Change my location 
|
|
Article History There are updates to this article.
SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - The San Francisco Unified School District would have more spending options with money gained from selling its surplus property under state legislation that is moving through Sacramento.
Under current law, school districts must use all sales revenue from such property sales for building and other capital improvements, such as structural maintenance projects.
The proposed bill, authored by Assemblymember Fiona Ma, whose district includes San Francisco, would allow the SFUSD to fund one-time purchases, such as new computers.
Of the district’s 177 properties, 20 percent are deemed surplus spaces because they’re no longer required for instruction, according to SFUSD documents. Although district officials have not quantified a value for those properties, one building at 700 Font Blvd. — the former site of the district’s School of the Arts — was auctioned off for $20 million in November.
Because Ma’s bill specifically details a six-year period stretching from July 2006 to June 2012, the district could use proceeds from the Font Boulevard sale under the new proposed capacities.
The district is interested in using some of the money from the property sales to fund technological enhancements, such as installing wireless Internet setups and purchasing more computers, district spokeswoman Gentle Blythe said.
The bill would not act as a panacea for the district’s woeful budget outlook, Blythe said.
The district is looking at a $40 million projected shortfall for the upcoming fiscal year due to education spending cuts proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Mayor Gavin Newsom has pledged to spend as much $31 million from The City’s rainy-day fund to help make up the district’s deficit, but the actual dedicated amount won’t be determined until mid-May.
“This bill is not a stop-gap fix,” Blythe said. “We can’t go out and use this money to pay teachers’ salaries.”
Blythe said the state regulates spending from property sales because it doesn’t want school districts dependent on revenue that could fluctuate from year to year.
SFUSD board President Mark Sanchez said it’s always in the district’s best interest to hold on to all its assets, but if faced with a daunting budget shortfall again, selling off properties may be the only option.
Approved unanimously by the Assembly Education Committee, AB 1934 will now move on to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. “I think it’s unfortunate that we’re always fighting for Prop. 98 funding,” Ma said, referring to a 1998 measure that requires the state to maintain minimum funding levels for education. “It would be nice if it wasn’t on the chopping block every year.”
 Not ranked |
 EMAIL ME THIS STORY |
|
People who read this also read:
|
ARTICLE HISTORY 
Comments from Examiner Readers
2:20 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 25, 2008 re: "Lottery for school assignment comes under fire"
Report as inappropriate
1:11 PM MST on Sat., Jun. 28, 2008
re: "Funds sinking alongside enrollment"
Report as inappropriate
12:30 PM MST on Thu., Jun. 26, 2008
re: "Lottery for school assignment comes under fire"
Report as inappropriate
12:30 PM MST on Thu., Jun. 26, 2008
re: "Lottery for school assignment comes under fire"
Report as inappropriate
7:37 AM MST on Thu., Jun. 26, 2008
re: "Lottery for school assignment comes under fire"
Report as inappropriate
11:17 AM MST on Tue., May. 20, 2008
re: "Lowell High named among nation’s best"
Report as inappropriate
miyoko said:
I just recieved a letter from SFUSD that they made an error and need to re assign my child to different school. This is only one month left before school starts. So outrageous. We already got involved with the school that we thought our daughe was going to. We met principle, teachers and all the parents and kids that involves in school. We paid non refundable tuition for afterschool program that the bus goes from there. We are sooo upset about SFUSD unproffesionalizm and poor organization skill. It is a big change for kids to attend a new school. We visited the school many times and organized play dates with new comers. We made a difficult decision picking a right afterschool program that bus goes to. Finally we are feeling comfortable for our child to start a new life at this new school. I hope that we can raise our voice.
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I think the writer may have missed a more interesting angle. According to the public data from the California Department of Education, San Francisco’s public high schools continue to be an entry point to the public school system rather than an exit point. To illustrate this point, here is the SFUSD’s enrollment data for the past several years, taken from the CDE website (www.cde.ca.gov): 2007-2008: 5,529 9th graders 2006-07: 6,030 9th graders and 3,982 8th graders 2005-06: 6,050 9th and 4,273 8th 2004-05: 5,438 9th and 4,196 8th Comparing any given year’s 8th grade SFUSD enrollment to the following year’s 9th grade SFUSD enrollment, it becomes clear than several hundred students ENTER the public school system for high school, presumably from private or parochial middle schools. The fact that, for each of the last three years, over 1,500 students ENTERED the SFUSD for 9th grade is a very significant and positive message about the quality of the public high schools
0 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Neighborhood Schools = Segregation said:
Odd that a city that prides itself on progressivism and projects itself as a paragon of diversity is so severely Balkanized. Calls emanating from some communities demanding "neighborhood schools" are thinly-veiled appeals for ethnic and class segregation. I attended hearings at the SFUSD a few years back and was shocked when some Chinese-American parents (frequently thru interpreters) insisted that they did not want their kids, described as model scholars who respected their parents and teachers and were hungry to learn, to study alongside black and Latino/Chicano children, characterized as brutal thugs with a profound aversion to discipline and education. I was shocked by their ignorance and racism, but perhaps not terribly surprised. Such scenarios once more expose San Francisco as a provincial little town rife with racialized tensions, despite its veneer of sophistication, urbanism and tolerance.
4 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Neighborhood Schools = Segregation said:
Odd that a city that prides itself on progressivism and projects itself as a paragon of diversity is so severely Balkanized. Calls emanating from some communities demanding "neighborhood schools" are thinly-veiled appeals for ethnic and class segregation. I attended hearings at the SFUSD a few years back and was shocked when some Chinese-American parents (frequently thru interpreters) insisted that they did not want their kids, described as model scholars who respected their parents and teachers and were hungry to learn, to study alongside black and Latino/Chicano children, characterized as brutal thugs with a profound aversion to discipline and education. I was shocked by their ignorance and racism, but perhaps not terribly surprised. Such scenarios once more expose San Francisco as a provincial little town rife with racialized tensions, despite its veneer of sophistication, urbanism and tolerance.
4 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
The lottery system is not the answer. Maybe instead of busing children in order to integrate schools, we could reapply the $7 million saved to improve the low performing schools. ($5 million busing + $2 million staffing). Both my children were in the 37% that did not get into their first choice for school. That makes me less inclined to contribute any money to their school's requests for donations of $250 - $500/year.
3 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Lowell has always been the best high school the City has to offer. It's too bad the Stupid Board of Education looks at Lowell as the ugly step sister (e.g., no funding for improvements, always trying to canabalize the admission process, trying to fix things that aren't broken etc.).
9 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree