Archive for the ‘California budget crisis’ Category

Eliminate tenure-Ensure teacher quality

Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011

In the State of the Union speech earlier this month, President Obama spoke of moving education for the nation’s children up front. The time to exert ourselves is now. We can make improvements that will help the country grow long term.

Great! But the road to student success brings to mind a plethora of factors: tests, budgets, vouchers, evaluation, curriculum, core standards, classroom management, teacher preparation. The list goes on and on.

But wait! A number of state governors are making loud noises about teacher tenure. They are positive that eliminating just this single hundred year old fixture of teacher protection from arbitrary dismissal will solve the problem of low-performing schools.

Every teacher knows the stories of weak colleagues with high salaries and poor classroom management who couldn’t be dismissed without lengthy hearings and attempts to help them improve. And every teacher knows the stories of teachers who were harassed by administrators because they stood up for their rights until they left the profession.

Simply tossing teacher tenure from the state’s education legislation may be the easy thing to do, but would hardly be the solution to teacher quality or achievement for students.

Other measures are being debated.

For instance, Memphis city school system is trying to settle its budget woes by merging the city schools with the suburban schools of Shelby County, Tennessee. Such a merger has set off a conflict of rich and poor, urban vs. suburban needs, shifting costs. Still, those disputes are attempts to improve the achievement of students-the goal of education.

Maybe vouchers are the end all and be all. The Florida legislature has written another bill to make money available for students in failing schools to move to private schools. It could be one way to dismantle low-performing schools, but how to judge whether the particular private school is going to help the new students?

In New York City Schools, Learning Leaders is a volunteer organization that provides tutors and parent education to promote literacy for a school’s low-performing children. The results indicate higher scores on standardized tests, improved attendance, enhanced social skills and behavior. The model is an intense focus on factors to improve achievement for students.

How about three models espoused by organizations to improve teacher quality? William J. Slotnick of Community Assistance and Training Center has helped Denver Public Schools and Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools in North Carolina. They focus on models where teachers and principals set goals and select measures for yearly student achievement. Teacher evaluation is based on success in completing the goals.

A report on establishing teacher quality, written by Education Resource Strategies in Watertown, Massachusetts, suggests guidelines for schools, districts, and states. All suggestions are based on a bottom up strategy which should ensure teacher and union participation.

Here are the five suggestions: create teams to plan for change; empower the teams; build better steps to recruit highly qualified personnel to carry out the plan; help teachers achieve potential; reward personnel contributions to student achievement.

A third model offered by the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality describes similar steps for improving student achievement and teacher quality. The NCCTQ report specifically takes up the ‘third rail’ of teacher tenure when addressing teacher evaluation issues.

In California all of the problems noted above are hitting the schools: budget woes and merging districts; education experts advocating vouchers; unions offering accountability models for teacher evaluation; models showing ways to improve student achievement in failing schools. It is highly unlikely that the California legislature will cut teacher tenure from the education code. It will, however, be part of a revised teacher evaluation system.

It will be a hard row to hoe. But the ask is to move forward, make change for the good of the country.

When budgets are resolved, what do schools take up next?

Wednesday, January 12th, 2011

Suppose the California legislature agrees to resolve the most current budget deficit of $25.4 billion as of January 11, 2011. California’s Governor Jerry Brown presented his administration’s budget this week. It includes big budget cuts (but not to K-12 budgets), as well as temporary tax extensions to be voted on in the Spring.

Suppose the California legislature agrees to revise the state and local tax system which had become so unfair that Proposition 13 passed easily in 1978. The fiscal trouble that existed then has increased many times over as the state and local governments vie for revenues.

Suppose  California citizens agree that all services cannot be paid for individually or by initiative.  Some, like fire protection, police protection, infrastructure, parks, recreation programs, and schools are better provided by communal funds.

If all that were agreed, some schools are still found in very poor areas-both urban and rural. Those schools need to be turned around. It’s not easy.

Mass Insight Education and Research Institute has laid out the steps to take. See www.massinsight.org.

Matteson School District (SD 162) in Illinois under Superintendent Dr. Blondean Y. Davis has given an overview of steps taken to improve student success. See www.edline.net/pages/Matteson_School_District_162

Success For All is used often, especially in eastern urban areas, as a specific reform for reading/language arts.  SFA lays out school-wide steps to make sure students learn to read and understand the meaning of text.  See www.sfa.org.

Edsource’s February 2010 report “Gaining Ground in the Middle Grades: Why Some Schools Do Better” explains steps that help adolescent students succeed.  See www.edsource.org.

Suppose schools began to turn around. What’s the next step?

Testing and the tests schools use is a huge complaint, whether the scores are used to assess student success or to evaluate teachers or to determine school quality.

The first problem is the kind of test: standardized, criterion referenced, short formative tests several times a year, one summative test a year; tests provided with software.  Who decides which kind of test to use: the state, the local school board, the federal Department of Education, the publishing companies of the United States?

Here’s another list of questions to resolve: which standards are tested; what do tests measure; how do results affect promotion, teacher evaluation, and accreditation for higher education?  See the Public Broadcasting Service’s Frontline program for an in-depth analysis of testing issues.

In education, the biggest concern is the quality of each school.  Does a single test determine all of the school qualities that establish success?

One statement can be made: once the budget crisis is resolved, state departments of education must analyze the tests they use. Successful schools depend on the steps taken.

Who’s going to take the tiger by the tail, the bull by the horns, or shoulder Sisyphus’ burden?

School Budgets in 2010-Squeezing California Oranges

Wednesday, August 11th, 2010

You might as well know what’s being done by California state and local education entities to find a drop at the bottom of the juice glass to keep schools open, much less buy art supplies or basket balls for a successful school.

Proposition 13 became California law in 1978 and, slowly but surely, funds for schools, school districts, county districts, community college districts, as well as the State Department of Education and teacher credentialing services have dried up.  The current sum makes one think of California raisins rather than golden oranges.  This reduction in funds doesn’t count the services for local municipalities that disappear as this post is written.

As the recession has gripped California, the last bit of money has been sucked from the orange rind.  Besides trying to revise sections of the Proposition 13 statute (see last week’s post 8-4-10), here are the changes the state has turned to in order to balance the state budget and also provide the least possible amount-the floor compelled by CA Proposition 98-to support public education.

First, the amounts that the state had contributed out of its revenue to equalize funding for each local education agency (LEA) has been reduced.  California schools provide education dollars at 30% per student below the national average.  The student/teacher ratio is 37% below the national average.  In fact, schools in California have 30% fewer teachers for 6+ million students.

Second, in order to stretch dollars the state has negotiated to make federal Title I monies and state monies assigned to programs like Quality Educational Investment Act (QEIA) more flexible.  Originally QEIA was designated by CA SB 1133 in 2006 to provide $3 billion over 7 years to support schools serving low-income families, special needs students, and English Language Learners.  Not any more.

Third, the state has scaled back the amount of yearly formal testing.  For example, some special needs students are not tested.

Fourth, the state has authorized school districts to shore up their budgets by digging into a higher percentage of its reserves.  In addition, furlough days have been negotiated with the teacher’s unions which decrease salaries, but also avoid lay-offs.

Fifth, the state has revised its rules for curriculum adoption.  Formerly, every seven years new textbooks were designated for schools.  In 2008 this provision of the education code was halted.  No new science or social studies books were chosen.  Even with the changes identified by the Common Core Standards adoption, textbook purchases will be on hold for an indefinite time.

Next, the deferred maintenance budgets for school district buildings have been revised and the monies can be redirected to support other needs.  In addition, surplus property rules for a district have been changed to bring in money.

Last on this list, a suggestion has been offered to have multiple districts create an education finance district in order to increase the chance of passing a parcel tax.  The complications are numerous, but be prepared to read about it in the newspapers if California’s budget problems aren’t resolved soon.

In 2008-2009, the state revised three times before a balanced budget, ripe for spoilage, was signed.  This past year 2009-2010 the budget was fought over until September.  By now funding deferrals that force borrowing by education entities leave a higher number of districts at risk of insolvency–oranges dropping to the ground.  What then?

A detailed report on the crisis in California school finance can be read in Edsource’s January 2010 report Budget Cataclysm and its Aftermath.

School Finance Debacle–Proposition 13, 30 Years Later

Wednesday, August 4th, 2010

Like wrangling over Common Core Standards (CCS) in California, legislators and school district personnel can’t bring themselves to “do something” about the 1978 Proposition 13.

For the CCS, California can accommodate Algebra I in the 8th grade and few of the English/Language Arts standards need reworking.  As of Monday, August 2, 2010, the California Board of Education finally adopted the standards.  Now to implement procedures and allow time to make sure school district personnel, not only teachers but principals and administrators, have the resources to use the standards to improve academic achievement.

Which brings us to the old Proposition 13 that has done its worst to bring down our schools.  Not only is every local municipality stretching its few property tax dollars to cover services, so also are schools.

Things are so unstable that legislators are finally looking at revisions of some aspects of the legislation passed by voters in 1978.  Never fear, your grandmother’s property will not be touched.  She will still only feel an increase of 2% on the tax she currently pays based on the 1% assessment of her property’s value 35 years ago (in 1975) as the law states.

Legislation to fund school budgets in California is “complex, irrational, and inequitable” according to the Getting Down to Facts Project report.    Still, looking at the news in 1978, 38% of the voters believed the state could absorb the 40% estimated reduction in tax revenue.  Voters were sick of high tax liabilities without an increase in their ability to pay, just like today when wages were stagnating well before the great recession.

Simply put, the answer over time has been to assess fees for every municipal service, set bond and local utility or parcel tax proposals, and authorize a plethora of special assessment districts such as flood control and drainage.  These tithes supplement the minimum funding for schools and provide funds for local municipal services.

But in 2010 with a $19 billion deficit in the state budget and nothing agreed to by the legislature and governor as of this post, here are two possibilities to increase funds for municipalities and schools.

In December 2008 Senator Joe Simitian offered SCA 6 (amended several times) to change the 2/3 provision of Proposition 13 and make 55% needed to pass special tax legislation.  Such a change would improve the chances that local parcel tax measures written for specified school purposes would pass.

This change is difficult.  Recently Californians for Improved School Funding tried to collect enough signatures to put an initiative similar to Simitian’s bill on the November 2010 ballot and failed.

Assembly member Tom Ammiano has offered AB2492.  It revises how property tax is calculated on commercial properties which by 2009 benefited far more than any voter understood in 1978.  Though never talked about during the campaign, the Jarvis-Gann proposition was devised to serve commercial properties far more than homeowners.  For example, in Los Angeles County, 1979 commercial property taxes were 47% of the total, while in 2009 taxes from commercial properties were 30%.

The assembly bill changes how ownership of a commercial entity is defined.  It refines the circumstances under which a sale occurs and reassessment must be made.  Revising this section of Proposition 13, while complex, would close an estimated $7.5 billion corporate tax loophole for the benefit of local municipalities as well as local schools.

Another way to reform the commercial property loopholes is called “split roll” by which residential homeowners’ tax assessment remains as is, but commercial properties are assessed at 1 ½% and reassessed more often.  Provisions in the reform offer +65 owners breaks and low-income family breaks, applicable to landlords of rental housing.  Lenny Goldberg hopes to bring a ballot initiative up for the 2012 elections.

Either of these proposals will bring more budget control to local districts and still protect individual taxpayers.  Most important, revenue sources will be made evenhanded and help the state overcome its budget debacle.

School Mandates Reform, a Golden Apple Worth Pursuing

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

Summer vacation is half-over and students are still learning.  Sports camp, computer camp, theatre arts camp, science and math camp for girls, and newest of all, half-blood day camps for boys, who learn the Greek mythology stories while pursuing gorgons and Medusa in search of the Golden Apple.  Glory for all.  See New York Times, July 16, 2010, “What I Did at Camp: Followed Plot, Killed Gorgon, Saved World.”

If only the California Superintendent of Schools could climb Mt. Shasta-the local Mt. Olympus– to ask an oracle to speak with Athena, Goddess of Wisdom, dispose of nay-sayers with a swat of the sword, and snatch the Golden Fleece in order to save teachers from lay-offs when school begins-for some as soon as the second week in August.  The closest any state will come to finding the Golden Fleece is to win Race to the Top funds in the second round of federal grant disbursement.

If you were the Oracle what would you suggest to states in order to bring short term support for schools?  Remember, California alone has 6 million students with 174 districts financially distressed (San Jose Mercury News, July 5, 2010).  It is 44th lowest in dollars spent per student, and somewhere between 45-50th ranking in number of students per teacher-depending on how the ratio is determined.  No one option will be a magic cure.  Soon, all sources of funds for the state must be equitably reallocated.

Here are some options collected from various blogs, news articles, and reports.  The list emphasizes saving money.  Which options also do no harm to students and curriculum?  Suggestions were found in articles collected by Edsource.

Large school districts shorten the school year calendar, increase class sizes and lay off teachers.  The money saved supports the program left.  This is already happening.

Halt any facilities improvements to public schools, e.g. solar panels which initially cost a bunch although they save money over time.

Pass more parcel taxes to make up for lack of property taxes.  In the Los Altos area, one parcel tax to continue benefits to the high school district was passed in June and 2 more are proposed for the November ballot, one for the elementary district and one for the community college district.  The thought is that homeowners are more likely to support taxes for schools close by rather than taxes frittered, supposedly, by the state.  If only legislation would pass designating a 55% majority instead of a 2/3 vote.

How about the governor’s fix?  End the elected position of the Superintendent of Public Instruction and his/her department.  Only keep the governor-appointed position of Secretary of Education.

Drop sports from the budgets of the University of California and State University.  Lots of money saved to support liberal arts and engineering.

Finally, in February 2010 the California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) distributed a proposal to reform unfunded school district mandates which eventually must be paid by the state.

Some mandates serve a purpose and are fundamental to the education of students, such as protection of student health and provision of essential assessment and oversight data.

Otherwise, the abundance of mandates legislated over the years should be eliminated; the reimbursement process simplified; or a different far-less-costly process designed to achieve the objective.  An example of a mandate to be eliminated is the requirement to submit physical education data which is already collected during financial audits.

It is estimated that this one reform measure could save the state $350 million or more a year and instead be used to address school needs that have statewide interest, produce results, and are worth the cost.

Here lies one substantial piece to reform school finance.  It may not be the Golden Fleece but surely a  Golden Apple is waiting to be picked up.