|
The questions were prepared by the League of Women Voters of Piedmont and asked of all candidates for this office.
See below for questions on
Types of bonds,
Common Core Curriculum,
Budgeting
Click on a name for candidate information. See also more information about this contest.
 |
1. What is your opinion on the School District’s use of Capital Appreciation Bonds versus Current Interest Bonds?
|
Answer from Amal Smith:
CABs have higher costs than more traditional CIBs, but, if used in moderation, can be an effective and useful tool in financing.
The bad press around CABs is from more recent use by school districts who have issued CABs with maturity dates as long as 40 years and with bond retirement costs as high as 10+ times the amount borrowed. Local and state officials who have expressed opposition to the more irresponsible financing strategies involving CABs do, in fact, recognize the practicality of responsibly-issued CABs. Many of the concerns about CABs have been mitigated to some degree by recent legislation (AB 132) signed by Governor Brown that limits CABs to no more than 25 years and a maximum debt repayment ratio of 4-1.
PUSD and the School Board work with their finance team to monitor interest rates to look for opportunities to refund or convert existing bonds when financing terms are available and more attractive.
There are several factors that the school board must consider when they time comes to decide how to structure debt:
- Managing the tax rate in accordance with statutory requirements as well as its impact on Piedmont taxpayers;
- Balancing the need for facilities with construction, inflation and interest costs;
- Weighing the costs of building facilities today versus waiting to build at a future date when construction costs and/or interest rates may be higher.
Answer from Douglas M. "Doug" Ireland:
The District has experience in raising money through bond issuance. There are a variety of structures available to the Board in terms of interest rates, maturities and payment schedules. Until the requirements are established, it is premature to designate which form of payment is preferable. In most cases, a hybrid structure allows the District to manage the new issue against its outstanding debt given legal constraints, and current and future taxpayers' capacity and willingness to pay.
Answer from Hari Titan:
To fully understand CABs and easily explain the way they work in relation to CIBs I built a bond-tax calculator that validates with key calculations found in multiple KNN presentations (Series E and AHT): HariTitan.com/bond-tax-comparison.htm
Current Interest Bonds (CIBs) are similar to a fixed interest rate mortgage and exemplify the "pay as you go" philosophy to financing.
Capital Appreciation Bonds (CABs) defer any payments to the new creditor(s) until after existing debts are paid off in an attempt to keep overall bond tax rates constant. This "no new taxes" and "no payments to the creditors until..." philosophy comes at the price of higher interest rates with unpaid interest exponentially compounded onto the original bond amount borrowed.
A CAB is always more expensive than a CIB with the same maturity. A CAB could be described as a temporary tax relief for people living paycheck to paycheck with a higher total cost. This situation is not the same as living on a fixed income. The payment flexibility of a CAB is estimated to cost Piedmont taxpayers an additional $6.8 million in extra interest charges over a comparable CIB [source: KNN Public Finance]. That money could be saved for other renovations in the future.
As a taxpayer and user of renovated buildings, I feel all of us should participate in paying for extra debt we incur -- "pay as we go", which means CIBs. The length of the maturity for the CIB affects how low the additional taxes are and also how many future taxpayers are sharing the costs of the renovation.
CABs should only be used if (1) CIBs are not an option for the required bond (e.g. Series E) and (2) voters are told a CAB may be used and what the total repayment amounts are expected to be as part of the disclosures for that bond measure.
|
2. How should the School District support implementation of the Common Core Curriculum?
|
Answer from Amal Smith:
The District is using this school year to prepare for the Common Core standards that are required to be implemented in the next academic year. It has already put into place a thoughtful and measured approach to prepare teachers and to inform parents and the greater community. The District is working with teachers to assess the requirements and make necessary changes to program and classroom strategies. Additionally, the District has provided and will continue to provide educational forums for parents to understand what Common Core means to the District and in the classrooms.
There is great potential in Common Core to achieve critial thinking skills. There will be challenges to implementing Common Core standards in the early years, not just in Piedmont but across the country. The School Board and the District must make sure we meet the requirements while maintaining our commitment to an excellent and robust K-12 program that prepares our students for higher education and other challenges.
Answer from Douglas M. "Doug" Ireland:
The District should continue to do what it is doing - ongoing professional development and parent education. Teachers are working with administrators and outside consultants to integrate the new standards into lesson plans and assessments. There are educational forums for parents and stakeholders to learn how the new curriculum will impact student learning and assessments. There will need to be enhanced technology available for test administration for all students. These practical implementation procedures are currently underway.
Ultimately, the board, in partnership with the administration, teachers and parents, will need to balance our goals and priorities with this state and federally mandated program.
Answer from Hari Titan:
The State of California has allocated a one-time increase in school funding to support the implementation of Common Core education and evaluation of students. This funding will be distributed on the basis of enrollment for professional development, instructional materials and technology. Local districts must develop plans on how to spend these funds over the next two years and hold public hearings on these plans.
Schools also need to provide a new report card to parents that maintains the Common Core paradigm while being easy to read and understand. Parents and educators will also want to find the right limit of computer screen time in the classroom.
In the first year of implementation, student test scores will not be provided by the testing agency. However it may be beneficial if we can request aggregate scores for the classrooms to help identify areas which could be improved in the following year.
|
3. How will the District’s budgeting process be different under the Local Control Accountability Plan?
|
Answer from Douglas M. "Doug" Ireland:
LCAP requires formal documentation of community and parent engagement in the process of program and budget development. There will be formal reporting mechanisms to meet the LCAP standards regarding attendance, agendas and minutes, and the District will continue to solicit input from a host of community sources. Effectively today, the site councils, curriculum forums, parent clubs, budget committees and support groups all provide the District feedback about curriculum, facilities and spending. From that input, priorities will be set by the Board and implemented by the administration.
Answer from Amal Smith:
First there are the implications of Local Control Funding Formula which gives local control to school boards to decide how best to spend their money. While there is flexibility in how the money is spent, the law requires that spending be aligned with eight priorities: test scores, graduation rates, Common Core standards, measures of college and career readiness, parent involvement, school climate and student engagement. The impact of the LCFF requirements should be relatively minimal for District budgeting as, in recent years, the emphasis has been to budget for the most robust program possible to prepare students for college and beyond, already focusing on the eight LCFF requirements.
Local Control Accountability Plan mandates community engagement and open communication. By July 1, 2014, the District will be required to develop a three-year plan outlining its goals and priorities; the plan must be updated annually. Our school district is in very good shape for meeting LCAP requirements. First there are the Board's goals and action plans that are reviewed and updated annually at public meetings. There are also the long-established forums for community input including school board, site council, parent club, Budget Advisory Committee and curriculum forum meetings. In addition, the District periodically organized community-wide meetings to facilitate input from the wider community: the first Shaping our Future in 2009 and Shaping Our Future 2.0 in fall 2013.
Answer from Hari Titan:
The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) moves from a State-controlled system that emphasized inputs (largely in the form of categorical funding which required funds to be spent on specific projects and programs) to a locally-controlled system in which local agencies decide the best way to spend funds, focused on improved outcomes. The LCFF includes the following components:
- A base grant for each local education agency equivalent to $7,643 per unit of A.D.A. This base grant is $2,375 more than the average revenue limit provided prior to LCFF implementation.
- A 20% supplemental grant for English learners, students from low-income families and foster youth to reflect increased costs associated with educating those students.
- An additional concentration grant of up to 22.5% of a local education agency's base grant, based on the number of English learners, students from low-income families and foster youth served by the local agency that comprise more than 55% of enrollment.
- An economic recovery target to ensure that almost every local education agency receives at least their pre-recession funding level, adjusted for inflation, at full implementation of LCFF.
The Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) requires Districts to increase or improve services for English language learners, low income, and foster youth students in proportion to supplemental and concentration grant funding received. All school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools will be required to develop and adopt local control and accountability plans, which will identify local goals in areas that are priorities for the State, including pupil achievement and parent engagement.
Responses to questions asked of each candidate
are reproduced as submitted to the League.
Candidates' statements are presented as submitted. Direct references to opponents are not permitted.
The order of the candidates is random and changes daily. Candidates who did not respond are not listed on this page.
|
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
