With only three months to put together a strong campaign, two independent consulting firms hired by the district said polling information indicated that the district would have strong opposition—about 40 percent—which would make passage of a parcel tax difficult. The district needs to hit 66.6 percent voter approval for passage.

After listening to the survey information and public input, the board of trustees unanimously voted at a special meeting on Aug. 2 to delay putting a parcel-tax measure on the ballot until March 2006.

Although this would delay a potential infusion of funds for more than a year and a half, San Jose Unified School District Superintendent-elect Don Iglesias said, "It is important that the community sees that the board is committed to moving forward. There is work to be done."

Even with greater assurances that a parcel tax might be in the district's future, it still doesn't end the ongoing financial woes of balancing the budget, according to San Jose Unified School District Associate Superintendent Jerry Matranga.

Matranga said that if enrollment continues to decline, additional school closures would be unavoidable in 2005­06. He estimated that the district would have to close at least one secondary school and two or three elementary schools. But if a parcel tax is approved, the closures may not be as severe.

Yet future school reductions are inevitable, Matranga said, and he suggested some possible strategies to ease the process. A "horizontal" consolidation, for instance, would transfer students from a closed school to a new school at the same grade level. A "vertical" consolidation would combine schools at different levels into an expanded program. Matranga asked that the board of trustees consider initiating more schools that are designed as kindergarten through eighth grade. Only the district's magnet, River Glen, has a kindergarten through eighth-grade school.

In addition to consolidating schools, Matranga also proposed that the district consider cutting centralized administration services and clerical positions, negotiating with unions to lower healthcare benefits, eliminating regular home-to-school transportation for students not in low-income or special education programs and reducing special education costs. These measures would balance the budget for 2005­06.

Recognizing the sensitivity of cutting funds for special education, Matranga said, "Reducing special education will be difficult, and we'd have to monitor it very carefully. We're going to be surgical about how we do this. We don't want to stop programs completely. The question is, how do we do it in a more cost-effective way?"

Board member Veronica Lewis agreed that community members must prepare for future cuts in services, with or without the parcel tax. She said, "The state has put a tremendous burden upon us. The public needs to be aware that additional cuts will happen."

With the elimination of programs remaining unavoidable, San Jose Unified School District Board President Gary Rummelhoff expressed a desire to reach out to the community and heal damaged relations. He said, "We are swimming somewhat upstream. We need to take some responsibility. The district has worked hard, but perhaps we have not told our story well. Our next challenge is to engage the community. I have incredible faith in the staff to improve processing procedures."