Why does the Voice (and myself) consider MVLA (High School District) in good Budget shape - and yet considers MVWSD (elementary K-8) going "with deep deficit spending"?
Web Link

Here are some financial metrics, collected and published by the State in it's oversight capacity;
MVLA - MVWSD; [misc. CA state or Santa Clara Co. averages] (2017-18 data)
4304 - 5132 pupil Census #

Administrators #FTE {MVWSD # has increased by 7 since 2013-14, same # schools}
17 - 25
Per Pupil Ratio: FTE Administrators {correspondingly MVWSD worsened by 26% since 2013-14}
260 - 205 [ Co. ratio = 265, more efficient administrators = more students per administrator)

MVLA - MVWSD;
Office/Clerical Staff {MVWSD # has increased by 12 = 32% since 2013-14}
41 - 49 [MVLA has increased 3%]
Other Classified Staff {MVWSD # has increased by 30 = 46% since 2013-14}
56 - [MVLA increased 27%]
*Services & Other Op. Expenditures /per student comp. to CA ave.
163% - 189% ($2,441)

MVLA - MVWSD;
Average Teaching Experience {MVLA & MVWSD stayed basically flat since 2013-14}
11yr - 8yr {Co. 10yr, CA 12yr}
New Teachers (1st & 2nd yr, 3 yr ave)
29 - 60

===
* General Administration (% of General Fund)
7% - 7% [ both above CA's 6% ]
[Both about 10% more than CA average in dollars per student]

The MVWSD is currently carrying a LARGE % General Fund year end surplus= Reserve and MVLA's is much smaller. But the MWSD is projecting spending Much More than it collects including 3 years out.

EdData MVLA Web Link
EdData MVWSD Web Link
* check the Financial Data page (or Student, Staff pages)

SN is a retired MVWSD Trustee and a general public policy quant.

My Bad! Mistral was opened in 2015-16. I voted with the majority (unanimous). MS + Castro then were 694 students, earlier the combined school (Castro) was 726. If there were no District Office administrators, this would explain almost a 10% administrative position increase (’15-’16)