education have more power to actually prevent poor fiscal decisions by school districts, or we’ll be seeing other districts falling into qualified and negative certification in the coming years.
Jonathan Raymond 6 years ago6 years ago
Without question there is more than meets the eye. From my experience, most school districts don't plan well and are often consumed with reacting to events and "fire fighting." Despite best intentions, they don't have the knowledge and skills to set a vision and focus on what they want to create and stick to it rather than focus on problem-solving. Add the turnover of superintendents, inability of districts to prepare and grow … Read More
Without question there is more than meets the eye. From my experience, most school districts don’t plan well and are often consumed with reacting to events and “fire fighting.” Despite best intentions, they don’t have the knowledge and skills to set a vision and focus on what they want to create and stick to it rather than focus on problem-solving. Add the turnover of superintendents, inability of districts to prepare and grow their own talent, inevitable economic downturn, rising costs, and school board politics, all add up to making these numbers fool’s gold.