So a hijacking of the APD and Occupy Oakland comments thread turned into discussion about a recent vote by the School Board to allocate a certain amount of excess funds to textbooks and other assorted student related “stuff” for lack of a better term.
On Friday while dropping #1 Daughter to school at Ruby Bridges, I noticed there was an abnormally large number of adults milling around the drop off area. I overheard one of these adults talking about the “Superintendent’s raise” and notice a sticker which read something to the effect of “Ask me about the $$.” And then was stopped by a teacher who mentioned that the teachers and the teachers union was not happy with the School Board’s vote on the excess money.
As noted by Susan Davis on In Alameda, it’s been super difficult to track the AUSD School Board discussions lately for a few reasons. The City Council has been bogarting the Council chambers and therefore the video capabilities. And for those of us with small children still milling about, you’ll know that evening meetings are not ideal for keeping your kids on schedule. Apparently the School District will be having online and archived video by November, but that doesn’t help the present problem and I digress.
So anyway, I needed a bit of background on how all this stuff worked and here is my nutshell of the nutshelling I was given of fairly complex school finances.
When the state was unable to fund minimum guarantees under Prop 98 and when they reduced the amount of funding given to school districts, in order to help out a bit they temporarily relaxed some of the funding that is “restricted” (aka categorical funding, meaning funding that is set aside for a specific purpose and not to be spent on anything else). This funding that used to be restricted, but now is not, but could be in the future again, was designated as “Tier III” funds by the School District and set aside. School districts that did not allocate these funds for their categorical purpose used the money for ongoing operations and anything that was leftover was “carryover” and could be carried over to the next year. The “Tier III” funds’ flexibility has been extended until 2015, but after that it might revert back to categorical or restricted status.
So you may be asking what did the School Board vote to do with the money? Well according to Susan Davis on In Alameda and judging from the comments here, one’s I received offline, and the reaction of the teacher’s unions, the decision that was made was not the one that made some of the teachers very happy and that was to put the money into stuff and programs (yes I know that is mighty specific and precise terminology there, watch out!) and those teachers feel as though the money could be better spent elsewhere. The stuff and programs according to the packet include:
While I am a fan of textbooks and such and I’m sure all that these items are totally worthy of funding, I think what was missing was a larger discussion on how best to spend these funds. While I’m generally not one for micromanaging anything, given the work that was done by the community at large to pass Measure A and the concessions made by AUSD’s teachers, it would have been respectful to get some input on how best to dole out what really are one-time funds.
On the other hand, getting people worked up over the Superintendent’s compensation is not the way to get your point across. While I’m not jumping up and down with joy over her recent contract, I’m also not going to say that she doesn’t deserve to be compensated for the work that she does. We can all bicker about how much is too much, but it’s not relevant to this discussion.
What would be a helpful discussion is what they money could have been spent on. While I understand that some teachers and community members (and one School Board member) felt as though it should have been allocated to teachers, what is less clear is how that would have been done. As I mentioned the lack of restriction on this particular pot of money is temporary, which means after that 2015 date it could revert back to its restricted status, so putting it into salaries would not be feasible for various reasons. However, using it as a “bonus” of sorts (call it “performance pay” like being offered to the Superintendent herself) would have been an interesting way of putting the excess into the hands of teachers, but tying it to some sort of measurable outcome.
This, of course, leads to a bigger discussion of merit pay and what not, but that’s another topic for another day.
One of the things that has been making me uncomfortable with this discussion since last week is the claim that “AUSD gave $1 million to textbooks,” when in fact less than 60 percent of the money went to textbooks. The rest went to programs, as can be seen in the agenda item shown here. Those programs look valuable (e.g., they include instructional support for teachers, intervention at Title 1 schools, and classes to help parents become better advocates for their children).
I have heard some teachers say that AUSD students don’t need new textbooks. But I’m curious as to why those teachers think these programs also shouldn’t have been funded and why they aren’t being discussed.
Comment by Susan Davis — October 31, 2011 @ 6:52 am
I thinks it’s time that AUSD explore the possibilities of taking books electronic. Kindles are less than $100 now. Couldn’t the district save a ton of money?
What concerns me most is the moral of the teachers… this directly effects our students. The bonus for admin (however small) is entirely inappropriate given AUSD’s situation and recent history. Hats off to Trish Spencer for sticking up for the teachers.
Comment by Jack B. — October 31, 2011 @ 7:01 am
Jack, that’s an intriguing idea…Kindles for students…hmm. But as the mom of an elementary school kid, I can just see the state of a Kindle after all those accidental drops. Perhaps middle schoolers and high schoolers could handle a Kindle, though.
Maybe they could put a little money aside for a brainstorming session on what to do when Measure A expires. I really don’t see another parcel tax in AUSD’s future, given how hard this one was to pass and the economic reality of the state, which will probably get worse before getting better. Or it might not get better, it may just reach a level of semi-awful and stay there. What then?
Comment by Kristen — October 31, 2011 @ 7:35 am
My elementary school kids already have their own kindles. If parents have this option (and school maintained a survey) they could buy fewer textbooks as long as electronic versions of txts were available. It could be voluntary for now… but save $$$.
Comment by Jack B. — October 31, 2011 @ 7:53 am
The way high schoolers slam their backpacks around, they probably are not much better than the little guys. Of course deposits might help and let the parents decide whether or not to risk it with their kids. Interesting how few got too upset until the property tax bills came in, huh?
Comment by Denise Shelton — October 31, 2011 @ 8:31 am
1, 3: There are always going to be other costs to running AUSD besides teacher salaries and benefits. In the overall scheme of things, was the Board of Trustees really that far off-base to do what they did with the Tier III funds? I don’t know, but I trust most of our Board of Education Trustees and the administrators to make sound decisions in most cases.
The passage of Measure A did a lot to support teachers and that was one of the measure’s strengths. And it may have to be enough for the teachers for a while in these times of scarcity. That’s tough for them to accept given their long-term sacrifices, but the district is still strapped for funds and trying hard to keep as many doors open as possible with peanuts.
It looks from the breakdown above as if the Board of Trustees was trying to balance its allocation of resources with the newly-flexible funds, so I share Susan’s curiosity about the teachers’ opposition to strengthening programs by $565,835. (That’s more than they spent on the textbooks.)
I share Susan Davis’ curiosity about the teaches’ opposition to the spending decision. If the teachers disagreed with the 52% of the reallocated monies that went to strengthen programs, what other priorities would they support instead that would have the same benefits?
Comment by Jon Spangler — October 31, 2011 @ 9:43 am
6. Jon, I have to take issue with you on your post:
“. . .I trust most of our Board of Education Trustees and the administrators to make sound decisions in most cases..” I think they blew it big time when they approved Ms. Vital’s salary, and when they awarded her a bonus this year. I also have to take the school board to task for pushing another parcel tax as they did, when they know very well that the state can change it’s funding for schools whenever it wishes, and is about to do so again, so that the Measure A funds will not cover Alameda’s expenses.
“The passage of Measure A did a lot to support teachers and that was one of the measure’s strengths. And it may have to be enough for the teachers for a while in these times of scarcity. That’s tough for them to accept given their long-term sacrifices, but the district is still strapped for funds and trying hard to keep
as many doors open as possible with peanuts.” You’ve got a lot of damn gall saying that (forgive my language, but this issue REALLY pisses me off!). Yes, Vital has prob done a good job, yes, she prob deserves a bonus. Have the teachers done a good job for the last 5 or so years since their last raise? Do they deserve a raise or a bonus? Will they get a raise? NO! Where does the rubber meet the road? In the Supe’s office, or in the classrooms? Please!
At a recent School Board meeting I attended, it was announced with much fanfare that something like 14 or 15 of our 17 schools have raised their test scores since last year. That’s great; I’m really happy about that. I don’t doubt that we need someone in the Supe’s office to have a vision, and to wield the big stick, but I submit that the teachers in the classroom are just as or more critical to the district’s success as whomever occupies the Supe’s office. The Supe can have a grand dream, but if s/he can’t communicate it to or enroll the teachers in that dream, it ain’t gonna happen. So our teachers deserve just as much credit, if not more, than the Supe for all those increases in test scores. What do they get out of their dedication and hard work? A pat on the back and an “atta boy!” What does the Supe get out of it? A cash bonus. What is our School Board thinking? What is in the coolers at District offices? Do you hear chants of “Occupy School District?”
Comment by Not. A. Alamedan — October 31, 2011 @ 10:30 am
I wanted to respond to this — “I think what was missing was a larger discussion on how best to spend these funds. While I’m generally not one for micromanaging anything, given the work that was done by the community at large to pass Measure A and the concessions made by AUSD’s teachers, it would have been respectful to get some input on how best to dole out what really are one-time funds.”
This matter came up twice before the school board before it was passed. So there was plenty of opportunity for community members to weigh in on it before it was decided. I’m not sure I understand what else you’re suggesting. If you’re proposing that because of Measure A, we need to have community meetings or committees appointed to discuss monetary expenditures we’re in for complete gridlock. (And BTW: Good luck with that performance pay idea. I’m all for tying compensation to performance, but there’s roughly a snowball’s chance in hell that even if the District agreed to give the money to teachers based on performance, the AEA would agree to that.)
As to the e-textbook issue, I’m all for them for a variety of reasons, environmental and health among others. But from what I understand, a) e-textbooks do not hugely cut down on the costs because the textbooks still have to be purchased electronically or you have to pay for an electronic license which isnt really materially less expensive; and b) there is an access and/or maintenance issue. Not every kid has access to or can afford the technology that would allow them to use e-textbooks, and having the District provide and maintain that technology would likely cost WAY more than any savings from potentially lower cost e-textbooks. I also have to say from personal experience that the current state of e-textbooks leaves a lot to be desired. I have a kid who attends a charter school that makes e-textbooks available. I’m not a tech person, but I consider myself a person of average intelligence (perhaps I am flattering myself). In my experience, the e-textbooks have been an absolute nightmare to access and use. Many of them are not at all user friendly. My kid and I have been so frustrated by the e-textbooks, that we’ve given up on them and the kid has reverted back to hard copy. Electronic versions are great for literature, but not much else.
Comment by Oh the Irony! — October 31, 2011 @ 10:30 am
8. About the e-texts… like I said earlier, I don’t know how this could best work but I think it should be explored.
6. and others… I don’t know how the money should have best been spent but sometimes something small makes a difference. For example, the supe’s “bonus” was small but it appears to make a big difference in the teachers’ psyche.
The way I campaigned for the PT was “we are all in this together.” Would like to think that the top admin is indeed part of the “we.”
How about converting a furlough day or two back into a teaching day? How much does that cost per day?
Comment by Jack B. — October 31, 2011 @ 10:41 am
Jack,
There are no furlough days this year. The passage of Measure A allowed the entire school district to go back to a full school year in 2011-12.
As I understand it, the teachers are being asked to be compensated for the furlough days they took last year.
Comment by Susan Davis — October 31, 2011 @ 10:49 am
Correction: That last sentence should have said:
As I understand it, the teachers are asking to be compensated for the furlough days they took last year.
Comment by Susan Davis — October 31, 2011 @ 10:50 am
perception is everything. Teachers get no raise, Superintendent gets raise plus other benefits. At the end of the day its a fact.
Comment by JOHN P. — October 31, 2011 @ 11:09 am
Thanks Susan, I did not know that. It is kind of quiet around the house
Comment by Jack B. — October 31, 2011 @ 11:09 am
12 — The Superintendent’s “raise” is not retroactive and is tied to performance. The AEA’s demand for money is retroactive and is not tied to performance. At the end of the day, those are facts too.
Comment by Oh the Irony! — October 31, 2011 @ 11:16 am
#12 “Teachers get no raise, Superintendent gets raise plus other benefits. At the end of the day its a fact.”
The thing is, this debate about carry-over funds isn’t about raises for the teachers. It’s about giving them a one-time payment from one-time funds. The AEA and AUSD will begin formal negotiations about teacher compensation in January.
I support our teachers. I’ve advocated for them like crazy throughout the last four parcel tax campaigns and I’d love to see them be paid more. But that’s not what this conversation is about.
Comment by Susan Davis — October 31, 2011 @ 12:58 pm
I still think as a symbolic gesture, the Superintendent should have not taken the raise. It would have gone a long way to helping the teachers morale for very little, proportionate sacrifice on her part. As it is they have been asked to make a lot of cuts in the past couple of years, and they need to know they are valued. That does not necessarily mean more money, but more communication of a positive nature at least.
Comment by Kate Quick. — October 31, 2011 @ 1:10 pm
I will tread lightly but will share my INDIVIDUAL perpsective on the topics raised in this post. Once again, this is my individual point of view and will respect the actions of the Board.
1.) State funding for AUSD – Ever since 2008, AUSD has lost $7 million in ongoing unrestricted funding from the State. The State then allowed school districts to “restricted” funds to fill the gap created by not funding the Prop 98 guaranteed funding. Therefore, “restricted” funds have been diverted to maintain ongoing operations and as a result “restricted” programs have either eliminated or underfunded for three years.
2.) The carryover funds resulted from program savings not from furlough dollars saved. By the way, every employee including the Superintendent had their salary reduced by eight days.
3.) Superintendent Raise – I realize it is semantics and perception but the Board had decision to make. The Superintendent contract would have expired in June 2012. The Board decided it was in the best interest of the District to extend the contract until 2015 in order to maintain proven leadership and stability. The Superintendent desired to be compensated comparable to her peers in recognition of her accomplishments over the past 30 months. The Board was able to negotiate the best deal given the circumstances. No raise in salary, just an extension of existing salary terms, acknowledgement of misunderstanding of the initial contract terms regarding health care benefits provided and tying additional compensation to performance based goals.
Finally, this is one time entry for this post. If you have comments that you would further explanation please contact me via email.
Comment by mikemcmahonausd — October 31, 2011 @ 1:50 pm
17. Mike, is the Board contemplating adding compensation to the teachers’ salaries based on performance in the upcoming contract negotiations? Or, just a straight raise?
Comment by Not. A. Alamedan — October 31, 2011 @ 4:13 pm
Regardless of the amount of the raise/”extension of existing salary terms”/whatever, it is still a tone deaf thing to do … under the circumstances.
Comment by alameda — October 31, 2011 @ 4:49 pm
The fact that there is so much “rumor” if you want to call it that, is because there is a lack of transparency in much of what is being done by the school board and superintendent. rumor “the superintendent threatened the board that she would leave if they did not give her the raise “she was demanding and so be a 3-2 vote they yielded.
If her contract ran out in June of 2012 there were options 1. start a search and say as in most businesses to that kind of pressure don’t let the door hit you on the way out. or 2 do a one year extension and start a search
I serve on the Measure A oversight committee. At our first meeting we received a handout that was a staff report describing the function and task of the committee the following paragraphs
“The scope of work of an “oversight” committee is retrospective (looking back) whereas the scope of work of an “advisory” committee is prospective (looking forward)
” Accordingly the process for public input on any future actions by the Board of Education on Measure A (eg any changes of the allocations among the eleven categories of Measure A in future years) would take place at meetings of the board, not at meetings of the Oversight Committee”
The grant of authority to the Measure A Oversight Committee is to “review” AUSD’s compliance with Measure A”
The ballot for Measure A lays out specific percentages to be allocated to 11 categories . Essentially the oversight committee can look back at what has been done and if the Arithmetic adds up, no problem Aside from the condescension (looking back), it is clear that there is no room for public input save at board meetings, which we already know are virtually inaccessible to the public. The assignment of expenditures by budget category is done by the district so there is little chance of misappropriation of the total fund, but what is done within the category is not open to question. For example “7-8% shall be dedicated to maintaining neighborhood schools, including Washington, Franklin etc, One might assume from that language that all the schools would be protected. Not so –in expanding the posting, the board retains the right to close a school and distribute the funds within the category differently.
Another example of wiggle room not open to examination by the oversight committee– is the secondary school choice and AP courses. which is allocated 7% of the monies realized from the measure The board voted to divide the proceeds as follows: Alameda High School $150K ($78.95 per student) Encinal High $135k ($122.73 per student) ASTI $168K ($1400 per student) and Island High $338,316 ($2,819 per student) In addition, ASTI is designated to receive $25k from the recently discovered million dollars Did Alameda and Encinal parents who voted “yes” vote for that?
I voted for the parcel tax but I did not vote open season on predetermined issues nor do I think that most people would read into the ballot measure what is occurring . We trust our board because we elect them–because they are part of our community . We trust them to do diligence and not merely rubber stamp a superintendent and staff who comes to town, stays a few years and moves on.
Comment by barbaara kahn — October 31, 2011 @ 5:46 pm
I wish the discussions on Schools would turn to how we can better educate our Students versus paying teachers and administrators more. California is #1 nationally in paying it’s teachers but its Students are performing 49th nationally. So money hasn’t seemed like good incentive for results.
I would love to see AUSD implement something like the Khan Academy District wide. Los Altos School District is embracing it,
Sal Khan on the Future of Learning
http://www.thegatesnotes.com/Topics/Education/Sal-Khan-TED2011
http://www.thegatesnotes.com/Topics/Education/Sal-Khan-Khan-Academy
Comment by John — October 31, 2011 @ 6:57 pm
Barbara: Why does ASTI get so much money as well as Island?
Mike: Didn’t AUSD pay “bonuses” to 20 principals based on the work of the teachers? I heard between $7500 and $9,000 was paid each…
So what is the principle being upheld here? Do we only pay executives? Where else could thai principal bonus money have been spent? was that also the purpose of Measure A?
Comment by really? — October 31, 2011 @ 7:02 pm
Really
We rewarded them and the Superintendent for these Blockbuster results Satewide Tests.
Science end of Course 51.7 % Grade F
48.3 % scored
Basic: This level represents a limited performance. Students demonstrate a partial and rudimentary understanding of the knowledge and skills measured by this assessment, at this grade, in this content area.
Far Below / Below Basic: This level represents a serious lack of performance. Students demonstrate little or a flawed understanding of the knowledge and skills measured by this assessment, at this grade, in this content area.
Math Grades 2-7 58% Grade F
42% Scored Basic or Below or Far Below
History 8-11 59.3% Grade F
41% Scored Basic or Below or Far Below
English 2-11 66 % Grade D
Science CST 70% Grade C -
Comment by John — October 31, 2011 @ 7:28 pm
20 — Barbara, it certainly wasn’t my understanding that the “oversight” committee would be deciding where the Measure A money was going to go. As I understand it, the oversight committee was supposed to provide oversight to make sure the funds were not being used for unauthorized purposes. Personally, I would be very uncomfortable with a situation where a group of unelected amateurs was empowered to veto the decisions made by the elected school board and by the professional staff. As you say, it’s the board’s responsibility to represent the community. The board gives guidance to the staff. If you think the school board isn’t doing its job, then vote for new members next year. The new board members can direct then staff to act in a different way. That’s my understanding about how representative democracy works.
As for your comparison of the dollars that are being spent at each school, it seems that you are intent on pitting AHS and EHS parents against Island and ASTI. But the dollars are being used for completely different things. At AHS and EHS, they are being used for AP classes, At Island and ASTI, they are being used to fund teachers so that the class sizes can remain small — which means that teachers need to be hired. It might be worth noting that Island and ASTI apparently get nothing for AP classes, and AHS and EHS get to divvy up nearly $500,000 of Measure A money for athletics — which does not go to Island or ASTI. Plus, I think most reasonable AHS and EHS parents will realize that different students and different schools have different needs. For me, it’s not a question of making sure that the exact same amount of money goes to each student, it’s about providing the necessary resources to make sure that students with different needs have an equal opportunity to succeed.
Comment by Oh the Irony! — October 31, 2011 @ 9:41 pm
You did not understand what I said. I did not expect to be able to over ride the board, but as a community committee it seems to me that it would be in its purview to ask the board to explain a decision. Since the district has control of the budget and how items are designated in the budget, unless someone goofs, there is no chance of the oversight committee serving any purpose save to make the community think that there is transparency in the districts operations. Can you tell me what, ,other than checking to make sure that the percentages line up , the committee might do? The district controls the budget, controls the expenditures and how they are charged by category, and the oversight committee is staffed by an administrator (an additional person paid out of parcel tax monies) who is responsible to the superintendent and board Wo aare the hens and who is the fox?
Comment by barbara kahn — November 1, 2011 @ 8:28 am
18. AUSD will be submitting “openers” for the teachers contract in January. The public will be able to provide any feedback regarding the positions the District will be proposing.
22. Completely false. Principals did not receive bonuses.
Comment by Mike McMahon — November 1, 2011 @ 9:02 am
I have to agree with OTI, an oversight committee’s role is to make sure that spending is consistent with what was approved on the ballot. If the committee believes that the spending is inconsistent, then they should vote as a group to raise those issues to the Board.
From what’s stated above, it doesn’t appear that anything that staff presented to the committee suggested otherwise. Oversight includes asking for information and documentation of what the money was spent on, but it wouldn’t include a tribunal where Board members would have to start answering questions about their decisions. If the only constraints passed by voters were a percentage allocation to specific categories, and the spending aligns with that, then voters can decide if the Boardmembers should be reelected and new people put in their place to better align spending in a different direction.
OTI’s explanation of the nuance of the funding plan shows that it’s hardly as black and white as per-student spending. If that was to be the measure of all things, the ballot measure should have stated so. Since it doesn’t, it’s a fine personal criteria to look at the data, but it’s not one that the oversight committee can apply as the be-all and end-all of Measure A spending.
Comment by John Knox White — November 1, 2011 @ 9:26 am
If you read the wording on the parcel tax with your eyes wide open, you’ll see that there is all kinds of wiggle room. The Board is the final and ultimate judge of how funds are spent, and they can change their minds at a whim, no matter what the rest of the wording on the parcel tax proposes. This was another of my beefs with the tax: When the current Board members are voted out of office, whomever replaces them can really spend the money any way they wish. We all know what the intent (or stated intent, at any rate) of the parcel tax is, and this Board will probably (hopefully) abide by that intention as much as possible. But look, it’s an eight year tax, and who knows what the District will need/want to spend money on down the road, and who knows whom will be controlling those purse strings?
Comment by Not. A. Alamedan — November 1, 2011 @ 10:11 am
What you call “wiggle room” I call flexibility to spend money where it is needed in uncertain times. We elect the board to oversee the education of our community, including the budget. I have a hard time understanding why giving guidance to them, but letting them make the final decisions as our elected representatives is a terrible thing.
I am willing to bet that 98% of the folks who voted in favor of Measure A were expecting the Board to decide how exactly to spend the money, and were happy that there was an oversight committee to offer feedback on those decisions.
Locking down funding for explicit uses is a big part of the financial problem that we are facing right now (right after dwindling revenues).
Comment by John Knox White — November 1, 2011 @ 11:21 am
#28. “When the current Board members are voted out of office, whomever replaces them can really spend the money any way they wish.”
Well, no. By law, the district has to spend the parcel tax funds on the categories that were listed on the ballot measure, because that’s what the voters voted on. So it’s not like the Board of Education in 2015 can vote to spend the money on cruises for the administrators or special lawn chairs for elementary school kids.
As I understand it, if something big changed in the state financing picture — like suddenly the state gave $2 million to AUSD to fund elementary arts education (I know, ridiculous) — the board could vote to shift some money from that category into another. But I think the circumstance has to be pretty dramatic. And even then, the board can’t vote to spend the money on *anything.* It has to fall within that universe of the categories the voters approved.
Comment by Susan Davis — November 1, 2011 @ 11:32 am
30. My bad. I looked again; I was remembering the wording of Measure H. Measure A pretty much looks in the spending to the 11 categories. Sorry.
Comment by Not. A. Alamedan — November 1, 2011 @ 12:04 pm
25 — Barbara. the oversight committee does serve a purpose in the same manner that an audit committee serves a purpose in a corporation. It is the audit committee’s responsibility to examine the financial statements and the auditor’s report on those statements and review them. Then, it is their responsibility to report back to the board about their examination of the financial statements. If the committee raises legitimate concerns about the misuse of funds, and the board fails to act, there are remedies, including filing a lawsuit to prevent the misuse of public funds. (Based on what you said above, it seems that you do not believe that the funds are being used in a manner that is illegal. It seems that you concede that the funds are being spent in a legal manner, but you just don’t like the allocation.)
As long as the funds are not being misused, any disagreement about decisions made by the board as to how those funds are allocated is not in the purview of the oversight committee. However, that does not mean that you do not have a say. You, like every other interested person, have a right to question the school board about its choices. You can pose those questions at a school board meeting. If you cannot attend a school board meeting, send them an email. (My experience has been that they do read them.) Get like-minded people to do the same. Write a letter to the editor. Post something here or on Patch. Maybe you can get them to reconsider, and if they don’t, vote for someone else for school board the next time out. Everyone is free to do that. But the mere fact that you serve on the oversight committee does not give you any special rights to that the rest of the community does not have.
Comment by Oh the Irony! — November 1, 2011 @ 12:42 pm
I do not question the legality as I have said, since the district controls the money. where and how it is spent and reported there will be no issue. It was a politically sophisticated ballot measure, with everyone thinking that they were getting what they wanted so that there would not be opposition Smart politics, and the measure passed. My problem is that there is a lack of transparency in how this district operates, and I expect more than smart politics from it.
Comment by barbara kahn — November 1, 2011 @ 2:25 pm
I’m not clear Barbra Kahn how the school board somehow egregiously lacks transparency? video access Lauren mentions is a bad state and that’s been an issue with these meetings for some time, but your claim feels bit like the Park Street tree issue where it so much work to follow everything people just protest decisions after the fact claim lack of transparency. Measure A oversight committee would seem to be anything but lack of transparency no matter how you define their purview ( which I think OTI got right). Your involvement is far above average so I’m befuddled by your claim.
RE: hijacked thread from last week, I gotta say, Oh the Hypocrisy! I was being an A-hole again to bark at Irony over BFF reference while making Breibart crack. I plead guilty to cannibalism for biting the head off somebody who should be an ally. Fine tuning that post may be attempt to polish a turd, but I need to revisit a couple things.
I thought or was hoping that applying Measure A funds would be fairly straight forward because of clear eleven point list. That list includes eliminating furlough going forward, NOT retroactively, though I still contend that retroactive compensation shouldn’t be called a “bonus”. I don’t have a deep enough understanding of text book budget or anything in the above chart to advocate the money be spent differently, but I completely get that equity in quality of education is not proportionally reflected in dollars and I’m vexed that people would pit various schools or communities against each other based on shallow or simplistic interpretation. Somewhere in the above chart may be a category that covers toilet paper, but I didn’t walk precinct for A telling folks if they didn’t pass it the kiddies wouldn’t be able to wipe their butts, but to argue over that is true banality.
One other bothersome point to me from the hijacked thread is what seemed like a statement that in asking for this money teachers don’t fully appreciate that the community voted to save them jobs and wages like furlough by passing A. I feel that broadly we all voted to maintain the quality of education maintained to that point, or considering the continued threat of state cuts, do our best to maintain it. I’m certain teachers are grateful and relieved to get 8 days restored and other jobs saved, but for many the Vital raise will continue to chaff badly. I feel like the average parent very viscerally voted to protect their children’s education and by extension teachers, teachers taking a back seat to the welfare of kids. That notion may be biased and unprovable, but in January people are going to begin to sort themselves out along these finer lines, often with great emotional investment dictated by their personal stakes. I wish activist parents had lobbied vehemently for modifying Superintendent’s contract because that was a crucial juncture to show real support for teachers, but it’s now as much as spilled milk. I think it comparable to wishing the Democrats had stood strong on ending Bush tax cuts before mid term and because they didn’t we had the red herring debate over debt ceiling. I talked to folks about the raise at the time, looking for vocal opposition and it seemed that a lot of folks felt very protective about somehow breaking ranks or rocking the tenuous education boat, and so that crucial opportunity to state support for teachers was lost. But going forward, I don’t think we can state our support with money for teachers which doesn’t exist. Catch-22.
Looking to January and beyond I recall last election AEA endorsed one candidate who I thought was a bad choice and I hope that just because Ms. Spencer seems to support their position a few times, that in the big picture they remember the one about a broken clock being correct twice a day and consider the bigger picture of the impact of Trish’s actions on the board which are arguably ( ironic term) devisive. I’ve read at least one AEA letter which by omitting detail allows one to think the whole amount was headed to books and also seems to claim that new text books are a lesser priority because of teacher effectiveness in a recent period as substantiated by testing. I’ve heard enough detailed anecdotes from text book purchasing cycle and selection process to know that we could spend months arguing how to perfect that process. I Totally get ( agree) paragraph two of 8.
Comment by M.I. — November 1, 2011 @ 2:55 pm