Archive for the ‘school finance reform’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

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.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in California budget crisis, Edsource, Race to Top, public schools, school finance reform |
Be the first to leave a comment »

Summertime

Wednesday, July 7th, 2010

When the days are long and fruit and flowers bloom, an abundance of articles about various school issues pop up in the newspapers and on websites.

USA Today (6/7/10) had a brief synopsis of reports saying that black students have moved to suburban schools in the Dallas, Texas, area.  Hispanic students have filled their places in the Dallas school district.  Another example of families who have become knowledgeable and made decisions to help their children.  Such a demographic move has happened many times all over the country and stands for one reason it is difficult to stick to the same old program forever.

The New York Times (7-3-10 “World Focus Is Gaining Favor in High Schools” by Tamar Lewin) described the International Baccalaureate (IB) program favored in several high schools as an alternative to the more common Advanced Placement (AP) programs.  The IB is a rigorous model to capture the attention of students who may want a balanced curriculum in a small group setting that also impresses college admission officers.  The emphasis is on philosophies worldwide, not separate academic subjects like AP courses.  Interesting that the article did not describe the variety of high schools across the nation that have instituted the IB model for many years, like California’s San Jose High School with many Hispanic students and some Denver schools with an IB program from upper elementary to high school.

The Nation (6-14-10) brought out its education issue “A new vision for school reform” with fact and opinion by a number of well-known education writers.  For this blog writer, the most unsettling conclusion came from Linda Darling-Hammond, Stanford University, who, in her view of the legislation in the revised Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) emphasizes “competition and sanctions as the primary drivers of reform rather than capacity building and strategic investments.”

Perhaps the despair of the teachers unions, both AFT and NEA, is the outcome of the quote above.  At their recent combined convention in New Orleans both union presidents seemed vexed about charter schools, teacher evaluation, and anti-union comment mainly made by conservative legislators.  The vote in the House of Representatives to commit $10 billion more dollars to reduce teacher lay-offs and other delays in school budgets, but the US Department of Education’s unhappiness in taking money from Race to the Top funds to pay for it, infuriated the unions.  See The New York Times “New Tension in Obama’s Ties to Teachers” by Sam Dillon, 7-5-10.

Closer to home, San Francisco is in the process of closing a middle school and overhauling 9 other schools, all hit by California’s determination to transform its low-performing schools-the good thing about the federal reform effort.  If only the school transformations will emphasize Darling-Hammond’s “capacity building and strategic investments.”  See San Francisco Chronicle “S.F. to shut school, overhaul 9 others” by Jill Tucker (7-3-10).

Now what about the litigation sent to court by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Los Angeles in February and by the California School Boards Association et al (CSBA) in May, also known as Robles-Wang vs. California?  The ACLU suit was to hold off Los Angeles teacher lay-offs in low-performing schools, and the CSBA suit was written to force the California legislature to restructure school funding to finance the requirements of education legislation.

Nothing has happened since the May 13, 2010, injunction in Los Angeles (see 6-2-10 post).  The California Assembly is proposing a California Jobs Budget which will stave off shortages in school funding for a year and still make up the $19 billion state budget shortfall.  We’ll see how long it takes to pass this year.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in American Federation of Teachers, ESEA, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, National Education Association, school finance reform |
Be the first to leave a comment »

ACLU and CSBA Throw Down Gloves

Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010

School districts are doing what they always do as a way out of financial crises.  They look to the source of money generated by laying off personnel to solve the problem, never mind the issue of “last in, first out.”

up-scale suburban elementary school

up-scale suburban elementary school

As an example, in the up-scale suburban district of Los Altos, California, about 100 teachers are scheduled to be laid off, making class sizes rise even though the district has long touted its small classes.

All in spite of research showing how layoffs make things worse.  See this blog’s post on February 24, 2010, titled “Short Term, Long Term.”  The May 20, 2010, article “Teachers Facing Weakest Market for Jobs in Years” by Winnie Hu, New York Times, says “the recession seems to have penetrated a profession long seen as recession-proof.”  No kidding!

Not only are lay offs imminent-an estimate of 150,000 or more personnel nationwide, but jobs are not being offered.  One presumes class size increases are the answer.  Students aren’t going away.  Who’s going to teach them?

In this day and age, the layoff idea gets mixed up with the controversy about poor-performing teachers.  The ACLU-Southern California press release for its suit filed in Superior Court February 24, 2010, against lay offs in 3 lowest-performing middle schools in Los Angeles areas of Watts and Pico Union explains that lay offs seeming to be “a budget-related issue, underneath that is the teacher tenure policy that is under attack” by superintendent Cortines, Governor Schwarzeneggar et al.

To others, lay offs take on the quality of a civil rights issue.  Why should LIFO-”last in, first out”-be the school district’s policy when research shows that high-need schools in a district like Los Angeles have the newest teachers.  Whether they are fabulous or poor-performing, the teachers are gone each year a district faces a financial imbalance.  How can those schools establish a stable core of teachers, use resources to increase test performance, and train high-quality teachers–all of which is guaranteed in the state Constitution?

ACLU/SC won an injunction May 13, 2010.

Which leads to the suit filed May 20, 2010, in Alameda County Superior Court, by the California School Boards Association (CSBA), the California State PTA, and the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) as well as nine school districts up and down the state and 60 students.  The suit seeks to overhaul the finances for school funding to “provide the resources to actually deliver” on the mandate of what schools must teach and what students must learn.

Over the past 40 years there have been several decisions and initiatives, Proposition13 (1978) being the most well-known, and Serrano vs. Priest (1976) and Proposition 98 (1988) being influential, that have set California’s untenable education budget.  The plaintiff’s argument is that “school funding is unstable, unreliable, irrational, and overly restrictive,” according to Jill Tucker and Marisa Lagos in “Suit could force major changes in school funding” San Francisco Chronicle, May 21, 2010.  About 70% of similar “adequacy lawsuits” have succeeded, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

In California, this suit will take years to work its way out of the courts, and one can only hope the legislature will resolve this systemic problem before the court decides for them.  One can expect that lay offs will continue to the detriment of schools and students, tenure-evaluation-compensation will keep being fought over, and stop-gap measures will be found to keep schools going, until the economy perks up and state money, that is taxes, rises to “normal.”

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in highly qualified teachers, layoff notices, low-performing schools, public schools, school finance reform |
1 Comment »

Colorado’s Race to the Top app foundered

Wednesday, April 14th, 2010

Colorado’s Race to the Top application foundered, as expected, on its lack of progress on teacher evaluation and tenure.  To give Colorado a second chance at RTTT funding, State Senator Michael Johnston has introduced SB10-191 to change the state’s evaluation and tenure process.

Tenure hit with new bill

Currently, teachers get tenure with three years of satisfactory probationary teaching, and it’s very difficult (at least three years) to remove teachers with tenure.  With SB10-191, new teachers must show three years of “highly effective” teaching in their first three years, and if tenured teachers receive two years of unsatisfactory reviews, their tenure can be yanked.

The state will define “highly effective” teaching.  Fifty percent of teacher evaluation will depend on student performance, based on annual yearly progress on state tests.  Sixty-six percent of principal evaluation will depend on student performance.

Teacher evaluation goes from once every three years to once a year

The bill will change the current evaluation system from once every three years for tenured teachers to once each year.  The bill also will “reward” excellent teacher performance with career development and compensation.

No new state dollars for the program

What the bill does not do is provide extra dollars for compensation.  It assumes, apparently, that those dollars will come from RTTT.  At some point, however, Colorado, and all states, will need to get serious about compensation if they expect teachers to play to the new tune.

In the Denver metropolitan area, new teachers make roughly $35,000 per year.  That’s about the same as a retail store manager.  A starting engineer will make somewhat north of $65,000, depending on the engineering field.  A starting lawyer will make about $75,000, depending on the size of the firm.  A new physician can make up to $100,000, depending on the practice.

Teachers will get paid less at least through 2011

The incentive for new teachers to become “highly effective” based on compensation is nil.  The only incentive is pride and love of the job because the opportunity for a raise in the current economic environment is not what it was even two years ago.  Right now, most school districts in the state are cutting their budgets, telling staff that they will make the same in 2011 as they did in 2010.  In fact, they will probably have made more in 2009 than they’ll make in 2011.

The state legislature is cutting about $250 million from the 2010-2011 school budget.  That’s the wrong direction if the state intends to implement a system that puts a teacher’s employment at risk each year.

State hopes for RTTT to add to compensation

If the state is serious about implementing a new evaluation system, it also needs to get serious about compensation.  Offering a new teacher at least $45,000 seems reasonable.  That’s the only way school districts will be able to attract and retain highly competent new teachers after firing all those incompetent old teachers.

State doesn’t fund evaluation program

The state also needs to come up with a support system for the increase in teacher evaluations.  The main complaint from principals is that they don’t have time for frequent evaluation.  If that’s the case, then schools may have to create a whole new class of educator, the teacher evaluator, which may be a good thing.  This person theoretically can be an instructional leader.

But the teacher evaluator position does not currently exist in Colorado.  Will this position be supervisory or licensed?  Will it be a part of the new “career ladder” envisioned in the law, or one more trend that eventually is discarded.

Democrats will fight over the bill; GOP just needs to stay out of it

Many in Colorado support education reform.  A huge fight is already heating up between Democrats who want schools to get better faster and Democrats who receive much of their candidate funding from the Colorado Education Association.  Republicans can just stay out of the way and watch the pots boil over.

But more money?  To get more money, teacher supporters have to come up with a 2/3 majority of legislators who are willing to put an initiative on the ballot.  That’s not likely.

So if teacher evaluation goes forward, and nothing changes related to compensation, the state may get the opposite of what it wants:  a system with fewer teachers, doing less with less, facing an evaluation program requiring them to do more with less.  It’s difficult to figure how that scenario can lead to anything but complete breakdown in the entire system.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Colorado Budget Crisis, Colorado Education Association, Race to Top, public schools, school finance reform |
2 Comments »

What was he thinking?

Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010

I received my pink slip two weeks ago, long before  March 15 (California’s education code rule) when layoff notices must be delivered.  A district personnel officer handed it to me in person.  I think the human resources office thought we’d feel better if a human being delivered it instead of getting a certified letter in the mail.

Why would I feel better when the guy walked into my class while I was teaching and said, “How are things going today?”  Can you believe how obtuse that was?

What was I supposed to say, “Oh fine, and how’s your day?” while holding up my hand to indicate wait to the child who was waving furiously for me to come help and accepting the letter in my other.  As if receiving a RIF notice was going to make my day.

After school when I calmed down, I thought he could have said, “Hello, I’m glad to meet you even if I’m the bearer of bad news.  Please know I’m sorry we are in such a bind.”  At least it would have been admitting the quandary.

Here is what the teachers in California are doing.  It started last fall when University of California students, initially over tuition increases, decided to have demonstrations up and down the state on March 4, 2010.  Then the State University students joined in, angry about all the cuts to state university public education.

Then the news came out that San Francisco schools would have a $113 million deficit beginning next year.  Parents began to devise ways to raise money. The usual: another parcel tax measure, asking businesses to match funds raised by PTA’s, a surcharge on movie tickets.  I laughed reading San Francisco  legislator Tom Ammiano’s pitch for regulating and taxing marijuana purchases to raise money for schools.

Of course, the district is doing the same as my district: layoffs, furlough days, no professional development, summer school cuts.

Same ole, same ole.  Too bad.

But teachers and students in public universities and community colleges and teachers in public elementary and high schools throughout the state and across 2 dozen other states according to the San Francisco Chronicle are demonstrating on Thursday.

In colleges, there will be marches.  I did my undergraduate work at San Francisco State and I’ve heard students there have built giant puppets, La Llorona weeping for her students and a skeleton with a graduation cap to show that students will still be paying off their fees when they’re dead.  I suppose humor helps you laugh instead of cry.

At our elementary school we will all wear black to signify the loss of school staff and support for students.  During social studies the fourth grade classes who, remember, study California history and government will have a lesson on how schools and libraries and the police and fire departments are paid for.  During the time for writing, they will compose letters to the governor describing which services are important to them and offering ideas to help the government.  Fulfills several grade 4 standards, but most important students are analyzing what they know to synthesize new ideas and write them down.

After school, I’ve heard many teachers will join demonstrations at city halls or along well-traveled intersections on the peninsula, but as of this post I’m not sure where my union will participate.

By the June primary elections I tell you, people are really going to be furious as cuts get worse and services collapse.  Even though initiatives are troublesome to me, seven likely to be on the ballot aim to increase funds to support schools and other social services.  All because so far the legislature has not found a way to finance support for state services or schools that used to be the best in the United States.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in California budget crisis, layoff notices, public schools, school finance reform |
Be the first to leave a comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »