CVSD considering M&O levy

The Central Valley school trustees are beginning to take a look at running a replacement maintenance and operations levy on the ballot next spring. Board members spent an hour Monday night discussing how much to ask voters to approve, and for how many years.

An M&O levy traditionally pays for programs and items not paid for by the state and is a core part of any school district’s budget. Districts are authorized to ask voters for an amount that equals up to 24 percent of all the state and federal money received by a district annually. Levies can run from one to four years.

In the past, the district has asked for the maximum amount allowed over three years. The last levy, which expires at the end of 2009, was passed in March 2006 with 63 percent of the vote. It was estimated to provide $53 million over three years.

“I really think we’ve got to guard against complacency,” said Superintendent Ben Small. “The economy is different.”

In the past the district has checked with neighboring school districts and ran its levy on the same special election ballot, which will be a factor on deciding whether the district puts it on the February or March 2009 ballot. “You share in the expenses,” said board member Debra Long. “It just shows good stewardship.”

The importance of putting out good information to voters was a key part of the discussion. “We have to go out for a levy,” said board member Cindy McMullen. “We need the levy money to support our programs.”

The board is scheduled to decide the date of the election, amount of the levy and the length of it in October.

In other business, Small also recommended that the board send its proposed sex education curriculum back to committee. The Legislature recently passed a new law that school districts cannot teach abstinence “to the exclusion of other materials instruction on contraceptives and disease prevention.” Central Valley previously taught an abstinence-only program. The law also said that the sex education curriculum had to be “age appropriate.”

Parents packed a June board meeting to loudly speak against the proposed sex education curriculum, particularly the part that called for the teaching of proper condom use. One speaker said if the district taught contraceptive use, it would be “condoning sexual promiscuity.” The proposed new curriculum called for teaching contraception beginning in the eighth grade.

That curriculum was proposed by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Small said. “The recommended curriculum is just that,” he said.

The district can revise the curriculum to suit its needs, Small said. The district solicited a legal opinion on the new law that said, among other things, that it is the school board that decides what material is appropriate for a certain age, Small said. In theory, the board could decide that certain parts of the proposed curriculum are not appropriate for any age.

Small recommended taking a “clear, thoughtful path forward” that will have the board considering a new sex education policy in September and October. The new law states that a new policy must be in place by Sept. 1, 2008, but does not include any possible penalties for missing that date.

“That puts us beyond the deadline,” Small said. “We’re going to miss that. I think it’s important that we do this in a thoughtful manner.”

After the committee revises the proposed policy, it will be presented to the board. There will be a public comment period before the board votes on the policy in October.