State Senator Gloria Romero Addresses School Board - Parent Trigger Law Petition

      Even as she affirmed support for Parent Revolution, Romero called the group's two petition tactic a "dubious strategic choice" that was bound to confuse parents.  She also criticized what she called "rookie political mistakes" in making demands she found politically unrealistic, such as a freer hand to hire and fire teachers, and allowing the debate to focus again on charter schools, which also occurred in Compton.

L.A.Times: California's Parent Trigger Law Meets New Tests in Adelanto February 26, 2012

      In particular, Romero said presenting Adelanto parents with two petitions to sign was needlessly confusing and only aided those opposing the effort. ...     Romero also said several of the parents' goals, including changes in the curriculum and textbooks, could not be reached through in-district reforms.     "You cannot negotiate for something the district cannot do," Romero said.  "That's not negotiating in good faith."

Heartlander: California School District Rejects Trigger Petition February 24, 2012

     Meanwhile, the author of the 2010 parent trigger law, former state Sen. Gloria Romero said parents should be given one chance to revoke their signature within a specified time limit if they believe they were mislead into signing the petition.  "This would put the onus on organizers that you really have to be truthful and open and honest with parents," she said.

L.A.Times: California's Parent Trigger Law Meets New Tests in Adelanto February 26, 2012

Note: The views posted on my blog are my own and should not be confused as statements  from the Adelanto School Board.  

Parent Empowerment

Parent empowerment is a good idea.  Our public school system was founded on local control - the original old G of parent empowerment.  The concept of a public school system was centered on community-based run education.  The system allowed for local people to be elected by the community to be trustees of their school district.  It evolved to allow parent involvement as volunteers, members of the school site councils, members of district committees, PTA, Boosters, and members of interview panels for teachers, principals, and superintendents.  


Unfortunately, the public school system is no longer centered on community-based run education.  Local control has been drained from public schools.  What we now have is only a facade of local control.  Education is now being run by politicians in state capitols and from Washington D.C.. The politicians, in turn, are influenced by the deep pocket affluence of nonprofit and for-profit organizations pushing their agenda on education.  


No Child Left Behind and Race To The Top grants are federal laws that are pushing states to adopt laws and policies that have been narrowing the curriculum and forcing our schools to be test prep institutions at the expense of science, social studies, and the arts.  The "essential standards" taught now are only the ones that appear on state tests.  Fear of punishment by state and federal government agencies is forcing all other subjects out of the curriculum.   Even U.S. Education Secretary Duncan has conceded this point.


Every dollar received in grants by schools from the state and federal government have strings attached to them that specifically directs how they should be spent.  They are called restricted funds - restricted because they can only be spent to satisfy a particular state or federal policy.  Local school districts only have real say on unrestricted funds that are almost all for employee salaries and benefits.  It is sad that local control now means that districts can cut the salaries and benefits of employees during the tough times, but have little say on how to spend other monies for education.


The California parent trigger law doesn't empower parents to fix any of these problems.  The parent trigger law is limited to imposing Race To The Top policies on local school districts.  The parent trigger law is a vehicle to obligate school districts to enforce one out of five Race To The Top intervention models on a failing school.  A real parent empowerment law would give parents the power to provide their school districts relief from onerous policies limiting our ability to provide a complete and better quality education for students. 


Charter schools, for example, are considered to be superior to traditional public schools because they are free from regulations and policies that hamper traditional public schools.  Well, then why not just provide similar freedom to school districts without the involvement of outside nonprofit or for-profit charter school organizations?


Aside from that thought, some parent empowerment is better than none.  The California parent trigger law allows for a petition of parent signatures representing 50% plus one of a failing school population to impose one of five Race To The Top intervention models on that school.


The intervention models are as followed:
1. Transformation - Replace the principal.
2. Turnaround - Replace the principal and 50% of all staff.
3. Restart - Convert the school into a charter.
4. Closure - Close the school.
5. Alternative Governance - Any other major restructuring of the school's governance.

The Adelanto School District

The Adelanto School District received a Restart Model parent trigger petition from parents calling themselves the Parent Union of Desert Trails Elementary School.  The petition called for converting that school into a charter.  Parent Revolution,  a nonprofit organization, provided the strategy, technical support, and a few staff members for this petition.  The school board determined that there were not enough verified valid signatures to accept the petition and is now going to be taken to court.


The failure of this parent trigger law petition should be attributed directly to Parent Revolution.  They mismanaged the process.  The school board of the Adelanto School District has always taken the position that they were going to comply with the law.  They had no interest in challenging the law.  Verifying for valid signatures on the petition is very much a part of the law.  Signatures that could not be verified as legitimate for various reasons or were rescinded were not counted.  


A major contention is the rescinded signatures.  The school board was caught by surprise as much as anyone else when a grass root movement of parents who felt that the signature campaign was confusing or misleading wanted to take back their signatures from the petition.  They submitted rescissions to take back their signatures.  And yes, they did receive support from CTA.


Parent Revolution's two petition strategy is the center of this controversy.  Parent Revolution had parents sign two different petitions.  The first petition was to force an alternative governance solution to improve the school.  The second petition, the one actually submitted, was to convert Desert Trails Elementary School into a charter school.  The purpose of the two different petitions has not been clear.  And the decision process to submit the charter school petition over the alternative governance petition has also not been clear. 


The Adelanto School Board held two public hearing that lasted for hours.  Parents from both sides of the issue addressed the board.  They conveyed two points of agreements. 1. They wanted a quality education for their children.  2. They did not want to convert Desert Trails Elementary School into a charter school.


The Parent Union addressed the board with a powerpoint presentation.  In it they made clear that parents signed two different petitions.  They also made it clear that it was the least favored petition that was submitted.  Parent after Parent Revolution parent, when asked directly, stated that they did not want a charter school.


It begs the question. Why have parents sign two different petitions and submit the one with the Race To The Top intervention model that they don't want? The answer is baffling - it was strategy.  


According to the strategy, the two petitions were required to force the district into negotiations.  That is interesting because only one petition at the ready is actually needed to threaten a district into negotiations with the parent trigger law.  So why have parents sign two different  petitions?  And if a petition was going to be submitted - then why not submit the one desired by the parents?  Why not submit the petition that the parents were negotiating for?


A reasonable person can understand that a scenario has been created in which a parent can legitimately state that the signature process for two different petitions and the submission of the least favored charter petition was either confusing or misleading.  That being the case, why should they not revoke their signature from the petition?  The failure of this parent trigger law petition is not their fault.  Instead, the fault should be attributed directly to Parent Revolution and its two petition strategy.

State Senator Gloria Romero

The author of the California Parent Empowerment Law, former State Senator Gloria Romero, addressed the Adelanto School Board in support of the submitted parent trigger charter school petition.  In February, she called Parent Revolution's two petition strategy a "dubious strategic choice." At the board meeting she called it "smart" and "strategic."  In February, she supported allowing parents to revoke their signatures if they believe they were mislead into signing the petition.  At the board meeting she stated that the parent trigger law did not allow for rescissions.  


One can see how implementing the parent trigger law could be confusing or misleading.

...

Please join me in my reflections on 21st century learning.  I want to read your comments and opinions.  I will do my best to answer questions. 


Please friend me on Facebook and follow me on Twitter.

Former State Senator Gloria Romero Part 1 - ADTA T.V.

Former State Senator Gloria Romero Part 2 - ADTA T.V.

Former State Senator Gloria Romero Part 3 - ADTA T.V

Former State Senator Gloria Romero Part 4 - ADTA T.V.

Former State Senator Gloria Romero Part 5 - ADTA T.V.

ADTA President La Nita Dominique Response - ADTA T.V.

Atlanta Journal Constitution Widens Cheating Investigation

"We're lying to our children when we tell them they're proficient, but they're not achieving at a level that will prepare them for success once they graduate."

U. S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan- October 30, 2009

No Child Left Behind required states to create tests that will hold them accountable for raising test scores.  This was a decade ago. 


The Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC) broke the story of wide spread cheating among schools in Atlanta. The cheating artificially raised the test scores of many schools throughout that city.  Bonuses and accolades were wrongly given to educators at all levels that did not earn them.  Parents and students were given a false sense of achievement based on a lie.  So now AJC is using the same methodology to question the test scores of other cities across the nation.  Their analysis doesn't actually prove cheating, but it reveals patterns that, in Atlanta, indicated cheating in multiple schools. 


Cheating is wrong.  Unfortunately, cheating done by erasing and correcting wrong answers or giving hints to test struggling students is actually superficial compared to how our students are and have been cheated out of a quality education. 


States, like Mississippi,  set their test scores to a lower standard to create the impression that their students were achieving at a level that will prepare them for success in the next grade.  School districts have redrawn boundaries to change the testing population of schools to artificially raise test scores.  Magnet and charter schools have released their poorest performing students back to the neighborhood schools to artificially raise their test scores. 


All of this is bad.  It's cheating.  Worse, many of these actions and more are sanctioned as OK to implement as sound strategies to improve schools. 


Worse still is the narrowing of the curriculum.  We have become a nation with a test prep education system that willingly sacrifice social studies, science, vocational classes, and the arts to concentrate solely on what is going to be on the federally controlled state test. Teachers are being force to not only teach to the test but to eliminate everything else that will not be on the test. U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan and President Obama have both spoken against this unintended consequence of No Child Left Behind, but promote tying the same policy to teacher performance evaluations with Race To The Top grants. And republican politicians eagerly provide bipartisan support to this already proven bad policy. 


It is a bad idea to tie teacher performance evaluations, bonuses, and federal monies to this failed policy called accountability.  It does not account for or reliably measure a quality education. 


There is a better way.  Spelling bees. Science fairs. Projects.  In the 21st century, students should be required to demonstrate with projects that they have mastered the state standards.  Badges can be earned to demonstrate achievement and proficiency.  Give students this kind of challenge and they won't guess that the answer is A, B C, or D. 


Please join me in my reflections on 21st century learning.  I want to read your comments and opinions.  I will do my best to answer questions. 


Please friend me on Facebook and follow me on Twitter.

Atlanta Journal Constitution March 25, 2012

Cheating Our Children: Suspicious School Tests Scores Across the Nation

http://www.ajc.com/news/cheating-our-children-suspicious-1397022.html

Huffington Post March 25, 2012

Schools Cheating Investigation: Atlanta Journal Constitution Flags Improbable Test Scores In Analysis

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/24/schools-cheating-investig_n_1377767.html?ref=education

NBC Nightly News March 24, 2012

U.S. School Scrutinized Over Test Scores

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/ns/nightly_news/#46845688

Adumbrating the Failure of No Child Left Behind

“I’m disappointed that House legislation passed today doesn’t fix the real problems with No Child Left Behind … and doesn’t give states the kind of flexibility and reform they’re asking for.”

- U.S. Department of Education Secretary, Arne Duncan July 13, 2011

"We're pleased to see some recent progress among all age groups in reading and among younger age groups in math. We're also pleased to see achievement gaps shrinking in reading, but we still have a lot more work to do. Our focus on raising standards, increasing academic rigor and improving teacher quality are all steps in the right direction."

- U.S. Department of Education Secretary, Arne Duncan April 28, 2009

"While flexibility is the watchword of NCLB those of us who must implement this important law have found that a lack of flexibility is causing us difficulty in ensuring we meet its promise."

- Then California Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack O’Connell March 24, 2004

U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan has come to a realization.  States need flexibility to create the reforms sought for in education.  That is quite a growth from federal government focus and control on raising standards and increasing academic rigor.  He has come to understand that No Child Left Behind has actually lowered standards, narrowed curriculum, and doesn’t work.  What could have caused such understanding?

11 Alive News July 21, 2011 – Elite Teach For America thrust into APS scandal

CNN July 20, 2011 – Seven Atlanta educators step down as cheating scandal unfolds

NJ.com July 20, 2011 – 34 N.J. schools to be investigated for possible cheating after state discovers test score irregularities

USA Today July 20, 2011 – N.J. schools probed for possible test cheating

Education Week July 20, 2011 – D.C. Update: Allegedly False Test Scores Used for Value-Added Calculations

New York Times July 17, 2011 – Cracking a System in Which Test Scores Were for Changing

New York Times July 16, 2011 – Atlanta Schools Created Culture of Cheating, Fear

USA Today July 14, 2011 – Ex-Atlanta superintendent at center of scandal to keep award

and Video

CNN July 14, 2011 – Flawed policy on testing drives schools to cheat

New York Times July 12, 2011 – Pa. Looking Into Possible Cheating on State Tests

New York Times July 12, 2011 - Schools Chiefs See a Path to Proposing Their Own Accountability Systems

FOX News July 10, 2011– Education Department ‘Concerned’ About Wave Cheating Probes Allegations

The Atlanta Journal Constitution July 10, 2011 – Cheating scandal adds fuel to debate over high-stakes tests

The Commercial Appeal July 5, 2011– Tennessee Eyes Waiver For No Child Left Behind

NPR: June 29, 2011– States Threaten To Defy No Child Left Behind

Baltimore Sun June 25, 2011 – Cheating scandals put tests in the spotlight

USA Today  March 17, 2011 – When test scores seem too good to believe

Washington Post: March 9, 2011- Most schools could face 'failing' label under No Child Left Behind, Duncan says

NPR January 30, 2008- 'No Child' Law Picked Apart as Renewal Fight Looms

Houston Chronicle December 15, 2006 – State discounts TAKS cheating

Amarillo Globe News December 2004 – Dallas paper finds evidence of TAKS cheating

California Department of Education March 24, 2004 - More Than a Dozen Schools Chiefs Join California Superintendent 
O'Connell to Fight Changes to No Child Left Behind Act

Now if DOE Secretary Arne Duncan will only also see that Race To The Top is No Child Left Behind on steroids.  Or will he continue to push for the direct federal centralization of public education?

Please join me in my reflections on 21st century learning.  I want to read your comments and opinions.  I will do my best to answer questions.

I would like to add you to my circle of friends on Google+. Please email me at carlosmendoza3@educatormusing.com if you are interested in receiving a Google+ invitation. 

I would also like to include you in my growing circulation of Educator Musing Daily Posts. If you are interested in subscribing to the free daily updates and news, please visit the publication and click on Subscribe.

To subscribe to Educator Musing, submit your email address in the Follow By Email box in the sidebar or if you prefer an RSS feed click on Posts.

Please friend me on Facebook and follow me on Twitter.

Thanks!

Commercial Markets Determining The Future Of Schooling

“Capitalism is the worst economic system in the world – except for everything else we’ve tried.”

 Pat Dorsey – MorningStar.com

Ambient Insight, founded in 2004, is an international market research firm that uses predictive analytics to identify revenue opportunities for global eLearning and Mobile Learning suppliers.  They released a new report predicting that the worldwide market for Self-paced eLearning products and services will grow from $32 billion to $49.9 billion by 2015.

The Worldwide Market for Self-paced eLearning Products and Services: 2010-2015 Forecast and Analysis report identifies a consistently growing pattern of demand for Self-paced eLearning in government agencies.  Countries with centralized educational systems, such as, China, are outspending corporate buyers for these products and services.  Even so, according to Chief Research Officer, Sam S. Adkins, North America is predicted to be the top buying region throughout the forecast period.

The global market is changing. Corporations are no longer the top buyers of Self-paced eLearning products. The demand is stronger now for academic products for government agencies.

According to Tyson Greer, CEO and Chief Content Officer (CCO) for Ambient Insight, “The global market is transitioning from a corporate story to an academic narrative.”

The growths of markets represent demands for products and services.  Here is another trend to consider that may explain the change in the global market for eLearning products.   For each new generation, more Americans are using the Internet.  This is backed up with a 2009 survey conducted by the PEW Internet and American Life Project stating that 95% of all teenagers ages 14 – 17 use the Internet.  According to a 2010 survey conducted by the same group, 90% of all young adults ages 18 - 29 use the Internet. 

In a news release by a private provider of technology products and services, CDW, the second annual 21^st Century Classroom Report states that only 39% percent of students say their high schools are meeting their technology expectations.  Perhaps now is the time to consider that the Digital Divide now is more about meeting the expectation of today’s students than it is about making technology available.

The current formal school system is no longer working to the best benefit of our students and society.  This is being manifested in changing global markets and student perceptions of school. 

A congressional Act can abolish the U.S. Department of Education. Then they can establish and fund a private not-for-profit corporation to facilitate the development of public education. This would be  similar to the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. Such a move can place in motion the means to shape the growing market for eLearning to serve our students.  The current attempt to centralize public education through No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Race To The Top (RTTT) is not working.  The unintended consequence of direct federal government involvement in education is causing a collapse of the system.

A radical change in education from direct government control to government funded not-for-profit corporations is an idea worth pursuing.  Finding the right mixture of instruction, management, and structure for sustainable funding and accreditation will be a challenge, but our kids are worth it.

Please join me in my reflections on 21st century learning.  I want to read your comments and opinions.  I will do my best to answer questions.  

I would like to add you to my circle of friends on Google+. Please email me at carlosmendoza3@educatormusing.com if you are interested in receiving a Google+ invitation. 

I would also like to include you in my growing circulation of Educator Musing Daily Posts. If you are interested in subscribing to the free daily updates and news, please visit the publication and click on Subscribe.

To subscribe to Educator Musing, submit your email address in the Follow By Email box in the sidebar or if you prefer an RSS feed click on Posts.

Please friend me on Facebook and follow me on Twitter.

Thanks!

We Need A Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 in 2012 for Education

“If midyear budget cuts are realized, AB 114 severely restricts the ability of school districts to deal with them.  … Consequently, midyear cuts, coupled with statutory restrictions on how they may manage them, could drive more districts to financial insolvency.  Ironically, this would result in those districts being "taken over" by the very state that forced their insolvency.”

- California School Boards Association

 Assembly Bill 114 in California is another example of why our school system needs to be privatized away from direct government control.  The bill specifically dictates to school districts how their budgets need to be presented, limits their ability to balance their budget, and forces districts to use misleading finance projections.  Micro-management of education from Sacramento and Washington D.C. has created a mess.  There are other alternatives to funding education.

The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 is an example of how government can and perhaps should fund education.  Through this act, Congress established and funds the Corporation of Public Broadcast (CPB) as a private not-for-profit corporation to facilitate the development of public media.  The Corporation for Public Broadcasting does not produce any programming but instead provides support for independent noncommercial non-profit organizations, such as, the Public Broadcast Service (PBS), National Public Radio (NPR), and independent public television stations.  PBS, NPR, and public television stations then work with private corporations to produce what has been excellent public television programming.

Congress can dissolve the U.S. Department of Education and establish a private not-for-profit corporation to facilitate the development of public education.  The billions of dollars wasted by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Race To The Top (RTTT) could have been better spent by an entrepreneurial approach similar to the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967.  This is an idea worth pursuing.  Finding the right mixture of instruction, management, and structure for sustainable funding and accreditation will be a challenge, but our kids are worth it.

Please friend me on Facebook and follow me on Twitter.

Thanks!

This Just In From CSBA: Executive Director Vernon Billy on AB 114

Around the Capitol – AB 114 (Committee on Budget) Education Finance

California School Boards Association - CSBA Budget Update: Analysis of Trailer Bill AB 114 

Corporation of Public Broadcasting (CPB) – About CPB

Leginfo.ca.gov – California Assembly Bill 114

Public Broadcasting Act of 1967

Public Broadcasting Act of 1967

Failing to make the No Child Left Behind Cut

"The law has created dozens of ways for schools to fail and very few ways to help them succeed. We should get out of the business of labeling schools as failures and create a new law that is fair and flexible and focused on the schools and students most at risk."

U.S. Department of Education Secretary – Arne Duncan

It’s all about the test scores.  Administrators, pressured to reach or maintain test scores to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) adequate yearly progress benchmarks, insists that teachers strictly adhere to the “essential standards” that will be tested on the standardized state test.  Only the courageous teacher will deviate to include the visual and performing arts, social studies, and other subjects with nonessential standards.

NCLB is federal legislation signed into law with bipartisan support in 2002 meant to improve public schools.  The original intent was to provide billions of dollars and other support to close the achievement gap between different groups of students.  Standards-based education was to be developed by the states to clearly define what a child should know and be able to do by the end of a school year.  And for the first time, visual and performing arts was listed as a core academic subject.  Standardized annual state tests were also to be implemented to measure adequate yearly progress in closing the achievement gaps.

The funds to aid the states never fully materialized.  And punitive damages to states, districts, and schools tied to the standardized state tests changed the dynamics of the law’s original intent.

Schools will do whatever it takes to avoid the punitive damage that NCLB will visit upon then if the do not reach the test benchmarks.  Cheating, unfortunately, has become a problem.  In the wake of the city wide cheating scandal in Atlanta, U.S. Department of Education, Arne Duncan, has expressed his concern about cheating – again.

Unfortunately, there are other ways of beating the test-based accountability system besides cheating. 

Did you ever see the 1990 movie, Pump Up The Volume, starring a young Christian Slater?  It was about a shy teenager with a pirate radio station connecting with other teens as he found his voice to speak his mind.  The story in the background was about a principal finding unjustified reasons for expelling poor performing students that will lower the school’s test scores.

Closer to real life is the closing and reopening of schools with a new name.  Changing the student testing population of a school.  Lowering the standard for what is defined as proficient on test scores.  Or, if it is a charter or magnet school, dropping low performing students back to their regular neighborhood public school. 

Such seems to be the case of Katherine Sprowal’s son, Matthew.  Ms. Sprowal was initially please that Matthew won the lottery to attend a New York City charter school.  It soon became clear that the school that will not let him fail was recommending that he would be better suited elsewhere to be successful.  Matthew was diagnosed with having an attention disorder.  Years later, Ms. Sprowal became convinced that her son was done an injustice.  Fortunately, he thrived at Public School 75.

In 2010, Harold Maready, superintendent of McKeel Schools in Florida, defended the charter school’s dismissal rate.  Charter schools must accept all students.  It is only when a charter school is filled to capacity that a lottery system is used to select students.  Once enrolled, however, a signed contract with a very defined policy on reasons for dismissal, including behavior, attendance, and academic performance may drop a student later.  Typically these students return to the neighborhood public school.

Soon it will not matter.  The system is falling apart. The NCLB test benchmarks are raised in intervals over the years to measure yearly adequate progress toward the goal of 100 percent of all students proficient or better in math and English language arts by the year 2014.  U.S. Department of Education, Arne Duncan has estimated that 82 percent of schools may be labeled as failed schools in the next test cycle because the benchmark has become so high.

Arne Duncan has called upon Congress to change the law.  It was suppose to be revised in 2008 to avoid the pending catastrophic test scores, but it never happened.  In the meanwhile he is offering a waiver from the test results to desperate states if they will agree to restrictive stipulations that will give the federal government more control over public education.  He did the same with billions of Race To The Top Grant dollars.

States are now abandoning NCLB and daring Congress to do something about it.  Congress will eventually do something, but they are so far down the wrong path that it will not be the right thing.  Ultimately the federal government needs to get out of the school improvement business.  They are not very good at it.  We need to privatize public education out of direct government control without imposing tuition on parents and still meet the public good.  Finding the right combination of instruction, management, and structure for sustainable funding and accreditation will be a challenge, but our kids are worth it.

Educator Musing is the place to explore this idea.

Please friend me on Facebook and follow me on Twitter.

Thanks!

The Commercial Appeal – Tennessee Eyes Waiver For No Child Left Behind

FOX News – Education Department ‘Concerned’ About Wave Cheating Probes Allegations

The Ledger – Maready Defends McKeel’s Policies  

NPR - 'No Child' Law Picked Apart as Renewal Fight Looms

NPR – States Threaten To Defy No Child Left Behind

NPR – Utah Is First State To Abandon No Child Left Behind podcast

NY Times – Message From a Charter School: Thrive or Transfer

Washington Post - Most schools could face 'failing' label under No Child Left Behind, Duncan says

At Times It Can Be Heartbreaking

“These are bills that Congress ran up.  The money has been spent.  The obligations have been made. …This is not a situation where Congress is going to say OK we wont buy this car and won’t take this vacation.  They took the vacation.  They bought the car.  And now they’re saying may be we won’t have to pay.”

President Obama – federal debt ceiling June 29, 2011

 “This budget means another year with California’s schools on financial life support. The risk of $1.75 billion in mid-year reductions, as well as $2.1 billion in added deferrals, will force some districts to make cuts that will harm our students and their schools.”

California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson June 28, 2011

Being a public servant by serving on the board of a local school district is an honor. At times it can be heartbreaking.

California has been projecting a $9 to $10 billion-dollar deficit in the state budget. Our esteemed state politicians who cannot pass a budget without the threat of their pay being withheld agreed to an overly optimistic one. Somehow they are now projecting that the deficit will not be so bad, but reserve the right to revise later if they are wrong. School districts need to submit their budget based on that budget by July 1st, except their three-year budgets need to balance.


Imagine being broke with a $9.00 bill that has to be paid and someone owes you $9.00. Imagine this same person explaining that they only owe you $4.00 because they are hoping that someone else might give them five dollars. Worse, they reserve the right to take an additional dollar from you if necessary. But you still need to pay the $9.00 bill. That is the condition of the California state budget and how it affects school districts.


K-12 education makes up about 30% of the state budget. In the past it has taken 60% of the cuts. Even if there are no further cuts to education, a downward revision of the state budget will ruin the tight budgets of local school districts.


Local school districts receive funding from three sources: federal, state, and local. On average for the past ten years school districts receive 79% of their funding from the state, 13% from the federal government, and 8% locally. The percentages change according to neighborhoods. For example, a school district in an affluent neighborhood, such as, Beverly Hills Unified may receive 70% of their funding from the state, 4% from the federal government, and 26% locally. A school district in a much less affluent area, such as, Adelanto Elementary School District, may receive 86% of their funding from the state, 10% from the federal government, and only 4% locally. Between the two districts and compared to the state average, Adelanto School District is more dependent on state funding.


Then there are two types of funding: restricted and unrestricted. Restricted funds are monies with stipulations and regulations attached to them. In other words, they have to be spent only on what they have been designated to fund. Unrestricted funds (a.k.a. general fund) allow more flexibility. Most of the general fund is designated for salaries and benefits. In the Adelanto School District 81% of the general fund is designated for salaries and benefits.


Now we must include unfunded or underfunded mandated costs. Unfunded mandated costs are federal or state required programs that receive no funding for them. Districts are required to comply with these mandates but must pay for them from the general fund. Special education, English as a Second Language (ESL), and refitting school buses to be better for the environment are examples of unfunded or underfunded mandated costs. In the Adelanto School District, they encroach about 13% of the general fund. The remaining 6% of the general fund is used to pay for utilities, after-school programs, enrichment, and such other purposes.


It is clear that cuts in education and reduction of overly optimistic state budgets hurt the quality of education for our students. California already has the worse teacher to student ratio in the nation. California already spends less per student than other states. California’s state budget has a $9 to $10 billion-dollar deficit. The Adelanto School District, in turn, will have almost a $1.9 million dollar deficit next school year. This deficit is projected even though there have been major cuts to the budget. Good hard working employees are paying the price of this ruined economy through unpaid furloughs, reduction of hours, and layoffs. No one is exempt; teachers, librarians, clerks, aides, counselors, administrators – no one.


It gets worse. California solves its cash flow problem by passing it on to local school districts. To keep cash on hand, the state withholds the release of funds to the counties that are to be distributed to the local school districts. The local school districts must then borrow money to make payroll. The Adelanto School District is projecting a need to borrow $9 million dollars. It will cover its deficit and have a cushion to make payroll when the state does not release funds.


The federal job stimulus plan is meant to help states float through the economic crisis with as few layoffs as possible. This one time use it or lose it grant is not meant to supplant state funding. In other words, the influx of cash from the federal government with its own deficit problem cannot be deposited in a bank account to earn interest. It cannot be used to release funds from one program to be used on another program. It can only be used for purposes like buying back unpaid furloughs days and returning laid off employees. But it is not enough to prevent furloughs and all lay offs. And it can only be used once.


The choices presented to school board members and employees are painful. Agree to unpaid furlough days and reduction of pay for fewer or no layoffs, or agree to no furlough days and reduction of pay at the cost of more layoffs.


The same politicians at the state and federal level that cannot manage a budget and stoop to push their agenda at the cost of a child’s education and a public employee’s job – want to dictate to educators on how to teach a child. Honestly, do we really need to refit school buses to be better for the environment during an economic crisis? Has No Child Left Behind and Race To The Top worked to improve education?


I am promoting a radical change in education. Different from public charter schools, we need to privatize public education without the use of public funds and without charging tuition. We now have the technology to create hybrid online schools with learning centers that can better meet the needs of students. I would like to explore that idea. Finding the right combination of instruction, management, and structure for sustainable funding and accreditation will be a challenge, but I no longer want to look to politicians for solutions to problems they helped to create.


Please friend me on Facebook and follow me on Twitter.


Thanks

What Does It Profit A State To Sell Its Soul?

It was about the last straw for Jabez Stone. “I vow,” he said, and he looked around him kind of desperate −"I vow it's enough to make a man want to sell his soul to the devil. And I would, too, for two cents!”

Stephen Vincent Benet – The Devil and Daniel Webster

Bess, it’s Joe. I’ve come back. I’ve done a terrible thing. I sold my soul to the devil so the team would win… so the Yankees would lose. I thought it would be worth it, but it wasn’t. You’ve got to help me.

Douglas Wallop – Damn Yankees

There isn't enough money left in the Race To The Top grant to dangle in front of cash strapped states to accept federal take over of public education - so U.S. Education Secretary Duncan will dangle waivers instead. Salvation from the ticking time bomb of No Child Left Behind will serve as the new incentive for states to surrender control of public education to the federal government.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was the bipartisan legislation that was going to finally bring the changes needed to improve education. The visual and performing arts were going to be placed in the same footing with math, science, and reading. States were going to establish standards that clearly spell out what students needed to know and be able to do at their grade level by the end of the school year. And, based on the standards, new curriculum was going to be written and the achievement gap between groups of students would be closed.

We were naive. Instead of standards-based education, we were given test-based education. Schools, districts, and whole states became judged by multiple-choice norm-referenced standardized tests given once a year. Schools, districts, and whole states that didn’t meet the test cut off score faced punitive measures. So, to avoid punishment, states lowered their standards and schools taught only what would be on the state test at the expense of all other standards.

The test cut off score set by NCLB is raised every few years with the final goal of all students (100%) will be proficient in reading and mathematics by the year 2014. It is now at the point where about 80 % of schools are not expected to make the next cut off score and may face punitive measures. They desperately want a waiver from the cut off score.

No Child Left Behind was up for reauthorization in 2007. Many of the problems with this legislation could have been fixed then. Instead legislation was passed to authorize public funds to be used for a competitive grant called Race To The Top (RTTT). Race To The Top is No Child Left Behind on steroids. To compete for hundreds of millions of dollars cash strapped states had to agree to stipulations that surrendered control of public education to the federal government.

The ultimate goal of Race To The Top is to wrest control of public education from states, local control, and from unions. I really wouldn’t have a problem with any of this if I believed that direct federal control of public schools would be an improvement. I don’t. I believe that federally control public education will have the same quality as federal government issued peanut butter and cheese.

In two rounds of competitive grant application writing, hundreds of millions of dollars were awarded to eleven cash-strapped states, plus the District of Columbia. Most of the other states, in the application process of chasing the RTTT grant money, had to agree to stipulations that surrendered control of public education to the federal government (standards, testing, evaluations, employment, policies, reform, and how public monies can be spent).

Now there is not enough money in the Race To The Top grant to induce states to sell more control of public education to the federal government. A waiver of the next No Child Left Behind test cut off score is the new carrot dangled in front of states. To apply for this waiver states would have to agree to not yet specify stipulations that are aligned with Race To The Top.

U.S. Education Secretary Duncan readily admits that federal government legislation has dumb downed standards, narrowed curriculum, and is “creating a slow-motion train wreck for children, parents and teachers." So, why do we want more federal control over public education?

The federal government take over of public education through purse strings, No Child Left Behind, and Race To The Top legislations is not going to be an effective means of reforming public schools. Different from charter schools, we need to privatize public education without the use of public funds. We now have the technology to create hybrid online schools with learning centers that can be paid for with ads and commercialism and not cost parents tuition.

This approach will save states and the federal government billions of dollars they can no longer afford anyway. It will free educators to radically transform education to meet the needs of 21^st century society without the bureaucratic interference of government. The current school system is too broken to be fixed. And we don’t need federal government support or approval to create this new system.

Please friend me on Facebook and follow me on Twitter.

1. The Christian Science Monitor: Education secretary tells Congress - Change No Child Left Behind or I will

2. Detroit Free Press: Education chief - We’ll help states that commit to school reform

3. New York Times: Education Secretary May Agree to Waivers on ‘No Child’ Law Requirements

4. NPR: Duncan to Congress – Rewrite No Child This Summer

5. The Wall Street Journal: Duncan Threatens to Alter No Child Left Behind

6. The Washington Post: Duncan pledges ‘No Child’ relief for states