Over the last several years, I have noticed a growing estrangement between the voting constituency and the district. Never has the problem been more apparent than it is right now with mounting frustration by people who feel the school board does not listen to their concerns, respond to their written requests, or act on their stated/written priorities.

In fact, the school board is elected by general vote to reflect the values, beliefs and priorities of the constituency. The board does not represent the district, but instead represents the people who vote them (us) into office and bears fiduciary other duties to the district. This important distinction is sometimes lost in because the board relies on employees to carry out operational duties and is responsible only for policy and the supervision of a single employee, the superintendent. However, it is important to note that each trustee elected does not represent the school, the district, or any or all of our employees. Each trustee represents the voting constituency.

In this blog post, I introduce a possible solution to some of Las Lomitas' challenges. We need to ensure the public has agency and voice in board decisions. I have explored a few possible avenues for this including board and superintendent committees, however one of them is already available - and in fact, is a statutory obligation. The California Ed. Code requires that each public school in California has a Site Council, meaning Las Lomitas and La Entrada must each have their own Site Council. Importantly, the Site Council is, and must be, made up of equal parts parents and school staff.

School Site Council

A quick read through the Las Lomitas District website, indicates that Las Lomitas and La Entrada already have Site Councils and that meetings are open to the public with dates for meetings published in our weekly newsletters (which in our case are published by the PTAs). But I have not heard anything about the Site Councils in years.* And the district's posts for Las Lomitas Site Council and La Entrada Site Council appear to be outdated. Could compliance with the California mandate for Site Council help Las Lomitas with our crisis of estrangement between constituents and the board/district/staff? Absolutely. The Site Council appears to be the group responsible for deliverables to the board of trustees. Moreover, it is an opportunity for "voice."

Here is a quick, AI generated, list of Site Council responsibilities:

1. Analyzing student data and school information to identify student needs and areas for improvement
2. Creating and revising the School Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA), which outlines activities and funding to improve the school and student achievement
3. Monitoring the SPSA to ensure actions have occurred and funding has been spent
4. Evaluating the activities at the end of the school year
5. Measuring the effectiveness of improvement strategies
6. Seeking input from school advisory committees
7. Reaffirming or revising school goals
8. Revising improvement strategies and expenditures

One of the biggest assets of LLESD is our pool of engaged, talented and unusually well-educated parents. The Site Council is an opportunity to harness this resource and serves also to balance the work of the five trustees as the only body representing the constituents. Personally, I would welcome deliverables sent from Site Council to our board, and I would also love to be able to send questions to the committee for review as well. Right now, it appears that a lot of Site Council work is being done by staff, but it does not need to be that way (nor should it). No one asked, but if they did, I would be relieved to send my first concern to each Site Council. My first question would be the same one which served as the platform for my campaign in 2022: do we have appropriate rigor at each grade level to challenge every student?

As always, feel free to reach out if you have any questions.

-Paige

*I asked both the board president and the superintendent about whether the Site Councils are still meeting about a week ago. They did not respond (of course they are busy with other things right now).

Coming out of Crisis

Funding for Learning

We need to rethink the School District Budget by Prioritizing Students, Teachers, and Student-Facing Positions. It is clear that the Las Lomitas Elementary School District is long overdue for a complete budget overhaul. A new budget is essential to ensure competitive teacher salaries and safeguard student-facing positions, which are vital for student success and educational quality. The board of trustees MUST reflect the values, beliefs, and priorities of our constituents. I believe those values are to create an excellent academic and educational environment for every student, to support teachers, to promote community engagement, and to be fiscally responsible to the taxpayers.

Prioritizing student-facing positions

Academic success for every student is LLESD's primary goal. Small class sizes are critical and direct interaction with students allows LLESD staff to tailor instructional strategies to meet diverse learning needs, fostering an environment where every student can reach their academic potential. Teachers, the most obvious LLESD student facing position, must be prioritized and supported. But we must also prioritize other student facing staff such as learning specialists, site officials, bus drivers and others who work directly with students. Teachers and student-facing staff are the front line for each student to reach their full potential, prevent bullying and isolation, and allow for community engagement. We have already lost a librarian at each school, the 4 / 5 Technology teacher, the 8th grade history teacher and full-time art and music teachers at each site. We need to bring these back. We cannot afford any other reductions in these critical student-facing positions.

Competitive teacher compensation includes more than just dollars

The district is moving to bring additional compensation and benefits to teachers; however, more must be done. Our teachers are unhappy, and students are losing opportunities. Teachers report feeling unheard, underappreciated, and demoralized. They have historically loved being in LLESD, and have always shown up for our students, whether it was going back to in-person learning during the pandemic or teaching through floods, we were a community, and they always showed up. We need to make sure they always feel like valued members of our Las Lomitas community. Sadly, many, if not most, teachers have voted "no confidence" in the superintendent. I did not have anything to do with the "no confidence" vote. However, I voted against extending the contract of the superintendent in June 2023 and publicly stated my reasoning (which is similar to many of the reasons in the petition). The board cannot ignore a petition signed by almost 1000 people including teachers, parents, and community members. Whether or not we agree, we need to recognize and respect these voices. It is the board's job to supervise the superintendent.

Identifying budget constraints

We must analyze how funds are currently distributed across various categories (administration, policy, recruitment of additional revenue, facilities, and extracurricular). For two years, I have questioned the distribution, and now I am ready to revisit the complete picture. Most long-term parents (like myself) are aware that "Apple for the Classroom" was eliminated a couple of years ago. This program allowed teachers to reach out directly to fund field-trips, supplies, teacher passion projects and more. The centralization of student programming at the district office has meant many programs have disappeared or their funding is constrained by district budget priorities. "Apple for the Classroom" increased community engagement and funding because families loved being directly involved in their student's learning. Unfortunately, time has shown that when the district eliminated this program, we dis-empowered our community, reduced a funding source and unintentionally hurt our students and teachers.

Eliminate policy of district centralized funding

This is something people do not understand. People noticed that "Apple for the Classroom" was eliminated, but they do not know the extent to which the district took over all expenses that used to have parent contribution. A couple of years ago, the district assumed complete "centralization" of every possible expense. With this policy, no parent ever pays for anything. It sounds great. But some of these programs (like Outdoor Ed) are very expensive - and not everyone wants to go. Summer school is another big one. It used to be available for anyone who wanted it, but there was a fee (and anyone who wanted to go but could not afford it was given a scholarship). Now summer school is free, but only for those who are invited. Buses are also provided for free for students coming from outside the district. I believe the expense was about $500K last summer (which may not include the buses).

It is not fair to taxpayers to take on these large expenses for individual students. In addition, centralizing all these programs de-incentivizes parent giving and a sense of purpose/ownership among the parents. The impact of centralization of all district programming on the budget has never been explored. But I think it is enormous. At the site level, the district expenses are smaller - all field trips require district approval and funding, free yearbooks are distributed to every student, school dances are free. In the past, parents were asked to pay for things, but no child was left behind or identified if they needed help. While I understand the reasoning behind the centralization of all programming policy (it came about to ensure equity), I believe it has troublesome outcomes: 1) parents no longer feel engaged or invested in student programming/supplies; and 2) it has crippled the ability for teachers and the school to raise money for passion projects; and 3) it is very expensive for the district. What really bothers me is that I believe this should have been a policy decision (and therefore under the purview of the board). We never voted on it, and it was never discussed in public forum. This was a unilateral decision made on the part of the superintendent. We need to revisit this policy.

Identify non-essential expenditures

The district spends money, without budget, on a number of items. Among these items are programs which do not have direct impact on student educational outcomes. Some expenses are predictable. Others need to be planned, but it appears that most of them have no budget at all and come out of the general unrestricted LCAP. For example, at the beginning of this school year, I sat down for an informal chat with a group of teachers, who were unhappy that for the months of September, October and November 2024, the district scheduled four trainings (teachers were also unhappy that many administrators would attend the training sessions). Two of the trainings were out-of-state and another was at an expensive local resort. They also complained about a training that was held in Honolulu in December last year. I immediately followed up with the administration asking two questions: 1) how will the training staffing impact the district?; and 2) how much will these trainings cost? It took several days for them to get back to me. I found the decision to go, especially now, to be problematic, but not knowing how much it would cost was irresponsible. I also questioned (and have voted against) professional development that does not have measurable educational impact.

Reduce Administration

My family has been in the district since 2004. Since that time, I have seen many changes. Some are great, and others need to be revisited. The most notable change was a few years ago when Shannon Potts left the La Entrada site and moved into the newly created role of Assistant Superintendent (it was formerly a director-level of curriculum role). There was public and teacher outcry over the creation of a new executive level position in such a small district. When Ms. Potts retired last year, she was replaced by another assistant superintendent, and we did not consider whether we should eliminate the position. Another example of change is that here were two principals (one principal and one assistant principal) at La Entrada when we started. Now there are three (one principal and two assistant principals). When one assistant principal retired, another was hired to replace her. We need to examine whether all these positions are needed. Some of the administrative work is state mandated, other work is not. We need to examine what each of our administrators is doing and whether we need them. It is possible that positions need to be merged, and others eliminated (and this is common in small districts).

Need for transparency

In my opinion, the elimination of Apple for the Classroom combined with forced centralization of every student expense was a policy decision and should have been decided by the board. We did not vote on the policy. We must now determine whether it serves its intended purpose and, more importantly, whether policy changes have a negative impact on educational opportunities for our students. For example, after nine years, this will be the first year our Latin students will not attend the State Convention because the dedicated Latin teacher was told the district cannot afford the trip. The trip has traditionally been funded by the families of students who wish to go (with district help for anyone who needed financial support). Now, the Latin teacher was told she cannot ask parents for money. (The La Entrada Latin program is unique among public schools, and it has consistently been award winning at the state level.)

Call to action

It is clear that LLESD needs to overhaul its budget. Teachers are unhappy, and students are losing opportunities. No one is winning in this situation. Our board must direct administration to prioritize budget reforms that focus on investing in teachers and safeguarding student-facing roles, ultimately leading to a more effective and equitable educational system.

We have a lot of hard work ahead of us, but I am optimistic. I believe in this special place, we call Las Lomitas. Two of my kids graduated from Las Lomitas and are now thriving at Menlo-Atherton and USC. One is still at Las Lomitas. We can restore what we have lost, because we can come together as a community to implement change.