Hello Everyone – This is an extensive update, prioritized by importance. Please plan to read it in its entirety if you can. Also hope to see you this evening at the Board Meeting. Zoom link here. 6pm at DO. 

1. County Superintendent Letters in Response to the 1st and 2nd Interim MHUSD Budget Reports of 2023-2024. And their warning with a deadline to address projected deficit in the next 3 years.
2. Board policy that allows community and parents participating in Budget Advisory Committee despite exclusion of community members in May 1st meeting  
3. Concerns with May 2024 Contracts – pending approval in today’s May 7th board meeting
4. Concerns with Feb-May 2022 Contracts 
5. An MHUSD satisfaction poll I put together

1 ) County Superintendent Letters in Response to the 1st and 2nd Interim MHUSD Budget Reports of 2023-2024. And their warning with a deadline to address projected deficit in the next 3 years.

On April 12, the County Superintendent responded to MHUSD submitted first and second interim budget reports of 2023-2024. This was part of what was discussed on March 19 (Minute 3:06:42 of board meeting) where Ms. Timboe underscores the significance of the board’s approval for the budget plan. While acknowledging that MHUSD has already submitted the report to the county office of education, she also emphasized the board’s authority to disapprove it. I made a post about the March 19 meeting and sent an email to the board.

This budget plan got reviewed by the county and the county concurs with Positive certification of MHUSD.

A bit background on what Positive vs Qualified status means:

In California, school districts are required to submit two interim financial reports during a fiscal year. These reports include a certification of whether the district is able to meet its financial obligations.

• Positive Certification: This is assigned when the district will meet its financial obligations for the current and two subsequent fiscal years. This means the district has sufficient funds for the current year and the next two years.
• Qualified Certification: This is assigned when the district may not meet its financial obligations for the current or two subsequent fiscal years. This indicates that the district may have financial difficulties in the current year or in the next two years.

These certifications help provide a snapshot of the district’s financial health and can guide decision-making processes.

On both of these letters, the county superintendent acknowledges the district projected deficit in the multiyear projected report with potential deficit for 2025-2026 ranging from (best case $28M to worst case $35M). It is important to note that Ms. Timboe mentioned in March 19 board meeting that this trajectory could lead us toward a state of complete collapse by 2025-2026. (minute 3:03:54 to 3:04:05). Neither MHUSD leadership nor the board effectively addressed this issue.

On April 12, the County superintendent requested the MHUSD board to come up with a detailed plan to address how MHUSD is going to bring on-going expenditures in line with on-going revenue. I understand the July deadline has since been extended to Dec. But the main concern is a change in MHUSD status to “Qualified” from “Positive” which would indicate the state can eventually take over MHUSD operations and strip it from its autonomy. This has never happened to MHUSD.

And some neighboring districts such as the Live Oak School District remedied State take over by proposing deep cuts to elementary level teachers and staff which led to the community outrage and eventually led to Live Oak School District superintendent Daisy Morales resignation mid March.

The reason knowing this matters:

• MHUSD board and leadership have always been aware of this process and its consequences. However they continued to align on-going expenditures with priorities that did not align with on-going revenue and academic growth of our district.
• Every board meeting since April 12th should have been focused on the County Superintendent request for this detailed plan to address projected deficit.
• May 1st budget advisory committee should have been an opportunity to incorporate community feedback and solutions (per BP3100) to construct this plan. This is my segue to my next topic:

2 ) Board policy that allows community and parents participating in Budget Advisory Committee despite exclusion of community members in May 1st meeting  

On May 1st a budget advisory committee convened to address the project deficit and the proposed multi year projected budget. Many of us parents and community members have been requesting to participate in this committee since early March. On April 30th, we were informed by Superintendent Dr Garcia that an inherited plan restricts the composition of the Budget Advisory Committee to exclude community members. Dr. Garcia also mentioned that she is considering revising this plan for the next year to allow community members to be part of the committee.

However it was brought to my attention that there is a board policy (from 2019) that allows community members/parents to be on the budget advisory committee, and community members have been included in the past when it was appropriate (budget cuts, closing Burnett school, etc). BP 3100

Additionally, I heard from Ms Timboe today that the process of responding back to the County will involve the formation of a Budget Advisory Committee, holding Community Forums and seeking Board input. I am not clear if this committee is different from the committee that met on May 1st. 

The reason I am sharing this is that it is important for us as the community to continue asking for transparency via urging the superintendent and MHUSD board to include parents/community members on this committee.

It’s worth noting that such committees are quite common in neighboring districts like the Cupertino Unified School District. And they were an integral part of MHUSD in the past.

Next steps you can take:

1. Inquire MHUSD board, Superintendent Garcia and Assistant Superintendent Timboe to include parents/community in the Budget Advisory Committee in preparation for the plan to the County prior to Dec deadline.
2. Prepare for June 6 hearing with questions such as why May 1st budget advisory committee didn’t include interested parents and community members. And what is our plan that minimizes student impact. How do we address contract spendings not aligned to our priorities (ex academic growth, small class sizes, appropriate facilities for TK/K etc).  

3 ) Concerns with May 2024 Contracts – pending approval in today’s May 7th board meeting

• Enid Lee: there is a request for ratification of Enid Lee contract with amount of $20,000 for anti-racist professional development. Important to note the source of this funding is Community Schools Grants. Based on California Department of Education the expenditures of these funds should align with delivering a whole child education this includes resources for K/TK and early childhood programs that need the most resources. The primary question that remains is the prioritization of this training, especially as the potential increase in classroom sizes poses a significant risk to younger students’ learning next year.
• School Wise Press: a contract of $18,000 paid from 1/10/2022 to 6/30/2022 for purpose of helping Improve Principals’ Assessment Savvy. According to the contract list from May 2024, this contract was extended by an additional $25,000 for further consulting services. In a financial context that is not characterized by deficit spending, this expenditure (thus fat total of $45,000) might be entirely justified. However, the prioritization, effectiveness and necessity of this spending come into question, especially considering that the funding source is LCFF Supplemental funds, which could be directly allocated for student use.

4 ) Concerns with Feb-May 2022 contracts

• Feb 2022 Contracts
  • Dr. Allan Alson, who currently owns and operates Alson Consulting Inc., according to his LinkedIn profile, had a contract worth $15,000 from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022. His profile also indicates that he served as the superintendent at Evanston Township High School in Illinois from August 1992 to June 2006, a tenure of nearly 14 years. During his time there, a drama teacher was accused of sexual abuse and subsequently banned from the school, although no charges were filed. The accusations originated in the late 1990s, but the victims only came forward almost two decades later. One student, who was present during Dr. Alson’s tenure, reported the incident to the administration, but felt her concerns were dismissed. Years later, she wrote on Patch.com, a reliable and centered source, “because I had only seen something, and because he hadn’t touched me, they didn’t really want to move forward. And we were told, basically, because he was such an active teacher, that there wasn’t really anything anyone could do.” It appears that Dr. Alson is the same individual who was compensated in 2021-2022 to provide coaching to Dr. Garcia at MHUSD.
    • Dr. Alson, during a podcast, revealed that his transition to Evanston was a calculated career move. This mirrors what Dr. Garcia conveyed in our one-on-one conversation about her strategic decision to apply to MHUSD following her brief tenure as superintendent in SMUSD. In the podcast, Dr. Alson articulated his enthusiasm for joining a multicultural community and advocating for equity and desegregation, principles that align with Dr. Garcia’s vision. However, it’s essential to highlight the demographic makeup of Morgan Hill and its specific issues. The population here (in MH) is composed of 43% White, 34% Hispanic, 16% Asian, and other races. On the other hand, Evanston’s population includes 58.6% White, 18.3% African American, 8.7% Asian, 9.2% Hispanic or Latino, and other races. Moreover, Evanston has a historical and systematic experience with segregation post Jim Crow era. The distinct histories and demographic compositions of Morgan Hill and Evanston could result in different root causes for district-level issues academically. While the insights gained from a seasoned superintendent at Evanston could be valuable, it’s worth questioning the priority of paying for such consultation.
  • PIQE: MHUSD paid $20,000 Parent Institute for Quality Education (PIQE) in order to correct the dollar amount for the services provided. It is unclear when the services were provided or how much the original contract amount was. PIQE specializes in empowering parents and educators to collaborate together to help transform a student’s educational environment. How much of their services overlap with FACE center is unclear. Additionally, the academic decline and worsening chronic absenteeism of the last 3 years serve as compelling evidence questioning the effectiveness of such programs and expenditures.
  • Hanover Research: This pertains to research and survey services used for LCAP surveys. The contract, as per the list from February 2022, amounts to $45,000 and extends into 2025. While the annual sum is not substantial, questions about the effectiveness of these surveys persist, especially considering that only a small percentage of the overall MHUSD population participates in them.
• March 2022 Contracts:
  • School Wise Press: a contract of $18,000 paid from 1/10/2022 to 6/30/2022 for purpose of helping Improve Principals’ Assessment Savvy. According to the contract list from May 2024, this contract was extended by an additional $25,000 for further consulting services. Please read more in section 2 under  May 2024 redflags.
• April 2022 Contracts:
  • City of Gilroy: The City of Gilroy received an annual contract payment of $45,000 for the South County Youth Task Force (SCYTF). The SCYTF, a volunteer-driven nonprofit, provides services to the community, including school districts. Its mission is to foster a safe and supportive community that ensures sustainable access to opportunities, resources, and services for South County youth and their families. However, it’s unclear why MHUSD paid an annual fee of $45,000 to the organization if these services and programs are volunteer-based and funded by grants. A detailed breakdown of this expenditure, along with its success criteria, would be beneficial. It would also be helpful to understand how these services overlap with or compare to the services provided by the FACE center.
  • Santa Clara County Office of Education: A contract worth $28,500 was established with SCCOED for professional development services centered on MTSS (Multi-Tiered System of Support), a county-supported framework that integrates academic, behavioral, and social-emotional learning. Considering that the California Department of Education has allocated $30 million to the California Scale-Up MTSS Statewide Initiative, one would anticipate this line item to reflect a $0 expense rather than the stated amount. Additional clarification regarding the scope and objectives of this expenditure is required.
  • Santa Cruz County Office of Education: An astounding annual contract worth $80,000 was established for new teacher mentors from July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2023. The primary objective of this program is to develop responsive, anti-racist educators. Considering the abundant resources available from both the Santa Cruz and Santa Clara County Office of Education, I am personally keen to understand more about the goals and quantifiable results of this expenditure.
  • Diane Burbank: An admin coach for one of our principles or admins. Although the contract amount is relatively small ($2,726) the question remains effectiveness and prioritization of such coaches for our principles and admins at school sites.

5 ) An MHUSD satisfaction poll I put together

In an attempt to better understand our community’s feedback and perspective. I put together this satisfaction poll. Please note that your response is completely voluntary and anonymous. And I am mainly interested in analyzing the responses from those who are either MH resident or their child attends MHUSD.  But everyone is welcomed to take this survey. Thank you and please feel free to share.