October 13, 2011
Grim revenue reports appear to make it a forgone conclusion that automatic state spending cuts will be triggered this winter, as critics of the smoke-and-mirrors 2011-12 budget have been predicting since it was adopted in June.
These cuts will be disastrous for many school districts. The primary tool the budget law gives school districts to reduce costs – cutting salaries by shortening the school year seven days – isn’t readily achievable in many districts, where contract changes require the concurrence of employee unions. Many unions believe they have made enough concessions and that cost savings should be found elsewhere. But that is just not a position that squares with the reality of school finances, where employee compensation is by far the biggest spending category.
Which brings us to San Diego Unified, which has such contracts with its unions. In a commentary in today’s U-T (opposite page), Superintendent Bill Kowba says the district would have to make about $30 million in devastating midyear cuts if the budget trigger provision kicks in and overall state school funding is reduced by $1.5 billion. Kowba urges Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature to somehow find the money to avoid the trigger cuts, perhaps by reviving a budget compromise in which voters would be asked to increase taxes to provide more money for education.
We are sympathetic, but it is simply not realistic to expect Sacramento – or voters – to come to the rescue. It also has to be noted that the district has made its problems even worse. By early 2010, the folly of the district’s traditional practice of budgeting for salaries on the assumption that revenue provided by the state would always go up had become apparent. With employee compensation eating up 90 percent of all general spending, it was plain that something basic had to be done about pay and benefits beyond just temporary furloughs.
Instead, however, the board approved phased-in raises of 7.2 percent for all employees in 2012-13 and made no changes in policies that provide many teachers and some other employees automatic 3.8 percent annual raises based on years on the job.
Now strategy no. 1 for district leaders is getting unions to agree to forgo the pending raises. We hope union members are understanding.
But whatever short-term fixes are used to address the current crisis, in the big picture, a San Diego Unified budget model that assumes automatic pay raises for many employees just doesn’t work anymore.
Unless something changes, it won’t be long before the entire budget goes to employee compensation – with little left for athletics, musical instruments, buses, janitorial services, computers, Internet access and other important needs. San Diegans urgently need their school district leaders – teachers, administrators and board members – to accept the financial realities and work together to avoid catastrophe in the classroom.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Mtg: Nov 16 - PBMS/MBHS merger?
I was not present at the meeting. The meeting was led by Jennifer Tandy (Chair-Elect) to the following agenda:
Dear MB Cluster Members,
I felt Wednesday night's cluster meeting was very informative and productive. Mitzi Moreno, our Area Superintendent, and the cluster officers will be presenting Scott Barnett with the information and opinions gathered at the meeting. I feel confident we will be able to articulate a positive direction and clearer vision for the future of Pacific Beach Middle School and Mission Bay High. Thank you all for your impassioned input. I have attached a more formal draft of the ideas that were presented last night.
As I said at the meeting, the reason our schools have grown stronger in enrollment, in test scores and in excitement, over the last few years is not because of the District. We have grown because of your commitment to our schools. Your time, your energy, your money...your ideas put into action. Grass fields, murals, enrichment programs, tutoring, music, art, science, computers...the families and teachers fill in where the District leaves off. If we keep up this extraordinary work with the entire MB Cluster in mind, we will continue to attract students, raise test scores and prosper as a community. We must control the conversation, the direction and the destiny of our schools. This proposal is the first step in taking that control. Thank you for all your hard work.
Have a safe and restful Thanksgiving.
Jennifer Tandy
Below is a draft document articulating the vision discussed during the meeting. It was not ratified, but was intended to capture the conversation.
Cluster Proposal Draft 11-17-11
- 6:00 Welcome - agenda review and goals for the evening
- 6:05 Update - BoED recent decisions, MB Cluster status, Scott Barnett recent emails and requests, Board presentation Nov. 29, YMCA, Civic groups' consensus
- 6:15 Brief presentation by Jenny Sims, IB Coordinator for PBMS -IB MYP (International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program)
- 6:30 Brief presentation by Fred Hilgers, MBHS principal - MBHS IB information
- 6:45 Words from Mitzi Moreno, MB Cluster Area Superintendent
- 6:55 Julie Martel and Fred Hilgers present viable PBMS and MBHS scenarios based on parent, staff and community input thus far
- 7:15 Open Discussion and Q&A
- 7:50 Next Steps
Dear MB Cluster Members,
I felt Wednesday night's cluster meeting was very informative and productive. Mitzi Moreno, our Area Superintendent, and the cluster officers will be presenting Scott Barnett with the information and opinions gathered at the meeting. I feel confident we will be able to articulate a positive direction and clearer vision for the future of Pacific Beach Middle School and Mission Bay High. Thank you all for your impassioned input. I have attached a more formal draft of the ideas that were presented last night.
As I said at the meeting, the reason our schools have grown stronger in enrollment, in test scores and in excitement, over the last few years is not because of the District. We have grown because of your commitment to our schools. Your time, your energy, your money...your ideas put into action. Grass fields, murals, enrichment programs, tutoring, music, art, science, computers...the families and teachers fill in where the District leaves off. If we keep up this extraordinary work with the entire MB Cluster in mind, we will continue to attract students, raise test scores and prosper as a community. We must control the conversation, the direction and the destiny of our schools. This proposal is the first step in taking that control. Thank you for all your hard work.
Have a safe and restful Thanksgiving.
Jennifer Tandy
Below is a draft document articulating the vision discussed during the meeting. It was not ratified, but was intended to capture the conversation.
Cluster Proposal Draft 11-17-11
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
UT Article - Nov 22 Article - Charter School in Chula Vista Improves Dramatically
There is a reference to a particular book: Pedagogy of the Oppressed that expresses thoughts and lessons learned teaching in Brazil.
Read this carefully and consider what really produced the enormous improvement in test scores. Was it:
A charter school in Chula Vista was performing so poorly on state assessments that it made the federal watch list for three years. Now it has staged a dramatic turnaround that is attracting international attention.
Today, the 822-student school has test scores among the highest in the Chula Vista Elementary School District and has been recognized as a California Distinguished School. The dual-language immersion campus has become a type of laboratory where professors from San Diego State University as well as educators from Mexico, England and Switzerland visit, hoping to discover the secret to its success.
Chula Vista Learning Community Charter, which was on the federal “program improvement” list until 2008, has raised its Academic Performance Index scores from 680 in 2005 to 880 in 2011, exceeding the state goal of 800. Every March, hundreds of parents converge on its parking lot to submit applications, with some camping overnight. Last spring, 320 applicants were turned away.
At this school, everyone has a role in the education of children.
Teachers are encouraged to be “teacher scholars” and are expected to keep up with research being done in the field of education. Parent involvement is a high priority, with parents required to volunteer 30 hours a year, including attending parent meetings where administrators offer tips for helping with homework and review lessons their children are being taught.
Students at the school take half their courses in English and half in Spanish each day, and also get weekly instruction in Mandarin, a third language added two years ago. About 95 percent of students at the K-8 school are Latino, with about 53 percent English-language learners and about half come from families poor enough they qualify for free or reduced lunch.
Parents say they like the school for the language immersion and rigorous instruction. Martha Garcia, whose 4-year-old daughter is in kindergarten, said she’s pleased so far. “She reads already in both languages,” Garcia said.
Those who cannot meet the time commitment are asked to leave. “We are a choice school. You choose to be here,” said school Director Jorge Ramirez.
The campus’ turnaround caught the eye of researchers at San Diego State University who were looking at schools that have had success in closing the achievement gap.
SDSU professor Cristina Alfaro is among a team of seven SDSU researchers with the College of Education with expertise in literacy, biliteracy, administration and child development who are studying every aspect of the school — from how its administrators lead staff to how teachers collaborate and develop curriculum to better target the backgrounds of their students.
Alfaro said teachers at the school work closely together, analyze test data to see where gaps exist and alter teaching plans to shore up weak areas.
The course correction came about, she and others say, after the school embraced what she calls the “power of belief systems.” Administrators focused on making sure that everyone on staff believes all students can succeed and won’t excuse failures because of their students’ backgrounds.
High expectations are set for all students, and parents are seen as critical partners in the process.
Alfaro, who teaches aspiring teachers, said her SDSU students often want a simple recipe for what works. She said the key is to adapt the curriculum to students. Teachers at the school look at the students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds and develop curricula that connects to their experiences.
“They are innovative, they are relevant, they are cutting edge and they are research-based,” she said.
Alfaro has consulted at the school, helping lead some teacher trainings and also teaches one of her SDSU classes at the campus to be closer to students in the South Bay and to tap resources at the school. When they need K-8 students to demonstrate a teaching approach, for example, they have a ready supply available.
“It has become an awesome laboratory for us,” she said.
The school this year is focusing on having students engage in critical discussions with classmates about texts they read and having them explain their thought processes. To prepare for the emphasis on dialogue, every teacher read and discussed the book “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” written by Harvard professor Paulo Freire about his experiences of teaching in literacy programs in Brazil.
Alfaro said the book talks about the importance of believing that all children can learn and not engaging in the bigotry of low expectations.
“It has some really strong language but the reason we like this book is it really challenges teachers and principals and the community at large in the way that we think and we address situations, especially when working with students from lower socio-economic backgrounds and English learners,” she said. “It is not so much as giving you more methods and more strategies. Equally important is teacher ideology.”
Ramirez, who has led the school since it opened in 1998, says it is important the charter not “flatline” in its performance. When he talks about his teachers, he uses words like “intellectual” and “lifelong learners” and says they are continually seeking to improve their methods.
Second-grade teacher Monica Lucero, who has been at the school for 13 years, said the achievement turnaround occurred after teachers began to pay closer attention to student test data and curriculum and focusing on providing assistance those who needed it.
“We made parents aware of where their children were at and where they could help at home. There were a lot more workshops for parents, a lot more things for our target students (such as) second-language learners,” Lucero said. “The director does a good job of always bringing up what the expectations are to parents. Everyone knows what they are accountable for.”
Administrators say they try to balance classrooms in the lottery process. Entering kindergartners are assessed on an observation day and grouped into categories of above, average and below and then randomly selected. “We don’t just take the cream of the crop,” said Francisco Lopez, dean of students.
One way parents are included in the school is through monthly parent meetings, where administrators highlight ways they can help with homework and learning.
In October, for example, Lopez ran a crowd of more than 200 parents through a lesson on narrative writing. Parents were given handouts in English and Spanish and read a Greek myth about Arachne the spinner. Lopez then called on parents who raised their hands to answer questions about how plot lines made up different actions in the story.
“You are our biggest team member,” he told parents at one point. “You are the one who is going to help us get students excited about what they are learning in class.”
Alfaro said she’s amazed at the turnout.
“I’ve been to some of these sessions. They have parents out the door, standing room only. You’d think it was a concert or something,” Alfaro said.
Read this carefully and consider what really produced the enormous improvement in test scores. Was it:
- Language program (multiple languages)?
- Respect for diversity?
- Tailoring the program to the community needs?
- Magnet style campus where students of similar interests attend?
- Inspiring families and parents to be engaged?
- Superior teaching techniques?
- Superb educational leadership at the administrative level (e.g. principal)?
- Removing students that are not interested in academics?
- Self selection - only those students/families interested in education attend?
Chula Vista school’s turnaround turns heads
Elementary charter has gone from federal improvement list to distinguished status
A charter school in Chula Vista was performing so poorly on state assessments that it made the federal watch list for three years. Now it has staged a dramatic turnaround that is attracting international attention.
Today, the 822-student school has test scores among the highest in the Chula Vista Elementary School District and has been recognized as a California Distinguished School. The dual-language immersion campus has become a type of laboratory where professors from San Diego State University as well as educators from Mexico, England and Switzerland visit, hoping to discover the secret to its success.
Chula Vista Learning Community Charter, which was on the federal “program improvement” list until 2008, has raised its Academic Performance Index scores from 680 in 2005 to 880 in 2011, exceeding the state goal of 800. Every March, hundreds of parents converge on its parking lot to submit applications, with some camping overnight. Last spring, 320 applicants were turned away.
At this school, everyone has a role in the education of children.
Teachers are encouraged to be “teacher scholars” and are expected to keep up with research being done in the field of education. Parent involvement is a high priority, with parents required to volunteer 30 hours a year, including attending parent meetings where administrators offer tips for helping with homework and review lessons their children are being taught.
Students at the school take half their courses in English and half in Spanish each day, and also get weekly instruction in Mandarin, a third language added two years ago. About 95 percent of students at the K-8 school are Latino, with about 53 percent English-language learners and about half come from families poor enough they qualify for free or reduced lunch.
Parents say they like the school for the language immersion and rigorous instruction. Martha Garcia, whose 4-year-old daughter is in kindergarten, said she’s pleased so far. “She reads already in both languages,” Garcia said.
Those who cannot meet the time commitment are asked to leave. “We are a choice school. You choose to be here,” said school Director Jorge Ramirez.
The campus’ turnaround caught the eye of researchers at San Diego State University who were looking at schools that have had success in closing the achievement gap.
SDSU professor Cristina Alfaro is among a team of seven SDSU researchers with the College of Education with expertise in literacy, biliteracy, administration and child development who are studying every aspect of the school — from how its administrators lead staff to how teachers collaborate and develop curriculum to better target the backgrounds of their students.
Alfaro said teachers at the school work closely together, analyze test data to see where gaps exist and alter teaching plans to shore up weak areas.
The course correction came about, she and others say, after the school embraced what she calls the “power of belief systems.” Administrators focused on making sure that everyone on staff believes all students can succeed and won’t excuse failures because of their students’ backgrounds.
High expectations are set for all students, and parents are seen as critical partners in the process.
Alfaro, who teaches aspiring teachers, said her SDSU students often want a simple recipe for what works. She said the key is to adapt the curriculum to students. Teachers at the school look at the students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds and develop curricula that connects to their experiences.
“They are innovative, they are relevant, they are cutting edge and they are research-based,” she said.
Alfaro has consulted at the school, helping lead some teacher trainings and also teaches one of her SDSU classes at the campus to be closer to students in the South Bay and to tap resources at the school. When they need K-8 students to demonstrate a teaching approach, for example, they have a ready supply available.
“It has become an awesome laboratory for us,” she said.
The school this year is focusing on having students engage in critical discussions with classmates about texts they read and having them explain their thought processes. To prepare for the emphasis on dialogue, every teacher read and discussed the book “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” written by Harvard professor Paulo Freire about his experiences of teaching in literacy programs in Brazil.
Alfaro said the book talks about the importance of believing that all children can learn and not engaging in the bigotry of low expectations.
“It has some really strong language but the reason we like this book is it really challenges teachers and principals and the community at large in the way that we think and we address situations, especially when working with students from lower socio-economic backgrounds and English learners,” she said. “It is not so much as giving you more methods and more strategies. Equally important is teacher ideology.”
Ramirez, who has led the school since it opened in 1998, says it is important the charter not “flatline” in its performance. When he talks about his teachers, he uses words like “intellectual” and “lifelong learners” and says they are continually seeking to improve their methods.
Second-grade teacher Monica Lucero, who has been at the school for 13 years, said the achievement turnaround occurred after teachers began to pay closer attention to student test data and curriculum and focusing on providing assistance those who needed it.
“We made parents aware of where their children were at and where they could help at home. There were a lot more workshops for parents, a lot more things for our target students (such as) second-language learners,” Lucero said. “The director does a good job of always bringing up what the expectations are to parents. Everyone knows what they are accountable for.”
Administrators say they try to balance classrooms in the lottery process. Entering kindergartners are assessed on an observation day and grouped into categories of above, average and below and then randomly selected. “We don’t just take the cream of the crop,” said Francisco Lopez, dean of students.
One way parents are included in the school is through monthly parent meetings, where administrators highlight ways they can help with homework and learning.
In October, for example, Lopez ran a crowd of more than 200 parents through a lesson on narrative writing. Parents were given handouts in English and Spanish and read a Greek myth about Arachne the spinner. Lopez then called on parents who raised their hands to answer questions about how plot lines made up different actions in the story.
“You are our biggest team member,” he told parents at one point. “You are the one who is going to help us get students excited about what they are learning in class.”
Alfaro said she’s amazed at the turnout.
“I’ve been to some of these sessions. They have parents out the door, standing room only. You’d think it was a concert or something,” Alfaro said.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Recent U-T Editorials - Kowba Letter (Oct 13) on Budget / U-T Commentary on School Funding (Oct 13/25)
Recently the BoE has avoided cutting transportation and closing campuses. BoE Trustee Barnett proposed adjustments to compensation, but this too has not been approved.
Little appears to have changed regarding funds from the State of California (i.e. there still appear to be mid-year cuts for SDUSD and a deficit projected for AY 2012/13) and nothing appears to have been decided by the BoE with regards to how to provide public education with the funds available from the State of California.
Below are Op-Ed pieces published in the Union-Tribune recently. The first is a letter from Superintendent Kowba to the readers. The second two are editorials from the Union-Tribune Editorial Boards. Each describes briefly the financial situation at SDUSD.
The state has responded to the current economic crisis with budget cuts that will devastate public education in California. This statement may sound overly dramatic, but it will become a reality if the governor levies an additional $1.5 billion in midyear cuts on K-12 education in January in accordance with the budget act.
School districts throughout California are at the end of the budget rope. More than $15 billion has been cut from California’s public school budgets during the last four years. Most districts have used every budget trick in the bag to get through these difficult times, and options to keep cuts away from the classroom have been exhausted. This year, schools have opened with far fewer teachers and support staff than needed to ensure quality educational programs.
San Diego Unified School District has been forced to cut $450 million from its budget since 2007-08. These cumulative reductions have been sweeping and devastating, and are now being felt in all of our classrooms. In September, our students were greeted by several hundred fewer teachers and more than 500 fewer support staff. There are now more than 2,200 fewer staff serving students in our schools than in 2008, a reduction of about 15 percent.
Last January, Gov. Jerry Brown proposed a budget that balanced cuts with new tax revenues to support public education. That bold proposal was dependent on a bipartisan compromise in the Legislature that would have given voters the opportunity to decide if they wanted to support public education. Compromise was not reached.
With no Republican support, the governor had no choice but to sign a budget that was balanced on precarious revenue expectations. Knowing that the new state budget was based more on hope than reality, the Legislature approved a budget with “trigger cuts” that could drastically cut education funding midyear if revenue projections in December fall below the revenue assumptions built into July’s budget act.
This last-minute budget gimmick included the option to shorten the school year by seven days as a way for districts to accommodate the revenue reductions. As with many last-minute budget solutions, no one analyzed the impacts that midyear cuts would have on our schools. The school year for California’s children has already been reduced by five days as a result of last year’s budget cuts. Eliminating another seven days of instruction is a terrible idea that cannot be implemented by almost 50 percent of California’s school districts, which have closed collective-bargaining contracts.
The countdown to midyear cuts has already begun. For the first two months of this fiscal year, California is already nearly $600 million below its revenue projections. In December, the state must estimate its revenue for the year. Should those projections fall more than $2 billion below the budget target, K-12 education could be immediately cut by as much as $1.5 billion. San Diego Unified would be pressed to reduce its general fund by approximately $30 million on top of more than $80 million previously removed to build this budget.
Even without midyear cuts, San Diego Unified is facing a deficit of approximately $60 million for the 2012-13 school year. After four straight years of budget reductions, balancing next year’s budget with a deficit of that magnitude will be more difficult than ever. It will necessitate more layoffs, class-size increases, and serious negotiations with our employee groups about salary and benefit concessions that could mitigate the number of layoffs. The Board of Education has asked employee groups to begin these difficult conversations. The fiscal health and solvency of the district will require that we enter these negotiations with open minds and a spirit of collaboration to reach workable and fair budget solutions that can preserve the quality of education we provide to San Diego’s children.
Should the state pull the trigger on midyear cuts, the district will have few viable options to solve a $30 million funding reduction in January. San Diego Unified will have to use already depleted reserves and one-time solutions. This quick fix will only escalate the projected deficit for 2012-13 to an unmanageable level of more than $100 million. Under that worst-case scenario, even with employee concessions and hundreds of teacher and support staff layoffs, a balanced budget will be very difficult to achieve, challenging the fiscal solvency of the district.
At this point, the future of our children is in the hands of the Legislature and the governor. Will they find an alternative to pulling the trigger, or will they give Californians an opportunity to vote on education funding, before it’s too late to save our schools?
Kowba is superintendent of the San Diego Unified School District
Little appears to have changed regarding funds from the State of California (i.e. there still appear to be mid-year cuts for SDUSD and a deficit projected for AY 2012/13) and nothing appears to have been decided by the BoE with regards to how to provide public education with the funds available from the State of California.
Below are Op-Ed pieces published in the Union-Tribune recently. The first is a letter from Superintendent Kowba to the readers. The second two are editorials from the Union-Tribune Editorial Boards. Each describes briefly the financial situation at SDUSD.
New cuts could push San Diego schools to insolvency - W. Kowba
October 13, 2011The state has responded to the current economic crisis with budget cuts that will devastate public education in California. This statement may sound overly dramatic, but it will become a reality if the governor levies an additional $1.5 billion in midyear cuts on K-12 education in January in accordance with the budget act.
School districts throughout California are at the end of the budget rope. More than $15 billion has been cut from California’s public school budgets during the last four years. Most districts have used every budget trick in the bag to get through these difficult times, and options to keep cuts away from the classroom have been exhausted. This year, schools have opened with far fewer teachers and support staff than needed to ensure quality educational programs.
San Diego Unified School District has been forced to cut $450 million from its budget since 2007-08. These cumulative reductions have been sweeping and devastating, and are now being felt in all of our classrooms. In September, our students were greeted by several hundred fewer teachers and more than 500 fewer support staff. There are now more than 2,200 fewer staff serving students in our schools than in 2008, a reduction of about 15 percent.
Last January, Gov. Jerry Brown proposed a budget that balanced cuts with new tax revenues to support public education. That bold proposal was dependent on a bipartisan compromise in the Legislature that would have given voters the opportunity to decide if they wanted to support public education. Compromise was not reached.
With no Republican support, the governor had no choice but to sign a budget that was balanced on precarious revenue expectations. Knowing that the new state budget was based more on hope than reality, the Legislature approved a budget with “trigger cuts” that could drastically cut education funding midyear if revenue projections in December fall below the revenue assumptions built into July’s budget act.
This last-minute budget gimmick included the option to shorten the school year by seven days as a way for districts to accommodate the revenue reductions. As with many last-minute budget solutions, no one analyzed the impacts that midyear cuts would have on our schools. The school year for California’s children has already been reduced by five days as a result of last year’s budget cuts. Eliminating another seven days of instruction is a terrible idea that cannot be implemented by almost 50 percent of California’s school districts, which have closed collective-bargaining contracts.
The countdown to midyear cuts has already begun. For the first two months of this fiscal year, California is already nearly $600 million below its revenue projections. In December, the state must estimate its revenue for the year. Should those projections fall more than $2 billion below the budget target, K-12 education could be immediately cut by as much as $1.5 billion. San Diego Unified would be pressed to reduce its general fund by approximately $30 million on top of more than $80 million previously removed to build this budget.
Even without midyear cuts, San Diego Unified is facing a deficit of approximately $60 million for the 2012-13 school year. After four straight years of budget reductions, balancing next year’s budget with a deficit of that magnitude will be more difficult than ever. It will necessitate more layoffs, class-size increases, and serious negotiations with our employee groups about salary and benefit concessions that could mitigate the number of layoffs. The Board of Education has asked employee groups to begin these difficult conversations. The fiscal health and solvency of the district will require that we enter these negotiations with open minds and a spirit of collaboration to reach workable and fair budget solutions that can preserve the quality of education we provide to San Diego’s children.
Should the state pull the trigger on midyear cuts, the district will have few viable options to solve a $30 million funding reduction in January. San Diego Unified will have to use already depleted reserves and one-time solutions. This quick fix will only escalate the projected deficit for 2012-13 to an unmanageable level of more than $100 million. Under that worst-case scenario, even with employee concessions and hundreds of teacher and support staff layoffs, a balanced budget will be very difficult to achieve, challenging the fiscal solvency of the district.
At this point, the future of our children is in the hands of the Legislature and the governor. Will they find an alternative to pulling the trigger, or will they give Californians an opportunity to vote on education funding, before it’s too late to save our schools?
Kowba is superintendent of the San Diego Unified School District
For San Diego Unified, apocalypse now - Union-Tribune Editorial Board
Saving San Diego schools - Union Tribune Editorial Board
October 25, 2011“Because of the need for reducing the tax burden, class sizes were increased, teachers’ salaries were lowered and drastic economies applied.” – From the San Diego Unified School District’s official history, regarding financial difficulties faced in the 1930s
The renewed warnings of impending insolvency of city schools pose what is probably the greatest financial challenge for the district since the Great Depression, and possibly since the district’s first school opened in August 1854 in a rented room with a single teacher paid $40 a month. None of today’s financial options are good, none of the possible solutions easy. The current level of quality education for 131,500 children on more than 180 campuses with some 6,600 teachers is threatened.
The school board tonight will hear details of staff’s recommendation to close, consolidate or relocate dozens of schools next year and is expected to discuss the impact of insolvency on California’s second-largest district. Options such as the sale of district real estate and dramatic cutbacks in what’s left of the school bus program will also be outlined and updated. No decision on school closures is expected until December.
San Diego Unified faces a deficit next year in its $1 billion operating budget of between $60 million and $118 million, with the worst-case scenario looming if additional cutbacks in state funding are automatically triggered later this year.
School board President Richard Barrera blames the state for the financial crisis and looks to the state for help. “The reason (for the crisis) is because the Legislature and the governors in California have decided that they would rather make cuts to public education than raise taxes on wealthy individuals and large corporations,” he says.
Despite the crisis, the district continues to hire back teachers whose layoff notices were rescinded four months ago. And blaming the state ignores past board decisions to continue to grant automatic step increases in pay for many teachers and to approve phased-in raises of 7.2 percent for all employees beginning next school year. And it ignores the reality that the state is in no position to bail out San Diego Unified or the many other California districts in turmoil.
But it serves little purpose now for the district to point fingers of blame, or for angry, skeptical parents and the teachers union to label district warnings as crying wolf.
The reality is there isn’t enough money. The reality also is that 90 percent of general spending by the district goes to compensation. It is unfair to all and a shame for the students, but, barring an unexpected bailout by the state, school closures, transportation, class sizes and, yes, compensation all have to be put on the table.
Now is the time, beginning tonight, for the board, staff, teachers, parents, the broader community and state officials to come together to save San Diego Unified as best they can.
The renewed warnings of impending insolvency of city schools pose what is probably the greatest financial challenge for the district since the Great Depression, and possibly since the district’s first school opened in August 1854 in a rented room with a single teacher paid $40 a month. None of today’s financial options are good, none of the possible solutions easy. The current level of quality education for 131,500 children on more than 180 campuses with some 6,600 teachers is threatened.
The school board tonight will hear details of staff’s recommendation to close, consolidate or relocate dozens of schools next year and is expected to discuss the impact of insolvency on California’s second-largest district. Options such as the sale of district real estate and dramatic cutbacks in what’s left of the school bus program will also be outlined and updated. No decision on school closures is expected until December.
San Diego Unified faces a deficit next year in its $1 billion operating budget of between $60 million and $118 million, with the worst-case scenario looming if additional cutbacks in state funding are automatically triggered later this year.
School board President Richard Barrera blames the state for the financial crisis and looks to the state for help. “The reason (for the crisis) is because the Legislature and the governors in California have decided that they would rather make cuts to public education than raise taxes on wealthy individuals and large corporations,” he says.
Despite the crisis, the district continues to hire back teachers whose layoff notices were rescinded four months ago. And blaming the state ignores past board decisions to continue to grant automatic step increases in pay for many teachers and to approve phased-in raises of 7.2 percent for all employees beginning next school year. And it ignores the reality that the state is in no position to bail out San Diego Unified or the many other California districts in turmoil.
But it serves little purpose now for the district to point fingers of blame, or for angry, skeptical parents and the teachers union to label district warnings as crying wolf.
The reality is there isn’t enough money. The reality also is that 90 percent of general spending by the district goes to compensation. It is unfair to all and a shame for the students, but, barring an unexpected bailout by the state, school closures, transportation, class sizes and, yes, compensation all have to be put on the table.
Now is the time, beginning tonight, for the board, staff, teachers, parents, the broader community and state officials to come together to save San Diego Unified as best they can.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Plan Remains to Close PBMS and Consolidate into a 6 - 12 IB Academy at the MBHS Site
Below is an email exchange between myself and Scott Barnett regarding the potential IB Academy at the MB Site. I think the general concept is clear, however the details can truly determine the success of this concept. Read below and decide for yourself what is necessary to ensure that this concept is successful.
Email:
Thu, November 3, 2011 12:52:29 AMRe: Presentation on Future FOPBSS and Cluster Agenda? Budget plan. Also PB/MB. IB Academy
 | ||
| "Scott Barnett, SDUSD Board Trustee" | ||
| Stover Philip ; Merino Mitzi ; jennifer tandy ; Julie Martel; Fred Hilgers; Pam Deitz ; Amy Monroe |
Scott,
I understand the concept. I think the rest of the community understands the concept as well. SDUSD saves $1M by closing one of our campuses. The number of students at PBMS/MBHS without SDUSD transportation is small. We have discussed in at length. This is understood. The details are what count at this point.
However, the plan is predicated on the reduction in student body size to the point at which the two populations can fit onto a single campus. There are several questions that remain unanswered with this approach:
1. When will transportation be phased out to encourage the reduction in student population to the point at which this can occur. Clearly it cannot occur if the enrollment in AY 2012/13 is the same as the enrollment as AY2011/12 and the BoE did not make a decision to reduce transportation in recent BoE meetings.
2. When enrollment drops, teachers will be reallocated to other campuses. Will the BoE support a policy to allow MB-IB to retain teachers that have been IB trained in spite of Post-and-Bid and seniority/tenure rules in the SDEA contract?
3. Will the BoE allocate Prop S funds to reconfigure the campus buildings to accommodate the 6 - 12 program or will the new MB-IB campus be expected to function with its existing facility?
4. What is the minimum student body size required to operate such a campus? What will the class sizes be for such a campus? Will there be enough students with sufficient preparation to be successful in the resulting limited enrollment at each grade level? (e.g. 100 - 225 students in each graduating class)
5. What funds will be provided to train staff to teach multiple grade levels (there are too few students to guarantee that each teacher will only teach a single grade level)?
6. How will Special Education, Title 1 support, EL support, and IEP support be allocated for the smaller student body? What funds will be provided by the district for Title 1 / EL support given it is unlikely for the new MB-IB campuse to achieve the existing and projected thresholds for supporting these students?
7. Will the BoE allow the new MB-IB campus to implement an entrance exam to ensure students are prepared for the rigorous IB curriculum? (other public schools do this - most notably Stuyvesant of NYC)
8. Current enrollment in some IB classes indicate that there may be insufficient students to populate IB classes if the size of the graduating class is significantly reduced. In order to ensure critical mass in the classrooms for English literature, Mathematics, Sciences, History, ... will the BoE allow the MB-IB campus to require a minimum course load in IB classes (e.g. minimum of three IB classes each academic year)?
Few of these questions can be answered directly by our MB Cluster staff. I imagine that Fred Hilgers and/or Julie Martel can prepare a pro-forma curriculum that lays out the courses anticipated for a range of student body sizes (e.g. 700 = the existing residents that attend PBMS/MBHS; 1870 = maximum number of students possible at the MBHS today). I think that this is necessary. However, the remainder of the questions above are up to you and the remainder of the BoE trustees.
Phil Stover has been generous with his and his staff's time, but their opinions and plans are often overruled by the BoE as evidenced in the last few weeks. The onus is upon you and the remainder of the BoE members to address the majority of the questions above.
I invite the entire BoE to the next MB Cluster meeting, Nov 16. The entire BoE should hear the plan you propose and provide the commitment to our community.
If the entire BoE is not behind this plan, it is a potential death sentence for the MB Cluster. Some in the community, including myself, are skeptical of the BoE's resolve and commitment to this plan. If it is not supported by addressing almost all of the items above, then I fear the result will be that we will have a small, 6 - 12 grade campus with no IB program. Without that academic program, the new campus is unlikely to attract a large number of non-residents whose parents will drive them to the campus. The resulting student body of residents will be approximately 700 students. Will the BoE allow such a small high school to continue? Not likely under the current financial pressure. Under these assumptions, without BoE commitment financially and in terms of policy and exceptions to the SDEA contract, combining our campuses into a 6 - 12 grade program will be the beginning of the end of the Cluster.
I hold no sway over the BoE to invite them to our Cluster meeting. I have invited them to prior Cluster meetings and invited them to our feedback meeting with Mr. Stover. The only BoE member to attend was yourself. As grateful as I am for your support, this type of MB-IB campus requires more than just your resolve. What can you do to ensure that the remainder of the BoE will be present when you present the plan? What can you do to ensure that they will listen, engage, and provide support for the plan?
Regards,
Brian Catanzaro
From: "Scott Barnett, SDUSD Board Trustee"
To: Amy Monroe ; "pbcatanzaro@pacbell.net" Cc: Stover Philip; Mitzi Merino ; Julie Martel ; Frederick Hilgers ; "jentandy"; "deitzfamily" ; "kim@schoettle"
I understand the concept. I think the rest of the community understands the concept as well. SDUSD saves $1M by closing one of our campuses. The number of students at PBMS/MBHS without SDUSD transportation is small. We have discussed in at length. This is understood. The details are what count at this point.
However, the plan is predicated on the reduction in student body size to the point at which the two populations can fit onto a single campus. There are several questions that remain unanswered with this approach:
1. When will transportation be phased out to encourage the reduction in student population to the point at which this can occur. Clearly it cannot occur if the enrollment in AY 2012/13 is the same as the enrollment as AY2011/12 and the BoE did not make a decision to reduce transportation in recent BoE meetings.
2. When enrollment drops, teachers will be reallocated to other campuses. Will the BoE support a policy to allow MB-IB to retain teachers that have been IB trained in spite of Post-and-Bid and seniority/tenure rules in the SDEA contract?
3. Will the BoE allocate Prop S funds to reconfigure the campus buildings to accommodate the 6 - 12 program or will the new MB-IB campus be expected to function with its existing facility?
4. What is the minimum student body size required to operate such a campus? What will the class sizes be for such a campus? Will there be enough students with sufficient preparation to be successful in the resulting limited enrollment at each grade level? (e.g. 100 - 225 students in each graduating class)
5. What funds will be provided to train staff to teach multiple grade levels (there are too few students to guarantee that each teacher will only teach a single grade level)?
6. How will Special Education, Title 1 support, EL support, and IEP support be allocated for the smaller student body? What funds will be provided by the district for Title 1 / EL support given it is unlikely for the new MB-IB campuse to achieve the existing and projected thresholds for supporting these students?
7. Will the BoE allow the new MB-IB campus to implement an entrance exam to ensure students are prepared for the rigorous IB curriculum? (other public schools do this - most notably Stuyvesant of NYC)
8. Current enrollment in some IB classes indicate that there may be insufficient students to populate IB classes if the size of the graduating class is significantly reduced. In order to ensure critical mass in the classrooms for English literature, Mathematics, Sciences, History, ... will the BoE allow the MB-IB campus to require a minimum course load in IB classes (e.g. minimum of three IB classes each academic year)?
Few of these questions can be answered directly by our MB Cluster staff. I imagine that Fred Hilgers and/or Julie Martel can prepare a pro-forma curriculum that lays out the courses anticipated for a range of student body sizes (e.g. 700 = the existing residents that attend PBMS/MBHS; 1870 = maximum number of students possible at the MBHS today). I think that this is necessary. However, the remainder of the questions above are up to you and the remainder of the BoE trustees.
Phil Stover has been generous with his and his staff's time, but their opinions and plans are often overruled by the BoE as evidenced in the last few weeks. The onus is upon you and the remainder of the BoE members to address the majority of the questions above.
I invite the entire BoE to the next MB Cluster meeting, Nov 16. The entire BoE should hear the plan you propose and provide the commitment to our community.
If the entire BoE is not behind this plan, it is a potential death sentence for the MB Cluster. Some in the community, including myself, are skeptical of the BoE's resolve and commitment to this plan. If it is not supported by addressing almost all of the items above, then I fear the result will be that we will have a small, 6 - 12 grade campus with no IB program. Without that academic program, the new campus is unlikely to attract a large number of non-residents whose parents will drive them to the campus. The resulting student body of residents will be approximately 700 students. Will the BoE allow such a small high school to continue? Not likely under the current financial pressure. Under these assumptions, without BoE commitment financially and in terms of policy and exceptions to the SDEA contract, combining our campuses into a 6 - 12 grade program will be the beginning of the end of the Cluster.
I hold no sway over the BoE to invite them to our Cluster meeting. I have invited them to prior Cluster meetings and invited them to our feedback meeting with Mr. Stover. The only BoE member to attend was yourself. As grateful as I am for your support, this type of MB-IB campus requires more than just your resolve. What can you do to ensure that the remainder of the BoE will be present when you present the plan? What can you do to ensure that they will listen, engage, and provide support for the plan?
Regards,
Brian Catanzaro
From: "Scott Barnett, SDUSD Board Trustee"
To: Amy Monroe ; "pbcatanzaro@pacbell.net" Cc: Stover Philip; Mitzi Merino ; Julie Martel ; Frederick Hilgers ; "jentandy"; "deitzfamily" ; "kim@schoettle"
Sent: Thu, November 3, 2011 12:22:52 AM
Subject: Presentation on Future FOPBSS and Cluster Agenda? Budget plan. Also PB/MB. IB Academy
Plan to save SDUSD from insolvency
I would appreciate the opportunity to present my budget plan to the cluster and get feed back.
I think it's fair to say this will be the overriding issue for many months/years to come. But we face major decisions as early as mid December.
PB/MB. IB Academy.
Also, as you may be aware, the concept of closing PB Middle and creating an IB Academy with MBHS is still alive. I have received (mostly positive) feedback to date from cluster parents, but clearly it needs to have a lot more community input and discussion. Even if it decided to proceed, at best case it would be 13/14.
Staff will be reaching out to you to discuss this prior to the board taking this and other school consolidation issues up again on November 29.
Thanks
SB
Subject: Presentation on Future FOPBSS and Cluster Agenda? Budget plan. Also PB/MB. IB Academy
Plan to save SDUSD from insolvency
I would appreciate the opportunity to present my budget plan to the cluster and get feed back.
I think it's fair to say this will be the overriding issue for many months/years to come. But we face major decisions as early as mid December.
PB/MB. IB Academy.
Also, as you may be aware, the concept of closing PB Middle and creating an IB Academy with MBHS is still alive. I have received (mostly positive) feedback to date from cluster parents, but clearly it needs to have a lot more community input and discussion. Even if it decided to proceed, at best case it would be 13/14.
Staff will be reaching out to you to discuss this prior to the board taking this and other school consolidation issues up again on November 29.
Thanks
SB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)