Dear Community – In this update I am going to focus on the following:

1. Recap of May 31st Meeting – Superintendent Performance Review
2. What to expect on June 4th Meeting (Agenda here)
3. Summary Feedback on LCAP 2024-2025 & Proposed Budget (2024-2025 to 2026-2027)
4. Call to Action
   • MHUSD Feedback Survey (feel free to use the feedback I provide in section 3 in your response)
   • Attend June 4th Meeting. 6pm. Zoom link. In-Person preferred. Speaker form here.

1 ) Recap of May 31st – Superintendent Performance Review

On Friday, May 31st, the Morgan Hill Unified School District (MHUSD) board convened at the FACE center—a departure from the usual board room at the district office—to evaluate Dr. Garcia’s performance. However, this meeting intentionally was not accessible via Zoom; only in-person comments were allowed at 10 a.m. Unfortunately, the meeting was not adequately publicized in advance, leaving many working parents and even teachers unable to participate and express their concerns about Dr. Garcia’s performance. Despite this challenge, those who were able to attend last minute rallied together to voice their concerns regarding Dr. Garcia’s incompetence, our students’ academic decline, and the financial trajectory of our district. Notably, the public has not yet been informed of the criteria by which the superintendent will be evaluated next year. According to BP2140, the board is supposed to provide clear criteria for evaluating the superintendent.

The closed-door session lasted nearly five hours and resulted in a ‘Satisfactory’ evaluation of Dr. Garcia with four in favor votes and three opposition votes. While I am incredibly disappointed in the decision, I want to express my admiration for the three trustees who stood with us and voted no. Trustees Nancy Altman, Terri Eves-Knudsen, and Pamela Gardiner are not manipulated by the superintendent’s slippery and self-congratulatory narrative, while four other trustees continue to ignore reality, desperately clinging to the delusion. And don’t forget that November 2024 is election time for three board seats, all of which were in favor of Dr. Garcia’s satisfactory performance.

This is a short audio video featuring individuals who were able to attend the May 31st meeting and express their concerns with Dr Garcia.

On the afternoon of June 14th, a smaller group consisting of Trustees Altman, Escoto, and Montes will meet to review the budget process. However, the agenda or scope for this meeting remains unclear. Additionally, there is still no clear process for community participation in the budget advisory committee. I anticipate that a clear plan and timeline for the response to the County will be published after this meeting.

Before we move on to the next topic, I’d like to draw your attention to an update that was shared with me regarding our neighboring district’s financial situation. The story eerily mirrors our own—overspending, denial of reality, and disagreement with the County’s financial assessment. However, the board has taken a courageous step: the superintendent is leaving, albeit leaving their district in financial turmoil.

Another article sheds light on an interesting aspect: even the Latino community felt taken advantage of and ‘used’ by the superintendent’s deceitful agenda.

2 ) What to expect on June 4th Meeting

The MHUSD Board is holding a regular board meeting in addition to the following public hearings on Tuesday June 4th at the DO office at 6pm. Speaker form here. The agenda has a lot to unpack. My focus are on the following public hearings:

• LCAP report and plan for 2024-2025
• 2024-2025 Adopted Budget
• Multiyear projections through 2026-2027 – showing reduced reserves to 5.82% from 20%

Worthy to note, there are a few contracts pending approval by the board that day. One of them pertains to the Aeries system renewal, which amounts to $131,009.30 annually in the 2024-2025 General Fund.

Another noteworthy agenda item is the number of additional teachers and classified staff resigning. This raises questions about the culture that Dr. Garcia is promoting within the district.

3 ) Summary Feedback on LCAP 2024-2025 & Proposed Budget (2024-2025 to 2026-2027)

LCAP: The 2023 performance, based on a review of the California School Dashboard, is nothing short of disastrous in every metric. Two main ones are below:

• English Language Arts & Mathematics declined by 8.2 points in 2023-2024 from 2022-2023 (our overall rank dropped 20 points below the State’s standard)
• Chronic absenteeism dropped by 2% to 26.5% in 2023-2024 from 28% in 2022-2023. For comparison, chronic absenteeism stood at 12.1% in the 2019-2020 academic year.

My focus here is on the actions that turn into expenditures from any LCFF fund source. It’s worth noting that the total expenditures tied to LCAP are approximately 12% of the total expenditures (roughly $144 million in total expenditure).

On Page 9 of the LCAP document, MHUSD outlines proposed contributing factors to chronic absenteeism based on a root cause analysis conducted by the district. On April 24th LCAP Advisory Committee, another parent and I requested to review the district’s root cause analysis methodology and findings. However, the district indicated that the document is currently internal only. This was the question I sent to Dr Jimenez and her response in brackets. I am planning to send her the response in parenthesis as a follow up:

• Me: Regarding chronic absenteeism district wide, as per Dr. Jimenez’s remarks, the root cause analysis for MHUSD’s chronic absenteeism district wide is currently an internal document only. Could we make this analysis publicly available to the community, especially if it leads to expenditures like Saturday school consultants, amounting to nearly $90k?  
  • Dr Jimenez: [Students are chronically absent for a variety of reasons.  We cannot share internal reports as they contain confidential student information.]
  • Me: (I’m not requesting the release of specific names from the data. Instead, I’m interested in understanding the root cause analysis methodology used to determine the corrective actions specified in the 2024-2025 LCAP Draft (page 9). These actions include addressing student behaviors leading to suspension, providing additional staff training on the truancy process, addressing student physical and mental health needs, improving student relationships with academics and peers, strengthening family engagement, and assessing the impact of student transportation to school.)

For transparency, it’s essential for the community to understand the root cause analysis approach without revealing confidential information.

This understanding will help assess proposed actions, including professional development/training to adjust staff mindset regarding students with disabilities, additional training on inclusive practices, and truancy process improvements (with a restorative justice focus).

Let’s dive into the actions that caught my attention:

• Action 3.0.b - School Culture and Climate Supports and Training (PD for restorative justice, suicide prevention training, crisis intervention, mental health support, Cultural Proficiency, BIS/Teaching Pyramid, School Safety, etc.) (LCFF Supplemental). $64,000.00. 
  • On paper, this proposal may seem promising. However, given our current financial climate, it’s essential to question whether this expenditure is truly necessary. Particularly concerning is the lack of transparency regarding the root cause analysis methodology for chronic absenteeism, which prevents the public from assessing its conclusions.
• Action 3.0.c – Justification for South County Youth Task Force, Living Above the Influence, New Hope for Youth, Differentiated Response, etc.) (LCFF Supplemental). $38,000.00.
  • Main concern is efficacy of these motivational speakers. Additionally, the concerns over “Living Above the Influence” particularly. I made an update about this before.
• Action 3.0.j – CARE Program. $787,602.37.
  • Not fully familiar with the scope of CARE or its efficacy, but it’s important to highlight that this funding comes exclusively from LCFF supplemental funds. This category represents the largest portion of expenditure.
• Action 3.0.k. Appears to be partially the justification for Saturday School for nearly $90 contract with 3rd party. $92,000.00. The efficacy of this program and integrity of the 3rd party is questioned in the previous board meetings.
• Action 3.0.l – Although grant funded program and grand funding can be beneficial, it often comes with strings attached and may require program expansion. It’s crucial to recognize that sustaining all programs solely on grants is not feasible. Additionally, these grants frequently come with specific conditions, which can lead to overhead increases and the need to hire additional staff.
• Action 1.3.l - CTE Program budget: $2,418,856.34 is allocated to this action from CTEIG, Perkins, AIG and LCFF Base funding sources.
  • It’s crucial to gain a deeper understanding of the breakdown and the reason for impact on LCFF base funding. CTE (Career Technical Education) is intended to serve as a revenue source for the district through collaboration with Gavilan College.
• Action 1.5.a - Inclusion PD and Coaching - $82,700.00. It’s a very specific amount. What is it intended to be spent on?
• Action 2.0.a - Bilingual Community Liaisons at each school site within MHUSD. $389,556.31. Instead, let’s invest in teachers or classroom support. This approach would significantly contribute to boosting family engagement.
• Action 2.0.d - Family and Community Engagement Center Lead (new hire). $85,287.55. Our teachers are facing layoffs, and the impact on our students is dire. Given the nearly $17 million deficit, it’s crucial that we avoid hiring new personnel for the FACE program.
• Action 2.0.f - Parent/Guardian Education. $44,500.00. Source is LCFF Supplemental. Could we allocate these funds directly toward students? Perhaps we should explore utilizing in-house resources for parents’ workshops.
• Action 2.0.g – Additional resources for FACE to hold their events: extra hours for staff, professional. My question again is the efficacy of centralizing family engagement where family engagement happens most effectively at every school site.
• Action 3.0.a – District surveys. LCFF supplement. $76,425.00. I wrote another post regarding redflags with Hanover research. And many parents have raised concerns about Satchel survey system.
• Action 3.1.c - Mental Health Infrastructure and Enhancement. A new wellness center (Central), infrastructure (Central, Murphy, Sobrato, Live Oak), and enhancements (Murphy, Live Oak, Sobrato). $1,238,782.00 from 2 year - SBWC Wellness Grant. I have no objection to wellness spending per se, especially given that it’s grant money. However, any expansion has an operational expenditure (OpEx) impact, which translates into additional overhead and ultimately becomes unsustainable ongoing expenditure.
• Action 3.1.d - Elementary Wellness Counselors. $404,935.00. Wellness counseling staffing support to increase elementary students' ability to access instruction leading to college and career readiness.
  • My concern lies in the fact that improved college and career readiness hinges upon a robust foundation during elementary years. This foundation should emphasize fundamental skills such as reading, writing, mathematics, and critical thinking. Achieving this requires smaller class sizes and sufficient support for both classrooms and teachers.

In summary:

1. Professional development is a common action on this LCAP report. While PD is crucial for the development of new teachers, it also serves as the justification for many unnecessary contracts that come before the board for approval. Unfortunately, a significant number of these PD contracts end up involving guest speakers or redundant workshops for staff and tenured teachers without positively impacting student outcomes. Chronic absenteeism reduction, test score improvements, and financial stability cannot be achieved solely through additional professional development and training for staff and teachers.
2. Lack of transparency on root cause analysis of chronic absenteeism. More professional development wouldn’t help the students who don’t have transportation to school, go on vacation or are simply ill!
3. Heavy focus on expanding FACE center while a $2M investment (Action 3.0.n) aims to create community schools Given this significant investment in community schools, it raises the question: Why do we continue to allocate funds to the FACE which serves a similar purpose?

Budget: While I haven’t had sufficient time to review all the documents published on Friday, I’ve made my best attempt to focus on what matters most regarding the 2024-2025 budget and the state of financial health for the next three years and beyond.

In summary:

• The projected deficit for Morgan Hill Unified School District’s General Fund in the 2024-25 budget is $17,104,391.
• Decrease in Total Revenues: The total revenues are projected to decrease by 2.9%, from $131,350,639 in the 2023-24 estimated actuals to $127,532,065 in the 2024-25 budget. It is important to note that the district does not at this time indicate any projected decline in enrollment which is how it is primarily funded.
• Increase in Total Expenditures: There is a slight increase of 1.0% in total expenditures, from $143,157,370 in the 2023-24 estimated actuals to $144,636,457 in the 2024-25 budget despite all proposed budget cuts.
  • We should maintain or reduce expenditures. Gaining a better understanding of the 1% increase can help identify more effective areas for reduction.
• District reserve balances for the fiscal years 2024-25, 2025-26, and 2026-27, with amounts of $18.8M, $13.6M , and $8.2M respectively. The total available reserves are expected to be 20.00% for 2024-25, decreasing to 5.82% by 2026-27. The minimum 3% required by law is about $4.3M which is quickly approaching by 2027-2028.
  • One of the primary concerns highlighted in the county letters is the risk of fiscal insolvency and potential state takeover by 2026-2027 or 2027-2028. I’m curious to know how the board intends to address this realistic possibility by 2027-2028.

The proposed budget is inherently an imbalanced budget. A result of the last three years financial mismanagement. And the district continues to face an ongoing structural deficit well into 2026-2027.

In terms of budget cuts from this report, I can only point to the following:

• Books and Supplies: The budget for Books and Supplies is reduced from $6,185,684 to $5,032,908, which is an 18.6% reduction ($1,152,776 reduction).
• Services and Other Operating Expenditures: A 5.9% cut in “other operating expenditures” which has been referred to as the “catch-all” category. The actual amounts changed from $18,568,295 in 2023-24 to $17,475,553 in 2024-25 ($1,092,742 reduction which is less than the total Books/material category reduction). This is where most of travel, leadership workshop and guest speaker contract expenses along with utilities etc are tracked.
  • The “Services and Other Operating Expenditures” category comprises approximately 12.08% of the total budget. The breakdown of this category is crucial in gaining transparency.

Even with both these categories reduction we are still facing $14,858,873 deficit. And appears the district remedy plan is to tap into its reserves.

I believe the labor negotiations are on-going and therefore no mention of specific reductions in the classified employment category in this report.