This week, a Crescenta Valley resident posted questions on the pickenscanyon.nextdoor.com website to question some of the terms of the GUSD territory transfer proposal that their board discussed at its October 21st meeting. Much of it seems like venting over what the writer seems to feel are terms unfair to GUSD tax payers, as in the following excerpt:
“There is also no explanation of why we, the Glendale Unified School District, who has no gain in the Sagebrush Transfer, should take any short term loss for enrollment loss. LCUSD will only compensate us for ½ of the lost income of each Sagebrush student for 12 years, instead of the full income of that loss for the same time period or a complete cycle of the students we are losing, 15 years. Why? GUSD doesn’t receive any benefit from this transfer, why must we bear the costs? This will result in a loss of per student revenue, a potential loss of over a million dollars a year.”
So 12 years of 50% of any loss of state-provided per-student average daily attendance (ADA) funding as proposed by GUSD is unfair?
You may recall that many of the Mountain Ave Elementary community and CV Town Council leadership were fully supportive of the open enrollment plan that was strongly touted by one former GUSD board member. Open enrollment was initially characterized as the “moral solution” to a transfer. Naysayers of the territory transfer continue to express their preference for open enrollment as the solution for Sagebrush parents wishing to enroll their children in LCUSD schools.
Follow the “logic” here. Under the open enrollment plan, which transfer opponents still strongly support, GUSD would not receive any ADA funding for Sagebrush students that opted to attend LCUSD schools…….none, not 100%, not 50%….none!
Examine this in the context of the “worst case scenario” the opponents like to use when making their doom-and-gloom predictions on the effects of a territory transfer, namely that all 300-350 Sagebrush students will opt into LCUSD. Couple that worst case scenario with the loss of ADA and what is the result? GUSD would receive no ADA funding at all. And yet 50% is somehow such a bad deal for GUSD?
Where is the logic in this? In its analysis of the financial impacts to GUSD, School Services of California Inc. indicated that approximately 80% of ADA funding goes towards actually educating a student. It would seem that 20% would be a fairer percentage that GUSD should receive. Glendale disputed SSC’s figure because it benefits them to do so while SSC is recognized by the CA State Board of Education as an authoritative source for analyzing financial impacts on schools.
What is being circulated on the Nextdoor social media website, encouraging form letters to be sent to GUSD board members, is the same tactic of the opponents using misinformation, changing messages, and personal attacks on GUSD board members to decry any proposal for a territory transfer. It’s plainly disingenuous, so don’t be swayed by their misguided “logic.”
Chair, UniteLCF! – One City – One School District