The MVWSD Way is how we’re integrating the results of last year’s systems study that took a deep look at how our existing programs and systems were delivering for students. The coming year will be the year the district builds out the plan (standards matrices, common assessments, trial cycles of teaching and data reflection). Full implementation is to come in 2027-28.

This update catches us up on what staff did in July and August to prepare. Teachers spent two days on Smarter Balanced blueprints and assessment matrices. I appreciate the staff feedback summaries attached to the agenda item. That additional transparency, with honest positive and constructive feedback, helps build confidence that we’ll continue on through execution.

Each year, our schools write down their goals along with the plans and spending they will need to reach them. In prior years, we had them all use the standard SPSA format. However, by California Education Code, not every school is required to prepare them. For our district in the 2026-27 year, Castro and Imai are required. To balance the work preparing these plans according to Education Code structure with the work needed to execute the MVWSD Way, staff has proposed that the other schools prepare a shorter Site Improvement Plan. Having reviewed the plans in-depth with the principals and staff last year, I’ve seen how much work is done by the principals and school site councils to prepare them. This demonstrated the importance of making sure they are clear and focused on achieving the outcomes we know we need.

The big takeaway for me here is that the district proposes shifting from building our goals as a forecast (“reduce students not meeting standards by 10%”) to “backcasting,” working backwards from a long-term goal (“by 2032, we will achieve at least 85% proficiency for all student groups”) and targeting what we need to get there. An additional data point they want to track is California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) mean scale scores, which should give us finer-grained knowledge of how much progress each student is making over time.

These plans will come back to the Board in October and November.

New construction pays a one-time fee toward the school facilities that its students will need. The state updates the maximum every two years in January, and we split the fee with the Mountain View Los Altos High School District. The latest adjustment moves our residential rate from $3.19 to $3.59 per square foot, and these are restricted funds that cannot go towards salaries.

As part of the budgeting cycle for California schools, the Board will now see how the last school year’s budget wrapped up. Last year closed better than June's estimates. The unrestricted general fund grew $4.28 million against a projected $3.03 million, ending at a combined $62.8 million and a 36.14% reserve. However, staff is clear that part of the gap is timing rather than savings: some maintenance and a CalSHAPE HVAC grant that will now land this year.

An important number for the district, assessed value growth, came in at 2.26%, below the 2.45% we had budgeted. This is about $140,500 less in revenue, which is a small part of the $133 million budget, but it's an important number for our long-term planning. As a community funded district, our revenue comes from local property taxes rather than the state's per-pupil formula. Staff puts 1% assessed value growth at roughly $744,000 in 2026-27 and more than $4.6 million cumulatively through 2031-32 once it compounds. Expenses and cost-of-living continue to rise, so how the expense and revenue curves grow relative to each other is the most important part of long-term planning.

Putting it all together, staff has recommended the size of future reductions ($8M to $8.5M in ongoing reductions), with the intent to slow our deficit spending, satisfy our reserve policy, and ensure we can continue to deliver our necessary services to all students.

California Education Code requires elementary districts to spend a minimum portion of their general fund on the direct classroom costs of teaching. The calculation only includes certificated salaries, which leaves out many of the services the district provides to help students, like mental health services and contracted student supports. Our current ratio for the year is 57.5%, below the 60% threshold.

Staff notes that we’re not unusual in being below the threshold among elementary districts. State law has an exemption process, which is what the Board is being asked to approve. The application for this goes to the County alongside our salary schedules and comparable district data.