State to fight lawsuit by low-income students

Replies

• Don 8 years ago8 years ago

  And just to follow up on the last sentence of my previous post, LCFF doesn't guarantee that each individual in anyone of the three unduplicated groups be served, only that districts get additional funding for students counted as members of those groups. So districts can get additional funding based upon the count, yet not provide that funding to the targeted group. It is a system of funding that has no financial accountability of … Read More

  And just to follow up on the last sentence of my previous post, LCFF doesn’t guarantee that each individual in anyone of the three unduplicated groups be served, only that districts get additional funding for students counted as members of those groups. So districts can get additional funding based upon the count, yet not provide that funding to the targeted group. It is a system of funding that has no financial accountability of legal consequence. LCFF oversight has been described as “the fox guarding the henhouse”. And given that there is no state compliance agency I don’t see how it could be otherwise. The Collaborative for Educational Excellence hasn’t even met and they don’t have the resources to monitor, nor are they charged to do so. To the extent that the LCAP is unmonitored, the State is washing its hands of oversight. That is local control, LCFF-style.

Replies

• Dawn Urbanek 8 years ago8 years ago

  I have reposted this letter on my blog and have added some up-dated resources since some links from the 2012 letter do not work. Up-dated Sources: The Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) http://ac.ocgov.com/info/accounting/eraf Transparent California http://transparentcalifornia.com/ Why is Employee compensation continuing to increase when the District has to use furlough days, class size increases and deferred maintenance to balance its budget? If there is not going to be sufficient funding then the District cannot continue to increase employee compensation … Read More

  I have reposted this letter on my blog and have added some up-dated resources since some links from the 2012 letter do not work.

  Up-dated Sources:

  The Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) http://ac.ocgov.com/info/accounting/eraf

  Transparent California http://transparentcalifornia.com/

  Why is Employee compensation continuing to increase when the District has to use furlough days, class size increases and deferred maintenance to balance its budget? If there is not going to be sufficient funding then the District cannot continue to increase employee compensation and the State cannot continue to pass expenses down to the District without also passing down the Property Tax revenue.

  Merry Christmas!

• Gary Ravani 8 years ago8 years ago

  Dawn: You are changing the subject. The subject was CA's tax revenue which is the controlling factor in the state's ability, or not, to adequately support the school system. That was the subject of my post, based on US Census data, which shows in CA that the percentage of per capita income rate to support the schools is around 25% per cent lower than it is on average for the rest of the nation. The CA … Read More

  Dawn:

  You are changing the subject. The subject was CA’s tax revenue which is the controlling factor in the state’s ability, or not, to adequately support the school system. That was the subject of my post, based on US Census data, which shows in CA that the percentage of per capita income rate to support the schools is around 25% per cent lower than it is on average for the rest of the nation. The CA Legislative Analyst’s office has also noted that that rate for CA has declined over time, beginning with shortly after the passage of Prop 13. Again, property taxes is the stable tax base for funding schools in most of the rest of the nation. CA’s property tax revenue is 24th in the US. Much of that is due to a dearth of commercial property taxes as commercial property owners have been the primary beneficiaries of Prop 13, even though the propaganda spread by the Jarvis-Gann cabal was all about the elderly being thrown out of their homes. This is why Disneyland (in Orange Co. is it not?) is still paying taxes based on a 1970s era property tax rate.

  Having been in CA education for slightly over 40 years I do have some familiarity with the tax situation.

  Your concerns over over Orange County being a “donor” is one that kind of mirrors a concern I have. And that’s the irony of the “blue” coastal states being “donors” (nationally) by a substantial amount to the predominately “red” states where they elect national politicians who run on the principle of individual responsibility [sic] and rage against the 47% of “takers” who reap the benefits of our “sumptuous” public assistance programs. The “takers,” for the most part, live in their states and shake their finger at “welfare queens” with one hand and collect governments benefits with the other. It’s the “get your government hands off my Medicare” type thinking. I don’t resent the government programs, they are necessary to promote equity and relieve suffering, but the hypocrisy is stunning.

  Back to your point about “donor” counties. This, of course, is the result of the dominoes falling after the passage of Prop 13 and the settlement of Serrano v. Priest. Prop 13 removed the ability of localities to support schools and other public services based on a smothered property tax base. It also gave every “no” vote on various taxes a two to one advantage over “yes” votes in raising other local revenues to support services including schools. This, obviously, undermined democracy in the state. Then we have Serrano. That decision said basing school funding primarily on local property taxes was unconstitutional. Students living in high property tax areas had access to educational opportunities that students living in low property tax areas wouldn’t have denying them their right under the state constitution to “equal access.” And, yes, this is s point you focus on, if without looking at the bigger picture.

  Out of the train wreck of Prop 13, severely undermining CA’s ability to do much for any public services, and Serrano we got the sausage making of Revenue Limit Income (RLI), the school funding “system” prior to LCFF. RLI was an attempt by the legislature to make school funding “fair and equitable.” This was politically messy. Most school funding dollars. now based on other very volatile taxes as well as quite limited property taxes, would go to Sacramento to be “divvied up” in a way that met the court’s requirements. Almost. We (the school system) got out of this, low wealth districts, high wealth districts, and basic aide districts. There was an assumption that typically rural low wealth areas need less money to provided equitable education and more expensive (high wealth) urban areas needed more. As you have realized that meant taking some money from wealthier areas and redistributing it to poorer areas. But, not too much of any of that. The really wealthy, and politicly influential, area were left alone as basic aide districts that continue to be funded by property taxes. Much of this got laid out in complex formulas. And then we get to Prop 98, and even more complexity.

  The upshot of all this is an attempt by the state to live within a revenue system that was volatile, severely limited by being around 15th in the nation in revenue collected, having to provide services (and the people who provide those services) in the 2nd highest state in the nation in cost-of-living, and work within a Constitutional framework defined by the courts in Serrano.

  I should add the the “principle” defined by Serrano, that it is unconstitutional to provide children with an education limited by their parent’s wealth and nearby property values, is one that has been reaffirmed in court cases in a number of other states. Then there have been cases affirmed by the courts in other states saying it is not Constitutional to not provide “adequate” funding for schools. This has required a change to some state’s tax systems. “Adequacy” has often been defined as the dollars necessary to educate a child to set the level of “rigor’ in a states education standards. This was a topic of a study done some years ago in the state, under a Republican governor, called “Getting Down to Facts,” and a general agreement that the state needed to provide $30 billion plus to education. Then, a bunch of excuses were made about why this should not happen. Bottom line: it meant more taxes. LCFF is another effort to make the state’s school funding more equitable and better suited to the needs of the student population.

  Have a good holiday!

  • FloydThursby1941 8 years ago8 years ago

    Gary, if taxing commercial property caused us to really close the achievement gap, I'd be for it. But why couldn't we imprison the percentage of people Europe does? Why couldn't we reduce our defense to just barely the leading one in the world and not involve ourselves in other nations' affairs and only keep enough nukes to say, destroy the world once, which would mean a cut of over 50%. The prison … Read More

    Gary, if taxing commercial property caused us to really close the achievement gap, I’d be for it. But why couldn’t we imprison the percentage of people Europe does? Why couldn’t we reduce our defense to just barely the leading one in the world and not involve ourselves in other nations’ affairs and only keep enough nukes to say, destroy the world once, which would mean a cut of over 50%. The prison cost is more of a State cost. Also, DC spends a lot, what if we spent more but it just went into salaries and was considered an entitlement and there was no improvement? You have consistently avoided commenting on why Asian and other ethnicities study harder. Do families bear some responsibility for poor performance in school? Do families need to change their habits? I don’t hear much from you that I feel confident would change the achievement gap with more money. It would be a shame to spend more and still have this problem. No focus on tutoring or effort is every included, and you stay quiet or change the subject whenever one talks about the groups which push themselves to thrive while poor, like Asians. You never mention culture, effort, or dedication. You never even comment on it. And you also assume tenure/seniority never ever has any effect on allowing teachers to feel it’s OK to call in sick even if not sick and the need to raise attendance levels to corporate levels or ideally higher, as in corporations people only have 10 days off and some have no choice but to miss a day for a doctor’s appointment, whereas teachers can wait for their weeks and moths off and avoid having to miss school for such things. You ignore many of the issues facing an effort to improve factual performance. I comment on any fact your raise, but you ignore any that don’t fit your paradigm of poverty is to blame and can’t be overcome, more money would help. Merry Christmas.

  • Andrew 8 years ago8 years ago

    Prop 13 is just a variation of the seniority system used for teacher salary schedules. Property owners who have "seniority" and who owned their properties for a long time under Prop 13 commonly pay half or less in property taxes what a newer owner would pay for the same property. Just as a five year teacher might make half of what a 30 year teacher makes under union negotiated salary schedules. … Read More

    Prop 13 is just a variation of the seniority system used for teacher salary schedules.

    Property owners who have “seniority” and who owned their properties for a long time under Prop 13 commonly pay half or less in property taxes what a newer owner would pay for the same property. Just as a five year teacher might make half of what a 30 year teacher makes under union negotiated salary schedules. I could make many of the same arguments in favor of Prop 13 that senior teachers make in favor of the salary schedules heavily weighted in their favors.

    Both systems strike me as unfair to those less senior. But your analysis of education funding and funding issues in California is well put together and helpful in seeing the whole picture. Merry Christmas!

    • FloydThursby1941 8 years ago8 years ago

      How dare you criticize the overpaid and undertaxed on Christmas! Great point, very true. Property Tax should be based on benefit and pay based on productivity/contribution to children. Both are equally ridiculous! And Dawn, it's Christmas! Let's tax the rich and pay for planes. We shouldn't only accept the poor from Mexico and Central America. Gas is going down. Fuel. Let's pay for planes to Africa, … Read More

      How dare you criticize the overpaid and undertaxed on Christmas! Great point, very true. Property Tax should be based on benefit and pay based on productivity/contribution to children. Both are equally ridiculous! And Dawn, it’s Christmas! Let’s tax the rich and pay for planes. We shouldn’t only accept the poor from Mexico and Central America. Gas is going down. Fuel. Let’s pay for planes to Africa, New Guinea, Indonesia, Madagascar, and Fiji to go and offer to bring back anyone who wishes to emigrate to California and collect welfare and study under 5 hours a week while watching TV over 40. Who cares if they’ll try to do well in school. It’s Christmas and they can be richer here on welfare than there on super hard backbreaking work. Our kids can afford getting less and still be upper middle class and pay taxes for the kids of these immigrants. It’s Christmas. We’re morally obligated to help the poor of the world, not make our schools better!

    • Gary Ravani 8 years ago8 years ago

      Andrew: If you read what I had to say about Prop 13, with an open mind (and it can be done if you persevere) you can see that I attribute the motivations of the proposition's proponents to being all about protecting large business landholders in the state, and not about the abuse of elders at all. There is considerable evidence to suggest the actual funders of the Prop 13 campaign were business interests and little, … Read More

      Andrew:

      If you read what I had to say about Prop 13, with an open mind (and it can be done if you persevere) you can see that I attribute the motivations of the proposition’s proponents to being all about protecting large business landholders in the state, and not about the abuse of elders at all. There is considerable evidence to suggest the actual funders of the Prop 13 campaign were business interests and little, if any, to support the idea of the elderly being thrown out in the street because of property taxes.

      As along time home owner I do have an advantage due to Prop 13 on my property taxes. I would not find it objectionable to create a system where the long time homeowners pay a more so the newer homeowner could pay a less. I would also not object to work the system, as many bond and parcel taxes are conceived, to carve out protections for the elderly so that they are protected in their homes. (Full disclosure: I would benefit from such a carve out.) What I have suggested is not politically palatable. The mythology of Prop 13 still holds sway. There is room to maneuver on the commercial property side though.

      As I have explained on numerous accessions there are various reasons to support the current configuration of most uniform salary schedules.

      Teachers are awarded for an “experience factor” and this is supported by research indicating that experience counts for teaching. Even leading members of the public-school-criticism-industrial-complex have written that students in high poverty schools/districts are “cheated” by the fact that there are fewer senior teachers in those kinds of districts. The critics have proposed restricting teachers’ rights to transfer as a “solution” (the “solution to education problems” always wrapped conveniently in an attack on teachers and their rights). As I have also stated, based on research in the subject, teachers leave schools, districts, the profession most often because of their perceptions of lack of leadership and lack of resources to do the job. A couple of other factors that can be untangled are “proximity” and salary. Teachers tend to be of the middle-class and want to have homes in middle-class areas. Teachers will often choose to teach in schools near where they live. Though salary is not a primary motivation for teachers (no one enters the profession expecting to buy a second home on Maui) they are also not monks sworn to lives of poverty. They also have their families to consider. Salaries in distressed districts tend to be lower.

      This helps explain the seniority “steps” in the salary schedules .

      Then there is a career incentive factor. teachers tend to look both at the starting and ending salaries when they consider applying to a district. This is a factor that district administrations look at also. The HR people want to have a schedule that is attractive as well as competitive. The schedule is not creature of union construction only.

      Then there is the retirement factor. Pensions tend to be based on either the last three or last year of the salary/work schedule. This provides for a modest, but secure retirement.

      Then there is the fact that there is not enough money available to do everything everybody wants to do. Provide a decent salary, keep class sizes as low as possible, keep as high a number of supports for students available as possible (e.g., psychologists, librarians, counselors, etc.) Providing “extra duty” pay (e.g., BTSA support providers, PAR coaches/mentors/professional development providers, athletic coaches, drama teachers, etc.). All of this, of course, is also tied up in the effort to provide the best classroom experience and high levels of student support as possible both on the upon and management sides. There are many competing demands to be worked out at the bargaining table, and often it’s a collaborative rather than adversarial process. Then there is the effort to make it all as fair and equitable as possible and one that, in the democratic contract ratification process, is acceptable to the membership (as well as the school board and community). There is a lot of soul-searching at a professional level, a great deal of time and effort, deep thought, working within an Ed Code, and the usual blood, sweat, and tears that goes into the whole thing. And all of this the 48th, 49, or 50th funded K-12 education system in the nation.

      Teachers not only move down the salary schedule in “seniority steps” increasing compensation. They can also move across the schedule, based on earning more academic credits that also raises compensation. Gaining a masters or doctorate is also usually rewarded with extra compensation. There are some press releases, called “studies,” that suggest that teachers earning more academic credit does not “pay off” in increased student achievement. These “studies” often use some variation on the discredited VAM as criteria. Then there is the huge irony in suggesting that anyone in any profession doesn’t gain effectiveness by earning more academic credits or degrees. It’s great for professors, doctors, engineers, and so on, but not teachers. Right.

      And a Merry Christmass to you and yours also.

      • Dawn Urbanek 8 years ago8 years ago

        Gary- I want to agree with you on commercial property. Think about the example of a person who bought a small apartment building and held that property for over 30 years. The tax generated on the building would remain relatively low year after year while the building was generating a lot of revenue in the form of rental income and appreciation. That is a very different situation from a homeowner that is paying a mortgage to … Read More

        Gary-

        I want to agree with you on commercial property. Think about the example of a person who bought a small apartment building and held that property for over 30 years. The tax generated on the building would remain relatively low year after year while the building was generating a lot of revenue in the form of rental income and appreciation. That is a very different situation from a homeowner that is paying a mortgage to live in their house who is not profiting from an annual revenue stream and who may be priced out of their home as they got older and the tax increased every year. So it would be reasonable to have different policies for a primary residence then it would be for commercial property that generates monthly revenue streams.

        That being said- the amount of new potential revenue the State can generate should, as a matter of law, be irrelevant in deciding the issue of the Constitutionality of California’s LCFF. There are only 2 things that the CA constitution requires the State to Fund: #1 The State Militia and #2 The Public Education System. The State MUST pay for an adequate education for EVERY student before it pays for any other services or creates any new entitlements and programs. So if there is only enough tax revenue to pay for the State Militia and the Public Education System- then that is what gets paid for and nothing else.

        It will be interesting to see the decision in Robles Wong because the issue is really that simple. Unless the State changes the constitution, the base grant needs to be increased or the law should be declared unconstitutional under the State Constitution and the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment.

        • Dawn Urbanek 8 years ago8 years ago

          To be more clear- California has not right under the California Constitution to pay for any program or service until the State military and the State’s publication system is paid for.

          If the State would like to change that then they need to change the State’s constitution-

          Sorry Jerry- no bullet train until the Constitution is changed.

        • Dawn Urbanek 8 years ago8 years ago

          To be more clear- California has no right under the California Constitution to pay for any program or service until the State military and the State’s public education system is paid for.

          If the State would like to change spending priorities then they need to change the State’s constitution-

        • navigio 8 years ago8 years ago

          You guys are just dancing around the issue: ‘adequate’ is neither defined nor enforced, not as a function of instructional resources, nor, more importantly, as a function of employee compensation. Until it is, the funders will just sit back and laugh while public education internal interests fight amongst themselves over whether one can extract ‘adequate’ from the pie at the expense of another.

        • Gary Ravani 8 years ago8 years ago

          Navigio: Actually precedent has been established in over 20 cases across the US as to what constitutes "adequate" funding. That is, an "assessment" is made as to how many dollars it takes per student to bring "all" students to some level of proficiency based on the rigor of state standards. As has been stated previously a number of the studies conducted for the "Getting Down to Facts" document of some years ago did some of this … Read More

          Navigio:

          Actually precedent has been established in over 20 cases across the US as to what constitutes “adequate” funding. That is, an “assessment” is made as to how many dollars it takes per student to bring “all” students to some level of proficiency based on the rigor of state standards. As has been stated previously a number of the studies conducted for the “Getting Down to Facts” document of some years ago did some of this work. Based on CA’s standards at the time several experts came up with figures ranging from $30 plus billion to $1.5 trillion. When the results were leaked the rollout of the report was politically fixed by have Hanushek at Hoover for example, who has never found good reason to increase school funding or support teachers, be one of the co-presnters. Obviously, under a Republican Administration (even a sham administration with the Governator at the helm), to propose $30 billion more for school funding on top of repairing the $20 million in cuts created, in large part, by the Governator’s manipulation of auto registration fees would have had the infamous “base” foaming at the mouth. (This post will likely generate a little “foaming” right here.)

          CA has since adopted the CCSS which are ” benchmarked at world class,” whatever that means, so we could assume that would mean world class funding, not funding on a par with those cradles of civilization Alabama and Mississippi.

          So, the courts do have a widely accepted definition of “adequate” to work with. To this point in time CA courts have never done so. They do have another shot at it, so we’ll see.

        • Gary Ravani 8 years ago8 years ago

          Dawn: You need to study the issues around public funding a bit. There are "pots" of public money that can be used for one thing and not another. Dollars from bonds, for example, can be used for improvements to school plants and infrastructure but not compensation. Dollars from parcel taxes can be more flexibly applied, to hire more personnel, make salaries more attractive and competitive in order to attract and keep personnel and reduce "churn." LAUSD, interestingly, … Read More

          Dawn:

          You need to study the issues around public funding a bit. There are “pots” of public money that can be used for one thing and not another. Dollars from bonds, for example, can be used for improvements to school plants and infrastructure but not compensation. Dollars from parcel taxes can be more flexibly applied, to hire more personnel, make salaries more attractive and competitive in order to attract and keep personnel and reduce “churn.”

          LAUSD, interestingly, appears to have tried to “stretch” the definitions around how bond dollars can be expended with the infamous iPad experiment. My understanding is the FBI is now involved in that discussion.

          As far as I am aware the “Bullet Train” is funded primarily by federal transportation dollars, state bond dollars, and some new dollars from CA’s yet to be implemented “carbon tax.” Those funds could not be directed to the schools. Different “pot.” General fund expenditures (which can fund the schools) for the train are minimal if at all.

          The courts have never, to my knowledge. interpreted the CA Constitution and how the state should expend dollars in the fashion you suggest. States have many responsibilities other than the schools.

        • Don 8 years ago8 years ago

          Dawn, you mentioned before you were not familiar with Serrano. This is the seminal education case in California. As Gary explained, without it students were entirely dependent upon the ability of their district to raise revenue. If a poor and a rich district each needed $10M in revenue, the tax burden in the poor district was much higher given the higher tax rate needed to raise that same amount of revenue due to … Read More

          Dawn, you mentioned before you were not familiar with Serrano. This is the seminal education case in California. As Gary explained, without it students were entirely dependent upon the ability of their district to raise revenue. If a poor and a rich district each needed $10M in revenue, the tax burden in the poor district was much higher given the higher tax rate needed to raise that same amount of revenue due to property values.

          The problem with Gary’s explanation is that, first, not all basic aid districts are rich as he contended, but more importantly, not all problems stem from funding. He wants to make the entire problem of education in California about funding and ignore the other issues. Since the vast majority of all funding goes to pay salaries it would make sense for the union to hold such a position. But some students will continue to excel and advance even with larger class sizes and cutbacks and other students will never reach proficiency no matter how large the supplemental grant. He believes a poor teacher can be made a good teacher with proper training. I thought the purpose of the public schools was to train students?

        • navigio 8 years ago8 years ago

          nothing in current law or policy (getting down to facts is neither) or even precedent tells us how to weigh the competing interests of employee compensation, staffing levels and instructional resources. instead, we get a block of money and those with most power and/or loudest voices win. let me put it more bluntly (as long as we're working toward foaming): you can achieve financial goals in a number of ways: cutting teacher compensation, cutting support staff, … Read More

          nothing in current law or policy (getting down to facts is neither) or even precedent tells us how to weigh the competing interests of employee compensation, staffing levels and instructional resources. instead, we get a block of money and those with most power and/or loudest voices win.
          let me put it more bluntly (as long as we’re working toward foaming): you can achieve financial goals in a number of ways: cutting teacher compensation, cutting support staff, cutting central admins or instructional resources, closing schools. etc etc. what impact does each of these have on instruction? should they be done at equal rates? and what of increasing funding? should increased funding be put back into each of these facets equally? in proportion to their importance? in proportion to their historical lack of funding? how should they be weighed against the more explicit requirements of special education? how much should schools control vs boards?
          i said adequacy as a function of other things.
          i will be truly dismayed if utla caves and agrees to set compensation levels independent of knowing what will happen with support staff levels. (not only is knowing the latter a precondition on determining the former, but teacher quality is directly a function of those other things and thus it will destroy the one opportunity we had to have a discussion about how to at least think about weighing these competing interests. and note, when funding is not limitless, even absolute adequacy is still a function of the relative nature of compensation within broader society–eg how does compensation impact quality and quantity of the various professions involved?).
          i have a sneaking suspicion that public education for all children is simply not sustainable in the kind of economic system we have. if that’s true, the discussion needs to be turned to whether we invest in those who have the most likelihood of succeeding, or if we invest in those for whom government is supposed to be the backstop. at the moment, policy is taking the latter approach, imho (with the exception of special education, where some levels of support are explicitly defined). and given the numbers from the report you cite, even lcff is just small taste of where we would need to end up (if it even ends up being any different than whats happened up to now).

      • FloydThursby1941 8 years ago8 years ago

        Gary, you have studies but ignore studies showing some teachers are more effective than others, significantly so, with less seniority. You also never addressed whether you feel some teachers take days off they should not, morally, because they aren’t sick and don’t need to.

        • FloydThursby1941 8 years ago8 years ago

          Navigio, what about when a teacher everyone knows is ineffective stays on the job 20 years or more after everyone knows they're ineffective? Some have had 3 attempts at removal, all failing, some none, and are still ineffective. This takes a court action because you can spend 9-10k or 30k and anyone in their class will not have "adequate" education. It isn't only about taxes and money. It's about a special … Read More

          Navigio, what about when a teacher everyone knows is ineffective stays on the job 20 years or more after everyone knows they’re ineffective? Some have had 3 attempts at removal, all failing, some none, and are still ineffective. This takes a court action because you can spend 9-10k or 30k and anyone in their class will not have “adequate” education. It isn’t only about taxes and money. It’s about a special interest putting the interests of their worst and non-trying members over the interests of mostly low income schoolchildren. These are the facts, and they are undisputed.

        • navigio 8 years ago8 years ago

          Doesn’t matter fluid. That counts as adequate under current law.

        • Shripathi Kamath 8 years ago8 years ago

          Indeed. But how does one conclude that a teacher is more effective than another?

        • FloydThursby1941 8 years ago8 years ago

          Shripathi, this is lame. It's difficult to determine how one teacher is more effective than another so we should continue to pay, lay off and promote in lockstep? The Chronicle yesterday praised Vergara and said politicians should break with labor and do what's right for children and put children #1. Do we not bother to differentiate in business because how can you tell when one engineer is better than another? Some … Read More

          Shripathi, this is lame. It’s difficult to determine how one teacher is more effective than another so we should continue to pay, lay off and promote in lockstep? The Chronicle yesterday praised Vergara and said politicians should break with labor and do what’s right for children and put children #1. Do we not bother to differentiate in business because how can you tell when one engineer is better than another? Some people have different opinions. Google values things differently than IBM or Oracle or HP. It is obvious some teachers are better than others. This is a phony argument because people like you always criticize factors and act like you are all deep and saying, this isn’t always ideal, like you’re trying to find a way, but in the end you push for seniority only which is less accurate than other factors and gives teachers a sense of satisfaction and comfort when in many cases stress and pressure makes you work harder and help kids more. Here is a list of what should be factors in valuing teacher, all of which are more fair than seniority and more reflective of how hard a teacher works:

          1. Observations by the principal without rules restricting it from the Union. Principals know education and can observe and tell in meetings which teachers are most dedicated. Their observation of teachers is restricted by union rules which are counterproductive. Watching someone work is very effective. Also with modern technologies, we could install cameras in each classroom to reward teachers who stay focused and reprimand teachers who teach for 5 minutes and read the paper while having kids correct each other or study quietly, and this is very common.

          2. Attendance. Teachers who only call in sick or miss a day when they absolutely have no other choice should be laid off after teachers who routinely take the maximum 11-12 days off even if they don’t need them. In San Francisco, they get 11 days and they don’t even have to call their boss, a principal, to say they are sick. Absentee rates are higher than those for students. Some teachers don’t call in sick at all and I know several, but some call in sick the maximum allowable number of days every year, taking trips to Vegas, going to the movies, staying home, going to cafes. Now teachers work 184 days a year vs. 250-260 for many of us pressured not to even take 2 weeks vacation. Doctor’s appointments and the like can be done in all those extra days off, Summer, a week for Spring, 2 weeks for winter and days others don’t get off or at 4 PM after work which can be made. Every time there is a sub 22-35 children are damaged. It hurts their education. Time off should be an unfortunate occasional occurrence, but work should be rewarded. There is no negative consequence to calling in sick 11 days each year with no explanation or justification under current union rules, and many teachers take full unfair advantage of this putting their own interests ahead of those of children.

          3. Test Scores. Yes, this can be a factor. You adjust for the previous year’s test scores and consider demographics, but you look at improvement and value add. This will demonstrate clearly some teachers are way better than others.

          4. Student Reviews. Ratemyteacher.com shows some teachers are absolutely ridiculous. Look up Pang at Lowell or Ho at Presidio (Ms.). There is no doubt you’re dealing with someone awful who is hurting children’s education not helping it. There are thousands of such teachers. Student reviews will show a lot and students should be trusted.

          5. Parent Reviews. Give the most credence to the best students. Parents try to meet with teachers and call and some teachers are way more helpful than others. Teachers should lose particular points on this if they don’t bother to show up at back to school night, as some teachers at Lowell have missed 3 consecutive years after teaching the day of said night, and it’s only once a year. This is incredibly disrespectful to parents.

          6. Peer Reviews. This could become a rubber stamp but if done honestly would be a valuable tool.

          All of these tell us more than how many years a teacher has been on the job. Some teachers are great, and some are slackers or mediocre. We aren’t near the bottom internationally because teacher quality is a priority. Parenting is a factor, but teacher quality could improve. Don’t let your question lead to judging by seniority, which is less accurate than any of these 6 factors and does less to motivate pressure and encourage teachers to work harder.

Replies

• Dawn Urbanek 8 years ago8 years ago

  Unfortunately that is why it will take a lawsuit in Federal Court to declare California’s new LCFF unconstitutional and force the State to pay for an “adequate” education for every student and only then will the State be able to provide additional funding for the poor and English Language Learners or create more entitlement programs.

Replies

• Dawn Urbanek 8 years ago8 years ago

  The Average Schedule Salary in the Capistrano Unified School District 212-13 was $78,827 for 183 days of service http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/cs/documents/j90summary1213.pdf This July they added three more steps to the salary schedule – many of our teachers are making above $85,000 per year in Salary for 183 days of service. http://cusdjobs-capousd-ca.schoolloop.com/file/1235192779485/1235193542262/8335350407942739878.pdf - See more at: http://calwatchdog.com/2014/12/18/teacher-pay-raises-gobble-up-prop-30-lcff-funds/#sthash.CAv3ZsAV.dpuf Comparing the $78,000 salary at 36 weeks to a person who works 46 week a year would mean teachers in my District … Read More

  The Average Schedule Salary in the Capistrano Unified School District 212-13 was $78,827 for 183 days of service

  http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/cs/documents/j90summary1213.pdf

  This July they added three more steps to the salary schedule – many of our teachers are making above $85,000 per year in Salary for 183 days of service.

  http://cusdjobs-capousd-ca.schoolloop.com/file/1235192779485/1235193542262/8335350407942739878.pdf – See more at: http://calwatchdog.com/2014/12/18/teacher-pay-raises-gobble-up-prop-30-lcff-funds/#sthash.CAv3ZsAV.dpuf

  Comparing the $78,000 salary at 36 weeks to a person who works 46 week a year would mean teachers in my District are making about $100,000 per year just in salary.

  The teachers in my District are not grossly underpaid.

  The District keeps raising compensation for employees and uses furlough days, class size increases and deferred maintenance to pay for the increases. By 2021 when Jerry Brown has placed the increased CalSTRS contributions on Districts over 100% of the Districts budget will be salaries, pensions and benefits.

• Dawn Urbanek 8 years ago8 years ago

  Gary stated: "The other real problem facing CA is its status as being among the lowest states in funding per student for K-12 education in the nation. This is because CA does not collect enough in revenue." I disagree Gary- The State has record high revenues but chooses to keep creating new entitlements rather than pay for education. The elected representatives of this State are choosing not to spend resources on Education and if the funding is … Read More

  Gary stated: “The other real problem facing CA is its status as being among the lowest states in funding per student for K-12 education in the nation. This is because CA does not collect enough in revenue.”

  I disagree Gary-

  The State has record high revenues but chooses to keep creating new entitlements rather than pay for education. The elected representatives of this State are choosing not to spend resources on Education and if the funding is going to be so low then employees should not expect any further salary increases in the future.

  • FloydThursby1941 8 years ago8 years ago

    Dawn is 100% right. California is #4 in total tax revenue after the Tri-States, NY, NJ and CT. We choose not to spend more on education for several reasons. One is that so many Californians, 92% of whom went to public school or over 95 for part of their education, have had a bad teacher and have seen them protected to an extreme, so it makes them reluctant to vote for more … Read More

    Dawn is 100% right. California is #4 in total tax revenue after the Tri-States, NY, NJ and CT. We choose not to spend more on education for several reasons. One is that so many Californians, 92% of whom went to public school or over 95 for part of their education, have had a bad teacher and have seen them protected to an extreme, so it makes them reluctant to vote for more funding which will mostly go to salary increases without reforms in the 11 absences a year policy and the difficulty to fire bad teachers. My prediction is that if Vergara is upheld and truly implemented as policy, we will see faster than inflation salary increases. Many voters simply won’t vote for significantly higher salaries without absence and job protection being on the table in return, as this system really hurts many children, including my own in several cases.

    Dawn is also right that we spend more on welfare and state health plans than other states. We also spend more on police and prisons, with 1 in 3 black men spending some time in prison, most for nonviolent offenses. We could reduce this by doing what Europe does, legalize or decriminalize most drugs and prostitution, have an age of consent of 16 as most European Nations do, legalize gambling, and reduce draconian sentences. You don’t have to legalize 3d strikes but we could say if the 3d strike is minor, it’s 5 years, not 25. We could let go violent offenders past the age of 70 in return for good behavior to give hope and spend less on security guards for prisoners with nothing to lose. In Europe, sentences don’t go past 30 years, but here we have some in prison for 50-60 years with no hope, and often it’s simply vindictive, such as one of the Manson girls in a wheelchair dying of cancer not being released to her family. We’ve become more punitive than any nation on earth and it costs us a great deal of money.

    We choose to believe only property taxes at a set limit can be spent on education, but some districts spend other funds. Anything we cut, the giant bureaucracies, prisons, police, welfare, could be spent on the UC and State and JC systems and on K-12 Education and quality universal preschool. We all make a choice, and in my opinion, the wrong one.

    These are the facts, and they are undisputed.

  • Gary Ravani 8 years ago8 years ago

    Re the subject of how much CA pays in taxes and, therefore, how much it can pay to support the schools it is necessary to look behind the superficialities. CA tax revenues are now the highest they have been this decade, but in dollars adjusted for inflation they are not the highest "ever." And a good part of the reason they are as high as they are is Prop 30, which obviously raised taxes, as well … Read More

    Re the subject of how much CA pays in taxes and, therefore, how much it can pay to support the schools it is necessary to look behind the superficialities.

    CA tax revenues are now the highest they have been this decade, but in dollars adjusted for inflation they are not the highest “ever.” And a good part of the reason they are as high as they are is Prop 30, which obviously raised taxes, as well as an improving economy.

    CA has the second highest percentage of students living in poverty in the nation behind only Florida, CA, of course, has a higher number. It is generally acknowledged that educating needy students, in order to level the playing field, requires more spending. Lower class sizes are particularly noted for having a high positive impact on the achievement of needy students. Needless to say CA has some of the highest class sizes in the nation and doesn’t spend “more,” as compared to to other states so we don’t “level any educational playing fields.” LCFF is an effort, but it’s basically a more moral and equitable way to underfund education. The exception to this “rule” is in basic aide districts which are exclusively in high wealth areas. Educational achievement in these high wealth areas matches that of any high achieving area in the nation in ACT, SAT, college attendance, etc.

    It is commonly bandied about the CA has the “4th highest tax rate in the nation.” By itself that statement is meaningless. Specifically speaking, tax revenue “as a percentage of personal income:” corporate taxes are 4th and state individual taxes are 6th. High? Until you get to total state and local income taxes: 10th. Local by itself: 23. State and local sales: 19th. Motor fuels: 22. Tobacco: 46. Alcohol: 42. And then there’s the “biggy,” property taxes (that fund most state school systems) where CA ranks 24th in the nation. And CA, on a per square foot basis, has some of the most expensive real estate in the nation. So CA can’t fund the school system like “most other state school systems.” CA, when all revenue sources are accounted for is a moderate tax state, around 15th overall, while have a cost-of-living second only to Hawaii.

    [Tax data collected by CA Budget Project based on 2010-2012 US Census and Bureau of Economic Analysis.]

    Another couple of ways to look at the situation is that CA is the 9th biggest economy, state GDP taken by itself, in the world and the wealthiest, taken in per capita personal income (PCPI), in the nation: CA PCPI $47,115/US average PCPI $43,905. CA (2012-13) spent 3.18% of PCPI on its schools while the average for the rest of the US is 4.04% That’s a 27% difference! CA does not collect a reasonable amount of tax revenue based on PCPI, a very realistic bas line to compare state spending. That’s what puts us at #50 or #49 or# 48 (for the quibblers) in spending per child for K-12 education.

Replies

• FloydThursby1941 8 years ago8 years ago

  Don, I agree with your general point. This is a genuine conflict between two separate goals. In San Francisco we are now hearing how horrible it is for the poor kids to be suspended or expelled for willful defiance. The issue is selfishness. When you are willfully defiant, you are hurting 30 people and not really helping yourself, though maybe it is therapeutic for some kids with poor character who derive … Read More

  Don, I agree with your general point. This is a genuine conflict between two separate goals. In San Francisco we are now hearing how horrible it is for the poor kids to be suspended or expelled for willful defiance. The issue is selfishness. When you are willfully defiant, you are hurting 30 people and not really helping yourself, though maybe it is therapeutic for some kids with poor character who derive a sick thrill from being disruptive, it is not the kind of happiness which lasts or is meaningful.

  So you get two liberal goals in conflict. Never suspending or expelling kids and accepting poor behavior is a liberal goal in terms of trying to work with all. However, I feel that most kids who are acting this poorly are unfortunately past the point of recovery. In a desperate last ditch effort to get them back, we are sacrificing the other 30 kids in the class and making them suffer. These are kids who may graduate from college and have a future. You are also teaching that the priority is the troublemaker, which encourages that type of behavior. You’re trying to appease the worst children, and the result is often the same as when you try to appease Hitler. It simply doesn’t work. So in most cases this horrible child becomes a loser anyways, but you turn some of the other 30 kids into failures when they could have been successes.

  I say, cut your losses with the persistent troublemakers. I’m not saying never give a 2d or 3d chance, but if a child is being willfully defiant they are making a personal decision that their own need for therapeutic healing is more important than the education of 30 other children, which will render them unable to work in jobs requiring selflessness, teamwork, sacrifice and cooperation. They need to learn to submit for the common good and to suppress the selfish needs of their own for the far more important communal needs of the group. It’s called growing up.

  So the liberalism of the few is destroying the liberalism of the many, the liberalism of giving a good education to poor children who really truly wish to learn and prove it by their personal character, dedication and sacrifice.

  This lawsuit really pits these contradictory forms of liberalism against each other.

  If the lawsuit succeeds, we will have to look at the common good and what creates the best society overall. You can’t try so hard to appease one bad kid that you as a result harm many good ones. Those who wish to learn have a right to do so in safety and with respect and dignity. Those who need therapeutic help don’t have the right to hurt dozens of children for their own selfish emotions. The studious yet quiet have rights. They have dignity and humanity, and the attack from the status quo conservative oppressive element may not come from teachers with low expectations or oppressive macrostructures but may come from other children who are more selfish and harming their rights.

  These are the facts, and they are undisputed.

  • Don 8 years ago8 years ago

    The suit is about lost learning time and equal opportunity. Your comment has nothing to do with the lawsuit. Do you even read the articles before you comment?

• TheMorrigan 8 years ago8 years ago

  "Is the LCFF system that awards funding based on SES or language 'equal access'?" Because the funding is also contingent on school climate, access to credentialed teachers, and ensuring "all" classes prepare students for college or career, there is an avenue for "equal access" here. However, please do not think that I agree or disagree with the lawsuit or whatever. Read More

  “Is the LCFF system that awards funding based on SES or language ‘equal access’?”

  Because the funding is also contingent on school climate, access to credentialed teachers, and ensuring “all” classes prepare students for college or career, there is an avenue for “equal access” here. However, please do not think that I agree or disagree with the lawsuit or whatever.

• navigio 8 years ago8 years ago

  When access is otherwise denied disproportionately for those students, then yes.

  • Don 8 years ago8 years ago

    Navigio, LCFF does not provide grant funding beyond the base because of various types of access issues, like the ones litigated in this suit. SC grants are based, as you know, on membership in one of the three groups without regard to other factors. Clearly, some significant percentage of kids within these groups do suffer lesser access and the suit makes sense for that reason. But they are not one and the same and … Read More

    Navigio, LCFF does not provide grant funding beyond the base because of various types of access issues, like the ones litigated in this suit. SC grants are based, as you know, on membership in one of the three groups without regard to other factors. Clearly, some significant percentage of kids within these groups do suffer lesser access and the suit makes sense for that reason. But they are not one and the same and the suit should not provide a remedy for all students who happen to be in one of the three groups. For that matter, there are students not in any one of the three groups who suffer from lack of access – to qualified teachers, for example.

    I don’t think the defendant’s contention that LCFF needs to play out holds water. If LCFF allocated funds based upon lack of access then it might, but then the State would be admitting it violates the constitutional requirement of equal educational opportunity.

    If Cruz succeeds will be interesting to see if the court appoints an overseer. I suspect it would because the LCAP is clearly not up to the task. If it were up to it the suit might not be necessary. If supporters think the end result will be billions more for disadvantaged public school students, I think they’ll be disappointed.

    Paul, thank you for providing an excellent living example of just how poor oversight really can be and how these inequities play out in real time. While collaboration is the theme of LCFF, the government has to answer to the state Constitution and good will and cooperation alone doesn’t meet a fiduciary responsibility of that order.

    Also, Paul, in regard to your first comment, some of the allegations are clear cut, but others are not. Violence and trauma as they affect schools have no straightforward fix like teacher misassignment, scheduling problems or the non-instructional use of student service minutes. The costs to assign credentialed counseling professionals for all students within this class who suffer from socio-economic and familial problems would be astronomical.

    Floyd, there are some recalcitrant students within the class of students identified in this suit, no doubt. I do agree that there are some students for whom we spend way too much money considering the cost incurred upon the rest of the students. But as pertains to this suit, most of these kids would like to be able to succeed in school and have every right to expect to receive an equal opportunity to do so.

    • navigio 8 years ago8 years ago

      Both parties agree that these student classifications correlate strongly with the realities of lack access. The plaintiffs by claiming unequal access based on race, income and language, and the state by claiming LCFF diverts additional revenues to just those students. So I don’t think it’s relevant here whether the correlation is not 1.

      • Don 8 years ago8 years ago

        You know, Navigio, that race-based funding is prohibited by federal law. I didn't read the entire complaint but I read a good deal of it. It is very specific list of plaintiffs and members of the class action, which includes all present and future students at only these 7 schools until resolution. I didn't see anywhere (though I might have missed it) that the suit claims to act on behalf of all students … Read More

        You know, Navigio, that race-based funding is prohibited by federal law.

        I didn’t read the entire complaint but I read a good deal of it. It is very specific list of plaintiffs and members of the class action, which includes all present and future students at only these 7 schools until resolution.

        I didn’t see anywhere (though I might have missed it) that the suit claims to act on behalf of all students who are recipients of SC grants or even anything remotely like that. In fact, to the contrary, it said:

        21. The time losses suffered at the seven schools are far greater than the prevailing norm
        in California and are not an inevitable result of poverty or any other condition faced by the communities in which these schools are located. To suggest that it is impossible to provide these
        children with an equal education would be to demean the children enrolled at these schools, who
        depend on their education to have a bright future, and the committed education professionals
        working in these schools, who devote their professional lives to the success of their students.

        Note that it says “not an inevitable result of poverty”. I think you’re reading into it, Navigio, though California’s legal system does allow for a precedent to support further litigation.

        • navigio 8 years ago8 years ago

          The suit doesn't claim to act on behalf of undups and I didn't say it did. That, however, did not stop the state from trying to use increased funding via LCFF for just those students as a defense that things would get better (not me passing judgement, just stating that the two sides seem to have accepted the student demographic criteria here). Also, LCFF isn't technically 'race-based funding' though there clearly is a correlation. … Read More

          The suit doesn’t claim to act on behalf of undups and I didn’t say it did. That, however, did not stop the state from trying to use increased funding via LCFF for just those students as a defense that things would get better (not me passing judgement, just stating that the two sides seem to have accepted the student demographic criteria here). Also, LCFF isn’t technically ‘race-based funding’ though there clearly is a correlation.

          I expect the reason the suit explicitly mentioned ‘not an inevitable result of poverty’ et al, is that in Williams, part of the state’s defense was exactly this. The state didn’t try to reject the claims in that case, rather accepted them and tried to argue instead that it didn’t matter. Obviously that didn’t go too well.

Replies

• Jane Meredith Adams 8 years ago8 years ago

  You're right that, as part of the Williams settlement in 2004, the state funded county offices of education to perform additional oversight of the districts. The issues monitored in Williams are, as you know, textbooks, credentialed teachers and safe facilities. So counties have not been asked to monitor the Cruz issue of meaningful instructional time -- whether students at high-poverty schools are receiving the same amount of meaningful instructional time as students at other schools. … Read More

  You’re right that, as part of the Williams settlement in 2004, the state funded county offices of education to perform additional oversight of the districts. The issues monitored in Williams are, as you know, textbooks, credentialed teachers and safe facilities. So counties have not been asked to monitor the Cruz issue of meaningful instructional time — whether students at high-poverty schools are receiving the same amount of meaningful instructional time as students at other schools. As in Williams, Cruz is asking for a state monitoring system. And it seems the state is making the argument you raise — that additional funding through LCFF hasn’t been given a chance to work. Also, it’s interesting to note that the Williams requirements are written into LCAPs as part of the eight state priorities.

  • Paul Muench 8 years ago8 years ago

    It seems as if I'm missing out on understanding some type of technical definition used in education law. Consider the following: "The lawsuit states that at the high schools named, instead of attending classes to meet graduation and college entrance requirements, the students are assigned to many periods of “home,” “service” or “library” classes that have no academic instruction." I think using the expression "no academic instruction" is a fine way to describe the situation, but … Read More

    It seems as if I’m missing out on understanding some type of technical definition used in education law. Consider the following:

    “The lawsuit states that at the high schools named, instead of attending classes to meet graduation and college entrance requirements, the students are assigned to many periods of “home,” “service” or “library” classes that have no academic instruction.”

    I think using the expression “no academic instruction” is a fine way to describe the situation, but given the names of the periods I assumed another good way to describe the situation is that there are no teachers to teach the students. So I would expect Williams could at least speak to this most egregious situation. Is there a loophole where the Williams settlement only looks at the percentage of teachers that are credentialed, but ignores the fact that there are not enough teachers? Or is there some definition of teacher where a teacher doesn’t have to provide academic instruction? Sorry if these questions are pedantic, but it seems as if I may not even know the right question to ask.

    • Paul 8 years ago8 years ago

      Paul Muench, you are correct about "certificated assignment monitoring". County offices of education are responsible for checking that (non-charter) classrooms are staffed by teachers with credentials appropriate to their assignments. In a departmentalized (6-12) setting, this definitely requires awareness of the master schedule. Title I schools in the bottom academic decile receive the strictest scrutiny. But... 1. Monitoring was suspended during the financial crisis. 2. County office and school district executives must maintain gentlemanly relationships, not unlike the … Read More

      Paul Muench, you are correct about “certificated assignment monitoring”. County offices of education are responsible for checking that (non-charter) classrooms are staffed by teachers with credentials appropriate to their assignments. In a departmentalized (6-12) setting, this definitely requires awareness of the master schedule. Title I schools in the bottom academic decile receive the strictest scrutiny.

      But…

      1. Monitoring was suspended during the financial crisis.

      2. County office and school district executives must maintain gentlemanly relationships, not unlike the relationships between college/university executives and members of accreditation visitation teams. Incisive criticism is risky: if you criticize a peer, she will repay you in kind when it’s her turn.

      3. School district executives lie. I experienced this more than once at Monterey Peninsula Unified, an example of a low-performing, hard-to-staff, financially-strapped district.

      One year, I opened a classroom on a substitute permit, the only document I had at the time. I watched two credentialed hires come and go; one lasted only a day. When my 30 days were up, I was begged to stay, on my substitute permit.

      The following year, I took over a classroom when the teacher went on leave. By that time, I had satisfied the requirements for an internship credential, but MPUSD preferred not to request one, and to use my substitute permit instead. The incumbent soon decided not to return. I was again implored to stay past 30 days. My successor, who had a substitute permit and was not qualified for any credential, served the remaining half of the year.

      I later checked the SARCs. MPUSD failed to report:

      – a classroom opened without a regular teacher at the start of the year (definition of teacher misassignment)

      – a substitute not substituting for an incumbent teacher (a no-no according to the CTC “Administrator’s Assignment Manual”)

      – a classroom staffed by a series of substitutes (definition of misassignment)

      – a classroom staffed by a teacher without an appropriate document (substitute in same classroom > 30 days) (definition of misassignment; illegal, for the district; for the substitute, a breach of the CTC ethical code)

      The series-of-substitute year saved MPUSD over $10,000 in wages, $7,500 in medical benefits, $3,000 in sick leave benefits, and $800 to $3,000 in pension contributions. Need I say more?

      • Paul Muench 8 years ago8 years ago

        Paul,

        I saw this CDE webpage that lists county oversight funding by year:

        http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/ca/williamscase.asp

        The program seems to be continuous. Can you provide more details on the monitoring being suspended?

        • Paul 8 years ago8 years ago

          Hi, Paul Muench. "The Lord giveth and he taketh away." Certificated assignment monitoring funds became flexible in January, 2009, affecting at least the second half of the 2008-2009 fiscal year and school year. Under SBX3 4 §15(d), districts were automatically deemed compliant. The monitoring mandate was restored in July, 2009, after the start of the 2009-2010 fiscal year! See ABX4 2 §15(e)(4). This is precisely the sort of "musical chairs" legislation that Californians enjoyed during the financial crisis. It takes … Read More

          Hi, Paul Muench.

          “The Lord giveth and he taketh away.”

          Certificated assignment monitoring funds became flexible in January, 2009, affecting at least the second half of the 2008-2009 fiscal year and school year. Under SBX3 4 §15(d), districts were automatically deemed compliant.

          The monitoring mandate was restored in July, 2009, after the start of the 2009-2010 fiscal year! See ABX4 2 §15(e)(4).

          This is precisely the sort of “musical chairs” legislation that Californians enjoyed during the financial crisis.

          It takes time for legislative changes to be circulated, and then for agencies to amend budgets, rehire staff and restore functions. What’s more, this particular change probably went unnoticed for quite some time in many places, because the closely-related and much more visible textbook sufficiency mandate was never fully restored.

    • Dawn Urbanek 8 years ago8 years ago

      I have documented in great detail how the new LCAP does not provide any oversight for students. The Capistrano Unified School District in Orange County received $8.24 million in new LCFF money. Before the LCAP was even in place the District used $5.62 million to restore salaries from the 2010 teachers strike then the District proceeded to give students 3 furlough days and increase class sizes by 1.5 students across all grades.- so much for … Read More

      I have documented in great detail how the new LCAP does not provide any oversight for students. The Capistrano Unified School District in Orange County received $8.24 million in new LCFF money. Before the LCAP was even in place the District used $5.62 million to restore salaries from the 2010 teachers strike then the District proceeded to give students 3 furlough days and increase class sizes by 1.5 students across all grades.- so much for parent in-put and any oversight from the Orange County Department of Education. We are currently working without a new contract but the budget that was adopted this summer changed class sizes and employee compensation. I keep asking the District how they are able to do that and I get no response. I have asked it probably four or five times at Board meetings on the record. NOTHING but silence.

      Source: July 24, 2013 Public Disclosure of Collective Bargaining Agreement presented in a Memo from Clark Hampton, Deputy Superintendent, Business and Support Services to Trustees re: USE OF ADDITIONAL FUNDING FROM 2012-2013 TO 2013-2014 AND PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT 2013- 2014 http://capousd.ca.schoolloop.com/file/1343191429797/5667737573387975994.pdf at page 3

      • navigio 8 years ago8 years ago

        I wonder whether districts realize that instructional furlough days reduces LCFF grant funding.

        • Dawn Urbanek 8 years ago8 years ago

          Can you explain this to me? How do instructional furloughs reduce the base grant? Also – it is interesting that starting in 2015 all Districts must have 180 days- so I will be curious to see what could possibly be cut in my DIstrict to keep up with even the projected COLAS

        • Don 8 years ago8 years ago

          Number of pupils and average daily attendance determines state apportionments. Obviously, if there are less days than there would be less funding, though I believe that the 180 day requirement was relaxed during the Great Recession.

        • navigio 8 years ago8 years ago

          No, this is on top of ADA. Part of the LCFF code says that if districts provide less instruction they get docked funding. It’s referenced from the Cruz complaint where they point out the folly of LCFF improving things for these kids (because tgat ed code requires the state to reduce funding not increase it). I’d reference it but in a cell at the moment.

        • FloydThursby1941 8 years ago8 years ago

          Don, if this is true, will San Francisco lose money because we shut down the schools due to the storm, or will the kids have to come in one last day the Tuesday after Memorial Day?

        • navigio 8 years ago8 years ago

          again, different than ada, but even then your district will probably apply for backfill:

          http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr14/yr14rel118.asp