Showing posts with label . Barrera (Richard Barrera). Show all posts
Showing posts with label . Barrera (Richard Barrera). Show all posts

Tuesday, July 08, 2014

SDUSD board member Richard Barrera makes a silly--but significant--statement about teacher evaluations

See all posts re evaluating teachers.

San Diego Unified School District Richard Barrera recently talked about the harm that would be done by a teacher evaluation system that "teachers" would see as "unfair or arbitrary."  Interestingly, the problem he presents contains a simple, obvious solution.

“If we replace the seniority system – one which most people tend to see as fair – with one that teachers see as unfair or arbitrary, we’re going to dramatically hurt trust between teachers and their principals,” [Barrera] said.

First of all, Barrera is clearly not talking about ALL teachers--because teachers have varying opinions.  He's talking about the ones whose opinions are expressed by the California Teachers Association.

Barrera is also not talking about the best teachers.  The best teachers are usually too busy to be active in the union.  Only a very small percentage of teachers even vote in union elections.  This lack of involvement is a serious problem and a good reason for retired teachers to assume more responsibility.  When they finally get some extra time, teachers should pay attention to what the union is doing.

But here's the thing.  Barrera is assuming that principals would be the ones to evaluate the teachers.

We need a system in which outsiders evaluate teachers.

It's that simple.

And the job of principals should be to build trust with teachers as they help the teachers do the best job possible.




Saturday, May 03, 2014

SDUSD trustee Richard Barrera does a turnaround: he no longer wants to hold teachers accountable


SDUSD trustee Richard Barrera

Updated--see bottom of post

San Diego's liberals seem to be far more obedient to the California Teachers Association than Los Angeles liberals, and students suffer for it. Here's a bit of the history of that subject. Shame on Richard Barrera for abandoning his principles, apparently in exchange for campaign contributions and a cushy job.

THE PROBLEM ISN'T TENURE--IT'S THE LACK OF EFFECTIVE TEACHER EVALUATIONS

I don't object to tenure. I object to the intransigence of the teachers union in the face of calls for education reform.

Getting rid of tenure will do no good at all, and would likely do harm, if teacher evaluations continue to be as worthless as they are now.

WE SHOULD LOOK AT THE PERFORMANCE OF PRINCIPALS BEFORE WE PUT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM IN THEIR HANDS

If we get rid of tenure we'll just have to worry more about the already-existing problem of principals protecting their own careers by making alliances with mediocre but popular and politically-strong teachers. I get the feeling that David Welch, mogul of Student Matters, honestly doesn't know that many principals are former teachers who switched to the front office when they realized that they don't have what it takes to make it in the classroom.

I get the feeling that Voice of San Diego's education reporter Mario Koran doesn't know this, either.

HAS VOICE OF SAN DIEGO SABOTAGED THE DEBATE ON TENURE AND TEACHER EVALUATIONS?


Emily Alpert Reyes

Voice of San Diego muzzled and then fired its education reporter, Emily Alpert (now Reyes), who knew what was going on in schools. The reason for this seems to be related to the politics and big bucks of VOSD's big donor trio Buzz Woolley, Irwin Jacobs and Rod Dammeyer who are deeply involved in charter schools and anti-union politics.


Voice of San Diego founder Buzz Woolley

Just before she was fired, Emily Alpert was one of the few people in San Diego doing serious research on teacher layoffs based on seniority. She dared to bring up the topic of teacher evaluations. If VOSD donor trio Buzz Woolley, Irwin Jacobs and Rod Dammeyer were really interested in improving education for all children they would have fallen all over themselves to keep Emily in San Diego. (Emily now works for the Los Angeles Times, but she's not writing about education.)


Irwin Jacobs, Voice of San Diego's major donor

My belief is that Buzz Woolley, Irwin Jacobs and Rod Dammeyer want to improve education for just enough students so that they can run their businesses with American employees--and they want those students in charter schools. They think they can have a flourishing society while the middle and working classes sink lower and lower.


Rod Dammeyer, charter schools advocate and political donor

Note: Buzz, Irwin and Rod also tried to remake the San Diego Unified School Board with appointed members who would undermine the elected members. They seems to think we'd do better without democracy.

IS THE CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION TRYING TO SELF-DESTRUCT?

You might think that the teachers union could manage to do a better job of acting in the interest of all citizens than Buzz, Irwin and Rod have done.

Sadly, this does not seem to be the case.

I believe that schools can be fixed without getting rid of tenure (I have described one such plan HERE), but schools can't be fixed as long as the California Teachers Association stands in the way.

Something clearly needs to be done, but Richard Barrera doesn't seem to want to address the problem of rampant mediocrity among teachers. It's actually a bigger problem than the incompetence of about 10% teachers. I wouldn't use evaluations to fire teachers; evaluations are needed to help teachers become highly competent.

Sadly, Barrera will likely continue to toe the line for the people who control the California Teachers Association, so reform is looking unlikely. CTA doesn't want teachers to be held accountable; it wants to continue the politically-convenient system of principal evaluations.

The current system is such a joke that principals rarely even bother to observe teachers.

See all posts re teacher evaluations.

Teachers need to have a union. But why can't it be better than this one? Couldn't it be one without people like Tim O'Neill? (See comment at the end of this post.)


VOICE OF SAN DIEGO STORY ON RICHARD BARRERA'S TESTIMONY AT VERGARA TRIAL

Teachers Call Upon San Diego School Trustee to Help Save Seniority Rules
By: Mario Koran
Voice of San Diego
May 2, 2014

In 2010, when San Diego Unified was in the throes of a budget crisis and staring down a round of layoffs, school board trustee Richard Barrera told U-T San Diego, “Pink-slipping disproportionately affects poorer schools – absolutely.”

Now, that argument is the basis of Vergara v. California, a case that could blow up deeply rooted protections for California teachers. Barrera, who is now the leader of the San Diego Imperial Counties Labor Council, which includes the teachers union, changed his tune when he testified in the case.

Teachers see the policies that force the youngest teachers to bear the brunt of layoffs as the fairest possible, he argued. Replacing it with a system that requires administrators to make value judgments would erode trust as teachers vied for their spots, he said.

Along with attorneys from the state and the California Teachers Association, Barrera pointed to San Diego Unified as proof that a district can succeed because of the current policies – not in spite of it.

The case is the product of Students Matter, a group founded by Silicon Valley business mogul David F. Welch, a group of California students and a heavyweight cast of attorneys. They initiated the suit and claim the teacher protections violate students’ constitutional rights to equal access to quality education.

California law makes it nearly impossible to dismiss a bad teacher once he or she has received tenure, they argue, and last-hired-first-fired layoff policies disproportionately impact schools in high-poverty areas because they’re more likely to have less experienced teachers. Layoffs at these schools, then, create more turnover and worsen the experience for students.

But Barrera said that because San Diego Unified has had a good relationship with its teachers union, it’s been able to avoid mass layoffs in the first place.

In the grip of the budget crises, about 1,100 teachers were issued pink-slips in 2011, and all but 200 of those were rescinded, he said. And when 1,500 teachers were laid off in 2012, everyone was invited back.

Josh Lipshutz, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told VOSD he found this part of Barrera’s testimony bizarre. “Look, nobody wants layoffs. But layoffs are reality,” Lipshutz said.v “We’re not arguing that teachers should be laid off. But in speaking with administrators we heard over and over that everybody knows who the worst teachers are. All we’re saying is that in a layoff environment, why would you not want to include those teachers?” he said.

And avoiding layoffs in dark budget times also comes at a very real cost.

At this week’s school board meeting, trustee and fiscal wonk Scott Barnett castigated the rest of the school board for promising teachers pay raises that it couldn’t afford and selling off real estate to make up the difference.

Even though the district got money from Prop. 30, a voter-approved statewide measure meant to stave off drastic cuts to schools, San Diego Unified is facing a $100 million budget shortfall.

“Guess what? The proposed hole is bigger next year than this year because of this board’s inability to have any semblance of control,” Barnett said.

Holding Up San Diego as a Model

Barrera said that the idea that layoffs disproportionately impact poor schools doesn’t capture reality.

He said Central Elementary in City Heights, the school that Superintendent Cindy Marten once ran, is a good example of how a school can create a culture where teachers want to stick around.

Barrera said a school like Central is possible because teachers share strategies for what works in the classroom. In other words, if a district were to try to measure which teachers were better, teachers might be afraid to share what works with a competitive colleague.

“If we replace the seniority system – one which most people tend to see as fair – with one that teachers see as unfair or arbitrary, we’re going to dramatically hurt trust between teachers and their principals,” he said.

Still, schools like Jackson Elementary in City Heights, now Fay Elementary, might say the problem is a little bit more serious. During the budget crises, high-poverty schools like Fay – which had less experienced teachers – were hit hardest by last-in-first-out layoff policies.

In 2008, 24 out of its 26 teachers received layoff notices. Most of those ended up being rescinded, but in 2011, when 25 out of 27 teachers got pink slips – it was deja vu all over again.

“The reality is,” Lipshutz said, “that once the pink slips go out, the damage is already done.”

Teachers will often look for positions in more stable districts, and “it’s very discouraging to be treated as a number, to be told that you don’t have value beside your hire-date,” he said.

Barrera doesn’t disagree. “That’s all the more reason that we need to do what we can to avoid pink slips and layoffs,” he said. “Pink slips are disruptive, yes, but what’s more disruptive is laying off teachers and having huge class sizes.”

So What’s a Good Teacher?

Barrera said the major hole with the Vergara plaintiffs’ case is that they never clarified what, exactly, makes a teacher ineffective. In fact, the defense led with that point in its closing brief.

Of course, rebooting the criteria to measure teacher performance depends on whether the plaintiffs can persuade the judge that measures like test scores can be considered.

Plaintiffs leaned on Harvard researcher Thomas J. Kane, who said black and Latino students in Los Angeles Unified were more likely than their white and Asian peers to be taught by the worst teachers.

Kane reached his conclusion by looking at teacher effectiveness through a value-added formula, which measures improvements in student test scores over time.

To be sure, value-added formulas aren’t universally accepted. Critics like education historian Diane Ravitch have railed against them for years. Another said they resulted in “mathematical intimidation” from school administrators.

One problem, Barrera said, is that the scores appear objective, but fail to account for poverty, or other factors that influence learning. He said he isn’t opposed to all changes to the evaluation system, but they should begin a conversation about the real goal: quality teaching.

“From a policy level, you think we’d start with questions about what’s working and how we could do more of that, instead of trying to force these blunt instruments in through the court system,” Barrera said.

Lipshutz said poverty was a theme woven throughout the trial.

“To us, that’s a red-herring. We don’t dispute that poverty is a factor in student learning,” he said. “The question to us is whether the laws that are in place are harming students and preventing them from getting the best education they possibly could. And we showed very clearly that the answer is yes.”

COMMENTS

Here's a comment I found intriguing (for personal reasons):


Tim O'Neill, former executive director for CTA affiliates in Chula Vista

Tim ONeill (cvtimo)

The Vergara lawsuit claims that seniority based layoffs negatively discriminate against children of color. A valid critical commentary or report would show how this claim holds water in ANY school district in San Diego County over the past several years when schools have been hit by budget cuts of 25% or more.

The fact of the matter is that there have been none. All the union-haters should consider this in their world view and perhaps question the motives of the plaintiffs in this case.


Maura Larkins comment:

Tim,
Are you calling Richard Barrera a "union-hater" for saying, "“Pink-slipping disproportionately affects poorer schools – absolutely”?

I don't think the charge would fit, since he is the CEO of the San Diego Imperial Counties Labor Council.

Also, the ACLU sued the Los Angeles Unified School District based on the devastating impact of teacher layoffs on poorer schools. Are you calling the Los Angeles ACLU "union-haters"?

Maybe you should stop with the name-calling and try to come up with a solution to the problem.

[Maura Larkins note: I suspect this "Tim O'Neill" may be the same Tim O'Neill who worked for the California Teachers Association until 2010, and who violated the Chula Vista Educators bylaws by refusing to allow me to make an ethics complaint to the CVE Representative Council.

See a copy HERE of his letter to me in which he states that Gina Boyd herself denied my request to appear before the Rep Council to make an ethics complaint about Gina Boyd!

The Tim O'Neill who was the executive director of Chula Vista Educators worked hard to make sure that politics ruled in the district. That Tim O'Neill aided and abetted multiple violations of labor law and the teachers contract to ensure the re-election of CVE President Gina Boyd. But he himself lost his job and was apparently sent to work anonymously (until now, it appears) in the CTA offices in Mission Valley.]


COMMENT FROM JIM JONES:

Tim,
Either seniority protects the best teachers, and also keeps them out of the worst cesspool schools, which are minority schools, or seniority doesn't matter, it can't go both ways.
It's time for teachers to step up and put kids first, stop using them as pawns to feed public union greed.



Tim O'Neill, former executive director for CTA affiliates in Chula Vista

COMMENT FROM TIM O'NEILL:


"Using them to feed public union greed", huh? Please be a bit more specific in your retoric (sic).

Teaching assignments (school, grade level, subject assignments) are regulated in each school district collective bargaining agreement negotiated with the local teacher union in that district, not regulated by state law, which this lawsuit addresses.

The vast majority of these negotiated agreements places seniority as a subordinate criterion to many other factors such as subject matter credential, and most notably the opinion of the school principal. In other words, seniority, in most cases is NOT the determining factor with regard to a teacher's assignment.

It is true that some teaching assignments are more difficult than others. It may also be that vacancies occur more regularly at schools with such assignments, but for a variety of reasons. Some of the "best" teachers work at these schools; sometimes they don't. Are you suggesting that the "best" teachers be limited in their options as to where they would choose to work?


Maura Larkins response:

No, Tim, Mr. Jones is not suggesting that tenured teachers be limited as to where they work. He is simply suggesting that tenured teachers tend to use their seniority to get out of--and stay out of--schools in low income areas. In fact, I must say that I did notice during my years in Chula Vista Elementary School District that teachers with high seniority tended to snap up the job openings at schools in high-income areas.

I think that the success of children should not be subordinated to any goal at all that the teachers union might have.

It doesn't matter what the reason is that CTA has refused to allow any real progress in evaluating teachers--whatever it is, it's not a good enough reason. The fact is that the current system of principal evaluations is a joke, and it's part of the reason so many kids are failing to get decent educations.


Principal Charlie Padilla retired
in the middle of the school year

I had a principal who came in fresh to the school, not knowing that I had been given all the lowest-achieving students in my grade level because I was also given the English-learners and it seemed to make sense. I was perfectly happy with the situation.

The new principal must have looked at the students' tests before sending them in to be scored, because he wrote on my evaluation that I had low student test scores--before the results came back! My students were progressing at top speed, particularly in their critical thinking, but they were starting the year from far behind the kids in the other classes at my grade level.

In fact, when the scores came back, they showed that my students had made one, two, three or even four years progress when they were with me.

That principal was highly regarded because he was highly political. But, strangely, he eventually retired from the district in the middle of the school year. He got another job, so obviously he wasn't interesting in actually retiring. It sometimes takes a while to figure out how bad some principals are. This would be less of a problem if principals weren't in charge of evaluations.

I once heard former CTA Executive Director Carolyn Doggett pointing out to CTA affiliate presidents that if they didn't improve education, they would become irrelevant. CTA would be wise to come up with an evaluation plan pronto. What's your plan for teacher evaluations, Tim?

COMMENT FROM francesca

@Maura Larkins If you taught in the Chula Vista School District, then you are probably more realistic about the idea of using test scores to evaluate teachers. When children have not mastered English, their test scores don't really reflect what they have learned or know.

Maura, Do you have an objective way to measure whether teachers are doing an effective job?


Maura Larkins COMMENT:

Thanks for asking, Francesca! I think observations are the single most important source of effective evaluations, and they should be done frequently by people from outside the school district (to avoid school politics).

Dennis Schamp and Scripps Dad and I had a somewhat detailed discussion recently on what should be observed; you can see our discussion at the bottom of this April 28 VOSD story:

The Case That Could Blow Up Teacher Tenure

The two main things we discussed as needing to be observed are:
1) What is the teacher doing?
2) What are the students doing?

Non-professionals could be used to make superficial observations. It would be up to professionals to evaluate the data and follow up with their own observations.

Scripps Dad says he's been involved in a good teacher evaluation program.

Also, student test scores would only be helpful after a number of years of gathering data about a teacher's performance, and even then, research shows that these scores are reliable indicators only for the top 10% and bottom 10% of teachers. The other 80% of teachers tend to get extremely variable results.

I do not think evaluations should be used to determine employment.

Instead, I think they should be used to identify the most highly effective teachers and to help average and below-average teachers.

I believe that the most highly effective teachers should then be given responsibility as master teachers to direct the less effective teachers and to give supplemental lessons to students, and to give training to their fellow teachers. This would be cheaper and more effective than bringing in ridiculously expensive outside vendors to do training.

I would expect master teachers to be paid like doctors and lawyers.


Donald Kimball

One source of teacher evaluations could be 4th grade teachers evaluating the 3rd grade teachers. The teachers in the next grade up get to experience the students from the lower grade, and can identify the better and worse teachers. Graduating seniors in high school could also evaluate their 10th, 11th, and 12th grade teachers. By that time, the graduating seniors have a good sense of the good teachers and poor teachers. Parent classroom volunteers can also provide teacher evaluations. In fact, Facebook groups organized around their specific schools have detailed recollections of the very best and very worst teachers.


Paul M Bowers

Indeed, the next-level teacher can be very helpful when determining if the previous teacher properly prepared his/her students.

I'm not a big fan of using social media for evaluating anyone. People get into a very nasty mob mentality and people are far more likely to post negative things than positive. And do so in a public place- things get adversarial quickly and the employee has no defense.


Maura Larkins

The goal is to get an objective evaluation. How could you keep personal feelings, good or bad, out of this? People would be inclined to give good evaluations to those who support their agendas, and punish those who disagree with them. They'd be likely to give good evaluations to ineffective teachers who are their friends, and bad evaluations to good teachers who don't fit in to their social hierarchy. Humans are very social creatures. Politics needs to be left out of something this important.


Paul M Bowers

...I'd like to see employees retained, promoted or dismissed on the quality of their work...

Maura Larkins

Paul Bowers, I like your idea of promoting teachers based on the quality of their work, but I bet you wouldn't like my idea about what position they should be promoted to.

I'd like to see the most effective teachers stay in the classroom--but have responsibility for several classrooms.

Each of those classrooms would also have a regular teacher who might be a young person on the way up, or an older person with many positive skills who doesn't quite fit the master teacher category.

There would be separate salary scales for master and regular teachers. The former would be paid like doctors and lawyers, while the latter would have their salaries capped at a somewhat lower level than the current system provides. The money saved on three or four regular teacher salaries would pay for the master teacher.

Also, the master teachers would provide professional development, saving schools the obscene amounts of money currently paid to vendors peddling the latest fad.

I think a lot of political and personal misery could be avoided by simply reducing the responsibilities of ineffective teachers and giving them a master teacher rather than dismissing them. Some ineffective teachers are very sweet and kind to kids. And others are very connected to the teachers union. Either way, trying to get rid of them would likely be disastrous
.


UPDATE MAY 5, 2014:

DO UNION LEADERS WANT TO KEEP THE EVALUATION PROCESS POLITICAL SO THEY CAN CONTROL TEACHERS BETTER?


You might be wondering why Tim O'Neill would lead Chula Vista Educators into aiding and abetting a string of illegal actions. Was it merely to protect CVE president Gina Boyd from the ire of the "Castle Park Family" as she was facing a union election? Perhaps not.

I just discovered a startling connection while perusing Facebook. The principal I mentioned above was Charlie Padilla. Here's a post about his middle-of-the-year retirement from CVESD. He turns out to be a personal friend of Tim O'Neill!


COINCIDENCE?
Charlie Padilla on the left, Tim O'Neill on the right.
Does this photo from Charlie Padilla's public Facebook
page of three couples out together for dinner on April 27,
2014 help explain why Tim O'Neill might be motivated to aid
and abet a string of illegal actions and violations of contract?


Tim O'Neill wouldn't allow the CVE board of directors to hear my complaint about him and Gina Boyd. CTA is a very top-down organization, run by administrators like Tim O'Neill--and CTA lawyers--rather than elected union officials.


Wayne Johnson

I have spoken out for years on the behind-the-scenes collusion between the teachers union and school administrators. They often spar in public, but Wayne Johnson (President of CTA from 1999-2003) instituted a policy in which CTA affiliates would play nicer with school districts in order to reach more deals behind closed doors. (Of course, Wayne was acting on the direction of the real policy-makers at CTA, the lawyers. The elected officials are just figureheads.)


Friday, June 07, 2013

Attorney Mark Bresee says no conflict for school board member Richard Barrera with job at Labor Council


Mark Bresee

The education elite--administrators and union officials and their respective lawyers--are already working together behind closed doors. They often oppose each other in public, but they're united in keeping the voters ignorant of how decisions are made in schools. Mark Bresee speaks from first-hand experience when he says, truthfully, that board member Richard Barrera's new job on the Labor Council isn't really a problem.

If anything, Barrera will probably be more likely to consider the wellbeing of students when deciding what demands he'll support for teachers.


Attorney: No Conflict for Labor Leader Trustee
By Wendy Fry
Jun 7, 2013
NBC 7 San Diego

An attorney for the San Diego school district has weighed-in on the controversy surrounding a trustee taking a job with the Labor Council.

Outside Counsel Mark Bresee says trustee Richard Barrera has no conflict-of-interest serving on both the school board, and as the chief of the Labor Council.

School trustee Barrera was recently elected as the leader of an umbrella organization that represents 135 unions, some of which are present in the San Diego schools.

"We are pretty much defined as a citizen's board," said Barrera about the school board. "So, obviously, people are going to have other jobs. If my compensation at the Labor Council was structured in a way that if a teacher's union gets a raise, then I get a raise, then I would be required to recuse myself but that's just not the case. My compensation has nothing to do with member union benefits."

The attorney, from the Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo firm hired by the district to do a legal analysis on the situation, agreed.

Barrera should refrain from participating in decisions on which the Labor Council has advocated a specific position, the lawyer also wrote.

In the meantime, an assistant to the board said Friday the board office has received more than 100 phone calls from the public expressing a negative opinion of the situation.

Tony Krvaric, chairman for the Republican party, said a robocall is going out to district parents informing them of Barrera's new job and connecting them to the district to complain.

"The board's own legal opinion urged caution when SDEA or CSEA issues are involved," Krvaric said. "What decisions on a school board don't affect the teachers unions, and who is going to pay for the legal analysis on each vote?"

To read the full legal opinon of the district's outside counsel, click here.

Source: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Attorney-No-Conflict-For-Labor-Leader-Trustee-210639971.html#ixzz2VbPQWeX9

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...

Saturday, March 12, 2011

In SDUSD, who is "leading the chorus of fear-mongering"? Not Richard Barrera.

"Should the Board's absurd decision stand, our schools will simply cease to function."
--San Diego Education Association

The SDEA seems to be suffering from some mental confusion. If the sentence above isn't fear-mongering, then I don't know what is. So who is actually "leading the chorus of fear-mongering"?

I'm sure that the teachers union is happy about one thing: pink slips will be distributed to the newest teachers. Incompetent and mediocre teachers with tenure will be protected from losing their jobs. Your failure to promote effective evaluations of teachers is your real violation of the trust of the voters, Richard Barrera.

The way I see it, Barrera's decision to warn teachers of the possibility of layoffs was akin to President Obama's decision to bail out the banks. Some people are going to be agnry about these decisions, but they'd be even angrier later on if the whole system fell apart because of bankruptcy.


What exactly was Richard Barrera trusted to do? Apparently, many people trusted him to always obey orders from the teachers union.

But I'm sure that there were plenty of voters who trusted him to behave responsibly towards students. He hasn't violated that trust.


‘I Am Going to Violate Your Trust in Me Tonight’
Voice of San Diego
March 11, 2011
by Emily Alpert

The biggest surprise at the school board meeting Thursday night was that board President Richard Barrera — a labor organizer long seen as a union ally on the school board — ended up voting to warn teachers of layoffs.

Barrera himself told the crowd of teachers, counselors, nurses and other workers who packed the auditorium: "I am going to violate your trust in me tonight. I'm going to vote for the superintendent's recommendations. Doing so goes against everything that I believe in."

Teachers shouted, "So don't do it!" Barrera continued: "I don't think doing this is right. I don't think doing this is smart." And he believes the school district will end up canceling most or all of them anyway.

But school district staff warned that if San Diego Unified did not prepare for layoffs, the County Office of Education, which vets its budget plans, could stop them from borrowing money to pay its bills. That was what swayed Barrera to vote to start sending out pink slips. The teachers union has argued that the layoffs are unnecessary and based on faulty predictions.

"Shame on you Richard!" someone yelled from the back of the auditorium.

What makes this remarkable is that Barrera has been at the forefront of plans to avoid sending out pink slips, this year and in the past. Two months ago he was one of the board members who floated a bold and possibly risky plan that would bank on tax extensions or a quirk in the layoff laws to prevent warnings from going out. He has never voted for pink slips before. In earlier years, Barrera pushed to find other savings and dodged layoffs. From my 2009 story:

"I kept hearing (last year), 'We've done everything we can possibly do and we have no other options than layoffs,'" said new school board member Richard Barrera. "And from our experience this year, that wasn't true. We found more savings."

Conservative critics have long pegged Barrera as a labor lackey for backing a union pact on school construction and opposing Race to the Top, a competition between states for federal stimulus money that put a premium on tying teacher evaluations to test scores. Now Barrera has seriously upset the teachers union, which denounced the decision on its website last night:

In violation of the trust placed in them by parents, educators and the broader San Diego community, Trustees Richard Barrera, Shelia Jackson and John Lee Evans voted to issue more than 1,000 absolutely unnecessary certificated layoff notices, with Superintendent Bill Kowba leading the chorus of fear-mongering and bad advice supporting their poor choice. Only Trustees Kevin Beiser and Scott Barnett had the courage of conviction to do the right thing and vote against layoffs. Should the Board's absurd decision stand, our schools will simply cease to function.... Tonight Trustees Richard Barrera, Shelia Jackson and John Lee Evans violated our trust and took the easy way out.

Evans and Jackson are also being criticized, of course. Jackson tried to advance an alternative budget plan that would consolidate more central office departments. Evans also wrestled with the decision at the meeting Thursday, saying that while he agreed that the school district should resist the cuts, this wasn't the time to do it, since it would cost them the control of the district.

"This is actually a decision that makes me very sick," said Evans, who mentioned that he wore a black suit to the meeting because it felt like a funeral.

But Barrera was the surprise vote, the one that made people gasp in the auditorium...

Friday, February 12, 2010

Four SDUSD Democratic board members find the courage to stand up to the teachers union

John De Beck always had the courage to criticize the teachers union; citizens can rejoice now that Richard Barrera, John Lee Evans and Shelia Jackson have done the same.

Camille Zombro and Jim Groth of the San Diego Education Association (SDEA) might want to pull their heads out of the ground and realize that its time to acknowledge the real world: there's a limit to how long citizens will continue to bow to the arbitrary demands of CTA.

Pressing Labor for Cuts Triggers 'Surreal' Shakeup on School Board
Voice of San Diego
Feb 11, 2010
By EMILY ALPERT

After another plan failed to dig up enough savings, San Diego Unified is now under even more pressure to squeeze employees to balance its budget.

The prolonged budget crisis has put some board members at odds with the same unions that helped to elect them -- and jumbled the usual dynamics of the politicized board.

Longtime labor ally Richard Barrera is seeking deeper concessions from the teachers union, along with John Lee Evans, who was elected on a pledge to protect teachers. John de Beck and Shelia Jackson, who have often disagreed on labor issues in recent years, are both pushing the idea of progressive salary cuts that fall harder on employees who earn more...