Showing posts with label budget cuts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label budget cuts. Show all posts
Thursday, April 16, 2015
In 1952, the corporate income tax accounted for about 32 percent of all federal tax revenue
In 1952, the corporate income tax accounted for about 32 percent of all federal tax revenue. Today, despite record-breaking profits, corporate taxes bring in just 11 percent. ..
--Daily Kos
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Survey: 81 Percent of Universities Say Sequester Has Directly Affected Research Activities; Canada also cutting research
(Graphic: Inside Higher Ed)
Survey: 81 Percent of Universities Say Sequester Has Directly Affected Research Activities
November 12, 2013
by Allison Kilkenny
This post first appeared in The Nation.
According to a new survey released Monday, 81 percent of responding universities said that sequestration, the automatic federal budget cuts, have directly affected their research activities. More than half of universities said a decrease in new federal grant opportunities and the shrinking value of existing grants, has prompted them to reduce research-related positions and nearly a quarter of the institutions said they have laid off research employees as a result of the cuts.
“The survey shows that sequestration is already eroding America’s research capabilities at universities across the country,” the Association of American Universities, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities and The Science Coalition announced in a written statement.
UCLA Chancellor Gene Block has been criticized in the past by student activists for doling out lavish salaries for high-profile hires amid tuition hikes, budget cuts and recession, but on Monday he stated that a $50 million loss to the university’s research funding could lead to a brain drain, top researchers leaving in a mass exodus.
RELATED Q&A
Dr. Andrew Rosenberg of the Union of Concerned Scientists talks about the "war on science." Block put things in stark terms, reminding members of Congress that many universities have no more emergency funds or administrative flexibility to help compensate for the sequester cuts.
“The buffer is much thinner,” said Block. “So if faculty members lose their grants, if grants don’t get re-funded because of sequestration, there is a limited amount we can do to keep labs running. So if you ask what is the long-term effect? …Literally labs close and people end up on the street. That’s the danger.”
The negative effects of sequester are already on display in Ohio. Dr. Stan Gerson, director of the Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, spent much of the past year calling members of Congress in hopes they would repeal cuts to research programs. Gerson told public radio WCPN, “It’s real jobs and real people” at stake.
From WCPN:
Case, like Michigan, receives some of the biggest federal grants in the US for research.
Of the roughly $400 million Case spends on research annually, about 80 percent comes from federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services.
Case’s cancer center offers an example of how sequestration funding is slowly squeezing the budget. This summer, news came that the center’s five-year operational grant fell by $6 million.
“It’s undoubtedly the case over an 18-month period that there will be a smaller workforce in our school and our university. Just because, where else are the dollars going to come from?” Gerson says.
While Case isn’t planning layoffs yet, they are more selectively filling positions and faculty members are being encouraged to consider flexible hours. Gerson also told WCPN that labs on campus aren’t hiring as many graduate students.
Others also expressed concern that cuts in research would result in the loss of a competitive edge against other countries that prioritize education and research.
“We lose our competitiveness with foreign countries, especially China and India, which are investing very heavily in research and development,” said Philip DiStefano, chancellor at University of Colorado Boulder. “The longer that sequestration goes on, the more chances are that we are going to lose our competitive edge that we have had with foreign countries.”
The world of academia has objected to harsh austerity measures for a long time. In March, Science Works for US collected video editorials from professors and administrators, who argued that the then-proposed cuts would threaten American research and innovation. An op-ed in the Financial Times from before the sequester stated that, “fully 75 percent of postwar growth is tied to technological innovation, according to the commerce department.”
But these concerns fell on deaf ears, even though budget cuts will have a ripple effect for multiple generations, stripping opportunities from burgeoning students, researchers and scientists.
“There is a clear and present danger that sequestration will damage America’s pre-eminence in scientific research and higher education over the long-term,” said Northeastern University President Joseph Aoun. “Given the impact we already have seen, we urge the members of the House and Senate who are negotiating funding for fiscal year 2014 and beyond to end sequestration, enable investments in scientific research and higher education and restore the dividends these investments produce for our economy and society.”
"Like a Book Burning" The Canadian government is closing scientific libraries and destroying docs
by Pakalolo
Daily Kos
Jan 12, 2014
"Paranoid ideologues have burned books and records throughout human history to try to squelch dissenting visions that they view as heretical, and to anyone who worships the great God Economy monotheistically, environmental science is heresy."
Post Media News has obtained a document stamped "SECRET" which exposes the closure or destruction of more than half a dozen world famous science libraries and countless scientific documents that they contain. The destruction and burning of documents has little if anything to do with digitizing the books and documents for cost savings as claimed by the Harper government.
The Tyee has several excellent reports detailing the destruction of scientific documents and the libraries that house them.
As reported by The Tyee earlier this month and again here, scientists are sounding alarms about libraries dismantled by the government, including Maurice-Lamontagne Institute, which housed 61,000 French language documents on Quebec's waterways, as well as the newly renovated $62-million library serving the historic St Andrews Biological Station (SABS) in St Andrews, New Brunswick. (Famed environmental scientist Rachel Carson corresponded with researchers at SABS for her groundbreaking book on toxins, Silent Spring. The station's contaminant research program has been axed by the Harper government.) Also shut down are the famous Freshwater Institute library in Winnipeg and one of the world's finest ocean collections at the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Centre in St. John's, Newfoundland.
Scientists who use the libraries say priceless information -- essential for the legal and political security of Canada's waterways as well as the defence of the longest coastline in the world -- was thrown into dustbins, burned or scavenged by private consultants. In Winnipeg, a consultant's group operating for Manitoba Hydro backed up a truck to collect materials from the dismantled library.
A DFO scientist anonymously told The Tyee, "The cuts were carried out in great haste apparently in order to meet some unknown agenda. No records have been provided with regard to what material has been dumped or the value of this public property. No formal attempt was made to transfer material to libraries of existing academic institutions."
In addition, the Harper government has forced hundreds of researchers and Coast Guard workers to be laid off. Harper has dismantled a marine contaminants program, closed the Kitsilano (Vancouver) Coast Guard station which is reportedly the first line of defense against oil spills.
The document lists 26 "tracks" or changes within the Department of Fisheries being carried out to help reduce Canada's federal budget deficit. Very few of those tracks' descriptions make claims for bolstering or improving marine safety, contaminant research, protection of fish habitat or the efficacy of the Coast Guard.
Instead, the document details numerous actions which create reductions or total elimination of these environmental services.
They include:
•The shrinkage of 20 Marine Communications and Traffic Service centres down to 11;
•The reduction of Inshore Rescue Boats;
•The reduction of Marine Search and Rescue services;
•The defunding of species at risk recovery oriented programs in the Maritimes;
•The closure of 21 Conservation and Protection offices, as "part of a broader departmental footprint reduction plan." Comox, Pender Harbour, Quesnel, Hazelton and Clearwater all lost offices;
•The closure of the Kitsilano Lifeboat Station in Vancouver;
•Closure of the Experimental Lakes Area;
•The killing of all biological effects contaminant research within the department.
The document explains that ending the capacity to do public research on freshwater and ocean pollutants such as bitumen spills "involves eliminating the in-house research program aimed at biological effects of contaminants, pesticide and oil and gas, and establishing a small advisory group to oversee the outsourcing of priority research needs."
Sounds like "quiet little rooms" if you ask me.
Environmental activists through out the world celebrated when George W. Bush was finally out of office. Since the election of Harper's regime, the world now has Canada with a leader, who like Bush, prides himself in the part that he plays in the destruction of the planet. Maurice Strong, the Canadian diplomat who was secretary-general of the famous 1992 Earth Summit, calls Harper’s government, “the most anti-environmental government that we’ve ever had, and one of the most anti-environmental governments in the world.”
Canada holds more than 20 per cent of the surface freshwater in the world, and its rivers and streams annually transport almost 10 per cent of the world flow of freshwater. Canada is also one of the world's largest seafood-exporting nations. All of which is now at risk of damage or destruction along with scientific evidence documenting the pollution and the damage to marine and freshwater systems.
The below corporations along with Charles and David Koch are pushing a libertarian brand of political activism that presses a large footprint on energy and climate issues. They have created and supported non-profit organizations, think tanks and political groups that work to undermine climate science, environmental regulation and clean energy. They are also top donors to politicians, who support the oil industry and deny any human role in global warming.
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
Canadian Energy Pipeline Association
Petroleum Services Association of Canada
Propane Gas Association of Canada
Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors
Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association
Alberta Chamber of Resources
Alberta Chambers of Commerce
The Cement Association of Canada
Canadian Council of Chief Executives
I recommend reading the Tyee articles. There is to much atrocity documented there to elaborate on in one Dkos diary.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Kansas Court Could Kill the Right to a Decent Public Education
I suppose we could call this the "Brown versus Brownback" debate.
California governor Jerry Brown has a very different approach from Kansas governor Sam Brownback.
The Washington Bridge scandal involving Governor Chris Christie has proven that our elected and appointed officials are willing to harm the public to advance their personal and political agendas. Schools are targets as much as bridges.
Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback answers questions about education funding. Brownback and legislators are waiting for a Kansas Supreme Court ruling on whether the state is spending enough money on its public schools. (AP Photo/John Milburn)
Kansas Court Could Kill the Right to a Decent Public Education
Bill Moyers and Company
January 9, 2014
In 2012, tea party-aligned legislators in the reliably red state of Kansas, backed by deep-pocketed outside groups, were able to purge Republicans they viewed as insufficiently devoted to Governor Sam Brownback’s right wing agenda. Since then, Kansas, like North Carolina, has become a test bed for conservative policy-making.
Deep spending cuts to education, health care and other social services were central to that agenda. And this month, the Kansas Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in a lawsuit precipitated by those cuts which could have profound consequences for public education in America.
In The New York Times, David Sciarra of the Education Law Center and Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights write about what’s at stake…
Budgets are a reflection of priorities, and it’s worth noting that some states are taking a very different approach. This week, California Governor Jerry Brown proposed increasing spending on pre-K education by $22 billion over the state’s 2011-2012 budget. According to the Los Angeles Times, “schools that serve low-income students and non-native English speakers will receive more money under the formula… Under Brown’s plan, LAUSD would see its per-pupil funding jump from about $7,700 per student per year to $12,750 by the end of the decade.”
California governor Jerry Brown has a very different approach from Kansas governor Sam Brownback.
The Washington Bridge scandal involving Governor Chris Christie has proven that our elected and appointed officials are willing to harm the public to advance their personal and political agendas. Schools are targets as much as bridges.
Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback answers questions about education funding. Brownback and legislators are waiting for a Kansas Supreme Court ruling on whether the state is spending enough money on its public schools. (AP Photo/John Milburn)
Kansas Court Could Kill the Right to a Decent Public Education
Bill Moyers and Company
January 9, 2014
In 2012, tea party-aligned legislators in the reliably red state of Kansas, backed by deep-pocketed outside groups, were able to purge Republicans they viewed as insufficiently devoted to Governor Sam Brownback’s right wing agenda. Since then, Kansas, like North Carolina, has become a test bed for conservative policy-making.
Deep spending cuts to education, health care and other social services were central to that agenda. And this month, the Kansas Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in a lawsuit precipitated by those cuts which could have profound consequences for public education in America.
In The New York Times, David Sciarra of the Education Law Center and Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights write about what’s at stake…
Kansas, like every state, explicitly guarantees a free public education in its Constitution, affirming America’s founding belief that only an educated citizenry can preserve democracy and safeguard individual liberty and freedom.Read on to see what steps the Kansas legislature may take if the court rules against it.
And yet in recent years Kansas has become the epicenter of a new battle over the states’ obligation to adequately fund public education. Even though the state Constitution requires that it make “suitable provision” for financing public education, Gov. Sam Brownback and the Republican-led Legislature have made draconian cuts in school spending, leading to a lawsuit that now sits before the state Supreme Court.
The outcome of that decision could resonate nationwide. Forty-five states have had lawsuits challenging the failure of governors and legislators to provide essential resources for a constitutional education. Litigation is pending against 11 states that allegedly provide inadequate and unfair school funding, including New York, Florida, Texas and California.
Many of these lawsuits successfully forced elected officials to increase school funding overall and to deliver more resources to poor students and those with special needs. If the Kansas Supreme Court rules otherwise, students in those states may begin to see the tide of education cuts return.
Kansas’ current constitutional crisis has its genesis in a series of cuts to school funding that began in 2009. The cuts were accelerated by a $1.1 billion tax break, which benefited mostly upper-income Kansans, proposed by Governor Brownback and enacted in 2012.
Overall, the Legislature slashed public education funding to 16.5 percent below the 2008 level, triggering significant program reductions in schools across the state. Class sizes have increased, teachers and staff members have been laid off, and essential services for at-risk students were eliminated, even as the state implemented higher academic standards for college and career readiness.
Budgets are a reflection of priorities, and it’s worth noting that some states are taking a very different approach. This week, California Governor Jerry Brown proposed increasing spending on pre-K education by $22 billion over the state’s 2011-2012 budget. According to the Los Angeles Times, “schools that serve low-income students and non-native English speakers will receive more money under the formula… Under Brown’s plan, LAUSD would see its per-pupil funding jump from about $7,700 per student per year to $12,750 by the end of the decade.”
Monday, August 26, 2013
Sequester threatens American scientific research for a generation
Sequester threatens American scientific research for a generation
by Laura Clawson
Daily Kos
Aug 14, 2013
HIV research. Cardiovascular disease research. Diabetes research. Research that could improve our treatment of everything from the common cold to foot-and-mouth disease, from muscle injuries to muscular dystrophy.
Those are just a few of the projects now underway that are seriously endangered by the sequester's cuts to science funding, and the results could be catastrophic.
Under George W. Bush, funding for the National Institutes of Health rose to $30.8 billion, and under President Obama, the stimulus included $10.4 billion in additional funding. Now, with NIH funding falling to $29.1 billion, scientists interviewed by Huffington Post's Sam Stein spoke of having to cut salaries or cut lab staff altogether, of seeing scientists choose jobs in other countries or other fields rather than face the circumstances in research science in the U.S., and of having to consider euthanizing their lab mice.
These aren't just the threats of a brief period in time:
"Medical research is not like building widgets. We cannot turn it on and off," [the Medical College of Wisconsin's Dr. William Jackson] said noting that, among other things, his staff would move on and his project would be tarred as unsuccessful.
And if staff move on to other countries or out of science altogether, that could create a brain drain that will weaken scientific research in the U.S. for a generation or more. Like so many other austerity-driven policies, it's appallingly shortsighted. But "austerity-driven and appallingly shortsighted" is among the top contenders for the motto of today's Republican party, so much of this research is and is likely to remain endangered.
by Laura Clawson
Daily Kos
Aug 14, 2013
HIV research. Cardiovascular disease research. Diabetes research. Research that could improve our treatment of everything from the common cold to foot-and-mouth disease, from muscle injuries to muscular dystrophy.
Those are just a few of the projects now underway that are seriously endangered by the sequester's cuts to science funding, and the results could be catastrophic.
Under George W. Bush, funding for the National Institutes of Health rose to $30.8 billion, and under President Obama, the stimulus included $10.4 billion in additional funding. Now, with NIH funding falling to $29.1 billion, scientists interviewed by Huffington Post's Sam Stein spoke of having to cut salaries or cut lab staff altogether, of seeing scientists choose jobs in other countries or other fields rather than face the circumstances in research science in the U.S., and of having to consider euthanizing their lab mice.
These aren't just the threats of a brief period in time:
"Medical research is not like building widgets. We cannot turn it on and off," [the Medical College of Wisconsin's Dr. William Jackson] said noting that, among other things, his staff would move on and his project would be tarred as unsuccessful.
And if staff move on to other countries or out of science altogether, that could create a brain drain that will weaken scientific research in the U.S. for a generation or more. Like so many other austerity-driven policies, it's appallingly shortsighted. But "austerity-driven and appallingly shortsighted" is among the top contenders for the motto of today's Republican party, so much of this research is and is likely to remain endangered.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
More than 57,000 kids cut from Head Start because of sequester
Too many voters of America seem to be penny-wise and pound-foolish. Right wing Republicans in Congress are doing a Tom Corbett stunt on the whole country: preferring to build prisons rather than give funding to schools.
More than 57,000 kids cut from Head Start because of sequester
Stephanie Condon
CBS News
August 19, 2013
More than 57,000 children this fall will be cut from Head Start, the program for pre-school age children from low-income families, because of the ongoing "sequestration" budget cuts, the Obama administration announced Monday.
Head Start and Early Head Start saw a 5.27 percent reduction in its $8 billion budget after Congress this March enacted the sequester -- $1.2 trillion in across-the-board cuts to federal spending over 10 years.
Administered by the Health and Human Services Department, Head Start awards grants to public and private institutions on a competitive basis to provide pre-school services in their communities. The program serves more than one million children every year in every U.S. state and territory.
Obama tells Congress: It's time for bold economic action
As Obama talks, Washington barrels toward budget showdown
So far, the impact of sequestration is not as drastic as anticipated -- the Obama administration originally estimated it would mean having to cut 70,000 students from the program.
Nevertheless, 51,299 fewer children will be enrolled in Head Start, while 5,966 fewer children will be enrolled in Early Head Start. The Office of Head Start reported the data after collecting reduction plans from individual Head Start grantees. California will see the largest number of students affected, with 5,611 children cut, while Texas will have to cut 4,410.
The office also reported that there will be 1,342,015 fewer days of service nationwide, and at least 18,000 staff members will be affected, either through pay cuts or job losses.
When Congress returns from its five-week summer recess, sequestration will be just one of the many pressing budget issues it will have to address. So far, it doesn't appear that lawmakers have a plan for repealing or replacing the sequester, which slashed $85 billion from the budget this year.
More than 57,000 kids cut from Head Start because of sequester
Stephanie Condon
CBS News
August 19, 2013
More than 57,000 children this fall will be cut from Head Start, the program for pre-school age children from low-income families, because of the ongoing "sequestration" budget cuts, the Obama administration announced Monday.
Head Start and Early Head Start saw a 5.27 percent reduction in its $8 billion budget after Congress this March enacted the sequester -- $1.2 trillion in across-the-board cuts to federal spending over 10 years.
Administered by the Health and Human Services Department, Head Start awards grants to public and private institutions on a competitive basis to provide pre-school services in their communities. The program serves more than one million children every year in every U.S. state and territory.
Obama tells Congress: It's time for bold economic action
As Obama talks, Washington barrels toward budget showdown
So far, the impact of sequestration is not as drastic as anticipated -- the Obama administration originally estimated it would mean having to cut 70,000 students from the program.
Nevertheless, 51,299 fewer children will be enrolled in Head Start, while 5,966 fewer children will be enrolled in Early Head Start. The Office of Head Start reported the data after collecting reduction plans from individual Head Start grantees. California will see the largest number of students affected, with 5,611 children cut, while Texas will have to cut 4,410.
The office also reported that there will be 1,342,015 fewer days of service nationwide, and at least 18,000 staff members will be affected, either through pay cuts or job losses.
When Congress returns from its five-week summer recess, sequestration will be just one of the many pressing budget issues it will have to address. So far, it doesn't appear that lawmakers have a plan for repealing or replacing the sequester, which slashed $85 billion from the budget this year.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Penn. governor Tom Corbett remains fixated on destroying Philadelphia schools in order to crush the teachers union
Tom Corbett must be tickled pink about the sequester's effect on Head Start.
“Tom Corbett, the weakest governor in the United States, is trying to stake his claim on completely dismantling and starving one of the nation’s largest school districts into dysfunction and collapse”...
The needs of children are secondary...to a right-wing governor in Tom Corbett who remains fixated on breaking the district in order to crush the teachers union and divert money to unproven experiments like vouchers and privately run charters. If the city’s children are left uneducated and impoverished among the smoldering wreckage of a broken school system, so be it...
Unlike the city, the state could come up with the necessary cash without excessively burdening its finances. Pennsylvania has the lowest severance tax of any state drilling for Marcellus shale gas, with plenty of room for an increase. The state had a modest surplus at the end of the last budget year. The governor has no trouble coming up with money to build new prisons, which will serve as future homes for all too many children of Philadelphia who are being failed and tossed aside by adult leadership, if you can call it that.
“Indescribably insane”: A public school system from hell
Pennsylvania's right-wing governor drains public schools of basic funds -- and the sickening details will shock you
By Aaron Kase
Salon.com
Aug 19, 2013
Want to see a public school system in its death throes? Look no further than Philadelphia. There, the school district is facing end times, with teachers, parents and students staring into the abyss created by a state intent on destroying public education.
On Thursday the city of Philadelphia announced that it would be borrowing $50 million to give the district, just so it can open schools as planned on Sept. 9, after Superintendent William Hite threatened to keep the doors closed without a cash infusion. The schools may open without counselors, administrative staff, noon aids, nurses, librarians or even pens and paper, but hey, kids will have a place to go and sit.
The $50 million fix is just the latest band-aid for a district that is beginning to resemble a rotting bike tube, covered in old patches applied to keep it functioning just a little while longer. At some point, the entire system fails.
Things have gotten so bad that at least one school has asked parents to chip in $613 per student just so they can open with adequate services, which, if it becomes the norm, effectively defeats the purpose of equitable public education, and is entirely unreasonable to expect from the city’s poorer neighborhoods.
The needs of children are secondary, however, to a right-wing governor in Tom Corbett who remains fixated on breaking the district in order to crush the teachers union and divert money to unproven experiments like vouchers and privately run charters. If the city’s children are left uneducated and impoverished among the smoldering wreckage of a broken school system, so be it.
To be clear, the schools are in crisis because the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania refuses to fund them adequately. The state Constitution mandates that the Legislature “provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of public education,” but that language appears to be considered some kind of sick joke at the state capital in Harrisburg.
It’s worth noting that the state itself runs the Philadelphia School District after a 2001 takeover. The state is also responsible for catastrophic budget cuts two years ago that crippled the district’s finances. And in a diabolical example of circular logic, the state argues that the red ink it imposed, and shoddy management it oversees, are proof that the district can’t manage its finances or its mission and therefore shouldn’t get more money.
Make no mistake, on the aggregate the district does not perform well. Only slightly more than 60 percent of students graduate from high school, with less than 60 percent proficient in reading and math. But put that in the context where 80 percent of students come from disadvantaged backgrounds while administrators struggle to cobble together enough cash to even open doors, let alone provide a safe, rich and comprehensive educational experience.
Particularly noxious lawmakers are fond of spouting the ridiculous notion that money can’t help struggling schools, as if more and better-trained staff, better equipment and diverse programming wouldn’t make a difference in kids’ educations and their lives.
The timing of this meltdown is unfortunate, as if there were ever a good time for the euthanasia of public schooling. According to the 2010 census, Philadelphia grew in population for the first time in 60 years, changing direction from decades of decline. Most of that growth came from immigrants who will rely on public schools — or not, as the case may be. Another area of growth was in young families, who will face a choice, once they have school-age children, to stay in the city or flee to superior suburban schools as previous generations have done.
Nearly the entire burden to keep the district afloat has fallen to the city, which raised property taxes each of the two previous years specifically to funnel extra money that the schools weren’t getting from the state. This is in one of the poorest and most highly taxed cities in the nation.
The floundering district is both a symptom and cause of the city’s predicament, creating a vicious cycle of people who can afford to bail moving to the suburbs, leaving a crippled tax base, with the result being less money to fix the schools and ever-higher taxes imposed on those who stay.
Unlike the city, the state could come up with the necessary cash without excessively burdening its finances. Pennsylvania has the lowest severance tax of any state drilling for Marcellus shale gas, with plenty of room for an increase. The state had a modest surplus at the end of the last budget year. The governor has no trouble coming up with money to build new prisons, which will serve as future homes for all too many children of Philadelphia who are being failed and tossed aside by adult leadership, if you can call it that.
The pattern has become clear: defund the schools, precipitate a crisis and use that as an excuse to further attack the schools, pushing them closer and closer to a point of no return. The $50 million to open the schools this year is just the latest and most immediate example of three years of brinkmanship.
The district was hit with a double whammy in 2011, when stimulus funds that it had idiotically been using for operating expenses dried up, and incoming Gov. Tom Corbett took office eager to prove his reactionary bona fides by enacting massive budget cuts to public education to the tune of $1 billion statewide, disproportionately hitting Philadelphia. The result was an absurd $629 million shortfall, which was filled by a mix of cuts and city tax hikes.
Last year, the district took out a $300 million bond to patch another big deficit, the very definition of a band-aid fix as it only added to what is now $280 million in annual debt payments.
This round of budget hysteria kicked off in May when the superintendent announced that the district was another $304 million in the hole for the upcoming school year and requested extra funding from the city and state as well as givebacks from the teachers union to fill the gap.
To prepare, he laid off nearly 4,000 teachers and staff members, and closed 24 schools, after the district had shut eight the year before. Empty buildings and mass layoffs — the perfect image of 21st century education.
The city and state came up with a Rube Goldberg device of funding worth about $140 million, composed of repurposed federal funds, better city tax collections, borrowing against future city taxes and a whopping $2 million thrown in by the state beyond what it had already committed.
Most of even that inadequate amount hasn’t arrived yet as the state sits on $45 million in federal money it refuses to disperse until the teachers agree to enormous salary cuts and rollback of other benefits and city officials bicker among themselves on how to deliver the money they promised.
It’s still unclear what, if anything, will be kicked in by the teachers, who already make disproportionately less money than their suburban counterparts while teaching in much more challenging environments. Their contracts expire at the end of the month.
Leering over the whole mess is the controversial charter school movement, which siphons $675 million from district schools. The charter experiment has been a mixed bag, with some performing well, others proving mere vehicles for graft and corruption. Critics see them as a way to divert public money into politically connected private hands, and even more important, a way to break the teachers union because they aren’t bound by district collective bargaining rules.
It’s not hard to see the same forces at work here as those taking apart public sector unions in Wisconsin and trying to confiscate Detroit city employees’ pensions in Michigan. Indeed, the district leadership met Thursday to unilaterally suspend the school code to get around teacher seniority and automatic raise rules as they use the $50 million to rehire some of the employees laid off earlier this year.
Teachers are understandably displeased at being blamed for a problem the state has caused. “It is Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s obligation to fully fund public education. Yet the budget office seems to be employing any and every means to avoid living up to this responsibility,” Philadelphia Teachers Federation president Jerry Jordan said in a statement. “Chronic lack of resources has brought this crisis to our schools, not work rule provisions in collective bargaining agreements.”
“The trunk of my car is now filled with a carton of paper, pens, lined paper, and copybooks I have bought for my students this September,” district teacher Christine MacArthur wrote in an editorial to the Philadelphia Inquirer. “Now we are also to pay for the mistakes of our employers?”
Parents and students are trying to push back, but may ultimately have little traction...
Aaron Kase is a freelance writer and a reporter for Lawyers.com. Follow him on Twitter at @Aaron_Kase.
Monday, July 22, 2013
How to save billions on Alzheimer's care? Fully fund early childhood education
Unwisely, the sequester is hitting early childhood education. Head Start has been forced to cut back its programs. Our children will pay in the future.
Keys to preventing Alzheimer's disease
Karen Weintraub
USA TODAY
July 20, 2013
...Even in early childhood, we may be able to lay the groundwork for a healthy brain decades later.
Studies consistently find that people with more education are less likely to develop Alzheimer's. "Sometimes I think the best way to prevent Alzheimer's is fully fund early childhood education," said Arnold, a psychiatrist and neurologist...
Keys to preventing Alzheimer's disease
Karen Weintraub
USA TODAY
July 20, 2013
...Even in early childhood, we may be able to lay the groundwork for a healthy brain decades later.
Studies consistently find that people with more education are less likely to develop Alzheimer's. "Sometimes I think the best way to prevent Alzheimer's is fully fund early childhood education," said Arnold, a psychiatrist and neurologist...
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Will sequestering permanently damage 5% of poor children by depriving them of Head Start?
"This was not the way sequestration was meant to go. The reductions were designed to be so painful -- to both defense and nondefense discretionary programs -- that Republicans and Democrats would flock to the negotiating table to find a compromise. Instead, the effects of sequestration have been uneven, with small pockets of intense upheaval rather than widespread but mild disruptions."
The Sequester's Devastating Impact on America's Poor
It's fashionable in political circles to say the mandatory budgets cuts haven't been the predicted disaster. Cuts to programs like Head Start suggest otherwise.
Nancy Cook
Jul 13 2013
The Atlantic
The federal government's across-the-board sequestration cuts, which began taking effect in March, may seem like an overhyped piece of political theater--that is, unless you're an unemployed adult living in Michigan. There, roughly 82,000 people, like Kristina Feldotte of Saginaw, have watched their federal unemployment checks dwindle by 10.7 percent since late March. That's as much as a $150 per month from payments that, at most, clock in at $1,440.
"It flabbergasts me that our government can't get its crap together," says Feldotte, 47, a mother of four and a laid-off public-school teacher. "With the air-traffic controllers, Congress fixed that right away because it affected the planes going in and out of Washington. But they're not doing anything that benefits the people."
That's especially true of poor people since Congress and the White House failed to reach a deal to undo the cuts in March. Air-traffic controllers and meat inspectors, represented by powerful unions and lobbyists, got reprieves. Agencies such as the Justice and Homeland Security departments found wiggle room in their budgets to stave off furloughs. But programs outside of D.C. for low-income or distressed people -- such as Head Start, Meals on Wheels, or federal unemployment benefits -- have suffered as the cuts kicked in, leading to cancellations, fewer meals, smaller checks, and staff layoffs.
"The impacts of the sequester have been hard to document, but it really is a diminution of services," says Sharon Parrott, vice president for budget policy and economic opportunity at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Take the Meals on Wheels program in Contra Costa County, California, which, like the national program, has had to cut 5.1 percent of its budget. After losing $89,000 in federal funding over a six-month period, the program had to scale back the number of meals it serves from 1,500 to 1,300 a day. This puts its director in the unenviable position of having to choose which low-income or lonely 80-year-olds are less deserving of a meal delivery. "We're only adding new clients in the direst circumstances -- like they will die or be institutionalized if we don't get to them," says Paul Kraintz, director of the county's nutrition program.
The Head Start program in Rockland County, N.Y., had to make similarly tough choices. It managed to keep open its summer program for the youngest children, ages 1 to 3, but had to cancel the summer sessions for 3-to-5-year-olds and lay off 12 staff members to save roughly $240,000, says Ouida Foster Toutebon, executive director of Head Start Rockland. Like the national program, it will lose about 5 percent of its budget -- in this case, $414,925 -- by the end of the fiscal year, September 30. "The parents were upset, because they needed to make other arrangements," Toutebon says.
This was not the way sequestration was meant to go. The reductions were designed to be so painful -- to both defense and nondefense discretionary programs -- that Republicans and Democrats would flock to the negotiating table to find a compromise. Instead, the effects of sequestration have been uneven, with small pockets of intense upheaval rather than widespread but mild disruptions...
The Sequester's Devastating Impact on America's Poor
It's fashionable in political circles to say the mandatory budgets cuts haven't been the predicted disaster. Cuts to programs like Head Start suggest otherwise.
Nancy Cook
Jul 13 2013
The Atlantic
The federal government's across-the-board sequestration cuts, which began taking effect in March, may seem like an overhyped piece of political theater--that is, unless you're an unemployed adult living in Michigan. There, roughly 82,000 people, like Kristina Feldotte of Saginaw, have watched their federal unemployment checks dwindle by 10.7 percent since late March. That's as much as a $150 per month from payments that, at most, clock in at $1,440.
"It flabbergasts me that our government can't get its crap together," says Feldotte, 47, a mother of four and a laid-off public-school teacher. "With the air-traffic controllers, Congress fixed that right away because it affected the planes going in and out of Washington. But they're not doing anything that benefits the people."
That's especially true of poor people since Congress and the White House failed to reach a deal to undo the cuts in March. Air-traffic controllers and meat inspectors, represented by powerful unions and lobbyists, got reprieves. Agencies such as the Justice and Homeland Security departments found wiggle room in their budgets to stave off furloughs. But programs outside of D.C. for low-income or distressed people -- such as Head Start, Meals on Wheels, or federal unemployment benefits -- have suffered as the cuts kicked in, leading to cancellations, fewer meals, smaller checks, and staff layoffs.
"The impacts of the sequester have been hard to document, but it really is a diminution of services," says Sharon Parrott, vice president for budget policy and economic opportunity at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Take the Meals on Wheels program in Contra Costa County, California, which, like the national program, has had to cut 5.1 percent of its budget. After losing $89,000 in federal funding over a six-month period, the program had to scale back the number of meals it serves from 1,500 to 1,300 a day. This puts its director in the unenviable position of having to choose which low-income or lonely 80-year-olds are less deserving of a meal delivery. "We're only adding new clients in the direst circumstances -- like they will die or be institutionalized if we don't get to them," says Paul Kraintz, director of the county's nutrition program.
The Head Start program in Rockland County, N.Y., had to make similarly tough choices. It managed to keep open its summer program for the youngest children, ages 1 to 3, but had to cancel the summer sessions for 3-to-5-year-olds and lay off 12 staff members to save roughly $240,000, says Ouida Foster Toutebon, executive director of Head Start Rockland. Like the national program, it will lose about 5 percent of its budget -- in this case, $414,925 -- by the end of the fiscal year, September 30. "The parents were upset, because they needed to make other arrangements," Toutebon says.
This was not the way sequestration was meant to go. The reductions were designed to be so painful -- to both defense and nondefense discretionary programs -- that Republicans and Democrats would flock to the negotiating table to find a compromise. Instead, the effects of sequestration have been uneven, with small pockets of intense upheaval rather than widespread but mild disruptions...
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Slaying the Mythical Tax-Fattened Hog
"...[S]tate and local government employees earn less total compensation than their private sector counterparts with similar education, training, and work experience."
Slaying the Mythical Tax-Fattened Hog
August 12, 2010
by Stephanie Rozsa
Cities Speak.org
National League of Cities
Big headlines come across my desk each morning, but none more sensational than this one from Wednesday: “Bloated public sector needs a crash diet” (The Examiner). As I skimmed the article, I read: “While much of the private sector has laid off workers, frozen pay and cut capital investment, public sector employees have lived high on the tax-fattened hog.” This editorial is just one of many causing a stir about public compensation as the recession tightens its grip. The most infamous story came from Bell, California, where the city of 37,000 paid several top employees egregious salaries, including $800,000 to the chief administrative officer. While this kind of abuse is out of the ordinary, it does raise a fair question about public compensation.
In a series of articles, USA Today (most recently on August 10, 2010) similarly asserts that public sector employees are overcompensated compared with their private sector counterparts. Their analysis compares the salaries of similar occupations in each sector, accountants to accountants, for example. While this approach may seem logical, a new report, commissioned by the Center for State and Local Government Excellence (CSLGE) and the National Institute on Retirement Security, declares that the reality is that 80 percent of private positions do not have direct public sector equivalents.
For the 20 percent of occupations that allow comparison, then, USA Today relays only the raw salary differences that suggest higher earnings for state and local workers. This means that their analysis fails to factor in other qualifying factors of comparison between employees, like education level, years of experience, training, and skill sets. So while both USA Today and the new CSLGE report confirm that public employees do, in fact, earn more on average than private sector workers, the public sector workforce earns this higher average salary because the average employee is better educated and has more experience. Once these factors are included in compensation calculations, the latter explains that state and local government employees earn less total compensation than their private sector counterparts with similar education, training, and work experience.
In fact, the CSLGE report discovered that state and local sector employees are twice as likely as their private sector counterparts to have a college or advanced degree. The major driver in this pattern is that government workers have jobs that demand more education, like teachers, university professors, nurses, and social workers. In other words, state and local government employees earn less than they would if they took their skills to the private sector.
How much less?...With benefits factored in, state and local employees still earned an average of nearly 7 percent and 7.4 percent less, respectively...
Slaying the Mythical Tax-Fattened Hog
August 12, 2010
by Stephanie Rozsa
Cities Speak.org
National League of Cities
Big headlines come across my desk each morning, but none more sensational than this one from Wednesday: “Bloated public sector needs a crash diet” (The Examiner). As I skimmed the article, I read: “While much of the private sector has laid off workers, frozen pay and cut capital investment, public sector employees have lived high on the tax-fattened hog.” This editorial is just one of many causing a stir about public compensation as the recession tightens its grip. The most infamous story came from Bell, California, where the city of 37,000 paid several top employees egregious salaries, including $800,000 to the chief administrative officer. While this kind of abuse is out of the ordinary, it does raise a fair question about public compensation.
In a series of articles, USA Today (most recently on August 10, 2010) similarly asserts that public sector employees are overcompensated compared with their private sector counterparts. Their analysis compares the salaries of similar occupations in each sector, accountants to accountants, for example. While this approach may seem logical, a new report, commissioned by the Center for State and Local Government Excellence (CSLGE) and the National Institute on Retirement Security, declares that the reality is that 80 percent of private positions do not have direct public sector equivalents.
For the 20 percent of occupations that allow comparison, then, USA Today relays only the raw salary differences that suggest higher earnings for state and local workers. This means that their analysis fails to factor in other qualifying factors of comparison between employees, like education level, years of experience, training, and skill sets. So while both USA Today and the new CSLGE report confirm that public employees do, in fact, earn more on average than private sector workers, the public sector workforce earns this higher average salary because the average employee is better educated and has more experience. Once these factors are included in compensation calculations, the latter explains that state and local government employees earn less total compensation than their private sector counterparts with similar education, training, and work experience.
In fact, the CSLGE report discovered that state and local sector employees are twice as likely as their private sector counterparts to have a college or advanced degree. The major driver in this pattern is that government workers have jobs that demand more education, like teachers, university professors, nurses, and social workers. In other words, state and local government employees earn less than they would if they took their skills to the private sector.
How much less?...With benefits factored in, state and local employees still earned an average of nearly 7 percent and 7.4 percent less, respectively...
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Community Colleges are so underfunded that students must spend
Community colleges' crisis slows students' progress to a crawl
Thousands of degree seekers are able to enroll in only one class at a time. Hopes of graduating or transferring wither as years pass.
By Stephen Ceasar
LA Times
Oct. 4, 2012
See also California's community colleges staggering during hard times.
The first course Charity Hansen is taking as a freshman at Pasadena City College is a basic class on managing time, speaking up in discussions, setting ambitious goals and then going after them.
If only she could.
It's the only class she managed to get this semester. No math. No English. No science.
"I can't use what I'm being taught yet because I can't get these classes," said Hansen, a 19-year-old from Los Angeles who hopes one day to become a psychologist. "It's frustrating."
Hansen's college education has stalled just as it is beginning. Like thousands of students in California's community college system, she has been reduced to taking one class because there's no room in other classes.
Instead of a full-time load of 12 units, some students are taking three units or even less.
Frustrated students linger on waiting lists or crash packed classes hoping professors will add them later. They see their chances of graduating or transferring diminishing.
It's a product of years of severe budget cuts and heavy demand in the two-year college system. The same situation has affected the Cal State and UC systems, but the impact has been most deeply felt in the 2.4-million-student community college system — the nation's largest.
At Pasadena City College, nearly 4,000 students who are seeking a degree or to transfer are taking a single class this fall. About 63% are taking less than 12 units and are considered part time. The school has slashed 10% of its classes to save money.
The lives of some community college students have become a slow-motion academic crawl, sometimes forcing them to change their career paths and shrink their ambitions.
Mark Rocha, president of Pasadena City College, said California's once-vaunted community college system has never been in such a precarious state.
"It breaks our hearts," he said. "The students who are here, we're desperately telling them 'Don't drop out, don't give up hope. We'll get you through.'"
Since 2007, money from the state's general fund, which provides the bulk of the system's revenue, has decreased by more than a third, dropping from a peak of nearly $3.9 billion to about $2.6 billion last year.
Without enough money, course offerings have dropped by almost a quarter since 2008. In a survey, 78 of the system's 112 colleges reported more than 472,300 students were on waiting lists for classes this fall semester — an average of about 7,150 per campus.
California ranks 36th in the nation in the number of students who finish with a degree or who transfer to a four-year university, according to a February report by the Little Hoover Commission. Many students drop out before completing even half of what is required to earn a typical associate's degree, the report found.
Even for those who persevere, it can take years to graduate — well beyond the two years it once took.
Cinthia Garcia thought she was on the right track. She went straight from high school to El Camino College in Torrance with plans to transfer to a four-year university.
That was six years ago.
"I've been in school forever," said the 24-year-old graphic design major from Compton.
At El Camino, she struggled to get classes, typically landing a spot in only two or three. The art department at El Camino began losing professors and Garcia decided she needed a change.
Pasadena City College, with a respected arts program, was appealing, so she moved to Los Angeles to be closer to school.
Still, she was unable to enroll in more advanced art classes, in part because they also were full.
She emailed every instructor in the art department, searching for a class. One responded. She told Garcia she would help her get the last seat in a Web design class. By then, the class was full, but a few days later, someone dropped the course and Garcia was in.
"All that for just one class," she said, shaking her head.
The crowding has rippled through the school, causing long waits to see academic counselors — an important issue for many community college students who need advice on navigating the sometimes complex requirements to transfer to Cal State, UC or a private university.
At El Camino, Garcia said, the lines to see counselors were hours long. She'd make appointments weeks in advance, never seeing the same advisor twice, she said.
"I tried to do it on my own but I was only able to get so far," she said. "Students are isolated because the counselors have such an overwhelming load."
Garcia said all the delays have made her life harder. She had a full-time job at Ikea, but cut back her hours, hoping the extra time would allow her to power through Pasadena City College.
Over the years, she has shifted her goals from a four-year degree, to a community college associate's degree, and now to a certificate, which requires fewer credits.
That decision could cost her in the long run.
A study by the U.S. Bureau of Labor showed that in 2009, the median weekly earnings of workers with bachelor's degrees was about $1,137 — about a third more than workers with an associate's degree.
Jeffrey MacGillivray attended three community colleges in search of classes and direction.
He started at Los Angeles Harbor College, then tried West Los Angeles College, where he failed to get into any classes, and now he is at El Camino.
This fall, he managed to find a seat in only one academic class — philosophy. He later added a boxing class to fill some mornings.
"I was thinking I can just go to community college, do my two years and transfer," said the 20-year-old Redondo Beach resident. "I had no idea I'd probably end up at El Camino for four years."
MacGillivray has focused much of his attention on trying to play football and run track in community college in hopes of getting a scholarship to a four-year school.
But he has never been able to get enough classes — at least 12 units each semester — to qualify for a team. At El Camino this semester, 98% of class sections are filled to capacity.
"It's really frustrating, having this goal of running track at a university and graduating with a degree," he said. "Junior college is being a bigger obstacle than it should be."
Next semester, MacGillivray may be changing schools again. He was offered a chance to join the Long Beach City College track team — with the possibility that the school could help him get the classes he needs.
For all the trouble, MacGillivray said there is a bright side to his academic wanderings. After two years, he's figured out what he wants to major in — media arts.
And to his surprise, he has discovered that he actually enjoys philosophy.
On a recent afternoon, he listened intently as his professor lectured on ethical relativism — the belief that morality is linked to the social norms of one's culture.
"She's so deep," MacGillivray said of his professor. "I only got one class, so it's pretty cool it was that one."
Thousands of degree seekers are able to enroll in only one class at a time. Hopes of graduating or transferring wither as years pass.
By Stephen Ceasar
LA Times
Oct. 4, 2012
See also California's community colleges staggering during hard times.
The first course Charity Hansen is taking as a freshman at Pasadena City College is a basic class on managing time, speaking up in discussions, setting ambitious goals and then going after them.
If only she could.
It's the only class she managed to get this semester. No math. No English. No science.
"I can't use what I'm being taught yet because I can't get these classes," said Hansen, a 19-year-old from Los Angeles who hopes one day to become a psychologist. "It's frustrating."
Hansen's college education has stalled just as it is beginning. Like thousands of students in California's community college system, she has been reduced to taking one class because there's no room in other classes.
Instead of a full-time load of 12 units, some students are taking three units or even less.
Frustrated students linger on waiting lists or crash packed classes hoping professors will add them later. They see their chances of graduating or transferring diminishing.
It's a product of years of severe budget cuts and heavy demand in the two-year college system. The same situation has affected the Cal State and UC systems, but the impact has been most deeply felt in the 2.4-million-student community college system — the nation's largest.
At Pasadena City College, nearly 4,000 students who are seeking a degree or to transfer are taking a single class this fall. About 63% are taking less than 12 units and are considered part time. The school has slashed 10% of its classes to save money.
The lives of some community college students have become a slow-motion academic crawl, sometimes forcing them to change their career paths and shrink their ambitions.
Mark Rocha, president of Pasadena City College, said California's once-vaunted community college system has never been in such a precarious state.
"It breaks our hearts," he said. "The students who are here, we're desperately telling them 'Don't drop out, don't give up hope. We'll get you through.'"
Since 2007, money from the state's general fund, which provides the bulk of the system's revenue, has decreased by more than a third, dropping from a peak of nearly $3.9 billion to about $2.6 billion last year.
Without enough money, course offerings have dropped by almost a quarter since 2008. In a survey, 78 of the system's 112 colleges reported more than 472,300 students were on waiting lists for classes this fall semester — an average of about 7,150 per campus.
California ranks 36th in the nation in the number of students who finish with a degree or who transfer to a four-year university, according to a February report by the Little Hoover Commission. Many students drop out before completing even half of what is required to earn a typical associate's degree, the report found.
Even for those who persevere, it can take years to graduate — well beyond the two years it once took.
Cinthia Garcia thought she was on the right track. She went straight from high school to El Camino College in Torrance with plans to transfer to a four-year university.
That was six years ago.
"I've been in school forever," said the 24-year-old graphic design major from Compton.
At El Camino, she struggled to get classes, typically landing a spot in only two or three. The art department at El Camino began losing professors and Garcia decided she needed a change.
Pasadena City College, with a respected arts program, was appealing, so she moved to Los Angeles to be closer to school.
Still, she was unable to enroll in more advanced art classes, in part because they also were full.
She emailed every instructor in the art department, searching for a class. One responded. She told Garcia she would help her get the last seat in a Web design class. By then, the class was full, but a few days later, someone dropped the course and Garcia was in.
"All that for just one class," she said, shaking her head.
The crowding has rippled through the school, causing long waits to see academic counselors — an important issue for many community college students who need advice on navigating the sometimes complex requirements to transfer to Cal State, UC or a private university.
At El Camino, Garcia said, the lines to see counselors were hours long. She'd make appointments weeks in advance, never seeing the same advisor twice, she said.
"I tried to do it on my own but I was only able to get so far," she said. "Students are isolated because the counselors have such an overwhelming load."
Garcia said all the delays have made her life harder. She had a full-time job at Ikea, but cut back her hours, hoping the extra time would allow her to power through Pasadena City College.
Over the years, she has shifted her goals from a four-year degree, to a community college associate's degree, and now to a certificate, which requires fewer credits.
That decision could cost her in the long run.
A study by the U.S. Bureau of Labor showed that in 2009, the median weekly earnings of workers with bachelor's degrees was about $1,137 — about a third more than workers with an associate's degree.
Jeffrey MacGillivray attended three community colleges in search of classes and direction.
He started at Los Angeles Harbor College, then tried West Los Angeles College, where he failed to get into any classes, and now he is at El Camino.
This fall, he managed to find a seat in only one academic class — philosophy. He later added a boxing class to fill some mornings.
"I was thinking I can just go to community college, do my two years and transfer," said the 20-year-old Redondo Beach resident. "I had no idea I'd probably end up at El Camino for four years."
MacGillivray has focused much of his attention on trying to play football and run track in community college in hopes of getting a scholarship to a four-year school.
But he has never been able to get enough classes — at least 12 units each semester — to qualify for a team. At El Camino this semester, 98% of class sections are filled to capacity.
"It's really frustrating, having this goal of running track at a university and graduating with a degree," he said. "Junior college is being a bigger obstacle than it should be."
Next semester, MacGillivray may be changing schools again. He was offered a chance to join the Long Beach City College track team — with the possibility that the school could help him get the classes he needs.
For all the trouble, MacGillivray said there is a bright side to his academic wanderings. After two years, he's figured out what he wants to major in — media arts.
And to his surprise, he has discovered that he actually enjoys philosophy.
On a recent afternoon, he listened intently as his professor lectured on ethical relativism — the belief that morality is linked to the social norms of one's culture.
"She's so deep," MacGillivray said of his professor. "I only got one class, so it's pretty cool it was that one."
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Community college districts' bonds inflate cost to taxpayers
Community college districts' bonds inflate cost to taxpayers
Erica Perez
California Watch
Aug. 22, 2012
Several California community college districts have sold bonds that allow them to put off payments for up to 40 years, causing the total repayment to cost taxpayers from five to nine times the principal.
Poway Unified School District, while not a community college district, made headlines this month for issuing a bond for $108 million that will end up costing taxpayers nearly $1 billion over 40 years.
Poway Unified has become the poster child for long-term capital appreciation bonds, increasingly common but controversial tools that enable districts to get cash now for voter-approved construction programs, while delaying the payments and tax levy for decades.
A retired Detroit Free Press reporter, Joel Thurtell, reported on Poway Unified's bond sale on his blog. After Voice of San Diego reported in-depth on the deal Aug. 6, the story garnered national attention.
The Los Angeles treasurer and tax collector's office has taken an aggressive stance against long-term versions of these bonds.
"Once you see a repayment obligation that materially exceeds the principal amount, by that I mean four, five or 10 times more, you have to question why they did it," said Douglas Baron, director of public finance at the Los Angeles County treasurer and tax collector's office.
More standard bond sales cost closer to $3 per dollar borrowed.
California Watch reviewed bond sales at several community college districts in search of similar deals. Although few appear to match the size of the Poway Unified example, several districts financed construction programs using long-term capital appreciation bonds that will end up costing much more than traditional financing because of compounded interest.
San Bernardino Community College District issued $56 million in bonds that will cost $493 million by the time they're paid back in 2048 ---- nine times the principal.
Victor Valley Community College District borrowed $34 million in bonds that will end up costing $271 million to pay back by 2049 ---- eight times the principal.
Yosemite Community College District's $78 million bond issue will cost $453 million by 2042 ---- six times the principal.
Chabot-Las Positas Community College District will pay $850 million by 2046 on $169 million in bonds ---- totaling five times the principal.
District officials chose the more expensive bonds for a number of reasons. Some said they saw the bonds as the best way to maximize buying power without exceeding legal or promised limits on tax rates.
Here's the difference between capital appreciation bonds and the standard variety: With traditional current interest bonds, districts borrow money and start paying interest right away. The money for the debt payments comes from taxes on residents.
They can only borrow so much this way because state law says community college districts can't levy more than $25 per $100,000 of property value.
With capital appreciation bonds, districts get the cash up front, but don't have to pay interest or levy taxes right away. The interest on these bonds compounds over time, without being paid out, until the bond comes due. The further out the bonds come due, or mature, the bigger the payoff for investors and the higher the price tag for districts and future taxpayers.
State law prohibits districts from selling bonds that come due more than 40 years out. The Los Angeles County treasurer and tax collector's office published a white paper stating it would not support capital appreciation bonds in that county with maturities greater than 25 years.
And Baron said the office would advocate changes in the law that would set a cap at 25 to 30 years.
California Watch
Aug. 22, 2012
Several California community college districts have sold bonds that allow them to put off payments for up to 40 years, causing the total repayment to cost taxpayers from five to nine times the principal.
Poway Unified School District, while not a community college district, made headlines this month for issuing a bond for $108 million that will end up costing taxpayers nearly $1 billion over 40 years.
Poway Unified has become the poster child for long-term capital appreciation bonds, increasingly common but controversial tools that enable districts to get cash now for voter-approved construction programs, while delaying the payments and tax levy for decades.
A retired Detroit Free Press reporter, Joel Thurtell, reported on Poway Unified's bond sale on his blog. After Voice of San Diego reported in-depth on the deal Aug. 6, the story garnered national attention.
The Los Angeles treasurer and tax collector's office has taken an aggressive stance against long-term versions of these bonds.
"Once you see a repayment obligation that materially exceeds the principal amount, by that I mean four, five or 10 times more, you have to question why they did it," said Douglas Baron, director of public finance at the Los Angeles County treasurer and tax collector's office.
More standard bond sales cost closer to $3 per dollar borrowed.
California Watch reviewed bond sales at several community college districts in search of similar deals. Although few appear to match the size of the Poway Unified example, several districts financed construction programs using long-term capital appreciation bonds that will end up costing much more than traditional financing because of compounded interest.
San Bernardino Community College District issued $56 million in bonds that will cost $493 million by the time they're paid back in 2048 ---- nine times the principal.
Victor Valley Community College District borrowed $34 million in bonds that will end up costing $271 million to pay back by 2049 ---- eight times the principal.
Yosemite Community College District's $78 million bond issue will cost $453 million by 2042 ---- six times the principal.
Chabot-Las Positas Community College District will pay $850 million by 2046 on $169 million in bonds ---- totaling five times the principal.
District officials chose the more expensive bonds for a number of reasons. Some said they saw the bonds as the best way to maximize buying power without exceeding legal or promised limits on tax rates.
Here's the difference between capital appreciation bonds and the standard variety: With traditional current interest bonds, districts borrow money and start paying interest right away. The money for the debt payments comes from taxes on residents.
They can only borrow so much this way because state law says community college districts can't levy more than $25 per $100,000 of property value.
With capital appreciation bonds, districts get the cash up front, but don't have to pay interest or levy taxes right away. The interest on these bonds compounds over time, without being paid out, until the bond comes due. The further out the bonds come due, or mature, the bigger the payoff for investors and the higher the price tag for districts and future taxpayers.
State law prohibits districts from selling bonds that come due more than 40 years out. The Los Angeles County treasurer and tax collector's office published a white paper stating it would not support capital appreciation bonds in that county with maturities greater than 25 years.
And Baron said the office would advocate changes in the law that would set a cap at 25 to 30 years.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Obama: Education data justify jobs plan
Obama: Education data justify jobs plan
Associated Press
August 18, 2012
Tight school budgets have meant fewer teachers, larger classes and shorter school years, according to a White House report that President Obama says shows the need for Congress to pass his proposals to help states reduce teacher layoffs.
The study concluded that 300,000 education jobs have been lost since the official end of the recession in 2009 and that student-to-teacher ratios have increased by 4.6 percent from 2008 to 2010 and are on track to grow more.
"If we want America to lead in the 21st century, nothing is more important than giving everyone the best education possible - from the day they start preschool to the day they start their career," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday.
For Obama, the report offered a fresh chance to push a nearly year-old jobs plan he proposed that provided money for states to keep teachers, police officers and firefighters on the job. The proposal included payroll tax cuts and jobless insurance provisions that Congress has passed. But other proposals in the plan have run aground amid mostly Republican opposition.
Obama is pressing Congress to act, part of an election-year strategy to portray Republicans as obstructionists. Republicans have proposed their own measures, but they have not advanced in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
While the private sector has continued to create jobs, though at a sluggish pace, the public sector has been posting monthly job losses, contributing to an 8.3 percent unemployment rate.
Obama's plan includes $25 billion in aid to prevent layoffs of teachers and pay for other education jobs. It is part of a broader effort to retain state and local government jobs...
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Obama-Education-data-justify-jobs-plan-3798736.php#ixzz240zuqFFt
Associated Press
August 18, 2012
Tight school budgets have meant fewer teachers, larger classes and shorter school years, according to a White House report that President Obama says shows the need for Congress to pass his proposals to help states reduce teacher layoffs.
The study concluded that 300,000 education jobs have been lost since the official end of the recession in 2009 and that student-to-teacher ratios have increased by 4.6 percent from 2008 to 2010 and are on track to grow more.
"If we want America to lead in the 21st century, nothing is more important than giving everyone the best education possible - from the day they start preschool to the day they start their career," Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday.
For Obama, the report offered a fresh chance to push a nearly year-old jobs plan he proposed that provided money for states to keep teachers, police officers and firefighters on the job. The proposal included payroll tax cuts and jobless insurance provisions that Congress has passed. But other proposals in the plan have run aground amid mostly Republican opposition.
Obama is pressing Congress to act, part of an election-year strategy to portray Republicans as obstructionists. Republicans have proposed their own measures, but they have not advanced in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
While the private sector has continued to create jobs, though at a sluggish pace, the public sector has been posting monthly job losses, contributing to an 8.3 percent unemployment rate.
Obama's plan includes $25 billion in aid to prevent layoffs of teachers and pay for other education jobs. It is part of a broader effort to retain state and local government jobs...
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Obama-Education-data-justify-jobs-plan-3798736.php#ixzz240zuqFFt
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Top Labor Leader Lorena Gonzalez Hints at Teacher Givebacks
Be sure to click on the following link to get the original story with lots of links to other stories:
Morning Report: Top Labor Leader Hints at Teacher Givebacks
By Randy Dotinga
Voice of San Diego
May 25, 2012
In almost as many words, the top labor leader in the region yesterday told the San Diego teachers union to get off the dime. Lorena Gonzalez's message: It's time for movement already.
What kind of movement? Forgoing pay raises instead of allowing one of every five teachers to be laid off? Well, Gonzalez, the most powerful labor leader in San Diego, didn't quite go that far. But she got close.
"It doesn't make any sense to play a game of chicken, it's not going to work on either side," she said. Gonzalez didn't let the district off the hook, saying it's got to do more to explain the options that exist.
Meanwhile, the teachers union president told the U-T that he wants to survey its members about what to do over the next few days to see how to proceed.
For a quick explainer, check out our Reader's Guide on the district's financial crisis.
• In letters, San Diego teacher Joe Wainio says it's time for his union to negotiate. "To say that our raise is non-negotiable, standing by while hundreds of our fellow teachers and other staff are downsized and the quality of instruction is necessarily compromised, is irresponsible and short-sighted."
Morning Report: Top Labor Leader Hints at Teacher Givebacks
By Randy Dotinga
Voice of San Diego
May 25, 2012
In almost as many words, the top labor leader in the region yesterday told the San Diego teachers union to get off the dime. Lorena Gonzalez's message: It's time for movement already.
What kind of movement? Forgoing pay raises instead of allowing one of every five teachers to be laid off? Well, Gonzalez, the most powerful labor leader in San Diego, didn't quite go that far. But she got close.
"It doesn't make any sense to play a game of chicken, it's not going to work on either side," she said. Gonzalez didn't let the district off the hook, saying it's got to do more to explain the options that exist.
Meanwhile, the teachers union president told the U-T that he wants to survey its members about what to do over the next few days to see how to proceed.
For a quick explainer, check out our Reader's Guide on the district's financial crisis.
• In letters, San Diego teacher Joe Wainio says it's time for his union to negotiate. "To say that our raise is non-negotiable, standing by while hundreds of our fellow teachers and other staff are downsized and the quality of instruction is necessarily compromised, is irresponsible and short-sighted."
Saturday, May 05, 2012
Camille Zombro is gone, but it seems the top CTA brass in Burlingame have an unchanged agenda
No Signs of Talking, Yet: Checking Up On the Teachers Union
May 3, 2012
By Will Carless
Voice of San Diego
I’m checking up on various recent high-profile stories at the moment, to see how those stories have progressed since we first reported on them.
Earlier this year, I spent a few weeks researching and writing about the San Diego Education Association, the union that represents local teachers. I wrote about the union’s move towards a more hard-line, isolationist philosophy over the last few years, and I covered a couple of big shifts in leadership at the SDEA.
The union’s being watched very closely at the moment because of the dire fiscal situation at the district. San Diego Unified issued more than 1,600 layoff notices to employees in March in order to close a projected deficit of at least $80 million. District officials say the only way to avoid those layoffs is for all employee unions to make concessions on their pay and benefit packages.
A large chunk of that projected $80 million deficit is due to a pay raise currently owed to educators that the school board agreed to in 2010. It comes into effect later this year.
The teachers union is far and away the biggest of those unions, and the school board, teachers and parents are all waiting to see if the recent ouster of two hard-line leaders will result in a softer stance from the union.
Let’s take a look at what’s been happening:
Where We Left It
In March, controversial union Vice President Camille Zombro was voted out of office. Zombro’s ouster followed the removal of SDEA Executive Director Craig Leedham from his position two weeks earlier.
Zombro and Leedham were the architects of the SDEA’s shift towards its more hard-line stance. Under their leadership, the union cut off almost all non-formal communications with the district, drifted apart from fellow unions and even cast off an affiliated group of retired educators.
As detailed in this story, the union’s shift worried several former SDEA officials, who considered the isolationist approach largely counter-productive and urged the union to work with the district to forge solutions to the current crisis.
With Leedham out and Zombro coming to the end of her term, I’ve been watching for a thawing in relations between the union and the district.
Incoming Vice President Lindsay Burningham told me in March that she wanted to push the union in a more “positive direction.” And SDEA President Bill Freeman began to soften his rhetoric.
What’s Happened Since
District officials and board members have told me there has been no movement when it comes to discussing concessions. The union is not meeting with the district to negotiate at all, they said.
Burningham confirmed this Wednesday. But she said there have been several other positive steps forward. Union reps are meeting regularly with district personnel to talk about a whole host of things, she said.
“We’re communicating about the budget, being able to ask and answer questions, and move forward in other areas,” Burningham said. “In some areas, the communication has opened up a little more, as people are more comfortable speaking with each other.”
There are also other recent signs that the union’s ready to start working with the district to find a solution to the fiscal crisis.
During two-and-a-half minutes of public comment to the San Diego Unified School District board meeting Tuesday night, SDEA President Bill Freeman used the phrase “come together” three times.
Thursday, March 01, 2012
Is San Diego Education Association (SDEA) President Bill Freeman the only reasonable man in the union?
When CityBeat interviewed board member Richard Barrera, he didn’t mention Armageddon as an option. Instead, Barrera expressed faith that the teachers and their union president, Bill Freeman, will eventually come around.
“I think that the majority— probably the overwhelming majority—of teachers wants the district and the union to figure out a solution to this budget crisis so that there’s not mass layoffs,” Barrera said. “I think that voice is certainly going to become louder and louder within SDEA going forward. I have, actually, quite a lot of confidence in Bill Freeman.”
That would suggest that there are formidable forces within SDEA that are aligned against the union president. SDEA will hold elections for board members in mid-March. Those elections could change the union’s stance.
For his part, Freeman declined to discuss the union’s internal politics, instead focusing on struggling teachers.
Feb 29, 2012
San Diego Unified: A lose-lose situation
District and its teachers union battle over an evaporating pool of education money
By David Rolland
City Beat
Scott Barnett is considering the nuclear option.
“I haven’t decided that that’s what I’m going to do,” he told CityBeat, “but I have to say, I’m seriously looking at that as a consideration.”
Barnett, a member of the San Diego Unified School District’s Board of Education, is talking about forcing the district to wave the white flag, admit failure and run itself out of money. Insolvency.
Right now, the school district is looking at a worst-case scenario of being short about nearly $122 million for the fiscal year that starts July 1. But that’s merely an estimate, based on how much money Gov. Jerry Brown has said he’ll spend on education. The numbers can change during the spring; the state doesn’t finalize its budget until June. So, school districts have to plan based on available information, and San Diego Unified is planning for a budget deficit that’s roughly equal to 18 percent of its discretionary spending.
It’s a huge hole. To get out of it, the district’s superintendent is proposing to lay off nearly 1,200—more than 15 percent—of its teachers, counselors, librarians and nurses and sell off $21 million worth of the district’s real-estate holdings, in addition to other cuts and budget maneuvers. The result of the layoffs would be extraordinarily high class sizes across all grade levels—as many as 50 students in high-school classes—which would certainly degrade the quality of education. Layoffs, for the most part, are based on a last-hired, first-fired system.
Would that be better or worse, Barnett asks, than giving up and allowing the state to send a trustee in to run the show?
San Diego Unified School District Board member Scott Barnett thinks it might be time for Armageddon.
Photo by David Rolland
“I’m at a point in my mind now that we are essentially insolvent today—if not legally, [then] de facto,” Barnett said. “We have been using tens of millions of dollars in one-time revenues, reserves and so forth to balance the budget—ba sically our piggy bank. And, next year, the staff’s proposing, for the first time, starting the selling of our assets to help balance the budget—one-time revenue.”
Put another way, imagine a family with seven kids booting the youngest child from the house and holding a yard sale in order to feed the rest of the family and pay the mortgage. That’s what it’s come to for San Diego County’s largest school district.
However, “San Diego Unified is no different than any of the 500-plus districts around California,” said Jim Groth, an educator in Chula Vista and a member of the California Teachers Association’s Board of Directors. “Everyone has taken [a total of ] over $20 billion worth of cuts over the last four years, and all districts are scrambling, trying to make sense out of what’s taking place.”
Roughly $39 million of San Diego Unified’s $122-million deficit is the result of a deal the district struck in 2010 with the San Diego Education Association (SDEA), the union that represents teachers. The teachers agreed to cut one week off the school calendar for two years (reducing pay by 2.7 percent each year); in exchange, the district agreed to raise pay a little more than 4 percent for the upcoming school year (2012-13) and another 3 percent in 2013-14 and add that week back to the calendar.
Gov. Brown has proposed a tax increase for the November election that, if successful, would net the district about $40 million; it’s one of three proposed tax measures that would increase education funding. But since that election comes two months into the school year and more than four months after the district has to set its budget, the district can’t count on that money. If it materializes, it’ll be rolled into the following budget year.
Most of the planned layoffs can be avoided if the teachers agree to not only say goodbye to the raises and continue taking the furlough days, but also accept pay cuts and healthcare-cost increases that would be rolled back if the tax measure passes. But the district is powerless to make that happen; the teachers union would have to volunteer to come back to the bargaining table. So far, the union has expressed no such willingness.
Related content
A sculptor for San Diego schoolsEarly fireworks in the race for the 79th Assembly DistrictAll assembledProfiles in political overkillPink slip stories
Related to:san diego unified school districtscott barnettsan diego education associationmarty blockschools
So, as most of the players see it, there are two choices: mass layoffs or huge union concessions. Barnett sees his nuclear option as another route: Don’t lay anyone off and purposefully run the district out of money: “I’ve had a lot of sleepless nights trying to think of a third way. That’s why I’m seriously thinking that insolvency is a third way. But it has a lot of risk.
“In theory,” he says, “we could not do the layoffs, which is what the union wants, but then still come to an agreement with the unions on concessions—on salary cuts and so forth—if they don’t want a trustee to take over. In some ways, I’m wondering if the unions will ever seriously negotiate if they don’t believe we are going to go under. So, it’s truly an Armageddon solution.”
If he decides to vote that way, Barnett would need to convince at least two of his four colleagues on the Board of Education to do the same—a tall order because if the unions don’t buckle, it could amount to political suicide for the board.
“Obviously, as politicians, your career is over,” he said. “So, if you have interest in a career in the future, you’ll always be known as the person who brought San Diego Unified down.”
When CityBeat interviewed board member Richard Barrera, he didn’t mention Armageddon as an option. Instead, Barrera expressed faith that the teachers and their union president, Bill Freeman, will eventually come around.
“I think that the majority— probably the overwhelming majority—of teachers wants the district and the union to figure out a solution to this budget crisis so that there’s not mass layoffs,” Barrera said. “I think that voice is certainly going to become louder and louder within SDEA going forward. I have, actually, quite a lot of confidence in Bill Freeman.”
That would suggest that there are formidable forces within SDEA that are aligned against the union president. SDEA will hold elections for board members in mid-March. Those elections could change the union’s stance.
For his part, Freeman declined to discuss the union’s internal politics, instead focusing on struggling teachers. “I know 61 teachers right now that have lost their homes,” he said. “I know 38 teachers that have moved in with each other in order to keep from losing their homes.
“We don’t know whether the district has a budgetary problem. The district doesn’t know whether they have a budgetary problem— because we don’t have a budget,” he said. “We’re having to lay teachers off based upon this in-the-dark budgeting. That’s what’s frustrating to me.”
Freeman, like everyone in this drama, simply wants clearer information before having to make major decisions.
“Whenever the district has come to us with clean numbers and they had a problem, we have never turned our heads to them. And I don’t think that we will do that,” he said. “But I don’t want to open our pockets and say, ‘OK, you may have a problem. Here, take what you think you may need.’ What they think they may need isn’t something that would come back to us if they don’t need it. So, that’s not something I’m willing to do.”
March 15 is a crucial date for school districts statewide. That’s when the state requires districts to notify teachers that they might be laid off in June. If a teacher doesn’t get a pink slip in March, that teacher is safe for another year. The March 15 deadline is a big reason districts have to come up with a budget before they know how much money the state will give them. But, also, the county requires an interim budget from school districts in March.
Some relief may be on the way for San Diego Unified. At the urging of the district and the teachers union, state Assemblymember Marty Block introduced a bill last Friday that would allow the March 15 deadline to be moved to June 15— for San Diego Unified only. It must clear several committees in both houses of the Legislature and get affirmative votes from two-thirds of all legislators in order to impact the upcoming budget year, and that has to get done in two weeks.
“It’s going to be difficult to get it done by March 15 under the best of circumstances,” Block told CityBeat. “We’re going to try.”
SDEA’s stance on Block’s bill has been chaotic. After asking Block to introduce the bill, SDEA announced on Feb. 15 that it would oppose it unless the district first promised not to send any pink slips in March. But if the district were to give that promise and the bill were to fail, the district would lose the ability to balance its budget through layoffs. Eight days later, the union flipped again. “We have backed off,” Free man said, “and we have said that we will not oppose that legislation.”
The March 15 deadline is in place to give teachers time to look for work elsewhere. But because districts lately have had to send out more pink slips than they’ve ended up needing to, it’s created a different kind of anxiety for those receiving them. Last year, hundreds of pink slips were rescinded, although two board members—Barnett and John Lee Evans—voted against rescinding them.
“I think most teachers would say, ‘This process creates more disruption in our lives than if we had a chance to wait it out and not receive a pink slip in the first place,’” Barrera said.
Of course, all this tension is the demon spawn of hard economic times.
“It’s safe to say,” Barrera said, “that the relationship between the district and the union was the best that it had certainly been in San Diego Unified in a couple of decades prior to us issuing pink slips last March.”
Before that, he said, the two parties, along with individual schools, were collaborating on reforms that give schools more decision-making power, kind of like charter schools. “And then all that stopped when we issued the pink slips in March,” Barrera said, “and since then, the relationship has been, for the most part, just no communication.”
SDEA has become less talkative with the press, too. CityBeat called and emailed Freeman for two weeks before getting him on the phone. SDEA’s media message has largely been made up of confrontational charges of district misinformation and scare tactics. Freeman’s been represented in the press as believing the district will find money somewhere, and he’s pointed to the board’s decision last year to rescind layoffs as proof.
Barnett said that by calling back those teachers, the board, in a way, “enabled” the union’s hardline stance, “using money we didn’t really have.” He said the board’s majority, led by Barrera, has erred on the side of hoping that the economy will improve and the state will send more money down the pike, and he acknowledged that doing so is in the best interest of quality education. But, Barnett said, it’s still a gamble...
“I think that the majority— probably the overwhelming majority—of teachers wants the district and the union to figure out a solution to this budget crisis so that there’s not mass layoffs,” Barrera said. “I think that voice is certainly going to become louder and louder within SDEA going forward. I have, actually, quite a lot of confidence in Bill Freeman.”
That would suggest that there are formidable forces within SDEA that are aligned against the union president. SDEA will hold elections for board members in mid-March. Those elections could change the union’s stance.
For his part, Freeman declined to discuss the union’s internal politics, instead focusing on struggling teachers.
Feb 29, 2012
San Diego Unified: A lose-lose situation
District and its teachers union battle over an evaporating pool of education money
By David Rolland
City Beat
Scott Barnett is considering the nuclear option.
“I haven’t decided that that’s what I’m going to do,” he told CityBeat, “but I have to say, I’m seriously looking at that as a consideration.”
Barnett, a member of the San Diego Unified School District’s Board of Education, is talking about forcing the district to wave the white flag, admit failure and run itself out of money. Insolvency.
Right now, the school district is looking at a worst-case scenario of being short about nearly $122 million for the fiscal year that starts July 1. But that’s merely an estimate, based on how much money Gov. Jerry Brown has said he’ll spend on education. The numbers can change during the spring; the state doesn’t finalize its budget until June. So, school districts have to plan based on available information, and San Diego Unified is planning for a budget deficit that’s roughly equal to 18 percent of its discretionary spending.
It’s a huge hole. To get out of it, the district’s superintendent is proposing to lay off nearly 1,200—more than 15 percent—of its teachers, counselors, librarians and nurses and sell off $21 million worth of the district’s real-estate holdings, in addition to other cuts and budget maneuvers. The result of the layoffs would be extraordinarily high class sizes across all grade levels—as many as 50 students in high-school classes—which would certainly degrade the quality of education. Layoffs, for the most part, are based on a last-hired, first-fired system.
Would that be better or worse, Barnett asks, than giving up and allowing the state to send a trustee in to run the show?
San Diego Unified School District Board member Scott Barnett thinks it might be time for Armageddon.
Photo by David Rolland
“I’m at a point in my mind now that we are essentially insolvent today—if not legally, [then] de facto,” Barnett said. “We have been using tens of millions of dollars in one-time revenues, reserves and so forth to balance the budget—ba sically our piggy bank. And, next year, the staff’s proposing, for the first time, starting the selling of our assets to help balance the budget—one-time revenue.”
Put another way, imagine a family with seven kids booting the youngest child from the house and holding a yard sale in order to feed the rest of the family and pay the mortgage. That’s what it’s come to for San Diego County’s largest school district.
However, “San Diego Unified is no different than any of the 500-plus districts around California,” said Jim Groth, an educator in Chula Vista and a member of the California Teachers Association’s Board of Directors. “Everyone has taken [a total of ] over $20 billion worth of cuts over the last four years, and all districts are scrambling, trying to make sense out of what’s taking place.”
Roughly $39 million of San Diego Unified’s $122-million deficit is the result of a deal the district struck in 2010 with the San Diego Education Association (SDEA), the union that represents teachers. The teachers agreed to cut one week off the school calendar for two years (reducing pay by 2.7 percent each year); in exchange, the district agreed to raise pay a little more than 4 percent for the upcoming school year (2012-13) and another 3 percent in 2013-14 and add that week back to the calendar.
Gov. Brown has proposed a tax increase for the November election that, if successful, would net the district about $40 million; it’s one of three proposed tax measures that would increase education funding. But since that election comes two months into the school year and more than four months after the district has to set its budget, the district can’t count on that money. If it materializes, it’ll be rolled into the following budget year.
Most of the planned layoffs can be avoided if the teachers agree to not only say goodbye to the raises and continue taking the furlough days, but also accept pay cuts and healthcare-cost increases that would be rolled back if the tax measure passes. But the district is powerless to make that happen; the teachers union would have to volunteer to come back to the bargaining table. So far, the union has expressed no such willingness.
Related content
A sculptor for San Diego schoolsEarly fireworks in the race for the 79th Assembly DistrictAll assembledProfiles in political overkillPink slip stories
Related to:san diego unified school districtscott barnettsan diego education associationmarty blockschools
So, as most of the players see it, there are two choices: mass layoffs or huge union concessions. Barnett sees his nuclear option as another route: Don’t lay anyone off and purposefully run the district out of money: “I’ve had a lot of sleepless nights trying to think of a third way. That’s why I’m seriously thinking that insolvency is a third way. But it has a lot of risk.
“In theory,” he says, “we could not do the layoffs, which is what the union wants, but then still come to an agreement with the unions on concessions—on salary cuts and so forth—if they don’t want a trustee to take over. In some ways, I’m wondering if the unions will ever seriously negotiate if they don’t believe we are going to go under. So, it’s truly an Armageddon solution.”
If he decides to vote that way, Barnett would need to convince at least two of his four colleagues on the Board of Education to do the same—a tall order because if the unions don’t buckle, it could amount to political suicide for the board.
“Obviously, as politicians, your career is over,” he said. “So, if you have interest in a career in the future, you’ll always be known as the person who brought San Diego Unified down.”
When CityBeat interviewed board member Richard Barrera, he didn’t mention Armageddon as an option. Instead, Barrera expressed faith that the teachers and their union president, Bill Freeman, will eventually come around.
“I think that the majority— probably the overwhelming majority—of teachers wants the district and the union to figure out a solution to this budget crisis so that there’s not mass layoffs,” Barrera said. “I think that voice is certainly going to become louder and louder within SDEA going forward. I have, actually, quite a lot of confidence in Bill Freeman.”
That would suggest that there are formidable forces within SDEA that are aligned against the union president. SDEA will hold elections for board members in mid-March. Those elections could change the union’s stance.
For his part, Freeman declined to discuss the union’s internal politics, instead focusing on struggling teachers. “I know 61 teachers right now that have lost their homes,” he said. “I know 38 teachers that have moved in with each other in order to keep from losing their homes.
“We don’t know whether the district has a budgetary problem. The district doesn’t know whether they have a budgetary problem— because we don’t have a budget,” he said. “We’re having to lay teachers off based upon this in-the-dark budgeting. That’s what’s frustrating to me.”
Freeman, like everyone in this drama, simply wants clearer information before having to make major decisions.
“Whenever the district has come to us with clean numbers and they had a problem, we have never turned our heads to them. And I don’t think that we will do that,” he said. “But I don’t want to open our pockets and say, ‘OK, you may have a problem. Here, take what you think you may need.’ What they think they may need isn’t something that would come back to us if they don’t need it. So, that’s not something I’m willing to do.”
March 15 is a crucial date for school districts statewide. That’s when the state requires districts to notify teachers that they might be laid off in June. If a teacher doesn’t get a pink slip in March, that teacher is safe for another year. The March 15 deadline is a big reason districts have to come up with a budget before they know how much money the state will give them. But, also, the county requires an interim budget from school districts in March.
Some relief may be on the way for San Diego Unified. At the urging of the district and the teachers union, state Assemblymember Marty Block introduced a bill last Friday that would allow the March 15 deadline to be moved to June 15— for San Diego Unified only. It must clear several committees in both houses of the Legislature and get affirmative votes from two-thirds of all legislators in order to impact the upcoming budget year, and that has to get done in two weeks.
“It’s going to be difficult to get it done by March 15 under the best of circumstances,” Block told CityBeat. “We’re going to try.”
SDEA’s stance on Block’s bill has been chaotic. After asking Block to introduce the bill, SDEA announced on Feb. 15 that it would oppose it unless the district first promised not to send any pink slips in March. But if the district were to give that promise and the bill were to fail, the district would lose the ability to balance its budget through layoffs. Eight days later, the union flipped again. “We have backed off,” Free man said, “and we have said that we will not oppose that legislation.”
The March 15 deadline is in place to give teachers time to look for work elsewhere. But because districts lately have had to send out more pink slips than they’ve ended up needing to, it’s created a different kind of anxiety for those receiving them. Last year, hundreds of pink slips were rescinded, although two board members—Barnett and John Lee Evans—voted against rescinding them.
“I think most teachers would say, ‘This process creates more disruption in our lives than if we had a chance to wait it out and not receive a pink slip in the first place,’” Barrera said.
Of course, all this tension is the demon spawn of hard economic times.
“It’s safe to say,” Barrera said, “that the relationship between the district and the union was the best that it had certainly been in San Diego Unified in a couple of decades prior to us issuing pink slips last March.”
Before that, he said, the two parties, along with individual schools, were collaborating on reforms that give schools more decision-making power, kind of like charter schools. “And then all that stopped when we issued the pink slips in March,” Barrera said, “and since then, the relationship has been, for the most part, just no communication.”
SDEA has become less talkative with the press, too. CityBeat called and emailed Freeman for two weeks before getting him on the phone. SDEA’s media message has largely been made up of confrontational charges of district misinformation and scare tactics. Freeman’s been represented in the press as believing the district will find money somewhere, and he’s pointed to the board’s decision last year to rescind layoffs as proof.
Barnett said that by calling back those teachers, the board, in a way, “enabled” the union’s hardline stance, “using money we didn’t really have.” He said the board’s majority, led by Barrera, has erred on the side of hoping that the economy will improve and the state will send more money down the pike, and he acknowledged that doing so is in the best interest of quality education. But, Barnett said, it’s still a gamble...
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
COMPETITION HEATS UP FOR SCHOOL TAX MEASURES
COMPETITION HEATS UP FOR SCHOOL TAX MEASURES
Analysts say three initiatives could confuse voters
Michael Gardner
Union-Tribune
Feb. 21, 2012
Tax initiatives at a glance
• Brown’s initiative would temporarily increase the state sales tax by a half-cent on the dollar and hike the personal income tax rate for those earning more than $250,000. The money would go to schools, public safety and other services.
• Molly Munger, a wealthy civil rights attorney and Pasadena resident, has collaborated with the California PTA to propose an income tax rate increase for nearly every Californian that would gradually escalate depending on earnings. Those revenues would be sent directly to local boards, avoiding the Legislature’s grasp. Most of the increase is dedicated to K-12 and 15 percent for preschools and child care programs. It would expires in 12 years. Munger actually has two similar measures pending and her team will decide later which one to push.
• The California Federation of Teachers, joined by the California Nurses Association, targets the wealthy by raising tax rates by 3 percent for those earning $1 million and 5 percent for filers with incomes of more than $2 million. Revenues would go to schools, colleges, senior programs, roads and public safety. It, too, bypasses Sacramento by sending the money to school boards and other local governing bodies. The increase would be permanent.
SACRAMENTO - Unless someone blinks, voters could face three competing measures on the November ballot that will ask them to raise taxes in the name of schools.
The individual merits of each have been largely overshadowed by growing warnings that the powerful sponsors — Gov. Jerry Brown, teacher unions and the PTA among them — must either coalesce behind a single initiative or risk having voters turn down all three.
Better one than none is the advice.
“The more measures on the ballot, the greater the chance for voter confusion. And confused voters tend to vote no,” Jack Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College, said in an email.
Added Larry Gerston, a political scientist at San Jose State University: “The anti-tax folks are going to let the three sides duke it out and take great glee in knowing they will confuse everyone so much that the ‘no’ side won’t have to work very hard.”
So far, admonitions urging compromise have not been heeded by Brown and supporters of the other measures who have deep convictions and, in some cases, deep pockets to finance the looming campaigns.
“The question is what’s best for our kids,” said Bey-Ling Sha, a San Carlos mother of two boys and the executive vice president of the San Diego Unified Council of PTAs who backs an initiative to increase the income tax on almost everyone, but which puts the biggest bite on the wealthy. The measure is being spearheaded by attorney Molly Munger, a civil rights advocate.
“If a deal could be cut that would be better for kids, sure. But I don’t see that happening. At some point, you have to trust the democratic process,” added Sha, a San Diego State University professor.
Jim Groth, the San Diego-based representative on the California Teachers Association board, said there is still time to reach a deal. But Brown’s supporters, such as the CTA, are convinced their measure — which raises the sales and upper income taxes — will have the broadest coalition because it also helps public safety and social services. While the other measures fund programs beyond K-12, Brown’s has the most diverse distribution list...
Analysts say three initiatives could confuse voters
Michael Gardner
Union-Tribune
Feb. 21, 2012
Tax initiatives at a glance
• Brown’s initiative would temporarily increase the state sales tax by a half-cent on the dollar and hike the personal income tax rate for those earning more than $250,000. The money would go to schools, public safety and other services.
• Molly Munger, a wealthy civil rights attorney and Pasadena resident, has collaborated with the California PTA to propose an income tax rate increase for nearly every Californian that would gradually escalate depending on earnings. Those revenues would be sent directly to local boards, avoiding the Legislature’s grasp. Most of the increase is dedicated to K-12 and 15 percent for preschools and child care programs. It would expires in 12 years. Munger actually has two similar measures pending and her team will decide later which one to push.
• The California Federation of Teachers, joined by the California Nurses Association, targets the wealthy by raising tax rates by 3 percent for those earning $1 million and 5 percent for filers with incomes of more than $2 million. Revenues would go to schools, colleges, senior programs, roads and public safety. It, too, bypasses Sacramento by sending the money to school boards and other local governing bodies. The increase would be permanent.
SACRAMENTO - Unless someone blinks, voters could face three competing measures on the November ballot that will ask them to raise taxes in the name of schools.
The individual merits of each have been largely overshadowed by growing warnings that the powerful sponsors — Gov. Jerry Brown, teacher unions and the PTA among them — must either coalesce behind a single initiative or risk having voters turn down all three.
Better one than none is the advice.
“The more measures on the ballot, the greater the chance for voter confusion. And confused voters tend to vote no,” Jack Pitney, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College, said in an email.
Added Larry Gerston, a political scientist at San Jose State University: “The anti-tax folks are going to let the three sides duke it out and take great glee in knowing they will confuse everyone so much that the ‘no’ side won’t have to work very hard.”
So far, admonitions urging compromise have not been heeded by Brown and supporters of the other measures who have deep convictions and, in some cases, deep pockets to finance the looming campaigns.
“The question is what’s best for our kids,” said Bey-Ling Sha, a San Carlos mother of two boys and the executive vice president of the San Diego Unified Council of PTAs who backs an initiative to increase the income tax on almost everyone, but which puts the biggest bite on the wealthy. The measure is being spearheaded by attorney Molly Munger, a civil rights advocate.
“If a deal could be cut that would be better for kids, sure. But I don’t see that happening. At some point, you have to trust the democratic process,” added Sha, a San Diego State University professor.
Jim Groth, the San Diego-based representative on the California Teachers Association board, said there is still time to reach a deal. But Brown’s supporters, such as the CTA, are convinced their measure — which raises the sales and upper income taxes — will have the broadest coalition because it also helps public safety and social services. While the other measures fund programs beyond K-12, Brown’s has the most diverse distribution list...
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Teachers outraged by intransigence of CTA elites in San Diego Unified budget crisis
Head Counsel Emma Leheny, the real decision-maker for California Teachers Association?Who really runs CTA? Obviously, not Bill Freeman. He was forced by his superiors to renege on his agreement to pursue legislation to move back the date on which teachers must be informed of layoffs.
In my experience, ALL the "elected" officials in CTA are fronts for the people who truly run CTA: the lawyers CTA's head counsel is Emma Leheny. President Dean Vogel does what he's told.
Rumblings from Teachers After Union Backs Away
February 16, 2012
By Will Carless
Voice of San Diego
...Yesterday, the teachers union stepped away from that deal. Its stance has upset some local teachers, who say the union has botched an opportunity to mend fences with the district while at the same time pushing forward legislation a majority of teachers want.
Late last night, I got this letter from two teachers at Marshall Middle School who are concerned about the direction of the union at a critical juncture for the district. The teachers, who are meeting soon with SDEA President Bill Freeman, want to see more cooperation.
Here's a snippet (I've posted the full letter below):
As educators, we recognize that our classrooms and the learning within is most successful when we embrace the idea of working together to collaborate as we problem solve. Part of this respect comes from recognizing that each person within the classroom has strengths that they can offer in order to achieve the overall goal.
As members of SDEA, we are embarrassed to see that these simple ideas that go to the very core of what we try to foster and develop within our students, helping them become successful adults willing to work with and learn from others, is the opposite of the values SDEA has repeatedly shown in the last two years.
But the real eye-opener for me was the flurry of reader comments I've been reading today on last night's post. One comment, titled an "open letter to Bill Freeman," was left by Mary Laiuppa, an educator, union member, vociferous commenter and near-constant critic of the district.
This time, Laiuppa, whose past comments have praised the union's hard work, aimed her vitriol at the union president:
The union had a great opportunity here and it was just destroyed. Don't tell me the teachers voted against this. No, this was a decision made by the SDEA elites. Sorry but this foot soldier isn't going to roll over and kow tow.
And I'll bet I'm not the only one.
This was a BAD decision. And when it hits the fan I'll be the first to shout "told you so" when the fallout starts to bury the union.
Won't be going down to the offices to make phone calls, stuff envelopes, attend candidate meetings or walk neighborhoods...
Thursday, August 18, 2011
‘Truly Mind-Boggling’ Cuts Loom for Grossmont and Cuyamaca Colleges, Chancellor Says
‘Truly Mind-Boggling’ Cuts Loom for Grossmont and Cuyamaca Colleges, Chancellor Says
Cindy Miles, newcomer to La Mesa and community college district, says nearly 800 class sections will be lost and 5,000 students turned away.
By Ken Stone
La Mesa Patch
March 29, 2011
Cindy Miles says she didn't give a thought to the president's opening at San Diego State. "This is The Show," she said. "This is the real work."
Cindy Miles grew up in Pasadena, TX, then known as "Stink-adena" for its paper mills.
Cindy Miles says she's tried all the downtown La Mesa restaurants and "recommends them all."
In her first visit to Grossmont College, Cindy Miles said she thought the modular building housing the chancellor's office was a maintenance structure.
“Cheers” is Cindy Miles' signature sign-off in email—and her attitude toward life, she says.
If Cindy Miles had her way, the district would add a performing arts building with enough space to hold graduations.
Cuts looming for Grossmont and Cuyamaca colleges are “truly mind-boggling,” says the leader of East County’s community college district, a new La Mesan who herself knows financial distress.
Under a “best-case” scenario, the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District would lose 600 course sections as a result of the state budget ax—after chopping 1,000 sections over the past two years, says Cindy Miles, chancellor since March 2009.
“We’re potentially cutting up to 20 percent of our course offerings”—under the best forecast, she said Friday—before Gov. Jerry Brown’s decision Tuesday to call off budget talks with Republicans on a June ballot on extending higher taxes.
The district now is operating under “Plan B” revenue assumptions (see attached letter), said district spokeswoman Anne Krueger on Wednesday. That includes funding under Proposition 98—the 1988 voter-approved amendment to the state Constitution that led to a minimum annual funding level for K-12 schools and community colleges.
Community enrichment classes? Stand-alone courses?
“They’re gone,” Miles said.
Students already will face a steep rise in costs. Last Thursday, Brown signed into law a boost in student fees from $26 a credit unit to $36 a unit, starting this fall.
That money won’t go to colleges, Miles notes, but into the state’s general fund which pays for public schooling.
Like many other educators, Miles, 56, said Friday she would tell Republicans in the state Legislature to allow a Brown-backed bill to go forward that would let Californians decide on extending several state taxes.
“Let the voters decide on how they want to spend our tax dollar—whether they are willing to extend these taxes to make sure the education and future of their state is protected,” she said.
And like many Americans, she has suffered in the economy—taking a big loss to sell her home outside Miami before moving to a rental near The Village, which she shares with her only child—son Gabriel, a recent graduate of Florida International University.
“I was caught up in the real estate crash like everybody else,” Miles said Friday in an interview at her modest Grossmont College office. Her mortgage was “upside down”—meaning the home near Miami she bought in 2005 at the top of the market was worth less in 2009 than what she owed on it.
“I lost a lot of money, just like everyone else in the nation,” said Miles, whose three-year contract through 2012 pays $245,000 a year, not including $1,050 a month for auto and other expenses.
Unlike K-12 school districts, however, Miles says hers isn’t planning pink slips.
In a “Dear Colleagues” letter circulated Thursday, Miles wrote: “Let me again reassure you that we have no plans for layoffs and we are not considering this option as we work with our budget councils and employee groups to solve our problems. Even in a worst-case scenario, we would call on our employees to help develop solutions to share the pain of cost-cutting with our students.”
But fewer students would be admitted to the two-campus district under any budget scenario, she wrote. Under “Plan C,” in fact, more than 1,000 additional classes would be cut—with 8,000 students turned away.
The district would freeze all but the state-mandated positions, purchase nothing but “indispensable items” and work with employee groups to identify “fair share” solutions—which could include voluntary furloughs, ending summer school and closing nonessential facilities.
But one effort that won’t end is a Department of Advancement Services in the chancellor’s office—a fundraising and “grant-development system that never existed” in the 50-year-old district.
“We’re very serious about this,” said Miles, who worked at Miami Dade Community College when it acquired a reputation as the most successful grant-generating community college in the nation.
Cindy Miles, newcomer to La Mesa and community college district, says nearly 800 class sections will be lost and 5,000 students turned away.
By Ken Stone
La Mesa Patch
March 29, 2011
Cindy Miles says she didn't give a thought to the president's opening at San Diego State. "This is The Show," she said. "This is the real work."
Cindy Miles grew up in Pasadena, TX, then known as "Stink-adena" for its paper mills.
Cindy Miles says she's tried all the downtown La Mesa restaurants and "recommends them all."
In her first visit to Grossmont College, Cindy Miles said she thought the modular building housing the chancellor's office was a maintenance structure.
“Cheers” is Cindy Miles' signature sign-off in email—and her attitude toward life, she says.
If Cindy Miles had her way, the district would add a performing arts building with enough space to hold graduations.
Cuts looming for Grossmont and Cuyamaca colleges are “truly mind-boggling,” says the leader of East County’s community college district, a new La Mesan who herself knows financial distress.
Under a “best-case” scenario, the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District would lose 600 course sections as a result of the state budget ax—after chopping 1,000 sections over the past two years, says Cindy Miles, chancellor since March 2009.
“We’re potentially cutting up to 20 percent of our course offerings”—under the best forecast, she said Friday—before Gov. Jerry Brown’s decision Tuesday to call off budget talks with Republicans on a June ballot on extending higher taxes.
The district now is operating under “Plan B” revenue assumptions (see attached letter), said district spokeswoman Anne Krueger on Wednesday. That includes funding under Proposition 98—the 1988 voter-approved amendment to the state Constitution that led to a minimum annual funding level for K-12 schools and community colleges.
Community enrichment classes? Stand-alone courses?
“They’re gone,” Miles said.
Students already will face a steep rise in costs. Last Thursday, Brown signed into law a boost in student fees from $26 a credit unit to $36 a unit, starting this fall.
That money won’t go to colleges, Miles notes, but into the state’s general fund which pays for public schooling.
Like many other educators, Miles, 56, said Friday she would tell Republicans in the state Legislature to allow a Brown-backed bill to go forward that would let Californians decide on extending several state taxes.
“Let the voters decide on how they want to spend our tax dollar—whether they are willing to extend these taxes to make sure the education and future of their state is protected,” she said.
And like many Americans, she has suffered in the economy—taking a big loss to sell her home outside Miami before moving to a rental near The Village, which she shares with her only child—son Gabriel, a recent graduate of Florida International University.
“I was caught up in the real estate crash like everybody else,” Miles said Friday in an interview at her modest Grossmont College office. Her mortgage was “upside down”—meaning the home near Miami she bought in 2005 at the top of the market was worth less in 2009 than what she owed on it.
“I lost a lot of money, just like everyone else in the nation,” said Miles, whose three-year contract through 2012 pays $245,000 a year, not including $1,050 a month for auto and other expenses.
Unlike K-12 school districts, however, Miles says hers isn’t planning pink slips.
In a “Dear Colleagues” letter circulated Thursday, Miles wrote: “Let me again reassure you that we have no plans for layoffs and we are not considering this option as we work with our budget councils and employee groups to solve our problems. Even in a worst-case scenario, we would call on our employees to help develop solutions to share the pain of cost-cutting with our students.”
But fewer students would be admitted to the two-campus district under any budget scenario, she wrote. Under “Plan C,” in fact, more than 1,000 additional classes would be cut—with 8,000 students turned away.
The district would freeze all but the state-mandated positions, purchase nothing but “indispensable items” and work with employee groups to identify “fair share” solutions—which could include voluntary furloughs, ending summer school and closing nonessential facilities.
But one effort that won’t end is a Department of Advancement Services in the chancellor’s office—a fundraising and “grant-development system that never existed” in the 50-year-old district.
“We’re very serious about this,” said Miles, who worked at Miami Dade Community College when it acquired a reputation as the most successful grant-generating community college in the nation.
Friday, July 08, 2011
Could the Atlanta Cheating Scandal Happen Here?
Could the Atlanta Cheating Scandal Happen Here?
Jul 7, 2011
by Emily Alpert
Voice of San Diego
A bombshell broke in Atlanta this week: A state investigation in Georgia found that Atlanta teachers and principals erased and corrected mistakes on standardized tests for students, a widespread practice that was covered up by area superintendents and ignored by the superintendent.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution first raised questions about test scores at some schools more than two years ago, pointing out schools that had seemingly unbelievable gains on state tests in a single year. The school district did its own investigation, which the state rejected as flawed.
Could this happen here in California?
Maybe, but if it does we wouldn't be able to detect some of the same things that Georgia investigators did. Besides looking at massive gains at specific schools, one of the ways that investigators sniffed out cheating was by analyzing erasures: how often wrong answers were erased and changed to right answers. If a school or a classroom has extraordinarily high rates of wrong-to-right erasures, it's a red flag.
But California doesn't collect that data anymore. USA Today mentioned that absent data in a sweeping investigation of cheating across the country earlier this year:
John Boivin, administrator of California's standardized testing program, says his state once conducted random test audits at 150 to 200 schools a year. California dropped the audits two years ago because of record budget deficits. And the state no longer collects data on which schools show unusually high rates of erasures on answer sheets — sometimes a clue, experts say, that either students or school officials might be cheating. Total savings: $105,000.
Instead of auditing or tracking erasures, California relies on school districts to report and investigate any alleged cheating, Boivin told me in an interview earlier this year. But as the scandal in Atlanta shows, school districts may not be the best at policing themselves.
Jul 7, 2011
by Emily Alpert
Voice of San Diego
A bombshell broke in Atlanta this week: A state investigation in Georgia found that Atlanta teachers and principals erased and corrected mistakes on standardized tests for students, a widespread practice that was covered up by area superintendents and ignored by the superintendent.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution first raised questions about test scores at some schools more than two years ago, pointing out schools that had seemingly unbelievable gains on state tests in a single year. The school district did its own investigation, which the state rejected as flawed.
Could this happen here in California?
Maybe, but if it does we wouldn't be able to detect some of the same things that Georgia investigators did. Besides looking at massive gains at specific schools, one of the ways that investigators sniffed out cheating was by analyzing erasures: how often wrong answers were erased and changed to right answers. If a school or a classroom has extraordinarily high rates of wrong-to-right erasures, it's a red flag.
But California doesn't collect that data anymore. USA Today mentioned that absent data in a sweeping investigation of cheating across the country earlier this year:
John Boivin, administrator of California's standardized testing program, says his state once conducted random test audits at 150 to 200 schools a year. California dropped the audits two years ago because of record budget deficits. And the state no longer collects data on which schools show unusually high rates of erasures on answer sheets — sometimes a clue, experts say, that either students or school officials might be cheating. Total savings: $105,000.
Instead of auditing or tracking erasures, California relies on school districts to report and investigate any alleged cheating, Boivin told me in an interview earlier this year. But as the scandal in Atlanta shows, school districts may not be the best at policing themselves.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Does the San Diego teachers union help senior members at the expense of junior members?
Don't you love this teacher's name?
Teacher Implores Union to Renegotiate
Jun 14, 2011.
by Emily Alpert
The big battle in San Diego Unified right now is whether to tear up pink slips for teachers and other school workers. The school board has pressed its unions to take more unpaid leave and put off promised raises, saying it could then afford to spare some jobs in the long-term.
The teachers union turned down that proposal last week, arguing it was an unnecessary concession that tried to pit teachers against one another. Almost all teachers that I've heard from loathe the idea, saying that San Diego Unified can just cancel the layoffs now that state financial projections have improved.
So I was intrigued to get this email from Sarah Mathy, a pink-slipped teacher who says the union is protecting senior members at the expense of junior ones. It's a letter that she sent earlier this month to Bill Freeman, the president of the San Diego Education Association. (That's abbreviated in the letter as SDEA.)
We often hear this debate between politicians. But how does this debate play out between teachers? I've asked Freeman to write back and he said he planned to do so. I'll post his letter when we get it.
Dear Mr. Freeman -
In early March, I emailed you to discuss my feelings about how the union could best act during this layoff process. You generously came to my school to meet with many of us on the day we received our first layoff notice. I appreciate your time and interest in our school and in us.
In March, I was asking you to negotiate with SDUSD so that many (all?) of the layoffs could be avoided. I called for things such as extra furlough days and opening the health benefits package negotiation. I wanted our union to get creative about the endless possibilities for solving this problem so that jobs are saved and kids are served.
But so far, all I have received are layoff notices #1 and #2 from SDUSD, and emails from SDEA calling me to more action and more rallies.
This is not what I want.
And the unspoken but clear message being sent to me from SDEA is that you are a union that wants to prioritize the interests of the senior, not junior, members. That when SDEA is not "winning" the battles with SDUSD, it will put the junior members out in the name of protecting the senior.
All along, it has seemed like a very logical fix to me to negotiate with SDUSD so that the weight of this budget crises is distributed on the shoulders of all SDEA teachers, not just on a few hundred. That is solidarity. That is "together we are stronger." I feel instead like SDEA's hostage and not SDUSD's (as you mentioned in a recent SDEA email blast).
So the questions become: "WHO is SDEA working for?" and "WHAT is SDEA working for?" Unfortunately for my situation, the WHO seems to be the senior members, and the WHAT is status quo for salary and benefits for those who will remain.
That will not work in this current fiscal crisis. You need to negotiate with SDUSD and launch a campaign to convince SDEA members that this is the best option.
I don't think you will have as much opposition to a contract re-negotiation as you may think. Many of my SDEA colleagues unaffected by layoff notices believe in some form of contract modifications so that we all can have our jobs. It will then be your work to collaborate with SDUSD and SDEA teachers to find a compromise that works for everyone. It is not black and white. There are gray areas of the contract where you can slide the scale and still have people satisfied with their level of pay and benefits, and pleased with their lowered class sizes and staff stability at work, and, as taxpayers, happy that the students are getting what they deserve.
We work in a dynamic profession with multi-faceted students, and I want my union to mirror that. With some salary or benefits alterations, we can all keep the jobs we love to do, live comfortably and take care of our families, and make sure that students get the most of everything. This has to be an AND situation, not EITHER/OR.
So I trust that with the same confidence and care with which you engaged my concerns in March, that you move SDEA into a new chapter where we can feel more like brothers and sisters, instead of the haves and have-nots.
Thank you for your continued work.
Sincerely,
SARAH MATHY
Teacher for 6 years at Central Elementary
COMMENT
Michael Dunn:
Unfortunately, this is typical in most unions. The unions say, "well, it is the district's right under Ed Code to layoff teachers when budgets are tight." Apparently, they feel there is nothing they can do since it is not a contractual violation. (In the name of transparency, I am a union organizer and leg rep and have sat in on several layoff hearings for colleagues).
What unions can do (but are generally unwilling to do) is take a much more aggressive position in defense of all their members, including the threat of striking to defend jobs, salaries, class sizes and educational programs.
By the way, they are not just throwing the younger teachers under the bus. UTLA's continued willingness to give up furlough days in exchange for reduced layoffs, forces all teachers to accept a pay cut and still throws some teachers under the bus.
I also think that unions have become so obsessed with playing politics and maintaining a seat at the table, that they have lost sight of their main function: organizing, educating and agitating their members. Veteran teachers are much more likely to already have an appreciation for their union. The younger teachers do not necessarily. They need to be listened to , supported, and encouraged to participate by the union reps, something that is shamefully rare these days.
Teacher Implores Union to Renegotiate
Jun 14, 2011.
by Emily Alpert
The big battle in San Diego Unified right now is whether to tear up pink slips for teachers and other school workers. The school board has pressed its unions to take more unpaid leave and put off promised raises, saying it could then afford to spare some jobs in the long-term.
The teachers union turned down that proposal last week, arguing it was an unnecessary concession that tried to pit teachers against one another. Almost all teachers that I've heard from loathe the idea, saying that San Diego Unified can just cancel the layoffs now that state financial projections have improved.
So I was intrigued to get this email from Sarah Mathy, a pink-slipped teacher who says the union is protecting senior members at the expense of junior ones. It's a letter that she sent earlier this month to Bill Freeman, the president of the San Diego Education Association. (That's abbreviated in the letter as SDEA.)
We often hear this debate between politicians. But how does this debate play out between teachers? I've asked Freeman to write back and he said he planned to do so. I'll post his letter when we get it.
Dear Mr. Freeman -
In early March, I emailed you to discuss my feelings about how the union could best act during this layoff process. You generously came to my school to meet with many of us on the day we received our first layoff notice. I appreciate your time and interest in our school and in us.
In March, I was asking you to negotiate with SDUSD so that many (all?) of the layoffs could be avoided. I called for things such as extra furlough days and opening the health benefits package negotiation. I wanted our union to get creative about the endless possibilities for solving this problem so that jobs are saved and kids are served.
But so far, all I have received are layoff notices #1 and #2 from SDUSD, and emails from SDEA calling me to more action and more rallies.
This is not what I want.
And the unspoken but clear message being sent to me from SDEA is that you are a union that wants to prioritize the interests of the senior, not junior, members. That when SDEA is not "winning" the battles with SDUSD, it will put the junior members out in the name of protecting the senior.
All along, it has seemed like a very logical fix to me to negotiate with SDUSD so that the weight of this budget crises is distributed on the shoulders of all SDEA teachers, not just on a few hundred. That is solidarity. That is "together we are stronger." I feel instead like SDEA's hostage and not SDUSD's (as you mentioned in a recent SDEA email blast).
So the questions become: "WHO is SDEA working for?" and "WHAT is SDEA working for?" Unfortunately for my situation, the WHO seems to be the senior members, and the WHAT is status quo for salary and benefits for those who will remain.
That will not work in this current fiscal crisis. You need to negotiate with SDUSD and launch a campaign to convince SDEA members that this is the best option.
I don't think you will have as much opposition to a contract re-negotiation as you may think. Many of my SDEA colleagues unaffected by layoff notices believe in some form of contract modifications so that we all can have our jobs. It will then be your work to collaborate with SDUSD and SDEA teachers to find a compromise that works for everyone. It is not black and white. There are gray areas of the contract where you can slide the scale and still have people satisfied with their level of pay and benefits, and pleased with their lowered class sizes and staff stability at work, and, as taxpayers, happy that the students are getting what they deserve.
We work in a dynamic profession with multi-faceted students, and I want my union to mirror that. With some salary or benefits alterations, we can all keep the jobs we love to do, live comfortably and take care of our families, and make sure that students get the most of everything. This has to be an AND situation, not EITHER/OR.
So I trust that with the same confidence and care with which you engaged my concerns in March, that you move SDEA into a new chapter where we can feel more like brothers and sisters, instead of the haves and have-nots.
Thank you for your continued work.
Sincerely,
SARAH MATHY
Teacher for 6 years at Central Elementary
COMMENT
Michael Dunn:
Unfortunately, this is typical in most unions. The unions say, "well, it is the district's right under Ed Code to layoff teachers when budgets are tight." Apparently, they feel there is nothing they can do since it is not a contractual violation. (In the name of transparency, I am a union organizer and leg rep and have sat in on several layoff hearings for colleagues).
What unions can do (but are generally unwilling to do) is take a much more aggressive position in defense of all their members, including the threat of striking to defend jobs, salaries, class sizes and educational programs.
By the way, they are not just throwing the younger teachers under the bus. UTLA's continued willingness to give up furlough days in exchange for reduced layoffs, forces all teachers to accept a pay cut and still throws some teachers under the bus.
I also think that unions have become so obsessed with playing politics and maintaining a seat at the table, that they have lost sight of their main function: organizing, educating and agitating their members. Veteran teachers are much more likely to already have an appreciation for their union. The younger teachers do not necessarily. They need to be listened to , supported, and encouraged to participate by the union reps, something that is shamefully rare these days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)