PROP 38 AND PROP 30

COMPARING THE TWO MAJOR STATE SCHOOL FUNDING PROPOSITIONS: PROP 38 AND PROP 30

This Year voters will have to decide between two conflicting tax measures on the November ballot. One is Prop 38, also referred to as the Local Schools and Early Education Investment and Bond Debt Reduction Act, which has been funded almost exclusively by its proponent, wealthy tax attorney Molly Munger. The other is Prop 30, which is backed by Gov. Jerry Brown. Brown took his plan to the people after an earlier attempt to close the budget gap by raising personal income taxes failed in the state legislature. Both ballot measures focus on protecting education funding, but they go about it in different ways.

Prop 38 (M. Munger) would raise the income tax rate on almost all Californians, where   Prop 30 (Gov. Brown) targets only those who make more than $250,000 a year. The amount of the increase would depend on the individual's tax bracket (see "What Your Vote Means" below). The revenues would go into a special fund called the California Education Trust Fund, or CETF. From there, the money would have to be used for three specific purposes, in the following proportions:

pay for schools (60%)

pay for Early Care and Education (ECE) programs (10%)

pay down state debts (30%)

However, beginning in fiscal 2017, the proportions would shift. The amount allotted for schools and ECE would be capped using a formula that takes into account the average growth in Californians' per capita income during the first five years the law is in effect. Any revenues in excess of this cap would go toward debt payments. The rest would be split, with 85% going to schools and 15% going to ECE.

One critical point to consider is that the two November tax measures (Prop 30, Gov. Brown and Prop 38, M. Munger) would negatively affect the other should both pass. The state constitution already provides that when two measures conflict, the one with the most votes prevails. In addition, sections in both Prop 30 and Prop 38 explicitly bar the other from taking effect. Even if you vote for both, only one can win. However, if Prop 30 (Gov. Brown) loses, the much feared "trigger cuts," built into the current state budget, would go into effect.

Prop 38 (M. Munger) has a number of very specific rules about the distribution of funds, and it is well worth your time to read the summary from the Legislative Analyst's Office. And here's the full text of the prop.

Prop 38 (M. Munger) WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

Voting YES means that you approve of the new taxes and would like them to be allocated to schools, ECE programs, and state debt repayment. If Prop 38 prevails, then Prop 30 cannot, and a series of trigger cuts built into the state budget will go into effect. Taxes would increase according to the following table:

Single Filer	Joint Filer	Head-of-Household	Tax Rate Increase
<$7,316	<$14,632	<$14,642	--
$7,316-$17,346	$14,632-$34,692	$14,642-$34,692	0.4%
$17,346-$27,377	$34,692-$54,754	$34,692-$44,721	0.7%
$27,377-$38,004	$54,754-$76,008	$44,721-$55,348	1.1%
$38,004-$48,029	$76,008-$96,058	$55,348-$65,376	1.4%
$48,029-$100,000	$96,058-$200,000	$65,376-$136,118	1.6%
$100,000-$250,000	$200,000-$500,000	$136,118-$340,294	1.8%
$250,000-$500,000	$500,000-$1,000,000	$340,294-$680,589	1.9%
$500,000-$1,000,000	$1,000,000-$2,000,000	$680,589-$1,361,178	2.0%
$1,000,000-$2,500,000	$2,000,000-$5,000,000	$1,361,178-$3,402,944	2.1%
Over $2,000,000	Over $5,000,000	Over $3,402,944	2.2%
	Source:	Legislative Analyst's Office

Voting NO means that you reject the tax increase. The school funding and debt repayment plan laid out by Prop 38 will not go into effect.

Prop 38 (M. Munger) WHO/WHAT IT WOULD AFFECT 

Taxpayers: Most Californians would be faced with at least some form of tax increase. See the table in "What Your Vote Means" above.

Public Schools: Public schools could receive as much as $10 billion in the first year. The bulk of that money (70%) would be distributed to schools on a per-student basis, with more money for students in higher grades levels. Additional money (18%) would be allotted to schools based on the number of low-income students enrolled. The final portion (12%), also distributed on a per-student basis, would be dedicated solely to technology -- allowing for the purchase of new equipment and teaching materials and also for teacher training. The money would be tied to a series of restrictions and mandates, including that school districts seek public input before deciding on how to spend the money.

Early Care and Education Programs: ECE programs are those that, like preschool, begin before kindergarten. Current funding levels don't come close to supporting the number of children eligible for subsidized programs in the state (of children ages five and younger, about half are eligible but only 15% are served, according to the legislative analyst's office). Prop 38 would restore some of the funding that was cut in a series of budget reductions since 2008. It would also create a rating system for ECE programs, establish a statewide database to support program management, begin an Early Head Start program modeled after the federal one, and would expand subsidized preschool for children of low-income families, among other things. ECE programs are expected to get about $1 billion a year for the first few years if Prop 38 passes.

State Budget: A share of CETF funds each year will go toward paying down state debts, with the priority on education debt-service costs. That means more General Fund money can go to other public programs and to balancing the budget, according to the legislative analyst.

Prop 38 (M. Munger) WHO'S BEHIND IT
Wealthy tax lawyer Molly Munger is the principal financial backer and proponent of Prop 38. Other than her own contributions, only one minor donation has been reported as of Aug. 14 -- $25,000 from the Atlas Family Trust, compared with $13.8 million from Munger herself.

Prop 38 (M. Munger) WHO'S AGAINST IT                                              Those interests that have lined up behind Jerry Brown's tax measure, Prop 30, are naturally opposed to the Munger plan. In addition, the California Democratic Party has come out against the measure. However, no major donations to the opposition campaign have been registered with the Secretary of State's office

ARGUMENTS BEING MADE FOR                                                       restores education money that was cut from the budget in recent years, guaranteeing billions of dollars to local schools based on enrollment -- an average of $10 billion annually over 12 years.

It will prevent more cuts by setting aside $3 billion a year through 2017 to help repay state education bond debt.

It prohibits the legislature from diverting or borrowing the money, and the money cannot be used to replace current education funding.

Money is distributed on a per-pupil basis and must be spent at the school.

The money cannot be spent to increase salaries or pensions of school personnel.

Spending decisions will be made locally and will require public input.

School districts will be accountable for improvement at each school and must report how they money was spent.

ARGUMENTS BEING MADE AGAINST
Prop 38 is a massive tax hike for middle-class taxpayers and small businesses. It would damage small businesses that pay income taxes as individuals rather than as corporations.

It would kill jobs in small and family businesses where most job growth is taking place.

It can't be changed once it's passed, so it will continue for 12 years even if there is evidence of fraud or waste.

It gives Sacramento $3 billion a year for four years to spend without restriction.

It creates a costly new bureaucracy by forcing schools to go through complex red tape just to receive basic funding, and it creates new programs even while necessary school functions have been cut back.

It will do almost nothing to improve student performance.

Prop 30 (Gov. Brown) WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

Voting YES means that the personal income tax would go up for those earning more than $250,000 as well as a quarter-cent sales tax increase would go into effect. Also, the state would continue to fund certain public safety programs it handed over to counties in 2011.

Single Taxable Income	Joint Taxable Income	Head of Household Taxable Income	Tax Rate Increase
Under $250,000	Under $500,000	Under $340,000	--
$250,000-$300,000	$500,000-$600,000	$340,000-$408,000	1%
$300,000-$500,000	$600,000-$1,000,000	$408,000-$680,000	2%
Over $500,000	Over $1,000,000	Over $680,000	3%
Source:	Legislative Analyst's Office

Voting NO means that no new taxes will be introduced. The following trigger cuts would go into effect. Schools and other programs would face billions in reduced funding as follows:

Schools and community colleges	$5.35 billion
University of California	$250 million
California State University	$250 million
Department of Developmental Services	$50 million
City police department grants	$20 million
CalFire	$10 million
DWR flood control programs	$7 million
Local water safety patrol grants	$5 million
Department of Fish and Game	$4 million
Department of Parks and Recreation	$2 million
DOJ law enforcement programs	$1 million
Source:	Legislative Analyst's Office

Prop 30 (Gov. Brown) Who/What It Would Affect

Taxpayers: The first chart above shows how the personal income tax increase would affect those in each bracket.

Consumers: Everyone would pay an extra quarter cent sales tax at the point of sale.

Public Schools: If the measure passes, schools could see up to $6.6 billion in increased funding. If it fails, funding could go down by as much as $5.4 billion.

State Government: If it passes, the state would see an increase of billions of dollars to help cover education and balance the budget. If not, it would face a serious shortfall and begin making a series of trigger cuts to government programs to reduce overall spending.

Local Governments: Local governments, mainly counties, have already been required to take on new responsibilities in public safety, including supervising parolees and handling incarceration for some adults. The state helped by providing funds for these programs last year, but Prop 30 would ensure that these payments continue annually.

Prop 30 (Gov. Brown) Who's Behind It
This is the tax increase Gov. Jerry Brown has been trying to get approved for more than a year, part of his strategy to close the budget gap. It has the support most notably of the League of Women Voters and the two major teachers unions. The teachers unions have together donated millions to the campaign. Key financial backers include:

California Teachers Association

California Federation of Teachers

Service Employees International Union's Local 1000

Democratic State Central Committee

Prop 30 (Gov. Brown) Who's Against It
So far only a small amount has been donated to the opposition campaign, with the largest contribution so far from the Small Business Action Committee. Joel Fox, the president of that group and editor of the political blog Fox&Hounds, is actively involved in the campaign to defeat Prop 30 and has put his name to the official arguments against that will appear on the ballot. So far the key financial contributors are:

Small Business Action Committee

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

  

Arguments Being Made For

§  Prevents an additional $6 billion in school cuts and provides new funding for education this year.

§  Establishes a guarantee for public safety funding in the state's constitution, where it can't be changed without voter approval. "It keeps cops on the street."

§  Balances the budget and pays down California's debt.

§  Only the highest income earners pay more income tax. Couples earning below $500,000 a year will pay no additional income taxes.

§  It's temporary. PIT goes up for 7 years and quarter-cent sales tax for 4 Years.

§  The money goes into a special account the legislature can't touch.

§  Mandatory, independent audits will ensure funds are spent only for schools and public safety.

Arguments Being Made Against

§  Legislature can take existing money for schools and use it for other purposes, replacing it with money from Prop 30, effectively resulting in no new money for education.

§  There are no requirements or assurances that any more money actually goes to classrooms. 

§  Prop 30 rewards the dangerous behavior of spending more than the state has by giving politicians billions of dollars more with no real reforms.

§  The governor, politicians and special interests are threatening voters by saying, "vote for our massive tax increase or we'll take it out on schools," but they refuse to reform the education or pension systems to save money.

Source: Legislative Analyst's Office

"Students First" does not put students first. "Stand For Children" does not stand for children. "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) leaves lots of children behind.

POLITICALLY MOTIVATED PROGRAMS LIKE: "Students First" does not put students first. "Stand For Children" does not stand for children. "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) leaves lots of children behind.

from Schools Matter by skrashen

Sent to Yakima Herald-Republic (WA) for "Saturday Soapbox"
By Jane Watson
August 31, 2012

“Doublethink” is alive and well.

In 1948, George Orwell wrote 1984. “Big Brother is Watching You” was born. So was “doublethink,” the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously and accepting both of them. TVs watch YOU. Language is paradoxical. Less is more. War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

The organization Stand For Children endorses gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna and Charter Schools. Who doesn’t want to Stand For Children? Who wants Children Left Behind? Who doesn’t want Students First?

The fallacies and failures of NCLB (No Child Left Behind – aka No CORPORATION Left Behind) are well documented. ‘Nuff said.

The CEO of Stand For Children is Geoffrey Canada, a well financed man who opened Harlem’s Children’s Zone, a school which was able to provide many benefits to students who otherwise would have been left to the resources of public schools. Canada was able to spend $14,000 per student to help mitigate the effects of poverty. [Wish public schools could do that!]

When students did not get acceptable test scores, Canada kicked an entire class out of school to maintain Harlem Children Zone’s high test scores. http://susanohanian.org/show_atrocities.php?id=9289. Presumably, these students went to public schools, which don’t turn away anybody – kind of like the Statue of Liberty.

Charter schools take money from public education. They do not do better than public schools. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/charter-schools/about-the-brill-story-on-chart.html
Most national research shows that on average public schools perform as well as charter schools or better.

Michelle Rhee heads Students First. She was chancellor of DC public schools, (2007 – 2010) which had low test scores. When she was chancellor, test scores rose. Ms. Rhee’s reputation rests on those test scores, which soared while she was chancellor. Last March, USA Today published the results (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2011-03-28-1Aschooltesting28_CV_N.htm) of a yearlong investigation of the Washington schools that found a high rate of erasures on tests as well as suspiciously large gains at 41 schools — one-third of the elementary and middle schools in the district. Michelle Rhee is now under investigation for fixing test scores. Michelle Rhee taught third grade for one year, but couldn’t control her class, said the stress gave her hives, and taped children’s mouths to keep them quiet. Rhee’s first year test scores showed a precipitous drop in her class: Average math percentile dropped from 64% to 17%. Average reading percentile dropped from 37% to 21%

In straight talk, Students First does not put students first. Stand For Children does not stand for children. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) leaves children behind.

Where does one get the truth? Talk to teachers. They’re the ones on the front line. They know students are more than test scores. They know children are being robbed of music, art, and many other things by the narrowing of the curriculum as a result of excessive testing.

Go to Parents Across America website. http://parentsacrossamerica.org/ Sign up for their newsletter.

Go to the Save Our schools website. Help them keep the “public” in public ed. http://www.saveourschoolsmarch.org/ Attend their webinars and tweets with educational professionals. (499)


CITATIONS

Charter Schools
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/charter-schools/about-the-brill-story-on-chart.html

Charters vs. public schools: Behind the numbers
http://www.educationjustice.org/newsletters/nlej_iss21_art5_detail_CharterSchoolAchievement.htm

CHARTER SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT: HYPE VS. EVIDENCE
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/education/duncan-and-rhee-on-panel-amid-dc-schools-inquiry.html?_r=1

Gerald Coles: KIPP Schools: Power Over Evidence
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/08/gerald_coles_kipp_schools_powe.html

Horwitz Files US Supreme Court Petition Asking to Hear Her Teacher Terminal Case

Horwitz Files US Supreme Court Petition 2007

SC Petition (brief)

SC Petition (full)

Court Terminology

Karen Horwitz Story

ACLU History

Layman's Explanation

Contact K. Horwitz

Update, 4/20/2007

WE WILL BE HEARD: THE TRUTH ABOUT OUR SCHOOLS IS FINALLY PUBLIC

On February 28, 2007, the United States Supreme Court placed Karen Horwitz's Petition for Writ of Certiorari on its docket, which asks the United States Supreme Court to hear her teacher termination case on appeal. 

Terminated in April of 1999, this tenured teacher has been trying to have her retaliatory firing heard for over eight years to no avail. Each subsequent Illinois court has refused evidence to show it was a retaliatory termination and the Illinois Supreme Court refused to hear her case altogether; the United States Supreme Court is the last chance for unconstitutional treatment of teachers to be heard.

Since Horwitz herself, denied support by the ACLU despite violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, has taken this case up through the courts to expose the lawlessness in our schools in order to carve a path for other teachers with similar cases, what happens with this case will serve as a guiding light for teachers about to file legal complaints, or speak out about administrative misconduct. Teachers need to know if it is safe to report Special Education violations or other harm to children; Horwitz has learned that contrary to what the law says, districts can punish teachers by setting them up to fail for speaking about districts' illegal conduct. We all need to know whether lawlessness in Education will continue to be ignored so that teachers and parents can make intelligent decisions. The need to know includes young people considering teaching as a career as well as those contemplating a career shift later in life, thinking they can make a difference, when in reality they will end up trapped in a pseudo career.

Horwitz's case will officially end Education's ability to "bait and switch" teachers. A teaching career, and all other positions within schools, will finally be accurately described so that dedicated, idealistic people will either be protected as they advocate for children's rights to a proper education or they will know not to enter a career that leads to the destruction of their well being as well as harms the children for which they are responsible. Our schools, as they are today, are devastating for dedicated types, and either our nation must apply the law in Education, or these types must be forewarned to avoid Education.

Therefore, regardless what this Honorable Court does, WE WILL BE HEARD. Its decision will guide us in a direction right for teachers and hence right for children; lawless schools that are bad for children become worse when districts target their teachers, using children as pawns in that process. And with this topic widely known, parents will finally realize that their real problem has been that EducRAT$ run our schools for their own power and perks, not to educate children, because they can. Those teachers who follow their orders, do so out of fear with the exception of those working toward EducRAT positions.

Recognition that Horwitz had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to seek protection for teachers and students because no lower court listened, what this PETITION engenders, gives the public what it needs to make an informed decision about our schools. We do not know whether this Court will hear her case. However, we are people who teach the next generation that being an American is an opportunity for justice, so we maintain faith that this Court will care. And, at the same time, we also know that any person who reads her PETITION will realize what it means if this Court ignores this case. This will give us insight as to why our schools are so dysfunctional. It is undisputed that Horwitz did not have an opportunity to be heard in the context of how she was set up to be terminated, that her district refused to investigate harm to her or her students, and that the conduct of her district and her state has undergone no scrutiny because the courts have decided her district and the Illinois State Board of Education can be protected from accountability in termination proceedings, making termination proceedings powerful weapons for having their way. And all of this means we have the schools we should expect considering the failure to hold school boards responsible for serving the public.

Given that most teachers do not have the opportunity to petition the highest court, this case shows the reader regardless what happens to Horwitz, we have already lost and why. Illinois courts have decided not to publish this and it will remain unpublished unless reviewed, so we can expect teachers to fall into the same traps Horwitz fell into believing teachers have rights because the Constitution says we do, yet the courts won't publish that we don't. If this Court denies this case or affirms the lower courts' ruling that terminating teachers with no protection for teachers or students is proper, at least we will be able to make intelligent decisions about teaching: where to send our children and where to expend our energy in reform. However, if the Court hears this case and mandates that EducRAT$ must follow the law, we can move forward with faith that with people with integrity leading, reform can start. Either way, EndTeacherAbuse.org will detail the Court's response so that those interested in getting our schools back will have a clear picture of what our courts offer us. If it is nothing, we need to know so that the court of public opinion, the strength of our democracy, can operate with wisdom.

The media needs to know this so it can stop putting administrators on a pedestal rather than in dark places with the Enron executives where they truly belong. It has to learn why teachers' are so silent about what is going on and why the media is needed so the truth can surface. Great humanitarians such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and Oprah Winfrey need to know where their money is going when they entrust it with EducRAT$. Presidential candidates need to know that taking money from teacher unions does not support teachers since teacher unions do not support targeted teachers and often help target them. 

This PETITION is important because all of the above can be gleaned from it; those who put money into our present lawless schools without first demanding they follow the rule of law, will finally realize that they are supporting a sham on the American public rather than helping reform schools.

Furthermore, work done to privatize or charter schools without first empowering teachers and others who believe in the laws of this land, by ensuring that laws are followed, simply privatizes corruption. What this PETITION shows is that EducRAT$ operate above the law and thus have done what our forefathers predicted would happen without checks and balances - corrupted our schools. It is time to stop blaming teachers and parents and start blaming school boards, their administrators and the unions for operating above the law. In a country that relies on law to establish order, we cannot expect anything but chaos when we ignore the law.

It is important to note that the US Supreme Court does not hear cases due to mistakes in law even when injustice to a citizen seems compelling. Given its limited time, and the small percentage of cases it can hear, it only reviews cases with widespread impact on the public. Few cases have such widespread significance as Horwitz's case, even if one focuses merely on the "children used as pawns" issue presented, and ignores the teachers as an underclass, the parents being ignored, and the taxpayers' funds being squandered. Given atrocities such as Columbine that evolve from dysfunctional schools where teachers hesitate to speak up about problem students to avoid becoming a center of controversy as did Horwitz for caring about students, ignoring this case is an indication that our courts, like F.E.M.A., which gave us Katrina, and our Pentagon, which has failed to give proper medical care to our soldiers and veterans, are yet another disillusionment. We hope not. We think not. But having had so many American institutions fail us, we cannot be sure. This is an opportunity to test our courts.

It is also important to note that the U.S. Supreme Court does not have the power, or jurisdiction, to make law other than by its decisions, which evolve from questions properly placed before it. Properly means they must have been disposed of by the lower courts according to strict rules, meaning questions may not simply be posed to the court, but must evolve from legal cases that have risen through the courts properly. Thus, although it would appear that the U.S. Supreme Court should have "done something about our dysfunctional schools," creating new law is not jurisdictional, or under its power. It is up to our legislature to create laws. This makes this case even more significant; it offers this Court a rare opportunity to intervene and interpret laws in a way that will protect our children and our society. Given that so few teachers could afford the time and money it takes to bring a case before this Court, it is unlikely to see another of its kind soon.

Nevertheless, the U.S. Supreme Court has the right to fail us. As one of our most revered leaders, Abraham Lincoln stated: "The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just." In time we will know whether our court system is as broken as our educational system. And being Americans, we can work together to use public pressure to right these fallen institutions and be effective once we are informed. But first we need to know where our energy is needed.

We can think of nothing that will shed more light on what has been kept so dark for so long. Your children will thank you for taking the time to learn the truth about Education. We hope you will send the following message, along with a link to this page, to any reporter or public official you trust also cares about our children and our country's future. Simply highlight the paragraph below and paste it into an email and send it along with a link to this page to people who have the power to protect our children, our schools, and our future. NAPTA

FOR THE SAKE OF OUR CHILDREN AND OUR GREAT COUNTRY'S FUTURE PLEASE READ THIS PETITION TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND BECOME AWARE OF WHY OUR SCHOOLS ARE SO DYSFUNCTIONAL. FOLLOW WHAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DOES ABOUT THIS CASE, WHICH THE ILLINOIS COURTS FAILED TO PUBLISH AND WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED UNLESS THE U.S. SUPREME COURT REVIEWS IT. YOU NEED TO KNOW THIS TO UNRAVEL THE TRUTH NEEDED TO BEGIN REFORM IN OUR SCHOOLS. IF TEACHERS DO NOT HAVE PROTECTED RIGHTS, IN ADDITION TO WHAT THIS MEANS TO TEACHERS PERSONALLY, THIS MEANS TEACHING IS NOT A PROFESSION AND IS OFFICIALLY AN UNDERCLASS - A REALITY THAT IMPACTS EVERY CITIZEN IN THIS NATION.

A Very Concerned Citizen

Rick Sayre and Mike Rios Can't Figure Out What 45 Other Area School Board Trustees Have

Moreno Valley USD Desperately Needs Bond Funds but the Sayre and Rios "Brain Trust"  Don't Understand Why!

Nine school districts in Riverside and San Bernardino counties have placed bond measures on the Nov. 6 presidential election ballot, hoping that voters will agree to tax themselves to help schools catch up with technology and repair or replace outdated buildings.

Without much hope that the state will pay for such improvements anytime soon, districts are turning to voters during an election expected to draw a higher-than-usual turnout.

“It’s just a large turnout,” said Bob Brown, president of the Temecula Valley Unified School District board, which will be asking voters to approve a $165 million bond measure.

“The more people you get, the more people are interested, the better chance you have,” Brown said.

School districts’ needs are many, and the list grows every year: leaking roofs in San Bernardino, an old air-conditioning system in Hemet, a lack of technical education labs in Temecula, the demand for a high school in Menifee, to name just a few.

Still, many district leaders are concerned that survey results may not reflect voters’ true sentiments and that, when faced with the anonymity of their ballot, they will say no to adding possibly $100 or more to their annual tax bills. That is why some districts, such as Corona-Norco Unified, decided against bond measures.

Voters also will have to decide whether they want to support their local district’s school construction bonds as well as Prop. 30, which seeks to raise taxes temporarily, with a major portion going to education. Many districts will have to cut their budgets midyear if Prop. 30 fails.

Districts are not allowed to spend taxpayer money on bond campaigns. They can ask volunteers to form committees, which can solicit contributions to pay for advertising or other campaign materials.

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE

Since 2009, school districts have been allowed the flexibility to spend many previously restricted funds to save teaching jobs, preserve class sizes and keep student services such as busing, music and counseling.

One of those previously restricted funds was for deferred maintenance and went to pay for periodic work like new paint, fresh asphalt and roofing.

Christakos said Hemet decided it was important to maintain facilities and keep up with that deferred maintenance schedule.

But the deferred maintenance fund normally isn’t enough to pay for a whole new roof intended to last 30 to 50 years, he said. Likewise, heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems are supposed to last 30 years, Christakos said.

“That’s the kind of stuff you want to invest your bond money in,” he said.

Alvord Unified, Hemet Unified and Nuview Union school districts in Riverside County are among a dozen statewide asking voters to reauthorize some of the bonds they approved in 2006 and 2007.

When property values dropped, the districts never issued some bonds because the tax rates needed to pay off the bonds would have been too high. Now they want to decertify the unissued amounts and reauthorize them, without increasing authorized total debt.

TECHNOLOGY NEEDS

When many Inland districts approved bonds during the construction boom several years ago, educators didn’t foresee the huge demand for computers.

Since then, California and most states have adopted Common Core Standards. With the new curriculum, the state plans to replace its paper standardized tests in 2014-15 with tests students take online.

Most schools have a computer lab, often an aging one, that typically will accommodate one class at a time. Standardized tests now are taken by the whole school at the same time. Educators are worried about logistical challenges to get all students to take online tests in the short period allowed by the state.

Hemet Unified School District Assistant Superintendent Vincent Christakos is also vice president of the California Association of School Business Officials. He said wiring and servers for more Internet access are needed by many districts.

“Everybody expects we’re in the modern age,” Christakos said.

Schools also need computer access for programs to help struggling students, he said. Those computer programs automatically adjust to match a student’s current skill levels, rather than wasting time drilling them on what they already know or overwhelming them with questions way beyond their current ability.

BANKING ON ‘YES’

Many districts said the projects that would be covered by the bonds can’t be postponed forever.

In their bond documents, districts say it is important to get that work done now, before it becomes more pressing and costly. Construction costs and interest rates are historically low, so the money will go further, they say.

Passing a bond measure requires a “yes” from at least 55 percent of voters. The districts must appoint citizen oversight committees to make sure the bonds are spent as intended.

Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified is another district with a bond. It placed a $98 million bond measure on the Nov. 6 ballot to help upgrade its aging facilities and classroom technology.

The school district would sell the bonds in three or four series over a span of 10 to 15 years.

In January, when the Yucaipa-Calimesa school board was researching whether to float a bond measure, consultant Ann Feng-Gagne acknowledged at a board meeting that November's ballot is going to be crowded.

The board decided to proceed because Assistant Superintendent George Velarde said the district’s needs have become astronomical.

Calimesa resident Linda Molina supports the bond measure.

"These are desperate times,” she told the school board. “I see this as a way for our community to support our district in ways we haven't been able to."

Also contributing: Staff writer Erin Waldner, ewaldner@pe.com

SCHOOL BONDS

Nine school districts in Riverside and San Bernardino counties are putting bond measures on the Nov. 6 ballot.

Temecula Valley Unified, $165 million, cost to property owners $10 per $100,000 assessed valuation annually. Needs: facilities, equipment for vocational education in health, science, technology and the trades; upgraded computers and classrooms science labs.

Perris Union High School District, $153.4 million, cost to property owners $30 per $100,000 assessed valuation annually. Needs: improved classrooms, science labs, vocational education and instructional technology; hazardous materials removal; fire safety improvements; other upgrades.

Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified, $98 million, cost to property owners up to $44.25 per $100,000 of assessed valuation annually. Needs: computer and instructional technology upgrades; new or improved vocational classrooms and labs; repairs, replacement of leaky roofs, aging classrooms, old restrooms and other facilities.

Alvord Unified, in parts of Riverside and Corona, $79 million reauthorization of 2007 bonds, cost to property owners $51 per $100,000 in assessed valuation annually. Needs: new or refurbished classrooms and schools, including vocational education facilities, heating and air-conditioning systems, science labs and computer technology access.

Hemet Unified, $49 million, cost to property owners $27.50 per $100,000 assessed valuation annually. Needs: upgrade or replace heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems; reduce borrowing costs on 2006 bonds.

Nuview Union School District, east of Perris, $4 million reauthorization of 2006 bonds, cost to property owners $27 (capped at $30) per $100,000 assessed valuation annually. Needs: better student access to computers and technology; building or renovations; new equipment; lower borrowing costs.

San Bernardino City Unified, $250 million, cost to property owners up to $34 per $100,000 assessed valuation annually. Needs: repair or replace leaky roofs, deteriorating classrooms, fire alarms, security and electrical systems; remove asbestos; update classroom technology, labs and other upgrades.

Coachella Valley Unified, $41 million, cost to property owners not available. Needs: upgrades to electrical and computer systems; new mobile learning devices; and school facility upgrades.

Chaffey Joint Union High School District, in Ontario, $848 million, cost to property owners up to $19.94 per $100,000 assessed valuation. Needs: repair restrooms, leaky roofs, heating, air-conditioning and fire safety systems; remove asbestos; upgrade handicapped accessibility; science and computer labs; other upgrades.

"Am I crazy? I believe every child can have an excellent teacher--without firing any teachers?"

TUESDAY, AUGUST 21, 2012

Posted August 21, 2012 by Maura Larkins,

San Diego Education Report Blog

Am I crazy? I believe every child can have an excellent teacher--without firing any teachers!

Lots of kids get stuck for years with various incompetent teachers, but it doesn't have to be that way. We can fix the problem. And save money!

Am I crazy to think this?

HERE'S THE MATH:

Here's the comparison for four classrooms and one extra salary (thousands):

Currently: $60 + $60 + $60 + $60 + $60 = $300

New plan: $90 + $45 + $45 + $45 + $45 = $270

HERE'S THE PLAN:

An excellent teacher could come into each classroom for just a few hours a week and make a huge difference--if that teacher had responsibility for student success and authority to make decisions.

Parents should not need political clout to get a good teacher for their child. Every student should--and could--have a great teacher, without wasting time and energy on the losing battle to fire incompetent teachers.

The truth is that the critical moments in learning don't happen continuously five hours a day. They add up to at most a couple of hours each day, and probably much less. The rest of the time an ordinary, mediocre teacher can handle the skill practice and lesson reinforcement, computer activities, art projects, silent reading (how much skill is needed to be in charge of that?) and so on.

GIVING SUPPORT TEACHERS A REAL JOB

At my old school we were paying a top salary--well over $60,000, for a computer teacher who was very nice, but her job was merely to familiarize kids with computer programs. An aide could have done the job. When the principal (Ollie Matos) tried to switch that computer teacher to giving basic reading and math lessons, the teachers went ballistic. The story became a sensation in the San Diego Press, and a group of angry teachers were named the "Castle Park Five" by San Diego Union-Tribune editor Don Sevrens. Basically, what the teachers wanted was 45 minutes a week in which they could send their students to another teacher. But in my plan, classroom teachers would have this kind of help and relief for more than an entire day each week! The nice computer teacher could become a master teacher!

Resource teachers like computer teachers and language and math support teachers could become master teachers. And let's face it: how much good are those resource teachers able to do? They go around and offer suggestions, but they are really doing the equivalent of passing out band-aids. I would never want such a job. It might be relaxing not to have direct responsibility for student learning, but isn't that the point of being a teacher?

NO MORE ABUSIVE TEACHERS

Academics would not be the only thing that master teachers would be responsible for. Abusive, immature teachers with a habit of undermining students could be overruled and guided by the master teacher.

WE COULD SAVE MONEY!

Why do we pay bad teachers the same amount of money as good teachers? It makes no sense!

Excellent teachers should be paid much more than average teachers, and could be responsible for all students in several classrooms.

Each classroom could have a full-time regular teacher who be paid a lower salary, but would be eligible to become a master teacher. The master teacher would also be responsible for helping and guiding the regular teacher.

Here is a chart of average teacher salaries in the US.

In California the average teacher salary is roughly $60,000 (with a starting salary of $35,000.)

We could allow regular teachers to rise in salary to an average of $45 thousand, and allow master teachers to rise to an average of $90 thousand--for overseeing four classrooms.

Money for support teachers and teacher aides would be switched to master teacher positions in the classrooms. (Of course, special education would still require teacher aides.) Some people who are currently teacher aides could become regular teachers.)

Here's the comparison for four classrooms and one extra salary (thousands):

Currently: $60 + $60 + $60 + $60 + $60 = $300

New plan: $90 + $45 + $45 + $45 + $45 = $270

MEANINGFUL EVALUATIONS OF TEACHERS WOULD BE REQUIRED

Of course, meaningful evaluations of teachers would have to be instituted to make this plan work. Current evaluation systems are worse than useless. My plan would call for frequent observations by both master and regular teachers, but they would observe classrooms in other districts to keep school politics out of the process as much as possible. The observations would have a beneficial side effect: they would allow teachers to get pick up new ideas.

I believe it would be good to use student test scores when choosing who is to be a master teacher, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary. The good thing about it is that it would take some of the politics out of teacher evaluation. It should be noted that although student test scores vary widely from year to year for most teachers, some teachers do get consistently high scores from their students year after year.

A Whole Lot of Lawsuits in Jurupa Unified School District in Riverside

First published THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012
San Deigo Education Report

 by Richard D. Ackerman Attorney at Law
Subject: Ermine Nelson: PERB Case No. LA-CE-5517-E

I attended yesterday’s 01/26/2012 PERB hearing for Ms. Ermine Nelson [PERB Case No. LA-CE-5517-E].
 The hearing went very well from my perspective. What was alarming, however, is what was testified to about the absolute inaction and ignorance of the leadership of the employee unions’ representatives within the Jurupa Unified School District. Based on the fact that I contacted union leadership for the NEAJ and CSEA before then, I can only assume that the disregard of what the District is doing is intentional or you are being union-busted by the District and don’t even know it.

Under Government Code §§ 3540-3543 and related provisions of law, the District had an absolute duty to send any grievances, however old or new, merit or no merit, directly to the Union upon receipt (where the grievance originated from a member or presumed employee). In this particular case and many others I have tried to tell you about, NEAJ was never aware of grievances (as many as 28 in one case alone in July 2010).

Under oath and cross-examination, Tamara Elzig testified to the two following key facts. Her testimony is memorialized and recorded:

1. It is the District’s position that union and employee rights go on leave at the same time the employee goes on medical leave (regardless of whether breaches of the CBA occurred even while on leave – Which would include: breaches of union privacy, keeping information from the union, interfereing with lawful association of union members, and interfering with attorney work-product under CCP 2018, and union busting);

2. It is the District’s position that it does not have to forward grievances to the Unions when it feels that there is no merit to the grievance.

I very quickly, in an objection-response exchange, mentioned to Judge Cu that we have not filed a charge against the District’s unions. I am aware of 150+ grievances that have been filed by my clients alone (both classified and certificated). I am going to very nicely ask you folks to once again review your policies, practices, and procedures to make sure that your members’ rights aren’t being trampled right under your noses. As you know, the Code does confer the right to an individual employee to bring a Superior Court action. We have already mentioned the violation of many of these rights in Archambault v. JUSD, et.al. (a First Amendment, Due Process, anti-discrimination, ant-racism, and Equal Application declaratory relief case).

If you all really believe that DFEH, EEOC, USDOE, CTA, NEA, CDOE will take to the position that a disabled employee, on approved medical leave, cannot file any grievances whatsoever, this will be a REALLY BIG PROBLEM not only for the District, but for you. If the lack of attention to grievance processes meant that employees did not know they could even file grievances, there is a bigger problem. Unfortunately, there is plenty of sworn testimony on this issue already.

It makes one wonder about how many other employee problems were kept from you and the CSEA. Worse yet, how many breaches of confidentiality of membership, representative organizations, and counsel have occurred? It is a federal and state crime to monitor union membership communications without adequate notice and without sufficient probable cause. I am reserving all rights my clients have under Section 1983 and to take further action.

The District has already lost a motion under CCP 425.16, rendered damaging sworn testimony on lack of Due Process in the Braden arbitration conducted before Hon. Arturo Morales, and Superintendent Elzig’s performance yesterday was an outright admission of an intention to directly interfere with Union Rights. We already know from the Norman and Gonzalez cases that the District monitors all communications over its electronic wire systems and mail systems (as defined under Federal Law) and is aware of and checks the content of union and legal counsel writings and communications. Employees and union membership are not adequately warned of the tapping.

With regard to Mr. Vigrass, why don’t you have a private e-mail address for Union business? The District has already proven that it knows what you discuss. You have no less than two or three members under fire for what was allegedly found on their classroom computers (including Union business). Some of the horrifically perturbing information was placed on my client’s computer, in the Norman case, after he was already on administrative leave (a literal, figurative, and unconstitutionally sound reality).

Yesterday, your District proved, beyond a doubt, that it doesn’t see your union activities as confidential. Superintendent Elzig and her counsel vigorously argued for a claim to know what you are up to, when you meet with your members, and how many times. This is constitutionally unacceptable and, in my privileged opinion, violates many state and federal laws.

The ALJ also could not rule on whether your discussions with accused union members was/is confidential. I am supposed to brief that issue. I’ve never been to a PERB hearing and didn’t even know what PERB was before this proceeding.

Fortunately for the Union, in this limited case, you were not at the scene of ‘crime’ as it were. The unions had already chosen to ignore Nelson’s case and the District made CBA union representatives look ignorant and ineffective. As you can see from the attached briefing done in CSEA cases and testimony, this isn’t new.

I do know what the law is and basically had to argue it for the unions. It is the District’s position, through counsel and Elzig, that your communications with members are fair game. Worse yet, you have an indemnity provision in your CBA that gives the unions the privilege of paying the District’s bill (at their discretion), win, lose or draw. This is a constitutional and due process disaster of unprecedented proportion. I have many friends who are public employees, in official and elected capacities, and none would approve of this – regardless of politics.

I will look back in my files to find the e-mail from the CSEA’s Janet Jones telling me to mind my own business. More than one of my certificated clients has/have heard similar threats from others aside from Messrs. Sibby and Vigrass. I believe that you have all the right intentions, but your rights, as well as those of your members, have been trampled to death. Identifying what’s left of those rights will not be cheap, easy, or likely to come through my one-man office. I just got out of the hospital myself, am still being diagnosed and evaluated, and am overwhelmed by what is going on within this District. I am desperately hanging on to my ability to achieve victories for your members, but also don’t have the resources to keep it up if the Unions don’t get involved more visibly and effectively.

The amount of real exposure created for the Unions is beginning to be massive to say the least. I am on your side, but I don’t have the resources or manpower to argue matters directly affecting your leadership. Messrs. Sibby and Vigrass have been upfront with me, pursued what information they could verify, and don’t appear to be neutral on the rights of their members. Even with their efforts, the District has now crossed battlefield lines that will end up with innumerable casualties of failures in applying the Principles of the Constitution.

Should you choose to share this e-mail with Ms. Elzig and Mr. Duchon, if they have not already seen it, please let them know that these are simply my opinions and the hearing transcript speaks for itself. The unions got worked over bad and were made to look very stupid and ignorant – and it wasn’t by me.

Perhaps we should discuss this in a more confidential forum. My clients are very concerned and so am I. If you want to meet with my clients as a group and get your colleagues to join us from the CSEA, it would be appreciated.

Richard D. Ackerman
Law Offices of R.D. Ackerman
www.AttorneyAckerman.com

I AM RE-POSTING THIS PEICE AS I HAVE UNCOVERED THAT JURUPA USD HAS THE MOST PENDING OAH - bullshit - hearings planned than any other SCHOOL district ALMOST EQUAL TO LAUSD. LAUSD IS MORE THAN 20x the size of JURUPA!  
I, PRAETORIAN

Cost of Courage