Any Public School with Such a Record of Abuse, Corruption, and Anti-Social Malfeasance Would have been Shut Years Ago

Any Public School with such a record of abuse, corruption, and anti-social malfeasance would have been Shut Down Years Ago.  Why Did Authorities Look The Other Way For "Oakland Charter?"

 From the Oakland Tribune:

Published in Schools Matter, 6/17/2012

The head of an Oakland charter school organization that has made national headlines for its low-income students' outstanding test scores is now faced with mounting evidence that he used his position to enrich himself and his family. 

A state investigation into allegations of operational fraud and other unscrupulous activity by Ben Chavis -- a businessman who has also served, off and on, as director of three publicly funded but independently run charter schools named American Indian -- and his wife, who provided financial services to the school, cited numerous examples of financial conflicts of interest and fraudulent expenditures.

The American Indian Model's middle schools have the best test scores in Oakland and among the highest in the state; its high school also has near-perfect scores. In his book, "Crazy like a Fox," Director Ben Chavis touts the model's success and ridicules the public school system for wasting tax dollars, arguing that schools don't need more money.

But in recent months, Chavis' own stewardship of public funds has come under scrutiny. The state Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team, which produced the scathing report, was asked by Alameda County Superintendent Sheila Jordan to investigate allegations made by a former employee of financial abuses -- including a $100,000 salary he took during at least one year of his retirement.

Now that auditors have found significant evidence to back those claims, 

---

---

Chavis could soon find himself the subject of a criminal investigation. Jordan announced Wednesday she would forward the case to the District Attorney's office, as recommended by the audit team. Jordan said she also wrote a letter to Oakland Superintendent Tony Smith, asking the district to consider revoking the schools' charters.

"The lack of oversight by the AIMS board and the unethical practices by its founder are unacceptable and an abuse of the public trust," Jordan said.

Between mid-2007 and the end of 2011, the school paid Chavis, his wife, Marsha Amador, and their various real estate and consulting businesses about $3.8 million, the auditors found. Many of those payments were made with state and federal facilities grants in the form of construction contracts to Chavis' companies -- business deals for school construction work that never went out to bid.

Meanwhile, the school's weak governing board did little to stand in the way, auditors found. For a short period of time last year, Chavis served on the board while he was employed as the organization's director and his wife was handling the books.

"The lack of due diligence and internal controls by the governing board has effectively granted the founder and his spouse unrestricted access to the assets of the organization and implied authority to enter into a variety of business arrangements for personal gain," the report stated.

Other findings included the opening and closing of bank accounts without approval and $25,700 in credit card purchases billed to the school with no authorization or apparent benefit to the school. They included airfare, restaurant, hotel and retail bills from out-of-state, including the North Carolina town where Chavis owns a farm; DirecTV; Giants tickets; and costs related to another venture, which foundered after the investigation became public -- the opening of a charter school in Arizona.

Chavis announced his retirement before the start of 2007-08 school year and returned to the school as director in 2011. He said at a recent hearing that he was a paid adviser during some of the time in between.

Chavis could not be immediately reached for comment.

Although Chavis did not found the original school, his name and reputation are most closely associated with the organization. A Lumbee Indian from North Carolina, he overhauled the academic program when he took over as director of the original school in East Oakland's Laurel District in 2000.

The new curriculum emphasized reading, writing and math and eliminated much of the school's Native American cultural teachings. Chavis instilled a strict and unorthodox discipline system that would bring notoriety to the school, sometimes using humiliation to motivate students to behave.

The most famous example of Chavis' brand of discipline is a student head-shaving that took place at a school assembly, with parent permission, after the boy was caught stealing. Today, few if any of the school's students are Native American.

Chavis announced his retirement shortly after the Oakland school district's charter schools office began raising concerns about his conduct. That spring, the East Bay Express published a story about an explosive incident involving a Mills College professor and graduate students who had come to tour the school. An African-American graduate student said Chavis cursed at him and aggressively kicked him out of the school -- claims that Chavis later acknowledged to be true, saying it was because the student came late.

The Oakland school district's charter school office, under new leadership, again expressed concerns this year when one of the three schools, American Indian Public Charter School II, applied for a renewed charter. The charter office recommended that the Oakland school board deny the charter renewal, potentially closing the school.

But at a packed hearing in which Chavis entered to rousing applause, the Oakland school board went against the charter school office's recommendation and, in a 4-3 vote, allowed the high-performing school to stay open.

Chris Dobbins, an Oakland school board member who supported the school at that meeting, said Wednesday afternoon that he couldn't "tear the school apart" because of the alleged improprieties of its leader. Even now, he said, he didn't have an easy answer.
"At the end of the day, it's hard to argue those test scores," he said. "It's a really hard question."

Read Katy Murphy's Oakland schools blog at www.IBAbuzz.com/education. Follow her at Twitter.com/katymurphy.

evidence against chavis

The Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance team published the below findings about apparent conflicts of interest and misappropriation of funds at American Indian Model schools -- mostly by its founder and current director, Ben Chavis:

Publicly funded construction contracts for school improvements with Chavis' personal businesses were "not supported by formal contracts, competitive bidding or authorization by the governing board." That is a violation of federal regulations and could result in the loss of all federal funding to AIMS schools. 

In addition to wages and construction income, Chavis collected $2.8 million from the schools through rent and storage fees he charged as the school landlord, additional construction projects and a mandatory summer program run by his private business. Some checks from a school bank account were written to Chavis' companies and signed by Chavis.

In all, the schools made $3.8 million in payments to Chavis, his wife and their businesses from 2007-08 through the end of 2011.

Chavis' wife, Marsha Amador, provided financial administrative services to the schools. Her duties included general accounting; processing accounts payable; compliance reporting to local, state and federal agencies; and assisting with an annual audit. 

Chavis' personal and unrelated business expenses were commingled with purchases for the AIMS schools.About 35 percent of the credit card purchases paid for from the schools' accounts $25,700," ...were inappropriate or lack proper authorization." Many of the purchases originated out of state.

Memphis Consolidation Plan Trojan Horse for Urban Privatization Via Charter Schools

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Memphis Consolidation Plan Trojan Horse for Urban Privatization Via Charter Schools

When Memphis City Schools announced it would accept $90 million from Gates to "improve teacher quality," Supt. Kriner Cash blubbered, “This is huge, this is huge, this puts Memphis City Schools in very elite territory, on the front page of the nation.”  Now almost three years later, Gates's fingerprints are on every aspect of school operations in Memphis, including a scheme to shut down 21 public schools in Memphis and turn the buildings over to corporate charter schools.  Now Cash and the Memphis City Schools are faced with a whole list of disturbing recommendations, including one that would totally disrupt the feeder school system in Memphis, which will lead to privatized high schools in the next phase of corporate takeover--if the Gates lemmings have their way.  From the Commercial Appeal:

 ...For MCS, among the most disturbing is the recommendation to cut 21 city schools and lease the space to charter schools. TPC estimates annual savings at $21 million, already plugged into the finance section to reduce an estimated $57 million deficit between the plan and revenue.

Cash insists the cuts won't save $21 million. He takes further exception that the majority of schools on the close list are in an "already underpopulated" southwest corner of the city.

"This would escalate that hemorrhaging," he said, adding that no one filed a plan with the city for refurbishing what would be gutted neighborhoods.

The list of to-close includes an inordinate number of middle schools, Cash says, which would "decimate the feeder pattern" in the southwest... .

Request for Waiver of Provisions of Sections 1116(b) and (c) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
TOM TORLAKSON, State Superintendent of Public Instruction
916-319-0800

CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
MICHAEL W. KIRST, President
916-319-0827

1430 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814-5901

June 15, 2012

Deborah Delisle, Assistant Secretary
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20202

Dear Assistant Secretary Delisle:

Subject: Request for Waiver of Provisions of Sections 1116(b) and (c) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Pursuant to Section 9401 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

As President of the State Board of Education and State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and on behalf of all California districts, we are requesting a waiver of certain provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Like Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, we recognize that the No Child Left Behind Act, with its escalating proficiency targets and associated sanctions, is no longer useful for identifying which schools need improvement or for intervening appropriately in those schools. The appropriate solution is to reauthorize the Act, replace its inflexible requirements with provisions that accommodate the differences in state policy approaches, and give districts adequate flexibility to improve student achievement. In the meantime, we seek more immediate relief through this waiver request.

The members of the State Board of Education and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction have given careful consideration to the waiver package offered by Secretary Duncan and appreciate that Acting Assistant Secretary Michael Yudin visited our state and discussed its provisions with us.

 As we conveyed to Acting Assistant Secretary Yudin at the January State Board of Education meeting, California state law requires that the state reimburse local educational agencies for the cost of any state-mandated activities. Given California’s severe, ongoing fiscal challenges, it is impossible for the state or its districts to implement the requirements of the Secretary’s waiver package effectively and within the required timeline, and we are not willing to make promises that we are unable to carry out. We ask that you consider instead our waiver request contained in this letter, which has three main objectives:

1.    Ending the ineffective practice of over-identifying schools and districts for program improvement. Unrealistic and ever-increasing performance targets have forced us to label 63 percent of Title I schools and 47 percent of districts receiving Title I funds as “needing improvement,” and to apply sanctions that do not necessarily lead to improved learning for the students in those schools. This practice has confused the public, demoralized teachers, and tied up funds that could have been more precisely targeted on the schools and districts that are most in need of improvement.

2.    Giving districts greater spending flexibility to increase student achievement. We request a waiver of the requirements that schools in improvement set aside funds for Title I professional development, supplemental educational services, and choice-related transportation activities. Instead, these funds should be available for the activities that will be most effective for improving teaching and learning in the local context, which could include, for example, targeted tutoring provided by the districts and schools, teacher coaching to improve instruction, or systems for identifying specific student achievement problems and developing targeted instructional interventions.

3.    Transitioning to a single, transparent accountability system. After more than a decade of living under two conflicting accountability systems, California’s districts, schools, and public want to return to a single system that works. Before President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law, California had implemented a robust accountability system that encouraged school improvement and sent a single, consistent message to the public about how well schools were doing to improve the achievement of students. The state statutes that established that system are still in place and represent a more effective approach. Now that the shortcomings of the federal system are more widely understood, we want to return our focus to our state system that has a proven track record of measuring growth.

To achieve these ends, the State Board of Education as the State Educational Agency is specifically seeking a waiver to exempt local educational agencies in California from Title I, Part A sections 1116(b) and (c) with the exception of subsections 1116(b)(13) and 1116(c)(4). We are requesting this waiver for the 2012–13 and 2013–14 academic years.

In accordance with the waiver authority established in federal law (Section 9401 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act), we outline in this letter California’s specific, measurable educational goals, describe how the state will measure progress toward these goals, and explain the state’s plan for assisting schools and districts in meeting those goals. Please note that in this request, we only describe current and planned initiatives to the extent that they address these requirements and fit within the policy parameters established by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We can provide additional information about other aspects of our education system that are of interest to the Secretary, but do not consider such information pertinent to this specific request.

California’s Current Accountability System

California’s Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 established the state’s school accountability program. Specifically, it:

·         Created the Academic Performance Index, a composite, test-based score ranging from 200 to 1,000 that reflects overall school performance and measures improvement in school performance from one year to the next;

·         Established a statewide performance target of 800 on the Academic Performance Index and a system for setting annual school-level targets that encourage steady improvement toward that statewide goal;

·         Required schools to demonstrate improvement for all numerically significant student groups including racial and ethnic student groups, socioeconomically disadvantaged pupils, English learners, and students with disabilities;

·         Defined a system of intervention in under performing schools, including standards, criteria, and qualifications for external evaluators to assist low-performing schools; and

·         Established eligibility criteria for an awards program for schools meeting or exceeding state growth targets.

Investments in Intervention

Since establishing the state accountability system, California has invested heavily in interventions for schools that failed to make significant growth as measured by the Academic Performance Index. Between 2000–01 and 2007–08, the state provided funding and technical assistance to 1,288 schools under the Immediate Intervention Under-performing Schools Program at a cost of $668.6 million. Of these, 1,140 schools ultimately met their growth targets and exited the program.

Also during that time, 802 schools participated in the High Priority Schools Grant Program at a cost of $749.3 million. Of those schools, 309 that failed to make significant growth were assigned to work with an intervention team. While this program was helpful to many participating schools, program evaluations suggested that longer term district-level approaches could be more effective, leading the state to shift its focus accordingly. From 2008–12, California allocated $177 million to districts in program improvement, for district-level assistance and intervention teams, and other activities. The first three years of evaluation data suggest that the district assistance and intervention model is effective for increasing student achievement.

In addition, the state established the Quality Education Investment Act in 2006. This $3 billion state initiative assists schools that were performing in the lowest two deciles of the Academic Performance Index at the program’s inception. This infusion of resources has helped these schools reduce class size, increase student access to school counselors, provide professional development, increase the number of highly qualified teachers, and improve facilities, among other activities. (Note that in 2008, California’s severe budget crisis led the state to collapse several categorical programs, including the Immediate Intervention Under-performing Schools Program and the High Priority Schools Grant Program described above. Funding for the Quality Education Investment Act remains intact.)

Outcomes to Date

In the past 13 years, California’s accountability system has led to increased student achievement overall and strong progress on closing the achievement gap. Since the full implementation of the California Standards Tests in 2003, academic achievement for all students in both English-language arts and mathematics has been steadily increasing. In English-language arts, the percent of students scoring proficient or advanced increased from 35 percent in 2003 to 54 percent in 2011, marking a substantial increase in the number of students who are prepared to succeed in college or career. California’s most vulnerable students also showed major improvement: the percent of students scoring at the lower level of achievement decreased by 13 percentage points over that same period, from 32 percent in 2003 to 19 percent in 2011.

California students have also made impressive gains in mathematics: the percent of students scoring proficient or advanced increased from 35 percent in 2003 to 50 percent in 2011. Across that same time period, the percent of students scoring at the lower level of achievement decreased by 11 percentage points from 38 percent in 2003 to 27 percent in 2011.

These substantial gains in test scores are reflected in the state accountability system. In 2003, for example, an elementary school in the lowest 10 percent had an Academic Performance Index score between 564 and 609 points. In 2011, an elementary school in the lowest 10 percent had an Academic Performance Index score between 700 and 714 points.

To summarize, while the federal system has subsumed increasing numbers of schools and districts under the banner of failure for the last decade, California’s system has consistently differentiated between schools that are improving and those that are not.

Looking Ahead: Plans for Change

With this state-defined request, we are seeking to return to a single system of school accountability that is both understandable and rigorous. We intend to keep the Academic Performance Index at the core of our state accountability system, while making improvements. This waiver request will provide much-needed flexibility and relief from the adverse effects of the No Child Left Behind Act, while increasing our focus on the schools most in need of improved student learning.

We plan to strengthen California’s system of accountability and interventions as follows:

         California will transition to a single system of performance goals that uses the annual Academic Performance Index schoolwide and student group targets as the state’s Annual Measureable Objectives. The state will continue to identify schools and districts needing improvement, but will use its own accountability system to identify them. The State Board of Education will initiate conforming changes as needed to California’s Accountability Workbook and submit these to the U.S. Department of Education for review. (California’s current Annual Measureable Objectives, as required by Section 9401 (b)(1)(C), are documented in the state’s approved Accountability Workbook, available on the California Department of Education Accountability Workbook Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/wb.asp.)

·         The State Board of Education will consider by January 2013 revisions to the statewide Academic Performance Index target or revisions to the method for calculating annual schoolwide and student group targets. While the Academic Performance Index was designed to encourage growth at all performance levels, we believe we need to carefully examine the effects of the target structure, particularly for schools that have long met the statewide target, to encourage continued focus on students who are not proficient. We will seek input from the Public Schools Accountability Act Advisory Committee and California’s education community at large to help make this determination. If the State Board of Education adopts new targets, those will become California’s Annual Measureable Objectives in the following school year.

·         By March 2013, the State Board of Education, with input from the Public Schools Accountability Act Advisory Committee, will determine how it will use the Academic Performance Index to identify a targeted number of schools and districts that have not shown improvement over time or have low absolute performance. This process will replace the process of identifying schools and districts for Program Improvement under the No Child Left Behind Act.

o    The State Board of Education will identify a more targeted set of schools and districts for intervention, specifically those low-performing schools and districts that have not improved.

o    The State Board of Education will develop clear criteria to identify the targeted set of schools and districts that have not improved and require intervention, but will not require that a specific percentage be identified each year, or set other requirements that lead to schools and districts bouncing in and out of this status. The State Board of Education will also develop clear criteria to identify when schools and districts have improved sufficiently to regain full flexibility and autonomy from state interventions.

o    The State Board of Education will consider moving to a multi-year (“rolling”) accountability measure or other techniques to smooth out fluctuations in scores, prevent schools from bouncing in and out of improvement status from year to year, and focus attention on the schools with the most intractable problems.

·         By July 2013, the State Board of Education, with input from the Title I Committee of Practitioners, will identify what sanctions will be imposed on schools and districts that have been identified as not improving, based on the severity and persistence of underachievement problems. Those sanctions, currently authorized under state law, include: (a) replacing district personnel; (b) removing schools from the jurisdiction of the district and establishing alternative governance and supervision arrangements; (c) appointing a state receiver or trustee to administer the affairs of the district in place of the local governing board; (d) abolishing or restructuring the district; (e) authorizing students to transfer to higher performing schools in other districts and providing transportation; (f) instituting a new curriculum based on state content standards; and (g) deferring programmatic funds or reducing administrative funds. In recent years California has exercised its takeover option, appointing state trustees in three persistently low-performing districts. (Two of these districts have improved and regained autonomy from the state; the trustee is still in place in the third.)

o    The state will focus its monitoring efforts at the district level, both because of capacity constraints, and to ensure district support for school improvement.

o    Specific improvement activities will be selected based on the needs of the school and district, as determined by local data analysis and the qualitative judgments of individuals who are familiar with the school and district.

o    Required improvement activities will largely focus on instruction, including activities that promote teacher collaboration and instructional coaching. Instructional improvement activities will emphasize a broad curriculum. Numerous California schools districts have been implementing research-based interventions which are improving student achievement and will be considered for incorporation in a statewide intervention model.

o    The State Board of Education will bring more qualitative judgment to the process of identifying appropriate interventions and sanctions, using as guidance existing state standards and criteria for assessing district performance in seven key areas: governance; alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessments to state standards; fiscal operations; parent and community involvement; human resources; data systems and achievement monitoring; and professional development. The State Board of Education may use local review panels to identify problems and assign required activities.

o    If our waiver is granted, these activities can be paid for, in part, with federal funds that are currently set aside for SES, Title I professional development, and choice-related transportation. Under the current system, local educational agencies and schools are obligated to direct Title I improvement resources to activities that frequently do not align with their local needs.

o    Another possible source of funds is the approximately $35 million annual  allocation for local educational agencies that are newly identified as needing improvement under the No Child Left Behind Act ($50,000, $100,000, or $150,000 per local educational agency, depending on the severity of the performance problem). Because of escalating performance targets, these funds are going currently to districts with moderate performance problems and could be better targeted. This may require a change in state statute to re-purpose the funds.

·         To support improved teaching and learning, districts will revise annual district and school plans to document how schools and local educational agencies are using their formerly reserved Title I, Part A funds to meet the needs of Title I eligible students. These plans will be uploaded to the state’s web-based system, allowing the California Department of Education to monitor the plans and provide timely technical assistance to districts as they redirect funds and human resources to better support student learning.

In Conclusion

California is moving forward with a plan to increase student learning, building on the strong foundation we already have. We understand the obvious and important link between quality teaching and learning. The State has adopted the Common Core State Standards and is on course to implement them on the timeline established in state statute, in line with what the state budget allows. As you know, California is also a governing state in the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium and anticipates a transition to new online assessments in 2015. In anticipation of this, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State Board of Education will recommend action by the State to reauthorize and streamline the State’s assessment system and ensure a smooth transition to the new tests. At the direction of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr., the State Board of Education will concurrently review our state accountability system and consider how to keep the Academic Performance Index intact as a strong quantitative measure of school performance, while giving additional emphasis to local judgments of quality and other, more qualitative accountability mechanisms, such as the School Accountability Report Cards that all schools must produce annually.

Our goals now are the same as they were when we first established the state accountability system in 1999—to maintain challenging yet achievable goals, and to assist underperforming schools in ways that improve student learning. California has been a leader and innovator in numerous fields, and we plan to return to that role in education accountability. Just as California led the way in developing auto emission standards that were ultimately adopted across the nation, we now want to lead the nation in education accountability and student learning as well. As we approach reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we believe that our state system of accountability provides a strong model for national consideration.

In the absence of reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we request this waiver to provide districts with the flexibility they need to use Title I resources effectively and improve the academic achievement of their students. As we have described in this letter, we are committed to upholding school accountability in our state and excellence in our schools. Using our established state system of accountability and the tough sanctions authorized in existing state law, we will redouble our efforts to hold districts and schools accountable for improving student learning.

We have developed this waiver request by working collaboratively with local educational agencies and stakeholders, and we will implement the plan with continued collaboration.

Prior to submitting this waiver request, California provided all local educational agencies and educational stakeholders in the state with notice and a reasonable opportunity to comment on this request. The specific notice posting is available on the California Department of Education Public Notices Web page athttp://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/pn/. Copies of all comments that California received from local educational agencies in response to this notice are attached. California has provided notice and information regarding this waiver request to the public in the manner in which California customarily provides such notice and information to the public.

If you have questions regarding this request, please contact Deborah V.H. Sigman, Deputy Superintendent, District, School, and Innovation Branch, by phone at 916-319-0812 or by e-mail at dsigman@cde.ca.gov.

Sincerely,

TOM TORLAKSON
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
California Department of Education

MICHAEL W. KIRST
President
California State Board of Education

TT/MK:

Download Free Readers

California Department of Education
1430 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

Contact Us  |  FAQ  |  Web Policy 

Last Reviewed: Tuesday, June 19, 2012

The Emanant Insolvency of San Diego Unified School District: A Harbinger of Things to Come for Moreno Valley USD??

Original story by andrew.donohue
voice of sandiego

The public proclamations that the San Diego Unified School District faces a state takeover dropped like bombshells this month, but district leaders have had serious discussions about insolvency both publicly and privately for years.

At one point more than two years ago, former Superintendent Terry Grier was so concerned that school board members didn't grasp insolvency's consequences that he scheduled a private briefing from perhaps the state's foremost expert on it, San Diego County Office of Education Superintendent Randy Ward.

"We'd just had numerous discussions with them about the possibility of insolvency. They just didn't believe the state elected officials could or would allow it to happen," Grier said. "There was even early discussion about how becoming insolvent might be the right thing to do."

Ward knows state takeovers well. The state appointed him to take over Oakland Unified School District after it went broke in 2003. He unilaterally ran the district, cleaning up its finances after the superintendent was fired and the elected school board became an advisory council.

When he met with them, Ward didn't tell the board members they were headed for insolvency. Rather, he explained what would happen and how the district would need to take drastic measures to avoid it. "He also rang that warning bell loud and hard," Grier said.

At least twice since that meeting, while the state continually cut funding to local schools, the school board has made high-stakes gambles that state finances would improve or that school spending would significantly increase. In light of California's continued economic problems and those serious ongoing discussions about insolvency, those gambles have begun to look misguided at best and reckless at worst.

District officials have cast the financial crisis as one wholly of the state's making, but talk of insolvency has always hung over the financial gambles the district's taken in order to keep class sizes small and teachers employed in the short-term. The long-term consequences of those decisions only compound the trouble handed down by the state.

Just a year after Ward's talk, the school board entered into a labor contract that, while providing short-term relief, saddled it with burdens it may well not be able to handle. The contract was, by the board president's own admission, a "gamble." Then, this summer, the board voted to rehire hundreds of teachers based on rosy state projections, despite advice to the contrary from their staff and consultant.

Now, with the state's projections looking unlikely to materialize, school board President Richard Barrera is calling for the state to levy taxes on the wealthy, oil extraction or alcoholic beverages to save school districts from insolvency.

Grier, who left the district in 2009 for Houston, said the district's dynamics changed when the teachers union's slate of school board members, John Lee Evans and Richard Barrera, were elected in 2008 and joined with Shelia Jackson to form a pro-labor voting block.

When Barrera and Evans joined the board, Jackson put together a plan to cancel teacher layoffs that had been issued before their election, a move the new board approved unanimously.

Grier said the move went against staff's advice and had little justification as the district's enrollment had been shrinking for the better part of a decade and the teachers simply weren't necessary.

At the time, then-board member Katherine Nakamura said schools were fully staffed and it would be hard to even find places to put the teachers. She warned of the bad timing, too, considering the state's plight. "You don't eat a jelly donut in the middle of a heart attack, no matter how sweet it might be."

Nakamura ended up voting for the plan, though, saying she wanted to move the board forward.

Barrera said his decisions have nothing to do with his relationship with, and support of, labor unions. He said his relationship with the teachers union has soured thanks largely to his vote in favor of layoffs earlier this year.

Make no doubt about it: The state Legislature has made severe changes to the way it funds K-12 education, offering districts 15 percent less money than it did just a few years ago. And it's not even giving the districts the smaller checks it promised, forcing them to borrow money every year and bank on IOUs. That's put districts around the state in serious trouble.

In response, San Diego Unified has made its own harsh changes. It's cut staffing by 15 percent since 2009 and this year it ultimately laid off more than 1,000 workers, including 500 teachers. The threat of insolvency, for example, popped up during the school board's public deliberations about whether to issue layoff warnings to teachers this March.

Today, district leaders say they've cut to the bone and are now evaluating closing some schools. Teachers agreed to shorten the school year by five days the last two years, taking five unpaid days off and saving the district about $20 million.

But, despite those major changes, the school board has been banking on the state Legislature upping education funding or a roaring economy to come to the rescue before the consequences of some of its long-term decisions come due. Every cut that wasn't made a year ago compounds now, and only deepens the budget pain when it eventually has to be made.

Barrera said every budget decision he's had to make has involved risk. "We either risk the education of kids or we risk the financial health of the district, that's the situation we've been in, over and over and over again," he said.

The issue to Barrera is one of drawing a line in the sand.

The board has already made cuts that have raised class sizes to an unacceptable level and impacted the welfare of children, he said, but there's a point the board simply can't cross. If refusing to make cuts entails gambling against the financial health of the district, then that's what he's got to do, he said.

Choose against the financial health of the district too often, though, and you eventually run out of money to even keep a school district functioning.

That's the situation the district faces today.

It's already staring at a $60 million deficit for next year after managing a roughly $80 million deficit this year. It has a rather vague list of solutions to fund that deficit, from closing schools, to selling off land, to asking the union to make concessions on teacher salaries and benefits. All that will have to be decided soon.

If the state's optimistic revenue forecast fails to materialize, next year's deficit could nearly double for and the district will have to find more ways to cut without laying off teachers. So far, the only solution that's been floated for that problem is shortening the school year by seven days, a proposal that, again, the district would have to negotiate with its unions.

If the state goes ahead with the threatened midyear cuts, Barrera and Superintendent Bill Kowba say the district will be on its way to insolvency. If the district goes insolvent, it will get taken over by the state and local control would be eviscerated.

Budget decisions would be made unilaterally by a state-appointed trustee. The superintendent would be fired. The school board would be advisory. The state would have some power over school finances for decades as the district paid back its bailout loan.

Kowba, a former rear admiral in the Navy, served as Grier's chief financial officer. Grier said Kowba had continually raised red flags for the school board.

However, he said, often staff's warnings to the board went unheeded.

"We knew the cuts were going to be painful. We also knew from everyone we talked to that this was not going to get better. We kept sharing that with the board. They were in a hard position, I don't envy them," Grier said. "But they kept going in the opposite direction that staff recommended."

You can reach us at andrew.donohue@voiceofsandiego.org orwill.carless@voiceofsandiego.org. Follow us on Twitter:

San Diego Education Association Places Executive Director on Administrative Leave

The San Diego Education Association’s board of directors placed executive director Craig Leedham on paid administrative leave. Will Carless of Voice of San Diego has the story. As of today, no one from the union would explain the reasons behind the move. No one is talking on the record. Off the record, people who know Leedham describe him as ”nasty,” “aggressive,” “profane” and “paranoid.” 

Accurate or not, none of those attributes is sufficient to get you booted from a high-ranking position in one of the nation’s largest teacher union locals. Something very specific needs to have happened, and I suspect we’ll learn what it was before long. 

The union confirmed Tuesday afternoon that Leedham had been placed on leave. “San Diego Education Association Executive Director Craig Leedham is on paid administrative leave. It is inappropriate for further comment at this time about what is an internal matter,” President Bill Freeman said in a brief statement.

Leedham held several positions at various levels of the Wisconsin Education Association Council before taking a staff job with SDEA in 2006.

 “Teachers are telling us, they have the lowest level of job satisfaction in more than two decades and that a growing number are planning to leave the profession."

Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers.

WASHINGTON— Student Success Is Jeopardized when Teachers, Schools Are Denied Tools and Resources Critical to Teaching and Learning. Further, public opinion has a lasting negative effect on those of us who have chosen the Avocation of Education. According to “The MetLife Survey of the American Teacher: 'Teachers, Parents and the Economy.” “... budget cuts to public schools and the demonization of teachers have taken a toll on teachers’ job satisfaction and that jeopardizes student success."

More often than ever we hear educators as the root of all evil in public education. But this survey tells us what teachers themselves are thinking, and it’s very sobering. “Teachers are telling us they have the lowest level of job satisfaction in more than two decades and that a growing number are planning to leave the profession, according to Weingarten.

“It’s not surprising that the most satisfied teachers are those who have support; they are treated as professionals, are given opportunities for professional growth, teach in communities where parents and educators collaborate to improve teaching and learning, and have job security. Sadly, at a time when we need to recruit and retain talented teachers and prepare kids for the knowledge economy, the teaching profession is becoming less attractive and more difficult.

“We need to pay attention when the teachers most likely to be dissatisfied are those with at-risk students—students who have the most needs but the fewest resources, at school and at home, because of the economic crisis. Teachers consistently say they need the tools, resources and time to improve teaching and learning—the same things that teachers in top-performing countries receive virtually without fail. U.S. teachers are frustrated with unrelenting cuts in budgets, elimination of arts and after-school programs, larger class sizes, and accountability systems that over-rely on student test scores. This should call into question the obsession with cutting funding for public education and health and family services children and parents rely on.

“The report’s silver lining is that there’s more engagement among parents, teachers and community groups to help students succeed.

“This report provides a commonsense road map for what we need to do to build successful schools: respect teachers, engage parents and the community, and, even in tough times, provide the programs and resources necessary to ensure high-quality public schools." 

Some key findings from “The MetLife Survey of the American Teacher: Teachers, Parents and the Economy”:

• Teacher satisfaction has decreased by 15 points since “The MetLife Survey of the American Teacher” measured job satisfaction two years ago, now reaching the lowest level of job satisfaction seen in the survey series in more than two decades.
• This decline in teacher satisfaction is coupled with large increases in the number of teachers who indicate they are likely to leave teaching for another occupation, and in the number who do not feel their jobs are secure.
• Teachers with high job satisfaction are more likely to feel their jobs are secure and say they are treated as professionals by the community. They are also more likely to have adequate opportunities for professional development, time to collaborate with other teachers, more preparation and supports to engage parents effectively, and greater involvement of parents and their schools in coming together to improve the learning and success of students.
• More than three-quarters of teachers have faced budget cuts in their schools in the last year.
• Two-thirds of teachers report that their schools have had layoffs of teachers, parent/community liaisons or other staff in the last year.
• Nearly three in 10 teachers indicate that there have been reductions or eliminations of health or social services in their schools.
• Six in 10 teachers report that the average class size in their schools has increased.
• One-third of teachers also indicate that educational technology and materials have not been kept up to date to meet student needs.
• Students report greater parent engagement in their education compared with students 25 years ago. Two-thirds of today’s students report that they talk about things that happen at school with their parents every day, compared with four in 10 in 1988.
• There also has been a threefold increase in the number of students who report their parents visit their schools at least once a month, up from 16 percent in 1988 to 46 percent today.