Sometimes you can have too much of a good thing! In this case our 2009 SAUSD thread has so many comments on it that it is now running too slowly. So we are starting this new thread for the second half of 2009.
So far this year we have had plenty to write about. The State budget cuts have had a devastating affect in Santa Ana. Layoffs have ensued.
To top this all off, the SAEA cut a weird deal with the SAUSD that essentially cut benefits for all the younger teachers. And then the SAEA held elections.
Now more budget cuts loom…and all the other issues remain. I expect this thread will fill up too before long…
Thank you Jill. The post is far more convincing than anything anyone else opined on the website which was a different place and a different time. The interpretation is a far more complex matter.
One thing we can all agree on, TOSA or TWNA Teachers With No Assignment is a waste of money and counterproductive. Either they take a teaching assignment, nothing special about it, just hard work or out they go. If you are passionate about it, the district needs to hear about it Tuesday. Your silence is your acceptance.
to Patricia O’neil
Have you heard anything about the challenged election yet? Did you go all the way up to CTA elections chair?
Did you attend the RA?
#601 thank you. I appreciate your comment very much.
This taken from an email that I just got. Since this is my second year of teaching, the 20 out of 60 days subbing does not count for me. WOW!!! what a way for them to not support us. I would have tenure this next year. What was the point for me to waste my day and go in to sign up as a sub? I would make more on unemployment than subbing. Something has got to be done here.
As if things weren’t bad enough, the District has once again managed to mislead and misinform many of you.
On June 23, 2009, the District sent a letter to RIF’d teachers stating that those who sub will receive their daily rate of pay once they have subbed for 20 out of 60 days. On the surface, this looks correct. But California Education Code specifically states this applies to teachers who were tenured prior to being RIF’d and does not apply to probationary teachers. The District mentioned this fact in passing while discussing the status of RIF’d teachers. I stated this is not what the District has been communicating, in writing, to all RIF’d teachers. Their response was “oops” in typical SAUSD fashion. I told them in no uncertain terms that their failure to get out the correct information is outrageous and nothing short of disastrous.
No doubt, many of you were counting on this additional compensation rather than mere sub pay. The fact that the District, with all its resources and overpaid administrators, couldn’t get the facts straight is yet another example of their gross incompetence. For the District to once again to play “fast and loose” with our lives is appalling, and possibly illegal. SAEA has been in contact with CTA Legal to see if any action can be taken.
I want you to have the correct information before you get some lame excuse from the District. We need to hold District administrators publicly accountable for their actions. To that end, we need as many of you as possible to address the SAUSD School Board on August 11th, 2009 at 6 pm at the District Office. If you plan to attend, please send Scott Miller (csmiller@pacbell.net), SAEA Organizing Chair, or me an email (saeapresident@hotmail.com). Hope to see you all on the 11th!
If you are a probationary teacher, I encourage you to please check with the unemployment office about how subbing will affect your unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits might be better than working for sub pay.
It is my goal to keep you updated with the best (and most accurate) information possible, as it becomes available. Please email or call me if you have further questions.
Susan Mercer
President, SAEA
Wow!!! I just got his from the Susan. What was the point of me going in wasting my time to do the sub paperwork? I would have been tenure this year. I feel like there is just no support whatsoever.
As if things weren’t bad enough, the District has once again managed to mislead and misinform many of you.
On June 23, 2009, the District sent a letter to RIF’d teachers stating that those who sub will receive their daily rate of pay once they have subbed for 20 out of 60 days. On the surface, this looks correct. But California Education Code specifically states this applies to teachers who were tenured prior to being RIF’d and does not apply to probationary teachers. The District mentioned this fact in passing while discussing the status of RIF’d teachers. I stated this is not what the District has been communicating, in writing, to all RIF’d teachers. Their response was “oops” in typical SAUSD fashion. I told them in no uncertain terms that their failure to get out the correct information is outrageous and nothing short of disastrous.
No doubt, many of you were counting on this additional compensation rather than mere sub pay. The fact that the District, with all its resources and overpaid administrators, couldn’t get the facts straight is yet another example of their gross incompetence. For the District to once again to play “fast and loose” with our lives is appalling, and possibly illegal. SAEA has been in contact with CTA Legal to see if any action can be taken.
I want you to have the correct information before you get some lame excuse from the District. We need to hold District administrators publicly accountable for their actions. To that end, we need as many of you as possible to address the SAUSD School Board on August 11th, 2009 at 6 pm at the District Office. If you plan to attend, please send Scott Miller (csmiller@pacbell.net), SAEA Organizing Chair, or me an email (saeapresident@hotmail.com). Hope to see you all on the 11th!
If you are a probationary teacher, I encourage you to please check with the unemployment office about how subbing will affect your unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits might be better than working for sub pay.
It is my goal to keep you updated with the best (and most accurate) information possible, as it becomes available. Please email or call me if you have further questions.
Susan Mercer
President, SAEA
Has anyone confirmed the story of an FBI raid at the district or is that just more hot air?
re: FBI
The Juice is looking into the FBI story and raid.
We can be certain of this….Nativo Lopez is being investigated (allegedly)
http://tiny.cc/nativolopez
He has connections to the SAUSD so naturally they will check out the SAUSD…stay tuned.
Re: The Union + SAUSD together = NOTHING shocks me now
Go get a LAWYER
#564 –
If you decide to recall Richardson, Hernandez and Noji, kindly post on this blog so community members can assist you in this worthwhile effort.
#608
Ok, you’ve got it. We are waiting to see whether or not they care about kids or padding up the district’s bank account. We shall see. With the help of this blog, the signatures won’t be hard to get…I can have them all in a day or so. Thanks!
I am waiting for our FBI tipster to return. Please give more info, thanks.
To read more about the “big 5” go here…..
http://tiny.cc/thebig5suck <---Arnie and gang Next, The Board Meeting Today
Today’s Meeting (Agenda) Click Here!
Karen Bass talks about Prop 98…she looks HAPPY so that’s a good sign….she may be “getting her way”…please if you get a chance…drop Karen Bass a note at:
speaker.bass@assembly.ca.gov
(Sacramento) –Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles), before sitting down for more budget talks with the Governor and other top legislative leaders, said she’s optimistic the “intense” but “upbeat” atmosphere during this past weekend’s marathon budget meetings will continue. Speaker Bass also said she expects the biggest component of the budget, education funding, will be a focus of this next round of talks. Here’s more from the Speaker in this Assembly Access video.
Recalling Richardson and Noji would solve nothing
Board Meeting Results
23:1 for grade 1 (entire district) not just at QEIA (considering it still)
The discussion remaining: Should QEIA 1st grade classes be 20:1 or 23:1 like the other schools?
(next board meeting)
They will rescind 45 more multiple subject teachers
If the board decides to go 20:1 for QEIA and 23:1 for entire district that will be 54 more teachers back.
If you have more info…email me jillpuich@yahoo.com
The district was looking at average teacher salary for those laid off instead of the entire district’s average salary (thank Patricia for that one)
The board is also looking at sub costs (the cost to have those laid off sub for them) may outweigh the price to keep csr.
The district can have a win/win situation by keeping csr. I would personally like to thank the board members for keeping an open mind.
Jill,
Then it looks pretty certain that you will have your job back (?).
Tmare,
Hello there 🙂 I am looking into that tomorrow. I am not so concerned with getting my job back as I am with advocating (blogging) for lowering class sizes for ALL grades not just 1st, but at the secondary level as well. I think that the board is on the right track and they are reading this blog. They may be recognizing that it is imperative to lower the class sizes in ALL grades (especially at the SECONDARY level and grade 1 for sure). We need to help children period. I have since united with the counselors and the classified folks so we are working together now. By the way, I do not ever plan to run for ANYTHING (not my thing)….I just like to blog (I don’t do meetings). 🙂 PATRICIA O’NEIL on the other hand ….could be and I hope that she does.
Patricia spoke tonight for that cause. SHE is the one who made this possible (Patricia O’Neil). Ms. Mercer did not speak at all.
In other news, the district needs to check whether or not that they can go 23:1 for QEIA….School Services does not recommend that they do this. The district may not be able to go UP in numbers using QEIA money after they were already at a lower number. I hope that our district chooses not to take a loophole….on this one. We are WATCHING this one like a hawk.
FYI: A few of the board members have been asking Mr. Murrey to present exactly how much csr costs for each grade level. They have asked that he have this ready a few times…yet he has not presented them with the data. He also has not been adding IN all of the stimulus money either. It could be an HONEST mistake (we’re all human), but when it comes to this kind of stuff, one must NOT forget ANY of the funding sources COMING IN. ALL DATA needs to be presented to the BOARD members. We are hoping that Mr. Murrey will have his presentation ready at the next meeting (because for the last 2 meetings) he didn’t have it ready. (from a few sources)
Patricia O’Neil will be working on presenting this data to you. We want to see how her data matches Murrey’s.
Also, the board is considering not having as many TOSA positions because they are WILLING TO LISTEN to you. Speak up, they are reading.
Main Point of the day: CSR definition MEANS – REDUCING the size of classrooms
If one takes this money, then one is obligated to reduce the class size, NOT increase it. Keep that in mind when you vote.
Questions unanswered STILL:
1. Will Orange County Dept of Ed allow QEIA schools to NOT be at 20:1? school services doesn’t recommend it by the way…they recommend 20:1
2. Where is Gomeztrejo going? (many people have asked us to watch this one and we are NOT forgetting to watch this one)
3. Why was the board allowing the district to pay for the AP’s (Assistant Principals) who were supposed to be 1/2 AP and 1/2 BRT (Bilingual Resource Teacher) to be paid their “FULL” AP salary even though they were halftime teachers?
Patricia stated this one best:
APs were called halftime “teachers” for funding purposes. The District wanted them paid for out of categorical funds under the authority of the School Site Councils, but knew that these funds were supposed to be used for other purposes more directly related to increasing students’ achievement.
Knowing that it was likely illegal to pay for administrators out of the site categorical funds, they called them halftime BRTs, for example, even though they knew they were full time administrators. These APs did have to attend meetings, be test coordinators, and perform other tasks a BRT would have done had there been one. However, they did not work directly with students in an instructional capacity as far as I know. There may have been sites where the AP did spend half of their time directly teaching, but I don’t know of any.
Next year, it looks like the District plans to use site categorical funds for what they are calling “standardized staffing” at the elementary sites. It’s not clear which positions they intend to have the School Site Councils authorize to be paid for out of the site funds, but it’s going to be a problem, at least at some sites, if the School Site Councils are not given the authority to use the funds in ways they determine will most impact student achievement.
At the average teacher rate (salary + benefits) used by the District, 36 TOSAs will cost $3.1 million and, according to one Board Member, the cost to rescind 19 APs is about $2.5 million. These two amounts combined equal more than the District would need to supplement state CSR funding to implement CSR district-wide.
So instead of saving 232 teachers’ jobs, we’re saving 55 jobs, (over half administrative)? Maybe it makes sense to the District when they’re going to get $6.7 million in CSR money even if they go 30:1.
But, is sacrificing all those jobs really worth it when, in the process, we’re sacrificing 20:1 in the grades where students are learning to read? Is it worth it when we have a reserve that is $19 million above the required amount with another $10 million in Fund 17 that can be used, not to mention the other funds and stimulus money?
If the District thinks that this is the most effective use of money to impact student achievement, they may end up being disappointed. Combined with the cuts to classified, it can make one wonder if student achievement really is the priority this District claims it is.
All I can say, Jill and Patricia, is thank you and keep up the good work. It sounds like you, and particularly Patricia’s numbers, are having an impact on the board and making the board members think differently. It is sad that Mr. Murrey and other district officials, including Ms. Russo, seem to want to keep the board in the dark in order to promote their own agendas. I am tired of Russo’s gloom and doom. For once, let’s hear her say what the district can do instead of singing her woe is me song and blaming the state, the county, and everybody but herself and her staff for the district’s problems. It sounds like she is still trying to hide the receipt of the stimulus money months after it has been received. My suspcion is that she is the one telling Murrey to keep knowledge of the stimulus funds away from the board. Russo’s powerpoint presentations are pathetic. She doesn’t come across as a leader who is in control. She comes across as fearful whiner who is afraid to make a decision and is more concerned about not making a mistake so she doesn’t lose her job than she is about the consequences to the students of SAUSD of the budget she is promoting. She needs to be shown the way out the door and replaced with a courageous superintendent who does what is best for students.
Speaking of the door, Susan Mercer needs to go also. As I have said all along, she and SAEA are worthless when it comes to supporting riffed teachers. Her latest rif update was nothing more than a diatribe against the district. Unlike Patricia, a true leader who is using her intellect, the facts she has garnered, and her teaching skills to explain what Russo and her staff have kept hidden and to help the board members understand the district’s budget, Mercer does nothing but bark at the district. She is laughable. Why would anybody at the district pay any attention to her when she disparages the district the way she does and offers no solutions. She is just like David Barton. Complain. Complain. Complain. Try to make teachers hate and distrust the district, but offer no real solutions. I’m glad Barton is gone and I hope Mercer’s presidency will be a short one. If Patricia runs again, every riffed teacher should campaign for her. I cannot believe what she is doing for us when she has not even been riffed herself. Thank you again, Jill and Patricia.
Speaking of Mercer, I’ve heard from a few sources that she was laughing at one of the speakers who had lost their job. Could this be true? (more than one source told me this one)
Rif Rif,
No, THANK YOU! I think that every single email that was sent to the board helped. I think that the BOARD would like to be in touch and they seem to be willing to listen and are keeping an open mind. So, by everyone posting on this blog and emailing the Board, that seems to be what this Board wants. Patricia is outstanding in every way. I TOTALLY trust her and believe that she does care even when her job is NOT on the line.
As for Jane Russo, I don’t know the lady personally, but what she presents to me (personally) is doom and gloom as RIF RIF stated. Jane, if you are reading this, I don’t want to be insulting, but we need someone who is POSITIVE and willing to fight and come up with REAL solutions. Rif Rif is correct, we are tired of hearing about how broke the district is. We would like to hear a voice of HOPE please!
News regarding the CA Budget: The Governor will tell you what he plans to do…watch below…..
I can summarize this for you if you are in a hurry:
Schwarzenegger fires nursing board members + Schwarzenegger orders 2000 more state jobs cut + fraud in California’s In-Home Supportive Services = Budget will be reached today I think
As talks ended just before midnight, they said they hoped to complete their work today.
The influential California Teachers Assn. has been running television advertisements to pressure them not to suspend voter-approved funding formulas that guarantee schools a set amount of money each year. Fiscal experts have been struggling for days to find a way to cut billions of dollars from schools.
Democrats and Republicans agree that such cuts are essential to wiping out the deficit without suspending the Proposition 98 funding formulas. Legislative and administrative fiscal staffers appeared to have worked out a complex scheme that could avoid a suspension.
Staffers involved in the talks said the legislative leaders and the governor have agreed on how to solve all but $400 million of the deficit. The governor is pushing to close that last portion of the deficit with more cuts in social service and healthcare programs, while Democrats are angling to blunt the effect on those programs by achieving the savings through accounting shifts and expense deferrals.
Any final deal is expected to include some of the sharpest cutbacks in government services the state has experienced. Programs that have not been cut deeply in years are likely to shrink considerably, with tens of thousands of Californians losing access to programs they have relied on. Some programs may be wiped out entirely. Large numbers of low-income Californians receiving healthcare through the Medi-Cal program are expected to be moved into managed care, and thousands of seniors who receive home healthcare would lose it.
to Jill #617. Yes, it was true, Mercer was laughing at one of the riffed teachers, Mercer was laughing with another woman seating next to her. I was truly offended of her lack of respect and empathy. I was expecting Susan to be the first speaker for the riffed teachers and to speak for class size 20 to 1. Instead of speaking and being on the front line, she hides herself in her laptop.
I am very thankful for Robert Chavez, Jennifer and Patricia having the courage of speaking up to save class size reduction and to bring the riffed teachers back. Robert Chavez message was very clear asking the board members “How do you want to be remembered? Do you want to be remembered by your legacy of saving class size reduction or increasing class size?
I believe that the information brought to the board by Patricia and jennifer should be placed in the school district website.
Where are the elected officers? What are they doing? In time of crisis, they all should be speaking up for our riffed teachers and for the benefit of our students. Thank you Robert,Patricia and Jennifer for speaking up.
Sojourner truth,
I have been expecting you. Thank you for reporting this. I think people are seeing the “real Mercer” now. I think that Patricia (Pres) and Robert (V.P) should’ve been elected. I don’t know Jennifer or if she even has the interest. Yes, thanks to everyone who worked together and spoke at the meeting, plus the many folks who took the time to write to the board as well. I think it was a combination of that and Patricia’s Financial numbers that really made the impact on the Board. Nonetheless, fabulous job by EVERYONE! We mustn’t give up though on the other grade levels. The work is not finished therefore we may be celebrating too soon. To be continued….
Jill and rif rif,
Thanks for the accolades, but all I can really take credit for is trying to save Class Size Reduction and not giving up. Thankfully, the Board has decided to at least begin restoring CSR by going 23:1 in first grade, but I don’t believe that it is because of anything I’ve done or said in particular. I’m sure their decision was influenced by many factors including public presentations given by several teachers over the last couple of months, e-mails that have been sent to Board Members, and perhaps even comments made by various people on this blog.
On the other hand, I hope that issues I have raised will receive further analysis including:
1. How have the stimulus funds been appropriated and where do they show up on the budget documents?
2. What is the cost of CSR when based on the salaries of those teachers who would be rehired rather than on the average teacher salary and benefit figure used by the District? (I had raised this issue several Board Meetings ago. Last night, Mr. Palacio asked the District to make these calculations.)
3. What is the actual cost of CSR to the District after accounting for the QEIA and CSR funds from the state? (See below.)
4. Is it necessary to maintain reserves as far above the state requirement as we currently have, especially at the expense of a valuable program like Class Size Reduction, not to mention 232 jobs?
Regarding reserves, I actually understated the reserves when I spoke at the Board Meeting last night. In addition to the ten million the District is required to have, they have an additional TWENTY MILLION in reserves (not 10 million as I misstated) plus almost ten million in Fund 17 for a total of FORTY MILLION. THIS IS THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS MORE THAN IS REQUIRED.
The actual cost to the District for implementing CSR at 20:1 in grades 1, 2, and 3 is about THREE MILLION when accounting for the elementary CSR and QEIA money from the state, even when using the District’s average teacher salary figure. It’s about five million when just considering the CSR money.* Either way, it’s a program that’s well worth the money. *When adding in the Kinder CSR money, the cost to the District to keep CSR is only about $127,000.
Using the District’s figures, fully restoring CSR would cost the District the $6.7 that would have been received without actually implementing it, plus another $5 million. Taking this from the reserves WOULD STILL LEAVE $28 MILLION IN RESERVES, $18 MILLION BEYOND THE AMOUNT REQUIRED BY THE STATE ($8 million above the required amount if Fund 17 is not included). Even taking into account the $6.7 million, maintaining CSR in grades 1, 2, and 3 at all schools would be a prudent decision.
Patricia — Is it possible to say that CSR would cost even less using the district’s numbers because then they would not have the 7 million dollar increase in substitute costs?
I attended the school board meeting last night and want to personally thank Dr. Nora Garcia for speaking up and sharing her experience about losing her job. Her focus was the long term effects on our students, who will not benefit from class reduction. I want to thank the other teachers and classified that gave their support last night too.Susan and Jennifer you both rock as my students would say and caused the earth to move in the boardroom We should continue be concerned with the education of all our students preK – 12 and numbers in the class starting this Fall.My message to the school board members last night was clear shall you be remembered for saving class reduction or increasing class size prek – 12. Further, all jobs certified and classified must be restored. If our school district and school districts across country do not invest in our students education starting today we as a nation will pay the price in the future.
President Obama and Secretary Duncan from the federal government stand point have provided the federal dollars to save teachers jobs and save class reduction programs . Now the time has come for private companies such as Exxon, Mobil, Chervon,ect and Professional Major Leagues to match the Federal Goverment dollars and donate to our school district and public school districts around the country the dollars needed to provide every child with the best education they deserve.
I will continue being an advocate for public education as I return from San Diego after attending the Representative Assemby of National Education Association. Where a total of 10,000 association members from across our country attended. The coversations were the same as our, save jobs and provide every child with the best education possible.
Using the district’s figures, wouldn’t you also take into account the cost savings to the district by not having to pay all the additional money for laid off teachers to sub.
#622, 624,
Good point. Yes, there would be additional savings ($7.4 million according to the District) by not having to pay teachers their daily rate to substitute. I believe Mr. Palacio also raised this issue at the Board Meeting last night.
This amount, which is currently being allocated from the 14.3 million in Stabilization money already received, could then be redirected to CSR, further reducing the amount by which the District would have to supplement State CSR funding. (Of course, almost no supplement is required in the first place if CSR money K-3 is combined with the QEIA money allocated to the elementary sites.)
Hopefully, there will soon be resolution on the state budget so that our District can move forward with making these important decisions.
I am posting an email that I received from someone who wishes to remain “Anonymous” but would like to express what happened at the Board Meeting….
“I was at the Board Meeting. I thought John’s comment about the QEIA schools was that we couldn’t go backwards…meaning we are currently 20:1 in grades 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. Why would the program allow us to increase our class size when our goal needs to be 20:1? In order to meet the qualifications of the program the district needed to be at 20:1 by the 3rd year of implementation. Cathie Olsky (?) said that she wasn’t sure if they could do 23:1 – they needed to ask about it in their Thursday meeting. It may be that class size for QEIA schools needs to stay were they were in 2008/2009. Cathie also said she needed to get clarification on comparable requirements – meaning if a QEIA school is funded at 20:1 can a neighboring school be at 23:1 under this guideline. I don’t really understand the QEIA requirements but to me it seems that these schools are underperforming therefore they need smaller class sizes to help bring the students to an acceptable level.
It seemed like a much more positive board meeting than the 6/9/2009 meeting. The Board (really Mr. Palacio and Ms. Noji) asked for more information on funding CSR at different modified levels (20:1, 23:1, 25:1 and 27:1) at each grade level and at QEIA schools.
The other idea that was proposed by Jennifer Charles, 2nd grade teacher, was that the TOSA position become a classroom position to reduce class size. Her thought was that if they agreed to 23:1 for 1st grade then the TOSA person could be used in 2nd grade to make the classes smaller. Working in front of the students should be our number one priority and we need to get the most bang for our buck. Mr. Richardson seemed to like this and wanted more information from Ms. Russo regarding this position. I’m disappointed in our union for not organizing teachers to speak on behalf of class-size reduction.”
Thank you for emailing me. 🙂
Just waiting on the CA budget now…. http://tiny.cc/ticktock <---go here 🙂 tick tock
Jennifer Charles is a wonderful teacher and has been very involved for years in attempting to bring meaningful changes to SAUSD.
She is insightful and knowledgeable.
Unfortunately SAUSD administrators rarely heed her intelligent suggestions [or any other teachers’].
Perhaps someday SAUSD will wake up and realize that “teachers-in-the-trenches” have better ideas about effective educational practices than “ivory-tower-dwellers”.
Just a few updates on the CA Budget:
Bass said Democrats have agreed to allow the governor to study whether California should privatize its welfare eligibility system, as other states have done. Currently, counties determine who is eligible for welfare.
So it is with the attempt by some liberal Sacramento Democrats to do away (temporarily, they say) with the state’s high school exit exam. This verbal and math test offers employers the certainty that young people they hire will possess a specific set of knowledge and skills. Without it, high school diplomas would lose a great deal of their meaning.
For the Democrats don’t really want to end the exit exam; they just want it not to count. Yep, their plan would have schools keep on giving the test to all 10th-graders (and pupils beyond that level who previously failed to pass). But students who fail would now be allowed to graduate anyway, with precisely the same diplomas as those who pass.
There’s little or no savings here, despite the fact that the six-person Democratic majority in control of a joint legislative budget conference committee listed that as the reason for a change. If schools keep giving the exam, they’re spending the same amounts on proctoring and other arrangements as they would if the test counted.
What’s really at work here, then, is that some ultra-liberal Democrats, led by Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, have long opposed the entire concept of the exam. They’ve argued for most of the last decade that the exam favors children of the wealthy, who often have educational advantages over poorer kids and children of immigrants. They also contend that poor test-takers are at a disadvantage, even if they’ve proved their skills and knowledge in ordinary course-work.
Trying to make up for the socio-economic factors, schools now run copious test-preparation classes, both during school hours and after school. But the exam’s longtime opponents are not satisfied.
They say that as schools chop their budgets in response to state cuts, they’ll offer less test-prep. “Why would you hold kids accountable to a standard that we’re not providing the resources for them to meet?” Bass told a reporter.
Of course, myriad high schools long ago adjusted their normal curricula for “teaching to the test,” meaning coursework is designed to prepare students for this test more than to give them general knowledge. Which should make the test-prep work of the exam’s early years less necessary.
The attempt to suspend or kill the exam also ignores the simple fairness issue: If students who have already graduated under the exam system have diplomas with true meaning, why deprive future grads, including next year’s, of the chance to get the same certification of achievement?
The fact is the exit exam has accomplished what it set out to do — force schools to improve instruction and compel students to take their work seriously for fear they won’t get that all-important sheepskin. When kids fail the test, their parents also are put on notice to do something if they are concerned about their children’s future.
Interestingly, test critics have mostly ignored suggestions for differential diplomas, where students who fail could still get a certificate, but a different one from that given pupils who pass exam. Their action says they’d rather try to get rid of the exam entirely than work to help poor test-takers and others find ways to compensate for failing.
The good thing is that Democrats are not united in the dump-the-exam camp, even if all six on the budget committee voted that way. State schools Superintendent Jack O’Connell is one Democrat very much behind the exam.
“We do a grave injustice to our students if we don’t ensure they have the minimal skills needed in the increasingly competitive global economy,” he said.
He’s outlined the bottom-line fact here: The exit exam boosts educational quality and therefore is important to this state’s future. Using a budget battle as a pretext for dumping it would not only be deceptive, but destructive.
(The above is from multiple sources and may or may not reflect the opinion of Jill) 🙂
I checked around about the FBI raid and I heard from two people who said they heard about it, but didn’t witness it. They say that the cafeteria workers saw the whole thing and saw the guys in the FBI shirts.
Anyone know any of the school cops or the DSO’s or the guys in the central kitchen? If you do, ask them about it and get back to us! They have their networks, too!
A janitor from Willard was moved to Saddleback High School this year. He was asking a ton of questions when he arrived and was acting kind of out of the ordinary. Turns out he was stealing all sorts of stuff from the school, including computers. He got busted red handed by the school police. When the police went to his house he had a bunch of district stuff including brand new school district trash cans ( go figure!)in his house and garage. Everyone thinks he must have had some crazy garage sales before getting caught!
#626It “seemed like a much more positive board meeting than the 6/9/2009 meeting. The Board (really Mr. Palacio and Ms. Noji) asked for more information on funding CSR at different modified levels (20:1, 23:1, 25:1 and 27:1) at each grade level and at QEIA schools.”
Jill thank you for respecting the wishes of the person sending you the message. I copied some of her/his words as shown above, because the fact that the board members are asking question in front everyone does not necessarily means that they are still thinking about it. Unfortunately, it is more in the ability of the union and the district to negotiate in close sessions what determines what will happen at the end. It is important to sent e-mails to Mercer, for her to let us know what the union is doing? what the district is offering? what are the solution?
Send e-mails to Mercer…just as we did to the governor.
The more I think about it, I am dumbfounded that we have come this far along in the rif process and the district office has stonewalled the board’s repeated requests to find how much CSR costs at each grade level, and to find out how much stimulus money there is and how it is being allocated. And how is it that Ms. Olsky still doesn’t understand the QEIA requirements, whether QEIA would even allow for more than 20:1 and if there is a comparability requirement. Isn’t this crucial information that the board has requested and needs? What does Olsky do all day if she can’t get around to this? Or is she stonewalling the board intentionally? If Russo and Olsky don’t get their act together pretty soon, they need to get riffed — permanently.
Speaker Karen Bass Update…you heard it here at “The Juice” 1st 🙂
Budget Update…Breaking News…Click HERE!
In response to #526
My proposal to the school board needs to be corrected. The district is hiring TOSA’s (teachers on special assignment) for each elementary school. In essence they are hiring 36 teachers at the cost of @$3M+ to be out of the classroom. I proposed that the 36 TOSA’s should be assigned to first grade classrooms, thus decreasing class size from 30 to 1 to 25 to 1. At QEIA schools the class size would decrease from 25 to 1 to 20 to 1, and remain in compliance.
The district proposed reducing first grade to 23 to 1 which would cost $3.1M but they don’t have the money to do it. Using my proposal of putting TOSA’s in first grade, they could reduce class size in first grade immediately. Teachers should be teaching, not sitting in the front office.
I didn’t bring up CSR in second or third grade.
Thanks Wilson teacher for the kind remarks!
I have an idea….Why don’t we chuck the “TOSA idea” and put in teachers who work DIRECTLY with the kids and stop playing favorites. What a concept that would be. We don’t want another phantom classroom thing to happen where they hired a TOSA (a sub then to save the district $$$) to work with us (eye roll) in other words…we never saw that person. GET RID of TOSAs and put in teachers. Hire back classified people we need them, too!
TOSA = OUT Teachers + Classified = IN
Whenever they hire a “2nd person” to work with another teacher, then that person is used whenever an emergency comes up (the office thinks…oh goody…2 teachers….let’s ask this person to help out)….therefore they will NOT always be working directly with the kids. I say that would be another “big mistake”. Assign people to their OWN classroom period. If you assign 2 teachers to work together then the other one is off getting lunch…answering their phone, running around the school etc. while one of them is doing all of the work….WRONG…I personally don’t care for having a TOSA work with me, but that’s just my opinion. I know that the day that I counted on this person to be working in my classroom with me, they wouldn’t show up or that they would get a better offer that day.
Why we need CSR
http://tiny.cc/PositivesOfCSR
http://tiny.cc/WordsPerMinute
http://www.readinga-z.com/guided/correlation.html
http://tiny.cc/chart933
http://tiny.cc/presentation963
___________________________________________
Email your Board:
hernandez.ja@sbcglobal.net;
rob.richardson@ocgov.com;
Ayamagata-noji@mtsac.edu;
jpalacio@pacbell.net;
roman_a_reyna@hotmail.com;
_____________________________________________
Email Karen Bass
speaker.bass@assembly.ca.gov
_____________________________________________
Contact Jill, Patricia, Red Vixen
http://tiny.cc/contactJillPattyRV
Individually
jillpuich@yahoo.com
patriciaoneil7@aol.com
rvixen@gmail.com
_____________________________________________
Contact Joe Biden
http://www.whitehouse.gov/StrongMiddleClass/
_____________________________________________
I met with Blanca today (sub desk). If you haven’t met with her, it is imperative that you get in there by tomorrow to sign up for the sub list. She wasn’t the most friendly staff member, but at least I am on that list now. I love Rosie Rosales down at the district…very friendly and helpful. On another note, my number is 56 to be hired back. Patricia O’Neil is working on the presentation for the School Board (we hope Ron Murrey is as well) hint hint and I am working on finding out the QEIA info. RV is taking a little break, but she will be back soon….I definitely miss her around here, but she is still reading, but I want her to enjoy the summer away from all of this garbage.
Robert Chavez, in your post you mentioned that Jennifer and Susan rocked at the board meeting. Did you mean to say Patricia instead of Susan? Susan did NOT speak up on behalf of CSR or for those laid off. She sat “in the back” and her mind was on “her laptop” not getting csr restored. (many sources)
Jill:536 Thanks for the correction and yes it should be Patricia rocked at the board meeting ( 523).
Robert,
Thank you for clearing that up. Also, I appreciate that you spoke as well 🙂
Go to the SAUSD website and look at the teacher salary schedule for 09/10. It looks like the district already reduced our salaries by eliminating the buy-back days. I thought SAEA was going to do something about this! Could it be that they are going to remain silent when it comes to this issue?
Edit and ADD in
Jill is adding this for you since I picked it up at the district office yesterday so it will save you time 🙂
Click here to see the NEW SAUSD pay schedule
2008-2009 Pay (if you want to compare them)
Thank you, Bunky for reminding me 🙂
Your pay is going backwards while administrators pay is going UP. I told you before that YOUR union was making secret deals…they are the worst bunch of UNION leaders and I personally, think that people need to wake up.
Susan, where is all of this posted on YOUR site? Yep, didn’t think so. You are too busy making behind the scenes agreements with the district and cutting pay for people who voted you IN. I hope that people are witnessing all of this.
I just received a letter from Mercer….
Here is a summary of it with some of my own comments about it….
At its July 14th meeting, the School Board approved the staffing ratio of 23 to 1 for all first grade classes in the District. This translates into rescinding 40 to 45 RIFs. This is not even close to what SAEA wants <--yeah right you didn't even speak at the board meeting...you hid in the back, played on your laptop + laughed/gawked at our group of reps.... but its a beginning. The District is being extremely cautious and conservative while waiting for the State budget. <--of course they are + are padding up their bank account while Jane drives around in her Mercedes (how do these people sleep at night?) Currently, the District is working on calculating new staffing. <--let me translate for everyone....our number will change AGAIN about 10 times.... Next, they will contact the teachers who have what we call "first right of return". <--the ones they like first of course. After that, the District will hold the Displacement meetings; probably the second week in August. Rescinding RIFs will follow. This is probably not what you wanted to hear, but we have to follow the established processes <--never stopped you before.... to make sure every teacher is treated equitably. <--no it isn't, but then again...can I expect anything from your group or the district? We had to form our own group for support because you people do zip. I spoke with Chad Hammitt <--I'm sure that you did while you were making everyones' pay go backwards... and suggested to him that instead of calling every RIFed teacher to be rescinded to have a meeting similar to the displacement meeting. He thought it was a great idea. <--of course, they would like this...they don't have to call all of us and if they just post something...half the people won't see it and would miss the meeting....makes perfect sense to me why they would do this.... So instead of getting a phone call and having to reply in 24 hours, the District will have a meeting with all the teachers to be rescinded. At that meeting, by seniority, RIF teachers will choose from open positions. <--oh right...not holding my breath on this one....maybe someone can work in the book closet So, what do you plan to do (Susan) to get everyone rescinded? The board was asking for a powerpoint presentation of csr costs for 20:1, 23:1 etc. Did you make one or ask Ron Murrey why he hasn't presented it? Thanks! I know that Patricia O'Neil has one ready and she will present this to the board. Thanks Patricia 🙂
An Anonymous source sent this to me and wanted it posted for others. Thank YOU!
_____________________________________
CITY OF LA HABRA, CALIFORNIA
PERSONNEL OFFICE * P.O. BOX 337 * 90631
201 E. LA HABRA BLVD. * LA HABRA, CA * (562) 905-9700
TEACHER
Head Start Program
$10.215/Hr. – $15.847/Hr. plus benefits
A Job: Head Start Teacher Wanted <---click here for more info
Jill,
I was at that July 14th board meeting. They didn’t approve a 23:1 ratio for 1st grade. At best they presented that they will look at it. That is all. See the way it was presented at th SAUSD website
http://www.sausd.us/1443102812408810/blank/browse.asp?A=383&BMDRN=2000&BCOB=0&C=56079
It will cost 3.1 million of which they claim they don’t have.
Click on Budget Update.
It wasn’t even up for consideration.
Sorry,
Michael
Michael,
Right yes, I understand that. Things can change as the wind blows…John said that they were only considering it…it is not set in stone of course…nothing is until the day school starts…thanks though 🙂
That’s why I said (above) don’t celebrate too early. Remember though…the cost to have the 252 people (laid off) sub is $7 million+ (Murrey was the source on that one).
They also need to add in the QEIA money + CSR + stimulus = enough to save CSR vs the cost to waste money and have the 252 sub….what makes more sense? The state budget will have nothing to do with that…that is simple math…it will STILL cost the district over $7 million to have these folks sub…state budget or no state budget…might as well put them to GOOD use…just my opinion.
In a nutshell…the district can WASTE over $7 million having 252 teachers fired (sub) vs. hiring them back for LESS money and using the $$$$ productively. That would be an easy one for me, but I am not on the Board.
the cost to rescind 19 APs is about $2.5 million <---somehow that seems too low to me....we better check on this one.... The difference between hiring csr teachers vs APs is simple....for csr ...the district receives money to lower the class size (meaning hiring teachers back with that money NOT APs) so the district is NOT taking a loss for hiring teachers back, but they would be if they hire APs back....$2.5 million In a nutshell, the csr money that is INCOMING was not intended for APs therefore = a loss The csr money that is INCOMING was intended for class sizes to go down (not up) . CSR is not that much $ if one studies the budget (like Patricia has) really because the district has incoming funds for it (QEIA +CSR funds) they hardly have to kick in anything is my point. Peanut money for the district vs. compared to popcorn +soda money for what they would have to kick in to have the 252 folks sub. What we need to check on: The cost to rescind APs because $2.5 million seems way way too low _______________________________________ In other news... Capitol Weekly Steinberg and Bass email to colleages: "We left the meeting with big smiles tonight."We will announce floor sessions on Wed or Thurs." 8 minutes ago (July 17 around 11:45 p.m) I asked Capitol Weekly for the details...this is their response: Capitol Weekly Schools will likely get the promise of an $11 billion paybck, but they'll be cut beyond what the governor proposed in his first May Revise. Expect the May revise cuts plus an additional $680 million in school cuts. _________________________________________ For more on this....please visit... A Breaking News Report from Gov Schwarzenegger <---click ________________________________________
I would estimate that the costs for 19 AP’s including benefits is about 3 million.
539 Thanks Bunky and Jill for the information. The district wastes no time in adjusting salary scales in other words taking away 1.5% staff development days. Where is all this money going too? Is the money going to be used to save teachers jobs or just line the pockets of the district? Saving the money for a rainy day!! Further,the district should not be allowing the insurance companies to increase our insurance rates or co-payments at all during these difficult times. I understand the claims ratio numbers and ect. I was an claims examiner for seven years before I joined the teaching profession. Let’s see if the disrict can figure this one out and come up with a power point presentation to wash their hands clean.
Are you kidding me with the power point? Murrey has yet to provide Palacio the info that he asked for at the last 2 board meetings. My question is why is he allowed to not provide this info (retired or not)….many peoples’ lives are depending upon this presentation for him to just sit back and collect $189,000 salary while not even presenting it to the board. Please get someone in there who CAN do this, thanks.
The 252 teachers laid off are requesting the following from the SAEA:
1. Can you PLEASE make sure that Murrey provides the board members the cost of csr at each grade and for 20:1, 23:1, etc. ASAP or at the next board meeting? Can you do that simple task? We need your word (SAEA) on this one.
2. We would like the answer publicly to this question from SAEA…..
Why was the district allowed to pay for the AP’s (Assistant Principals) who were supposed to be 1/2 AP and 1/2 BRT (Bilingual Resource Teacher) to be paid their “FULL” AP salary even though they were halftime teachers?
3. Can the SAEA find out why Olsky doesn’t know the answer to the 20:1 QEIA question and what our district plans to do? After you find out…we would like it posted here publicly if you could. Can we please have your support (SAEA) to fight for 20:1?
What do you plan to do? We are hoping that you can contact Murrey and Olsky on these issues and come back and post here please. Thank you for your support.
4. Bunky and Robert + the rest of the folks would like to know why the pay is going backwards and the benefits? What is being done to stop this and where is this money going?
Lastly, Jane Russo (the leader) should be providing us HOPE instead of doom and gloom all the time. Please work on solutions instead of always trying to find the easy way out…. aka WORST case scenario thus ruining the morale of the entire district…which she has.
I received a letter from the district stating that I wouldn’t be able to make the daily rate for subbing because I was probationary last year.
Oh really? Really SAUSD?? Because my RIF was rescinded last month.
The left hand really doesn’t know what the right hand is doing. Did they just send this notice out to those on the original RIF list? How much money did they just waste sending these notices out to people who’ve had their RIFs rescinded.
The district hopefully will restore 20:1 because of all the reasons stated in this blog. But it does not need to rescind all of the RIF notices to avoid the 7.9 million dollars of substitute costs because only permanent teachers can make their daily rate when they sub. Probably half of the teachers still on the RIF list are probationary. So maybe the district could have normal substitute costs even if it went to 25:1.
Still wondering why a district that claims “to be broke” needs 1 Superintendent + 7 Asst Superintendents +Chad Hammitt = 8 really + their assistants + their assistants….am I missing something here?
I am also shaking my head wondering why principals will receive an assistant if the district is broke? Out with the assistants ….IN with people who work DIRECTLY with children! 19 assistant principals while the district is crying …”we’re broke” doesn’t make sense to me….
Thank you, Jill. I was wondering what the actual number of Asst Superintendents there were. It seems every person who speaks has that designation. Yikes, 8? What you were missing are the secretaries that go with the parade of A.S. Why are so many needed? That is over a 1 ½ million dollars in those salaries alone. That has to be unprecedented amount for a school district.
Union President Susan Mercer wrote in the union website that the board approved 23 to 1 staffing. http://www.sateach.org/
That is true only in the creative mind of President Susan Mercer. TheOutsider knows it is not true. It was not up for approval and the budget was already submitted at the end of June meeting. Is she willing to put her job and position on the line as to the truthfulness of that report. Feel free to call her as she wrote. See if you get a return call. Your union president (to put it nicely) misinformed you. Maybe she wants to be A.S #9.
Whether intentional or ignorance, it is one more reason to support decertification of the union.