Hello Everyone – hope this finds you well. This is going to be a lengthy update mainly on item 1.

In this update I aim to do the following:

1. A deeper dive into May 28 final LCAP Advisory Committee meeting over Zoom hosted by Assistant Superintendent Dr Jimenez. Background of LCFF and my take on LCAP Advisory Meetings – Link to the presentation
2. Dr Jimenez response to some of my questions at the April 24th LCAP Advisory Committee meeting
3. Suggestion to Improve LCAP Surveying (item 3 in this email to the board) – Please feel free to use the content in your communications with the district
4. A closer look at the recent Adult School Hanover survey that was recently sent out. And redflag regarding validity of all Hanover survey results
5. Important Dates Here. Please Participate If You Can! 

Next update would be focused on the following. Stay tuned!

1. What to expect for June 4th Meeting
2. LCAP 2024-2025 draft will be available on May 30th - I will share a preliminary feedback 
3. How to prepare for June 4th Meeting

1 ) A deeper dive into 5/28 final LCAP Advisory Committee Zoom meeting hosted by Assistant Superintendent Dr Jimenez. Background of LCFF and my take on LCAP Advisory Meetings – Link to the presentation

Several of us participated in the LCAP Advisory Committee Zoom meeting this evening, facilitated by Assistant Superintendent Dr. Jimenez. This meeting marked the conclusion of a monthly advisory series designed to provide guidance on, review, and offer feedback for the LCAP survey results and data. From 2024-2025 onwards, this Advisory Committee will transition from a monthly to a quarterly meeting schedule.

More background on LCAP in this update. 

More background on LCFF below: 

In 2013, the California Legislature adopted the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), a landmark piece of legislation championed by then-Governor Jerry Brown. The LCFF significantly overhauled how California finances TK-12 schools.

During my college years, I had the chance to participate in an optional seminar. This seminar was centered around the initial implementation of the newly proposed LCFF formula.

Pre-LCFF the funding system was based on complex historical formulas and included various funding streams or categories such as revenue limits and general-purpose block grants. It had been in existence for roughly 40 years.

The LCFF replaced the old system. It simplified funding by providing a per-student base grant that varies by grade span (e.g., K-3, 4-6, 7-8, 9-12). The new formula treats districts more uniformly. It also allocates dedicated funding to student populations with greater needs, such as English learners, students eligible for free or reduced-price meals, and foster youth.

In simple mathematical terms, the total funding for a district can be expressed as:

Total Funding = Base Grant + (Supplemental Grant per Student × Number of Eligible Students)

While the Supplemental Grant targets specific student groups:

• English learners (ELs)
• Low-income students (eligible for free or reduced-price meals)
• Foster youth

And for Base Grant all students receive this base funding.

The LCAP represents MHUSD’s strategic plan, developed in response to the funding received from the LCFF. It doesn’t encompass all overhead costs and compensations. Only certain specific compensations, such as the salary of the FACE center director, are allocated within the LCAP. I have a more depth update on this here (toward the end).

MHUSD projects to receive the following from LCFF per student (according to May 28 presentation):

Base Grants

• TK-3 ($10,025)
• 4-6 ($10,177)
• 7-8 ($10,478)
• 9-12 ($12,144)

Grade Span Adjustments (goes with the Base grant only for certain grades)

• TK-3 (+$1,043)
• 9-12 (+$ 316)

Supplemental Grant per Student per Grade:

• TK-3 ($991)
• 4-6 ($911)
• 7-8 ($938)
• 9-12 ($1,116)

All added together, estimated 2024-2025 revenue for the district based on LCFF is the following (total estimate student population = 7644):

• TK-3 = $26,420,126 (roughly 2,191 student population)
• 4-6 = $17,744,413 (roughly 1744 student population)
• 7-8 = $12,303,810 (roughly 1078 student population)
• 9-12 = $35,722,606 (roughly 2631 student population)

Total base grant estimate of $92,190,955 in 2024-2025.

However, it’s crucial to highlight an inconsistency I noted after the May 28th meeting (presentation here) regarding the projected budget and expenditures presented by Assistant Superintendent Timboe. The projected LCFF revenue was once stated to be $92,190,955 and another time, it was mentioned to be $99,989,328. Furthermore, the 2024-2025 projected total revenue of $127,532,066 minus the projected total expenditure of $144,418,697 results in a deficit of ($16,886,631) in 2024-2025. This is significantly larger (over three times) than the previously announced deficit of $5.5M for 2024-2025 (and therefore planned cuts). Larger deficit leads to more cuts. I have raised these inconsistencies and questions in an email to Ms Timboe. Please feel free to use this content in your communications with the district to seek further clarity on the budget as well. As of now, I have not received a response.

In summary, my key observations from the final LCAP Advisory meeting are as follows:

1. Flaws with the survey: The inherent flaws in the Hanover surveys raise questions about the validity of the results.
   • The survey can be taken multiple times on different devices or in “incognito browser” mode. This raises questions about the validity of their participant count and data results. (more on this here)
2. Overreliance on the survey results: The results of the Hanover surveys significantly shape the actions in the LCAP, which subsequently lead to contracts and expenditures to support these actions.
   • This is the case about FACE center director. More on this here.
3. Proposed alternative: The structure of the survey questions appears to be designed to align with the district’s specific agenda.
   • In this instance, Dr. Garcia has a pronounced admiration for an Australian researcher named John Hattie. The LCAP survey mirrors Hattie’s focus on perception as a more influential factor for student learning. This approach contrasts with providing any quantitative outcomes, such as improvements in student test scores, reading interventions, etc. 
   • Alternative better format could be: Over [X] number of years, a total of [Y] dollars have been allocated towards achieving LCAP goal [A], metric [B] through Action [C]. This allocation has resulted in an additional [Z] number of resources at our school sites and has improved academic/safety/wellness (any relevant performance indicators) by [X%]. In the upcoming three-year LCAP plan, [Y] amount of dollars (or percentage) are proposed to be cut/added to this program, which would impact on-site resources in [A] manner (describe the impact qualitatively or quantitatively). Do you support this proposed allocation to this LCAP goal/metric: Yes or no?