The school district has a $7.8 million budget deficit it needs to resolve during the 2004­05 school year. It has already made one clear move by knocking $1.5 million off the deficit through school closures. But resolving the other $6.3 million rests partially on what happens in Sacramento and the voters of California.

For the moment, the district has announced that it is taking the controversial elimination of sixth period in the middle schools and the increasing of classes in grades kindergarten through second "off the table." District superintendent Linda Murray said at the Jan. 22 board meeting that there appeared to be "a little light in the tunnel" in Sacramento, with slightly better revenue projections than the district anticipated. She reiterated that sixth period and class-size reductions would remain last on the list of options to cut.

But this decision is reliant on the bond's approval, a point strongly emphasized by both San Jose Unified School District Board President Gary Rummelhoff and board member Jorge Gonzalez, who urged parents to vote for Proposition 57, which argues that passage will keep the state from making deeper cuts in education.

Yet Rummelhoff acknowledged during the board meeting that without its passage the district could be facing a crisis, and that the educational standards parents are trying so hard to keep could be brought right back to the table.

For the time being the district is taking a wait-and-see attitude, crossing its fingers that the bond will pass and the more serious cuts to schools programs and class configurations won't have to be made. But that's like the person who buys an expensive car on credit hoping to get the big raise in the upcoming months. When the salary bump doesn't materialize, the buyer finds himself in debt.

The district sees it differently. If the bond doesn't pass and Sacramento can't broker a deal to prevent education from further cuts, in all likelihood the school board will vote to place a parcel tax on the ballot in November.

Rummelhoff said compared to the failed parcel tax attempt in June, this one would have a great deal more parental support. "It will have emotion driving it." But that emotion will be based on concern and fear that the district's educational programs, which parents worked so hard to retain, are barely holding on by a thread. It also places the district once again in the position of relying on a bailout plan instead of looking for ways internally, such as negotiating a medical benefit cap for its employees—a $1.2 million savings.

Rummelhoff said that if it came down to looking at eliminating sixth period or asking teachers to contribute from their benefit packages, he would weigh in on the side of the students.

That sounds like a step in the right direction. It shows that the district is putting its priorities in the right place, on children. Whether the other board members and school administrators agree is still up for debate.

Traditionally, turning back benefits would not even appear on the teachers' union radar screen, but we would hope that should it come to that, union members would step up and acknowledge how tough things are for everyone in education. And we would also hope that both the district and the union would join forces and come together to do what's best for the children.