This is the latest in our SAUSD threads. It is for posting up NEWS. Unlike the other threads, this one will be devoted to keeping track of the interesting stories that appear in the local media and other sources, regarding the SAUSD and education-related news items. Our last SAUSD News thread maxed out, so this is the second in a series. Enjoy!
A Day in the Life of Tenants United Anaheim Last week a tenant messaged us on Facebook asking for help,…
WE DIDN'T START THE EATON FIRE! This piece is from the Fucking News. No, seriously, "The Fucking News" on Substack.…
Is Zelensky an American asset??
From the "Fear and Loathing / Closer to the Edge" substack blog https://closertotheedge.substack.com/p/what-else-could-a-russian-asset-possibly : Senator Jeff Merkley walked into the…
So, good thing he was killed, you're saying?
Daniel DID do drugs. Report below shows he had METH in his system and an extensive criminal history that included…
Greg, You can think what you want. Criminals, illegal immigration and neighboring countries can all erode countries sovereignty. But war…
My definition is ... irrelevant to this discussion, counselor. (I'd look up case law if I needed one.) You're the…
Wait what is your definition of sovereign nation? And I don’t think you understand what independence is. Entering into treaties…
But maybe you did mean (1) "Completely independent" and (2) "authority over its borders" as two separate things. In that…
http://orangejuiceblog.com/2009/11/sausd-administrators-sitting-on-a-93-million-surplus-instead-of-rehiring-teachers/
http://orangejuiceblog.com/2009/11/how-much-do-sausd-administrators-make/
You have to be kidding me. After 3 different programs including this one covered with ads you still can’t keep this thread in one piece? We are starting over at #1?
Hey Red can you drag some of the last page over so this thing at least appears to be coherent and ongoing?
From an editorial in today’s LA Times:
By Jeff Bleich
For nearly six years, I have served on the Board of Trustees of the California State University system — the last two as its chairman. This experience has been more than just professional; it has been a deeply personal one. With my term ending soon, I need to share my concern — and personal pain — that California is on the verge of destroying the very system that once made this state great.
I came to California because of the education system. I grew up in Connecticut and attended college back East on partial scholarships and financial aid. I also worked part time, but by my first year of grad school, I’d maxed out my financial aid and was relying on loans that charged 14% interest. Being a lawyer had been my dream, but my wife and I could not afford for me to go to any law schools back East.
I applied to UC Berkeley Law School because it was the only top law school in the U.S. that we could afford. It turned out to be the greatest education I have ever received. And I got it because the people of California — its leaders and its taxpayers — were willing to invest in me.
For the last 20 years, since I graduated, I have felt a duty to pay back the people of this state. When I had to figure out where to build a practice, buy a home, raise my family and volunteer my time and energy, I chose California. I joined a small California firm — Munger, Tolles & Olson — and eventually became a partner. This year, American Lawyer magazine named us the No. 1 firm in the nation.
That success is also California’s success. It has meant millions of dollars in taxes paid to California, hundreds of thousands of hours of volunteer time donated to California, houses built and investments made in California, and hundreds of talented people attracted to work in and help California.
My story is not unique. It is the story of California’s rise from the 1960s to the 1990s. Millions of people stayed here and succeeded because of their California education. We benefited from the foresight of an earlier generation that recognized it had a duty to pay it forward.
That was the bargain California made with us when it established the California Master Plan for Higher Education in 1960. By making California the state where every qualified and committed person can receive a low-cost and high-quality education, all of us benefit. Attracting and retaining the leaders of the future helps the state grow bigger and stronger. Economists found that for every dollar the state invests in a CSU student, it receives $4.41 in return.
So as someone who has lived the California dream, there is nothing more painful to me than to see this dream dying. It is being starved to death by a public that thinks any government service — even public education — is not worth paying for. And by political leaders who do not lead but instead give in to our worst, shortsighted instincts.
The ineffective response to the current financial crisis reflects trends that have been hurting California public education for years. To win votes, political leaders mandated long prison sentences that forced us to stop building schools and start building prisons. This has made us dumber but no safer. Leaders pandered by promising tax cuts no matter what and did not worry about how to provide basic services without that money. Those tax cuts did not make us richer; they’ve made us poorer. To remain in office, they carved out legislative districts that ensured we would have few competitive races and leaders with no ability or incentive to compromise. Rather than strengthening the parties, it pushed both parties to the fringes and weakened them.
When the economy was good, our leaders failed to make hard choices and then faced disasters like the energy crisis. When the economy turned bad, they made no choices until the economy was worse.
In response to failures of leadership, voters came up with one cure after another that was worse than the disease — whether it has been over-reliance on initiatives driven by special interests, or term limits that remove qualified people from office, or any of the other ways we have come up with to avoid representative democracy.
As a result, for the last two decades we have been starving higher education. California’s public universities and community colleges have half as much to spend today as they did in 1990 in real dollars. In the 1980s, 17% of the state budget went to higher education and 3% went to prisons. Today, only 9% goes to universities and 10% goes to prisons.
The promise of low-cost education that brought so many here, and kept so many here, has been abandoned. Our K-12 system has fallen from the top ranks 30 years ago to 47th in the nation in per-pupil spending. And higher education is now taking on water.
At every trustees meeting over the last six years, I have seen the signs of decline. I have listened to the painful stories of faculty who could not afford to raise a family on their salaries; of students who are on the financial edge because they are working two jobs, taking care of a child and barely making it with our current tuitions. I have seen the outdated buildings and the many people on our campuses who feel that they have been forgotten by the public and Sacramento.
What made California great was the belief that we could solve any problem as long as we did two things: acknowledged the problem and worked together. Today that belief is missing. California has not acknowledged that it has fundamentally abandoned the promise of the Master Plan for Higher Education. And Californians have lost the commitment to invest in one another. That is why we have lost our way in decision after decision.
Today, everyone in our system is making terrible sacrifices. Employee furloughs, student fee increases and campus-based cuts in service and programs are repulsive to all of us. Most important, it is unfair. The cost of education should be shared by all of us because the education of our students benefits every Californian.
We’ve gone from investing in the future to borrowing from it. Every time programs and services are cut for short-term gain, it is a long-term loss.
The solution is simple, but hard. It is what I’m doing now. Tell what is happening to every person who can hear it. Beat this drum until it can’t be ignored. Shame your neighbors who think the government needs to be starved and who are happy to see Sacramento paralyzed. We have to wake up this state and get it to rediscover its greatness. Because if we don’t, we will be the generation that let the promise for a great California die.
Jeff Bleich is the chairman of the Cal State University Board of Trustees and most recently served as special counsel to President Obama. This is adapted from his speech to the board.
Those tax cuts did not make us richer; they’ve made us poorer.
MQ says:
Sorry, but you are the example of an education does not make you smart!
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard! Let me break it down for you!
Taxes is taken from people by the government to pay for their ridiculous programs like Public Education! So Yes taxes DO make us poorer!
In NY they pay per student about 25,000 and it is one of the worst (if not the worst) in the country! Why!
YOU!
John Palacio to me
show details Aug 31
Publication:Freedom – Orange County Register; Date:Aug. 29, 2009; Section:Local Central; Page Number:CE15
Resignations raise athletic program concerns
Departures of Danley, Crow create uncertainty for sports in Anaheim.
By SCOTT MARTINDALE THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
ANAHEIM They embodied the city’s after-school sports programs for a generation, keeping kids off the street, aggressively seeking out hundreds of thousands of dollars in local donations, convincing the community to believe in their mission.
Now the two visionary founders of the Anaheim After School Fund are gone, resigning suddenly last month amid an apparent power struggle with the Anaheim Union High School District.
In their wake, they’ve left parents worried about the future of programs that have served thousands of Anaheim youths for more than a decade.
“I doubt it will be at the level it’s been at in the past several years,” said Kevin Castleman, 54, of Anaheim, who continues to serve as a school athletic volunteer even though both his children have graduated. “With the absence of two of the biggest advocates for the program, it’s going to seriously affect how the program is going to be run.”
Tom Danley, Anaheim Union’s athletic director and Anaheim After School Fund executive director, and Bryan Crow, chairman of the fund, resigned a day apart in July, shortly after the district rejected a $50,000 donation from the fund that would have helped save three jobs in the athletics department.
District officials said the donation was inappropriately earmarked to preserve specific jobs – and they didn’t want an independent foundation to dictate hiring decisions. Anaheim Union has eliminated 257 jobs over two years because of budget cutting.
Bill Taormina, a longtime After School Fund board member, has been appointed as interim chairman of the foundation; no one has been named yet to replace Danley.
Danley, who worked for the school district for 48 years, said he knew his days were numbered when the donation was rejected.
“The handwriting was on the wall,” said Danley, 72, of Orange. “I knew I couldn’t be successful without the support of the school board and the foundation. It was in the best interest of the district to bow out.”
Crow, a retired Anaheim pastor, declined to comment.
The Anaheim After School Fund, formerly known as the Anaheim Prep Sports/Activities Foundation, was founded 12 years ago to help fund sports and other extracurricular programs at Anaheim Union’s 17 traditional junior high and high schools.
Its operating budget grew to about $60,000 annually, and it now funds about 20 percent of all district junior high sports programs, foundation officials said. Money is raised primarily though donation drives targeting local business owners and individuals.
Danley and Crow were instrumental in building and shaping the afterschool programs. They solicited donations, networked tirelessly and garnered backing from key Anaheim officials, earning recognition across the state.
“Coach Danley has always been a man of integrity and a mentor to many, many students in our school district and has overseen a program that is known statewide as one of the finest,” said Anaheim Union trustee Thomas “Hoagy” Holguin, who sits on the After School Fund board. “To lose a man with that much experience and integrity is devastating to me.”
With school set to begin next week, parents and volunteers for Anaheim’s sports programs are wondering what the school district intends to do.
The secretary who helped run Danley’s programs will only work half time this year. Two other athletic consulting positions the After School Fund had sought to preserve will be gone. And Danley’s responsibilities will be largely assumed by a newly created, full-time curriculum specialist for athletics.
“We’ll be looking to conserve funds wherever possible,” Superintendent Joseph Farley said. “We’re going to meet with our athletic directors to ask them where we could reduce spending, but we’re not going to retreat from our longstanding history of supporting students. The foundation and the board are not interested in cutting back those programs and reducing their effectiveness.”
CONTACT THE WRITER: 949-454-7394 or smartindale@ocregister.com
———————————————————————————————————————-
Publication:Freedom – Orange County Register; Date:Aug. 29, 2009; Section:Local Central; Page Number:CE4
Irvine Adult School comes back to life
After being targeted by budget cuts, the newly-fee based program offers a slightly pared back schedule.
By SEAN EMERY THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
IRVINE Reports of the Irvine Adult’s School’s demise have apparently been exaggerated, with the school district reviving the newly fee-based program less than two months after it was the target of severe budget cuts.
The adult school was expected to be the victim of a last-minute $7 million Irvine Unified School District shortfall spurred by news of a likely state raid of local property tax revenue. Instead, the adult school has returned in a slightly pared back format, with registration for the first of three 10-week classes set to begin Sept. 14.
“On the one hand, we had the emotional reaction to the budget cuts, but on the other hand, we had the ‘how can we save this’ reaction,” said Paul Mills, Irvine Unified’s director of alternative and adult education. “It’s like starting a brand new business with very little investment capital, but we have a great client base in Irvine.”
Fees for the adult school will range from $80 to $128 per class, depending on how many days a week the class meets, and how long the sessions last, Mills said. Course offerings will include English as a second language, computer applications, GED preparations, keyboarding, parent education and other personal development classes.
Despite a cutback in staff funding that trimmed teacher and administrative
hours and led to one layoff on the adult school support team, most of the program’s instructors have stuck with the district.
“This teacher group is incredibly loyal, incredibly dedicated to the people of this community,” Mills said. “They are in it for the love of the work and the people’s lives who they affect.”
The school’s three sessions will last from Oct. 5 to Dec. 11, Jan. 25 to April 8 and April 12 to June 18, officials said. To see the schedule of classes, visit irvineadultschool.com.
CONTACT THE WRITER: 949-553-29 1 1 or semery@ocregister.com
———————————————————————————————————-
Metropolitan Water District prepares to hike employee pensions, despite investment losses
August 31st, 2009, 6:00 am · posted by Teri Sforza, Register staff writer
Orange County Register
At a time when generous public employee pensions are generating enormous heat (among the less-well-pensioned populace, at least), the giant Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is poised to hike employee pensions by 25 percent.
In coming weeks, Met’s board of directors is slated to vote on hiking its pension formula from 2 percent at age 55, to 2.5 percent at age 55. English translation:
Under the old formula, an employee who worked for Met for 25 years would get 50 percent of his salary upon retirement, every year, until the day he died.
Under the new formula, that employee would get 62.5 percent of his salary upon retirement, every year, until the day he died.
It could cost Met some $70 million; we’ll bring you details in coming days. (You can hear an actuary give his report to Met’s executive committee here.)
It happens at a time when water rates are rising significantly, and when Met’s pension investments in CalPERS have tanked at least $405 million. Bringing Met’s “unfunded liability” to something very close to a half-billion dollars.
Met’s unions have already approved the change.
Met is responsible for quenching SoCal’s blazing thirst, and recently hiked water rates 20 percent, with more on the way. It is America’s largest provider of treated drinking water, delivering water to 19 millioncustomers in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego and Ventura counties. The water comes from the Colorado River and the State Water Project.
Timing?
Monday, August 31, 2009
14 Orange County school districts start school this week
Six districts begin classes this morning; final 11 districts begin next week.
By FERMIN LEAL
The Orange County Register
For nearly 50,000 students, summer vacation officially ended on Aug. 20 when the first two of Orange County’s 27 school districts returned to classes.
But the biggest wave of school beginnings is this week — six districts today and eight more before week’s end.
Get the latest on back-to-school preparations, advice and news by clicking here.)
Here is a list of all the start dates for the county’s 27 school districts:
Aug. 20
Orange Unified School District
Anaheim City School District
Aug. 31
Anaheim Union High School District
Centralia School District
Cypress School District
Fullerton City School District
Savanna School District
Santa Ana Unified School District
Sept. 1
Tustin Unified School District
Sept. 2
Huntington Beach City School District
Huntington Beach Union School District
Brea-Olinda Unified School District
Los Alamitos Unified School District
Sept. 3
Buena Park School District
Fountain Valley School District
Fullerton Joint Union High School District
Sept. 8
La Habra City School District
Magnolia School District
Capistrano Unified School District
Laguna Beach Unified School District
Newport-Mesa Unified School District
Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified
Sept. 9
Ocean View School District
Westminster School District
Sept. 10
Garden Grove Unified School District
Irvine Unified School District
Saddleback Valley Unified School District
————————————————————————————————————–
Monday, August 31, 2009
Back to school: Renovated schools greet returning Santa Ana students
Six districts open today; eight more will follow this week.
By SCOTT MARTINDALE, BARBARA GIASONE and FERMIN LEAL
The Orange County Register
SANTA ANA – About 54,800 students returned to school at about 50 campuses in Santa Ana Unified School District this morning.
More than 600 students at Diamond Elementary arrived to a completely renovated campus, with a new two-story classroom building, and new playgrounds, restrooms, security fencing and other upgrades.
The 58-year-old campus has never looked this good, said Principal Denise Calvert-Brentrand.
“This seems almost like a new school,” she said.
The principal greeted students and parents as they arrived before the opening bell at 7:40 a.m. She also spoke to all students who gathered at the new lunch benches in the quad, prior to morning recess, welcoming them back for a new school year.
Fourth-grader Humberto Bermudez, 9, said he was exited to be back at school, especially in his new classroom.
“This is really a neat school now,” he said. “I think this school year will be a lot of fun.”
Along with Diamond Elementary, three other campuses across Santa Ana Unified – Carr Intermediate, Greenville Elementary and Santiago Elementary – now have a combined 68 new classrooms as part of a $24 million in improvements at those schools.
The new classrooms also mean the four campuses will lose a total of 76 portable buildings, clearing the way for new playgrounds and ball fields.
FULLERTON: New principal launches attendance-boosting competitions
Emy Flores, the new principal who welcomed 697 students this morning at Valencia Park Elementary School, brought with her a program she hopes will reverse the school’s dwindling attendance record.
Last year, the west Fullerton school was .75 percent below the Fullerton School District’s average. Flores believes a few “tried and true” incentives she put in place in her previous assignments in the Paramount and Norwalk-La Mirada school districts will turn the trend around.
The Positive Attendance Program is packed with competitions, rewards and lessons in math. Individual competitions among students with perfect attendance and no more than two tardies will result in an opportunity to go to Knott’s Berry Farm – or win prizes for their efforts.
Competitions by grade level teaches students math; for example, how many are in the class who arrived on time and what percentage of the classes are ahead of the others.
Ultimately, she hopes the children will be so anxious to come to school, they won’t think twice about skipping.
“We focus on tardies because in later years, if these students show up late to work, they could lose their jobs,” Flores says.
“And we focus on perfect attendance because I want children to think of school as not just a place where they have to go, but a place they care about, a place to find valuable information,” she added.
Early this morning, parent Margarita Garcia told Flores she agreed with the idea.
To make sure her third- and fifth-graders get to school on time, Garcia said the children must go to bed early, lay out their clothes and schoolwork the night before, wake up early and eat breakfast.
Fifth-grader Johnny Hunt said: “I’m going try and not get sick this year. I wake up at 6 o’clock to get to school.”
ANAHEIM: Students shake off the malaise of summer
The mood was a bit subdued at Anaheim High School this morning even as thousands of teens streamed in for the first day of classes – arriving on foot, via city and school district buses, and in their parents’ cars.
“I’m most looking forward to going back home to sleep,” said junior Anagely Padilla, 15, as she waited outside the school with her freshman sister, Guadalupe. “I’m tired today. It’s going to be challenging.”
Guadalupe Padilla, 14, said she was a little nervous to start high school, but grateful to have her older sister by her side.
“It makes me feel better,” she said. “I’ll know a lot of kids.”
The Anaheim Union High School District is in one of six Orange County districts to begin classes today; a total of 14 districts will start classes by the end of this week.
Senior Jose Ocampo, 17, said he needed to adjust his schedule as he trekked across the street for doughnuts and juice to get his energy levels up. Ocampo awoke at 6:30 this morning, thanks to his cell phone alarm – a big adjustment from his summer routine.
“I don’t want to go back to school yet,” Ocampo said. “I usually was waking up at like 12 or 1.”
At Anaheim High’s Citron Street gate, helium-filled balloons floated next to a cloud-shaped poster offering a cheery “Hello!” to the arrivals in gold and blue paint.
On the west end of the downtown Anaheim campus, students were welcomed into a new, 49-classroom complex known simply as “The New Building.”
“We’ll have to change the name once it’s a few years old,” Principal Ben Sanchez said with a smile.
The sprawling, two-wing building, which includes a central courtyard, replaces about 48 portable classrooms that have since been torn down.
Also new at Anaheim High this year is the Anaheim Performing Arts Academy, a vocational education program that combines drama, dance and vocal music. It’s home to 80 to 100 sophomores this year, Sanchez said, and will teach students everything from acting to building sets to sound and lighting.
A college-level Advanced Placement European history class has been added to the schedule for the first time, and AP biology has been expanded from one to two sections this year. Online health and psychology classes also are new this year.
Still, budget cutbacks have forced the school to make adjustments. Class sizes in freshman English classes have been raised from an average of 25 students to 35 this year, and a state-funded program to lower class sizes in other subjects has been put on hold, Sanchez said.
Jesse Perez, 16, a junior, said he’s excited to be back, see everyone and meet new people. But that doesn’t mean he isn’t nervous about classes, especially his U.S. history class.
“It’s just hard to pay attention sometimes,” he said.
Other students said they were committed to working harder this year.
“I got a C average, but I’m just going to try to get all A’s,” said junior Alfonso Palacios, 15. “I realized grades are really important for my future.”
————————————————————————————————————
Friday, August 28, 2009
Principal’s leadership model: team work, table hockey
Innovative educator prepares staff, parents for launch of his third new school.
The Orange County Register
COSTA MESA – When Principal Kevin Rafferty summons students to his office, there’s a solid chance it’s not for playing hooky – but for a chance to play hockey. Table hockey. With him.
In the 13 years since he became a principal, Rafferty figures he’s played table hockey with more than 6,000 students, pulling them in three at a pop, and using the time to delve into their lives, their favorite sports teams, what books they’re reading.
He uses the strategy to bridge the gap between educator and educated, teacher and student. And it’s helped him lead faculty teams to success at two previous schools.
This fall, Rafferty brings those skills – and his hockey table – to Davis Elementary, where his newest team is launching the county’s ninth magnet school on Sept. 8.
“I’m already looking forward to my first game here at Davis,” said Rafferty, who says his job as an educator is to ensure all students are learning.
Teachers, parents and others who know Rafferty say his passion for education, and his ability to connect with students make him the ideal man for the job.
“He not only knows every student by name and face, but he knows things like how they’re doing in the classroom, what their interests are and other things about them,” said Marie Sykes, a second-grade teacher at Chaparral Elementary in Ladera Ranch, his last school.
New challenge
Throughout his career, Rafferty said he’s always been motivated by new challenges, especially the chance to open new schools. He opened Oak Grove Elementary in Aliso Viejo in 1996 and moved on to Chaparral when it opened in 2001.
“I’ve always been drawn to new schools,” he said. “There’s something about starting a school from scratch that really appeals to me.”
That’s why he said he jumped at the opportunity to lead Davis when he heard about the school’s transformation from a traditional school into a magnet for math, science and technology. Davis Magnet will open next month to about 450 students from across Newport-Mesa Unified School District.
Rafferty, 51, said it was still a tough decision to leave Chaparral, a campus with a strong teaching staff, a heavily involved parent community and an Academic Performance Index Score of 924 in 2008, ranking the school in the top 8 percent of all campuses countywide.
“He put so much not only into this school, and into this community as well. His vision and ideas made Chaparral what it is today.” said Susan Tsacoumangos, a secretary at Chaparral who worked Rafferty for 14 years at his various jobs.
“But you could tell over the last year he felt like he did all he could do for Chaparral, and he was ready to move on to the next challenge,” she said.
Preparing the community
Rafferty has been working at Davis since this spring, helping prepare the magnet for the upcoming school year.
He’s held several town hall-type meetings with parents to help them understand the new magnet curriculum, and has encouraged them to join the PTA, volunteer in the classroom and participate in other ways in their children’s education.
Victoria Lopez, a parent of two students at Davis, said Rafferty has already put a lot of effort into building a strong parent community.
“He makes it clear that students will always do better if they have their parents supporting them,” Lopez said. “There is definitely a new buzz among parents around Davis in the short time he’s been here.
Rafferty plans to continue recruiting parents at fundraisers, school open houses, and other events throughout the year.
Preparing the teachers
Over the past few months, Rafferty has also had Davis teachers reapply for their jobs. He’s interviewed teachers to learn their strengths and determine if they would be a right fit for the school’s new magnet focus. Teachers are expected to be technologically savvy, regardless of the subjects they teach, he said.
“My goal is to have this school be a great career opportunity for teachers,” Rafferty said.
Most teachers were excited about being part of the new magnet, while a few opted to transfer to other schools in the district, Rafferty said. The school also drew several teachers from across the district who wanted to transfer in.
Rafferty said a strong component for Davis’ success will be collaboration among all teachers. He said his goal is for teachers to work together across grade levels and over time, using students’ test scores to identify those who need the most help, and provide them with additional support.
“We need to use testing data to continuously what our students’ academic needs are,” he said.
That strategy apparently paid off at Oak Grove and Chaparral, which consistently rank near the top statewide on standardized tests. It will remain to be seen whether he can repeat that success with the different mix of children Davis will draw.
“This is will be a great opportunity,” Rafferty said. “A lot of people are excited about this new magnet. I just want to come in and help do my part to help this school succeed.”
Register staff writer Rashi Kesarwani contributed to this report
Contact the writer: 714-704-3773 or fleal@ocregister.com
————————————————————————————————————-
From the U.S. Dept. of Education:
http://www.ed. gov/news/ pressreleases/ 2009/08/08262009 .html
Each school district would then be required to “demonstrate its commitment to raising student achievement by implementing in each Tier I and Tier II school”, one of four reform models:
1. Turnaround Model – Replace the principal and at least 50% of the school staff, adopt a new governance structure, and implement a new or revised instructional program.
2. Restart Model – Close failing schools and reopen under the management of a charter school operator, a charter management organization or an educational management organization.
3. School Closure – Close the school and enroll students in other high-achieving schools in the district.
4. Transformational Model – Replace the principal and develop teacher and school leader effectiveness; implement comprehensive instructional reform strategies; extend learning and teacher planning time; and provide operating flexibility and sustained support.
Any district with nine or more schools in school improvement will not be allowed to use any single strategy in more than half of its schools.
More from the U.S. Dept. of Education:
http://www.ed. gov/programs/ sif/examples. html
School Improvement Grants: Examples of Successful Efforts
Green Dot, which runs charter schools in Los Angeles, partnered with the L.A. Unified school district to turn around Locke High School. Locke was considered one of L.A.’s most troubled and chronically underperforming public high schools. Only 5 percent of its entering 9th graders would graduate and enroll in four-year colleges and universities. On September 11, 2007, the LAUSD school board voted to give Green Dot operational control of Locke High School. Green Dot is the first outside organization to operate a traditional public school in the district.
In 2008, Locke reopened as eight small college-prep academies known as the Locke Family of High Schools. Five of the schools are housed on the main campus, with three schools located on satellite campuses. Green Dot adopted a college-focused curriculum and provided extensive remediation for the large number of students who arrive at 9th grade working at below grade level.
As part of the turnaround, only 40 of the school’s 120 teachers remained in the school. Principals can be hired and fired at will, and principals have more control over the staffing in their schools as well. In the first year, Locke showed modest gains in test scores, but tested significantly more students (38 percent more than the previous year, indicating more students were staying in school throughout the year), reduced truancy and dropout rates, and improved the safety of the school setting. Additionally, nearly 20 percent more students graduated, and large percentages of those continued onto college, including many to four-year colleges.
Contact: Steve Barr, Founder and Chairman, 350 South Figueroa Street, Suite 213, Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 621-0276
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Are big pay cuts for school administrators a smart move?
In lean budget year, Capistrano Unified becomes testing ground for 10 to 11% reductions.
By SCOTT MARTINDALE
The Orange County Register
8
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO – Of all the Orange County educators who still have jobs in this year of deep spending cuts, Capistrano Unified’s administrators have been hit the hardest financially.
After eliminating about 20 administrative jobs altogether, Capistrano’s school board slashed pay for the remaining 170 employees – from principals to assistant superintendents – by 10 to 11 percent through a mix of salary cuts and mandatory unpaid leave.
The reduction will save $2.3 million, or 9 percent of the $25.5 million in district cuts, but opinions vary as to whether it was a wise decision and, perhaps more importantly, whether it could cripple recruitment and retention efforts.
Either way, observers say, the sizeable pay cut for Orange County’s second-largest school district is likely to be a closely watched test case as education leaders brace for more lean budget years ahead.
“Everyone is being hit in some fashion or another; it’s hard to predict what will happen,” said Tesoro High School Principal Dan Burch, president of Capistrano Unified’s management association, which represents all 170 administrators. “Are other districts going to be facing this in the next year or two? Are we just first?”
Capistrano Unified isn’t the only local district to trim administrator pay, but its cuts are the biggest by far.
All administrators and trustees in the Fullerton School District took a 3 percent pay hit this year; in Orange Unified, it was 2 percent, mirroring a cut that is expected for all other district employees. And the Fountain Valley School District imposed two days of unpaid leave for 2009-10 on most non-classroom employees, including administrators.
The administrator pay cuts in these districts represent 1.6 percent to 3.7 percent of their respective districts’ budget cuts – far less than in Capistrano.
“I do this with all gravity,” Capistrano Unified Trustee Mike Winsten said in June as he voted for the administrator pay cuts. “We are in a state of fiscal emergency.”
Teachers vs. administrators
School administrators, many with six-figure salaries, are often the first to be targeted during budget cutting. Critics frequently dismiss administrators as expendable and overpaid. When faced with laying off a teacher or an administrator, or reducing the salary of an administrator, the administrator should come first, they say.
(Click here for a table of administrators’ 2008-09 salaries.)
“Due to the economy, no one is safe from salary reductions,” said Capistrano Unified parent Julie Collier, founder of the Mission Viejo-based Parents Advocate League. “CUSD has a responsibility to the children and the taxpayers of the district to provide a quality education. … It’s an unfortunate necessity.”
Even so, advocates for school administrators point out that administrators don’t have the same protections as teachers and other employees. Administrators can have their salary altered at will from year to year, and lack the tenure rights that help protect teachers.
“Great districts and great schools need great leaders,” said Julie White, assistant executive director for the Sacramento-based Association of California School Administrators. “They are compensated for what they’re worth – the years of experience they’ve put into education, the level of their professional experience and their days at work.”
Administrators also take on a higher degree of responsibility, White said. While a classroom teacher is responsible for perhaps 30 or 40 kids at a time, administrators might be responsible for the safety and academic performance of an entire campus or school district – or for managing taxpayer money and monitoring spending practices.
Especially with the push toward greater student accountability under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, school administrators are increasingly being held liable for student achievement and growth, White said.
“There are so many burdensome laws coming out of Sacramento and D.C. where curriculum and instruction are tracked,” she said. “Those regulations and red tape are overseen by administrators. Teachers cannot and should not be burdened with those regulations.”
Administrators singled out
Capistrano Unified’s school board, made up of seven trustees who all ran on a politically popular “reform” platform, have long advocated a 10 percent pay cut for all employees. But they only had the power in June to alter the schedules and salaries of their non-unionized employees – that is, their administrative staff.
Negotiations with the employee unions are ongoing.
Vicki Soderberg, president of Capistrano’s teachers union, says the administrator pay cut will hurt the district.
“It’s definitely going to harm recruitment and retention,” she said. “A lot of them (the administrators) are the only wage earners for their families. That means a lot, especially in South County where it’s so darn expensive to live.”
Soderberg said Kinoshita Elementary School Principal Erick Fineberg, who announced his resignation last month to take a principal job in Tustin this fall, was likely “just the first of many” Capistrano Unified principals who will leave the district following the salary rollback and other painful budget cuts and changes.
In a Register interview in July, Fineberg alluded to the retention issue at Capistrano, although he didn’t specifically reference the pay cut.
“There are some great district-level people,” he told the Register. “The unfortunate piece of it is so many of them are gone, and that makes it very difficult. Some of it has been retirements, some have left the district, and it’s hurting the district. It certainly has had a profound impact and will continue to.”
Others are more optimistic the district can weather the administrator pay cut. Capistrano Unified Trustee Larry Christensen said he believes the district’s administrators understand tough economic times and are willing to sacrifice for the greater good.
“They’re dealing with the cutbacks fairly well,” Christensen said. “I don’t think the quality of their work has suffered. They understand this is what has happened and they’re dealing with it and hoping (their salaries) will come back in a period of time.”
Burch, president of the district’s management association, echoed those sentiments.
“I think this is a wonderful district and it’s going to continue to recruit strong people,” he said. “We’re just going to rely on the quality of our schools to recruit candidates.”
Contact the writer: 949-454-7394 or smartindale@ocregister.com
—————————————————————————————————————
Publication:Freedom – Orange County Register; Date:Aug. 31, 2009; Section:Local; Page Number:Local 2
How CUSD will cut pay and what other districts are doing
By SCOTT MARTINDALE THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
All of Capistrano Unified’s approximately 170 administrators will take a 10 percent to 11 percent pay cut for the 2009-10 school year. The percent of the pay cut is dependent on whether they work on a 10-, 11- or 12-month contract.
How it breaks down
Administrators will take
one day of unpaid leave for each month they are contracted to work. For example, if they work on an 11-month contract, they take 11 furlough days.
The furloughs alone won’t provide all of the $2.3 million savings, so administrators also will see their salaries reduced by about an additional 5.25 percent.
Cost savings
The goal of the pay cut is to achieve a total savings of $2.3 million.
$1.8 million will preserve a 25-to-1 pupil-teacher ratio in first grade in 2009-10, instead of moving to an average of 31.5 per class.
$0.5 million will help close the district’s $25.5 million budget gap for 2009-10.
Other information
There is no guarantee administrator salaries will be restored next year or that they will receive retroactive pay.
By preserving a 25-to-1 pupil-teacher ratio in the first grade, 30 teachers who had been pink-slipped during budget-cutting got their jobs back.
What other districts did
Fountain Valley School District: Two furlough days for all management and classified personnel. The administrator pay cut will save $61,050, or 3.7 percent of the district’s total budget cuts.
Fullerton School District: 3 percent pay cut for all administrators and trustees, including two furlough days and straight wage cuts. The administrator pay cut will save $278,000, 1.3 percent of the district’s total budget cuts.
Orange Unified School District: 2 percent pay cut for all employees. The administrator pay cut will save $329,000, 1.6 percent of the district’s total budget cuts.
————————————————————————————————————-
Publication:Freedom – Orange County Register; Date:Aug. 30, 2009; Section:Local; Page Number:Local 12
City Council gets $75 a minute? Sometimes
Also sitting as the Tustin redevelopment agency, most of the members’ meetings since last year lasted one minute or less. An official says the economy has slowed building down
.
Story and photo By ELYSSE JAMES THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
TUSTIN The five Tustin City Council members, sitting as the redevelopment agency, received $75 per board meeting for 37 meetings from January 2008 to July this year – 30 of those meetings lasted one minute or less.
It’s enough time to call the meeting to order, approve the last meeting’s minutes, ask for public comment and then adjourn. The redevelopment board meets twice a month, and often just long enough for the minutes from the previous meeting to be approved before adjournment.
This has been standard operating procedure for the past couple of years for Tustin Redevelopment Agency meetings. Each of the five Tustin City Council members also sits on the Redevelopment Agency board. The meetings range from less than one minute to about an hour from January 2008 to July 2009.
The agency is in charge of the development on the former Tustin Marine base and the new Tustin Library, which opened Wednesday. The agency also has been creating a plan for revamping the southern and central parts of the city, said Assistant City Manager Christine Singleton.
“There was a lot of activity on Tustin Legacy after I was elected,” said Councilman Jim Palmer. But since then, redevelopment areas have quieted down, he said.
Nineteen meetings were held in 2008 that lasted one minute or less, and 11 so far this year. That comes out to $1,425 per person for just the minute-long meetings, and $1,800 for all 24 meetings in 2008, which add up to less than 2 hours and 19 minutes.
But the meetings are required by state law, said City Manager Bill Huston. They are an opportunity for people to ask questions of the agency, Palmer said.
“Right now, there is not a lot of development because of the economy,” said spokeswoman Lisa Woolery. “If there were development, we’d be seeing more on the agenda.”
Though the economy hasn’t quieted down the planning process, you just don’t see a lot of construction, Palmer said. Agency board members say the job isn’t as easy as the short twice-monthly meetings.
“Virtually every week, there aren’t action items, but almost every week, members of the agency do something having to do with the Redevelopment Agency,” said Councilman and RDA board member Jerry Amante. “When you look at it only in terms of what’s on the agenda, it’s distorted.”
Amante and Mayor Doug Davert said the $75 per meeting stipend members get is fair pay. That $75 is the maximum pay for Redevelopment Agency members in Tustin, for no more than two meetings per month, said city spokeswoman Lisa Woolery.
The work comes in waves, said Councilman and RDA board member John Nielsen. There isn’t always a lot of development going on, but it’s the tip of the iceberg, he said.
Fullerton Redevelopment Agency members make $30 per meeting, up to $120 per month. But, they only serve when a redevelopment issue arises.
San Clemente and Huntington Beach council members do not get additional compensation for redevelopment work
Irvine council members get $30 per agency meeting, but also serve on the Great Park board, which oversees use of the former El Toro Marine base. They receive an $800 monthly stipend for those meetings as well. Garden Grove council members get $30 per meeting, with no more than four a month.
Outside the public meetings, board members meet with developers, other agencies, consultants, attorneys and residents, Nielsen said. For example, the board members had to meet with state and county officials when planning for the former Tustin Marine base, and had to work with multiple developers. The members also ask for money from federal and state programs, Davert said.
The agency has a staff of three, plus another member who also has other city duties. Personnel, including benefits, cost $394,900 over the last fiscal year.
Staff members work fulltime on redevelopment projects, but don’t report to the board members at each step. For example, if programs are operating well, staff members will write a report for the board members, but won’t put the update on the public meeting agenda, Huston said.
The public meetings are not terribly exciting, Davert said, but are necessary to give residents a chance to speak up on projects in redevelopment areas, such as low-income housing.
Residents could, and often do, air those same comments during the City Council meetings.
Amante said he spends as much as 15 hours a week on redevelopment work. It evens out over time, he said. Palmer said he spends an average of 3 hours a week on redevelopment. Davert and Nielsen did not give a specific number of hours. Board member Deborah Gavello declined to comment for this story.
The board members probably are making less than minimum wage for the time spent on redevelopment, Huston said.
“We got into this to volunteer our services and (the stipend) is just to cover our costs and expenses,” Palmer said.
“It’s misleading, frankly, to look at the redevelopment agenda without thinking about all the things that touch the Redevelopment Agency,” Amante said. “A lot happens behind the scenes.”
CONTACT THE WRITER: 949-553-29 1 8 or ejames@ocregister.com
—————————————————————————————————————-
Publication:Freedom – Orange County Register; Date:Aug. 31, 2009; Section:Local; Page Number:Local 1
Ax falls hardest on CUSD administrators
The group takes the steepest pay cuts among local educators, at 10% to 11%.
By SCOTT MARTINDALE THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO Of the Orange County educators who still have jobs in this year of deep spending cuts, Capistrano Unified School District administrators have been hit the hardest financially.
After eliminating about 20 administrative jobs, Capistrano’s school board slashed pay for the remaining 170 employees by 10 percent to 11 percent through a mix of salary cuts and mandatory unpaid leave.
The reduction will save $2.3 million, or 9 percent of the $25.5 million in district cuts, but opinions vary about whether the decision was wise and whether it could cripple recruitment and retention efforts.
Either way, observers say, the sizable pay cut for Orange County’s secondlargest school district will likely be a closely watched test case.
“Everyone is being hit in some fashion or another. It’s hard to predict what will happen,” said Tesoro High School Principal Dan Burch, president of Capistrano Unified’s management association, which represents all 170 administrators. “Are other districts going to be facing this in the next year or two? Are we just first?”
All administrators and trustees in the Fullerton School District took a 3 percent pay cut this year. In the Orange Unified School District, it was 2 percent. And the Fountain Valley School District imposed two days of unpaid leave for 2009-10 on most nonclassroom employees, including administrators.
The administrators’ pay cuts in these districts represent 1.6 percent to 3.7 percent of their districts’ budget cuts – far less than in Capistrano Unified.
“We are in a state of fiscal emergency,” Capistrano Unified trustee Mike Winsten said in June as he voted for the administrators’ pay cuts.
School administrators, many with six-figure salaries, are often the first targeted during budget cutting. Critics frequently dismiss administrators as expendable and overpaid. “CUSD has a responsibility to the children and the taxpayers of the district to provide a quality education. … It’s an unfortunate necessity,” said Julie Collier, founder of the Mission Viejobased Parents Advocate League.
Advocates for school administrators say administrators don’t have the same protections as teachers and other employees. Administrators can have their salary altered at will from year to year and lack the tenure rights that help protect teachers.
“Great districts and great schools need great leaders,” said Julie White, assistant executive director for the Sacramento-based Association of California School Administrators.
Administrators also take on more responsibility, White said. While a teacher is responsible for perhaps 30 or 40 children at a time, administrators might be responsible for the safety and academic performance of an entire campus or school district – or for managing taxpayer money and monitoring spending.
Capistrano Unified’s school board has long advocated a 10 percent pay cut for all employees. But it had the power in June only to alter the schedules and salaries of its administrative staff.
Vicki Soderberg, president of Capistrano’s teachers union, says the administrators’ pay cut will hurt the district.
“It’s definitely going to harm recruitment and retention,” she said. “A lot of them are the only wage earners for their families. That means a lot, especially in South County where it’s so darn expensive to live.”
Soderberg said Kinoshita Elementary School Principal Erick Fineberg, who announced his resignation last month to take a principal job in Tustin this fall, was likely “just the first of many” Capistrano Unified principals who will leave the district after the salary cut and other budget reductions.
Others are more optimistic the district can weather the administrators’ pay cut. Capistrano Unified trustee Larry Christensen said he thinks the administrators are willing to sacrifice for the greater good.
“They’re dealing with the cutbacks fairly well,” Christensen said. “I don’t think the quality of their work has suffered. They understand this is what has happened, and they’re dealing with it and hoping (their salaries) will come back in a period of time.”
Burch echoed those sentiments.
“I think this is a wonderful district and it’s going to continue to recruit strong people,” he said. “We’re just going to rely on the quality of our schools to recruit candidates.”
—————————————————————————————————————-
Dan Walters: California public pension costs and angst both increase
dwalters@sacbee.com
Published Monday, Aug. 31, 2009
When the Peace Officers Research Association of California began airing advertisements last week about the difficulty and danger of being a cop, it was more than routine image-polishing.
As California’s economy continues to decline, as the ranks of the unemployed continue to swell and as private employers trim salaries and fringe benefits, public worker unions are becoming worried about a backlash that would hit their retirement plans.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is renewing his call for public pension reform and received an unintentional but major boost recently from Ron Seeling, the chief actuary for the California Public Employees’ Retirement System.
Seeling told a Sacramento seminar, “I don’t want to sugarcoat anything. We are facing decades without significant turnarounds in assets, decades of – what I, in my personal words, nobody else’s – unsustainable pension costs of between 25 percent of pay for a miscellaneous plan and 40 to 50 percent of pay for a safety plan (police and firefighters) … unsustainable pension costs. We’ve got to find some other solutions.”
Seeling didn’t know that an Internet blogger, veteran reporter Ed Mendel, was in the audience and would quote him. And as Seeling’s comments have echoed, they have undercut the official CalPERS stance that no major systemic changes are needed.
CalPERS’ portfolio has lost about a quarter of its value in recent years and it will seek a multi-billion-dollar increase in payments from taxpayers to bolster its bottom line. It’s been peddling a “smoothing” plan to spread out the payments over a longer period, but Schwarzenegger has said he’s not interested, perhaps hoping that the shock would help him sell reform.
If, as Seeling said, public pension costs are becoming “unsustainable,” as much as 50 percent of salary for police, fire and other public safety employees, what’s the alternative? It’s a well-established principle of California law that public worker pensions cannot be abrogated for those already on the payroll. They have roughly the same legal status as bond issues in claiming portions of the public treasury.
Nearly two decades ago, when the state was mired in recession, Republican Gov. Pete Wilson persuaded the Legislature to adopt a two-tier retirement system under which newly hired state workers would receive lower benefits when they retired. A few years later, with Democrat Gray Davis in the governorship, the two-tier plan was scrapped and state pension benefits were boosted sharply on an assurance from CalPERS that they would not spark any increase in state payments.
That turned out to be grossly untrue, but returning to a two-tier system, or perhaps freezing current benefits and shifting to a 401(k)-type supplement, may be the only reform options. And those changes would do almost nothing to reduce the burden on taxpayers for decades.
It’s another fine mess born of making expedient political decisions without considering their long-term consequences.
Call The Bee’s Dan Walters, (916) 321-1195. Back columns, http://www.sacbee.com/walters.
latimes.com/news/local/la-me-tobar29-2009sep29,0,3374430.column
latimes.com
HECTOR TOBAR
Cal State students, it’s time to stand up
Budget cuts are taking away the right to an inexpensive public education, depriving many of the right to move up.
Hector Tobar
September 29, 2009
I was invited to Cal State L.A. for a “Walk of Shame.”
On a three-hour tour of the academic pride of L.A.’s Eastside, I met a laid-off sociology lecturer and saw overcrowded classrooms where students were being turned away from courses they needed to graduate.
I visited with a stressed-out librarian and counselor, both of whom described the effects of the latest round of budget cuts and fee increases.
“I’ve never seen it this bad,” said the counselor, Larry Grijalva, a 23-year-veteran and graduate of San Diego State. “We can’t even get kids into the remedial English classes because they’re all full.”
I like to think of Cal State L.A. and the 22 other campuses of the Cal State system as the workhorse younger siblings of the state public university system.
The richer University of California might win the Nobel Prizes. But it’s the Cal State system that gives us most of our police officers, teachers, nurses, social workers and probation officers.
“This has always been a place where working-class people could get an education and contribute to society,” said pan-African studies professor Melina Abdullah, who led the “Walk of Shame.” “If you take this away, you’re relegating them to jobs at Wal-Mart and fast food.”
These days, the big budget shortfalls in Sacramento have left our Cal State brothers and sisters unprotected. All Californians should fight to protect them. But the students also need a few lessons in standing up for themselves — or else they’ll always be on the losing end of those Capitol funding brawls.
Five faculty members and students made this point on the first day of classes, as part of a day of protest at college campuses all over the state. They held up a series of five words on signs outside the main parking lot:
“When Will You Fight Back?”
The sense I got: not soon.
The thousands of students I saw rushing to classes on Thursday did not appear to be ready to rise up in revolt. The majority had managed to get into most if not all of the classes they needed. If they got into all their classes, where’s the big prob?
Cal State L.A. is a commuter campus, for the most part. Only a handful of students have time really to mount any kind of organized resistance to higher fees, reduced faculty and shorter library hours.
“Every year they raise the tuition,” Natasha Khanna, 24, told me. “But this year it was 32% instead of the 10% they usually raise it.” Khanna, a second-year student, said this without irony. She’s not old enough to know what it’s like to get a college education without tuition and fees automatically going up every year.
The libraries at Cal State L.A. are closed on Sundays now and also on six Fridays a year. Professors and university employees have to take 24 unpaid furlough days this year.
Compare 2009 to 2008, and the situation at Cal State might not look like a catastrophe. Each year, the system bends a little but does not break.
To see how bad things have become, you really need to take the longer view.
Brush fires can descend upon a neighborhood in minutes, and an earthquake can change the city landscape in seconds. But that great, man-made disaster called the budget crisis is a slow-moving glacier that’s been eating away at our educational dreams for years now.
The modern Cal State system took shape during that era of plenty when our state leaders crafted “A Master Plan for Higher Education in California, 1960-1975.”
Under that plan, any student who finished in the top third of a public high school class got an automatic ticket to the Cal State system — with the top one-eighth eligible for the University of California. The plan also pledged to stay true to “the long-standing principle” that state schools “shall be tuition free to all residents of the state.”
It didn’t matter if you were the son of a millionaire or a construction worker. If you got good grades, the state paid for a quality university education. Gratis. It was your right.
Back in the day, we called that a “meritocracy.”
Fast forward to fall 2009 at Cal State L.A. The tuition is $1,342 per quarter, with an additional $205.90 in mandatory fees thrown in. That works out to about $5,000 per year. It costs twice as much to attend the University of California.
Maybe it’s not enough to keep the average working person from getting a degree. But it sure ain’t free.
Over time, people get used to a fee hike here or there, as well as the little indignities of a campus that doesn’t have the resources to fulfill all the hopes of those enrolled.
Sandra Tapia, 19, paid her tuition without complaint, and sat Thursday in the front row of Chicano Studies 111, a course that earns her credits toward her general education requirement.
Tapia got there early because she knew the reality of today’s Cal State: Don’t show up for the first day of class and the instructor might give your space to someone else.
She had already been turned away from two other general education classes that were full.
Being the single mother of a 3-year-old and trying to go to college is hard enough without having to worry about the mad course scramble.
“I wasn’t able to get into Math 102 or English 102,” Tapia said. “I feel like I’m paying for classes that I can’t even take.”
Professor Ester Hernandez told me that she would be allowed to accept 40 students in Chicano Studies 111.
“But there are about 80 people in here right now,” I said as I stood at the front of a classroom in which every seat was filled.
A similar situation faced Professor Kaveri Subrahmanyam in her Introductory Psychology class. “I have to call roll for 150 people and then see if I can make spots for more students,” she said. Inevitably, she said, some would be turned away.
The Cal State system is considering plans to reduce enrollment by 40,000 students in the next few years.
I grew up in a California where my public-school teachers and public-university professors imparted to me certain ideals about equal access to education.
So the first-come, first-served, sorry-we-can’t-teach-all-of-you logic I saw at Cal State L.A. made me angry.
I wished I could make a speech about fairness that would inspire the students to fight for what was rightfully theirs.
In Chicano Studies 111, I gave it a shot. I told the students that California’s future depended on them, and they shouldn’t surrender. When I was done, they clapped politely.
Then I closed the door to continue on my tour. And Hernandez began the difficult task of turning half of those in her classroom away.
hector.tobar@latimes.com
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
Call Steve Wiegand, Bee Capitol Bureau, (916) 321-1076.
———————————————————————————————————————-
County to sue state to reclaim redevelopment cash
September 29th, 2009, 4:50 pm · 7 Comments · posted by Jennifer Muir
Orange County plans to join a group of counties and cities in suing the state of California to block the state from raiding its redevelopment reserves.
Supervisors voted 4-1 in a closed session meeting today to join the lawsuit, which challenges a grab of $20.5 billion from local redevelopment agencies to balance the state budget.
Los Angeles County will handle up-front costs for an outside attorney and provide its own in-house counsel, Supervisor John Moorlach said. It’s unclear how much the lawsuit would cost Orange County, Moorlach said. Also not immediately clear is which other agencies are joining the case.
“We don’t think what the state is doing is constitutional,” Moorlach said. “And if we don’t participate and the lawsuit prevails, we still lose our portion of redevelopment reserves.”
For Orange County, that’s means paying the state $8.79 million this fiscal year, and $1.8 million in 2001-11, according to a budget report presented to supervisors today. Under AB 26 4x, the budget bill that authorizes the take, the money would be sent to schools and school districts inside the redevelopment area instead of to the redevelopment agencies themselves.
Redevelopment agencies use a portion of property tax money to improve blighted communities by partnering with private developers to encourage development of housing and commercial projects.
Supervisor Chris Norby, an outspoken opponent of redevelopment agencies and the lone vote against the lawsuit, said diverting money to schools is a good solution.
“The state budget is in crisis and we really shouldn’t be suing the legisliature,” Norby said. “Even if we sue th state and get the money back, it’s going to come from somewhere else.”
But a previous attempt to divert money from the agencies was unsuccessful. The California Redevelopment Association challenged the state’s attempt to take $350 million from redevelopment agencies in 2008. In April, a judge ruled the grab was unconstitutional.
In an effort that’s separate from Orange County’s case, the California Redevelopment Association also plans to challenge this year’s redevelopment take.
———————————————————————————————————————–
Publication:Freedom – Orange County Register; Date:Sept. 26, 2009; Section:Local Central; Page Number:CE1
OC WATCHDOG YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK
Deal would leave water executives swimming in cash
The top executive at the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has argued that a new contract for his workers that would increase
pensions 25 percent and raise pay up to 23 percent would leave the district stronger financially than it is now.
That’s clearly a matter for debate – so much so that the district yanked the contract off its September agenda when it became clear it might fail. It’s now scheduled for an October vote, with a public workshop at 10 a.m. Tuesday in the boardroom at the water district’s Union Station headquarters.
But what is clear is that top executives, who have been negotiating the deal with the unions and trying to sell it to the district’s board of directors, will benefit most from the pension increase, in a pure dollars-and-cents sort of way.
Take, for example, General Manager Jeff Kightlinger. He earns $276,000 a year, is 50, and has been with the water district for 14 years.
Assume he works five more years and his salary goes up to $290,000 – a conservative and reasonable assumption.
Without the proposed increase, he’d take home a pension of about $110,000 a year, every year, until he dies. That’s about $2.6 million if he lives the expected 24 years.
With the proposed increase, he’d take home a pension of about $138,000 a year, every year, until he dies. That’s about $3.3 million if he lives the expected 24 years.
The numbers would be more dramatic for other district executives, who have been with the water importer for much longer than Kightlinger.
We’ve asked the water district to provide a list of all employees with 20 years or more of service, along with job titles and current salaries. We’ll flesh things out when we get it.
You might want to take a look at the calculations of our former colleague, Chris Reed, who’s now with the San Diego Union-Tribune. Reed uses different assumptions and different numbers from ours but arrives at the same conclusion: “All the MWD execs from Kightlinger on down stand to benefit greatly from the pension spike they call a great deal.”
The sweetened pensions would cost the water district about $70 million over their life at a time when its pension investments are already down about $400 million.
The district quenches the thirst of 19 million desert-dwelling Southern Californians. It is governed by a 37-member board of directors. Those directors are appointed by its 26 member agencies – the cities and water districts of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego and Ventura counties.
Those cities and water districts buy water from the Metropolitan Water District and sell it to residents. The water district’s rates will have leapt 31 percent by next year. The increases are not related to the proposed pay and pension increases, officials say: The district’s massive infrastructure means most of its spending is there, as opposed to personnel.
SPEAKING OF WATER …
Last week we told you about the Orange County treasurer’s concerns about more than $1 billion worth of interest rate swaps held by two Southern California water districts.
The Metropolitan Water District is the big gorilla, with swaps worth about $1.3 billion, but the Orange County Water District holds swaps, too – about $82 million worth. While the Metropolitan Water District respectfully blasted Treasurer Chriss Street, the Orange County Water District is not inclined to pick a fight with him and didn’t like some of the strong language we used. We promised the latter water district it could make a few things clearer:
Street says the Orange County Water District’s swaps are down about 15.5 percent, which translates to $12 million or so. The district says it’s more like $10 million (as of June).
Street thinks new accounting rules will require the districts to publicly disclose these losses next year in a way that could lower credit ratings, drive up borrowing costs and cost regular folks money. The Orange County Water District fully intends to comply with the new accounting laws but doesn’t know whether it will post gains or losses yet and doesn’t think any of this will affect its excellent credit rating or raise borrowing costs.
Randy Fick, the Orange County Water District’s chief financial officer, said rating agencies know the district has a swap and like it, because it eases the district’s exposure to variable rate debt (read high debt).
More Watchdog at
http://www.ocregister.com/watchdogblog.
Sign up for The Register’s daily
e-mail alert for government and
politics at
http://www.ocregister.com/emailnewsletter.
CONTACT THE WRITER: 7 1 4-796-69 1 0 or tsforza@ocregister.com
————————————————————————————————————————
Publication:Freedom – Orange County Register; Date:Sept. 26, 2009; Section:Local Central; Page Number:CE17
Huntington Beach forecast predicts budget shortfalls
A study suggests ways to resolve $5 million to $9 million deficits.
By JAIMEE LYNN FLETCHER THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
HUNTINGTON BEACH The city may have to offset a multimillion-dollar budget shortfall for the next five years, officials say.
City staff members in a study session this week presented a five-year budget plan in an effort to give officials more time to adapt to possible future constraints and to make changes along the way.
The city worked with the county assessor and consultants and used economic forecasts from universities to come up with its projection for its economic future.
Deficits over the next five years are anticipated to range from $5 million to $9 million, and the city is expected to adjust spending to pass a balanced budget.
Revenue is expected to drop slightly in 2010-11 but creep back up the next four years, the report says.
Huntington Beach has 70 vacant positions and expects to add about 10 each year to reach 120 by 2014-15. The report suggests keeping the positions open to save money.
Freezing city workers’ salaries for the next five years is another measure the city could take to offset the projected revenue loss.
City Council members are expected to receive monthly budget reports as figures and projections will change.
CONTACT THE WRITER:
949-553-2932 or jfletcher@ocregister.com
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Capo schools pays $653,350 to settle ‘enemies list’ lawsuits
By SCOTT MARTINDALE
The Orange County Register
Seven families who said they were harassed and intimidated after their names appeared on two Capistrano Unified “enemies lists” will be awarded $653,350 in lawsuit settlements reached with the district.
In exchange, Capistrano Unified will admit to no wrongdoing, and the families will take no further legal action against the district. The deals were approved Sept. 15 by the school board, but settlement documents and amounts weren’t released until Friday and today because the legal language was being finalized.
“The most constructive resolution possible was realized,” the district said in a statement posted on its Web site. Capistrano Unified can “now devote its full attention and resources to the needs of students and teachers.”
The seven families, including their children, were named in two lists of school board political opponents compiled by district officials in 2005 and 2006.
Then-Superintendent James Fleming and then-Assistant Superintendent Susan McGill are scheduled to face a jury next month on charges they illegally generated the “enemies lists” using district time and resources. Both have pleaded not guilty.
“We have been engaged in this battle for many years and it just came to a point where it made sense to end this litigation,” said plaintiff Tony Beall, a Rancho Santa Margarita city councilman and a leader of Capistrano Unified’s “reform” movement.
“We have been vindicated in many ways – we have replaced all seven trustees, removed James Fleming, Susan McGill and other corrupt officials from this school district, and restored honesty, integrity and accountability.”
The settlement agreements were authorized by Capistrano’s “reform”-minded school board, the same group many of the families in the lawsuits helped elect. Indeed, the leaders of the politically popular “reform” movement – including Beall and Tom Russell – will receive some of the $653,350 settlement money.
Trustee Ken Maddox defended the board’s decision to award money to some of the parents who helped get him and his colleagues elected, saying it was “silly” to suggest a conflict of interest.
“If we were supported by the teachers union during our campaigns, does that mean we couldn’t enter into any contract negotiations with our unions?” Maddox said. “The settlement was in the best interest of all parties involved.”
The $653,350 payout will come from a district insurance fund called the Alliance of Schools for Cooperative Insurance Programs, although the district must pay a $100,000 deductible.
Two separate agreements
The settlement comprises two separate agreements, one each for the two lawsuits stemming from the “enemies” lists. Although hundreds of names were on the original lists, only a small number pursued legal action, with some dropping out during the course of the two-year legal battle.
Parents initially filed individual claims against the district, and the families who ended up suing banded together into two groups, each of which sued.
The first settlement agreement, for $475,000, was reached Aug. 14 with Aaron, Jill and Jared Case; James and Helen Welch Reardon and their minor son; and Bo Klein.
Capistrano trustees authorized that agreement Sept. 15 in a unanimous 7-0 vote.
The second agreement for $178,350 was reached Aug. 18 with Tony, Jennifer and Andrew Beall and three minor children; Thomas and Michelle Russell and a minor son; William, Donna and Ian Furniss and a minor daughter; and Kelly Villatoro and a minor son. Capistrano trustees authorized that agreement Sept. 15 in a 4-0 vote, with trustees Ellen Addonizio, Larry Christensen and Sue Palazzo abstaining from the vote.
Maddox said those trustees abstained because they lent money to the Committee to Reform CUSD, the political action committee run by the Bealls and Russells.
Up to $2,500 can be awarded to each minor, with the rest to be divided among the adult plaintiffs and to cover legal expenses, under the terms of the settlements. The agreements do not disclose how much each family will get.
Beall said the settlement agreement would cover all of his group’s legal fees, but declined to elaborate on how the remaining money would be divided among the families.
Higher losses possible?
Beall said the school district could have been liable for millions of dollars in damages if the families had won all of the charges in their original complaints, which alleged numerous instances of purported harassment, intimidation, threats and retaliation by district officials.
“We stated from the beginning we did not want to place any burden on the school district to finance this is in this difficult budget crisis,” he said. “For us to have gone forward, we were putting at risk millions of dollars from the general fund.”
The first of the “enemies” lists was created during a 2005 parent-led effort to recall all seven Capistrano trustees. About 150 families who had signed up to be on an e-mail list for the recall effort ended up on the “enemies” list, after district officials obtained the recall list. The recall effort failed.
The second list was created in early 2006 when district officials reportedly went to the Orange County Registrar of Voters Office in Santa Ana to copy down a list of names of parents who signed petitions supporting the failed 2005 recall.
Contact the writer: 949-454-7394 or smartindale@ocregister.com
——————————————————————————————————————
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Editorial: Parks won’t close. Surprised?
An Orange County Editorial
The Orange County Register
The state’s fiscal catastrophe has given Californians reason to doubt their elected officials’ competence and veracity. The latest installment from the wonderland of incredulity is Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s announcement that contrary to his threat only months ago to close 100 state parks because of budget woes, magically now none will be closed.
Only months before threatening to close 100 parks, the administration insisted 220 of the state’s 279 parks must close. Today, none?
Crying “Wolf!” is habitual in Sacramento, where insatiable spending appetites are coupled with steadily dwindling tax revenue. Consequently, the state’s budget has faced successive multi-billion dollar deficits requiring multiple mid-year spending cuts and tax increases.
No wonder Californians’ confidence in state government is rock-bottom. How dire are the state’s fiscal affairs if one day’s absolute crisis is the next day’s modest belt-tightening?
The governor is crowing about keeping parks open. But it was his idea to close them in the first place. Gov. Schwarzenegger has saved us again – from Gov. Schwarzenegger. This is Sacramento’s pattern: create a problem, then rush to the rescue.
The $143 million the governor proposed cutting from the budget by closing 220 parks, and then the $14 million he proposed cutting instead by closing only 100 parks, now suddenly has been absorbed by other means, requiring zero parks to be closed.
Are we to believe the final solution wasn’t available when the first two solutions were proposed?
Perhaps unsurprisingly, keeping parks open depends on what the meaning of “open” is. Mr. Schwarzenegger says he will reduce maintenance, purchases and hours and days of operation at most parks. So, belt-tightening.
The governor assures us he is exploring ways to cut yet $22 million more required by the 2009 budget by the Jan. 10 deadline for the 2010 budget to minimize “full and complete park closures.” Uh oh, possible absolute crisis ahead, with a rescue at the ready. How confident can Californian’s be of the competence or veracity of that assurance?
——————————————————————————————————————-
latimes.com/news/local/la-me-taxes30-2009sep30,0,682850.story
latimes.com
Schwarzenegger seeks overhaul of state tax system
The governor calls a special session of the Legislature to consider a plan to cut the number of income tax brackets and replace retail sales and corporation taxes with a new business tax.
By Eric Bailey
September 30, 2009
Reporting from Sacramento – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsed a plan Tuesday to radically alter the way Californians pay taxes, calling on state lawmakers to make dramatic changes before year’s end to take the state off the “roller coaster ride” of boom-and-bust budgets.
The governor called a special session of the Legislature to consider proposals in a 415-page report from a government commission that spent nine months studying ways to modernize the state’s tax system.
Among the ideas from the bipartisan Commission on the 21st Century Economy presented in the report and draft legislation are dramatically reduced income levies and a revolutionary new business tax that would replace existing retail sales and corporation taxes.
“I would sign it immediately,” Schwarzenegger declared at a Capitol news conference. “It’s an unbelievable compromise between Democrats and Republicans.”
But the commission’s proposals quickly came under fire from all sides, including labor unions and business groups. Among the criticisms were that the plan unfairly favors the very rich while potentially hurting California businesses and exporting jobs.
The reception from lawmakers was cordial at best. Legislative leaders who supported creation of the commission were conspicuously absent from Tuesday’s news conference.
“This report coddles CEOs and millionaires while kicking California families to the curb,” said Assemblywoman Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa), chairwoman of the Assembly budget committee.
The report, in fact, fell well short of universal endorsement from the commission itself, winning support from nine of the 14 members. Some expressed concern that California could set a dangerous precedent.
“This is playing out to an audience of revenue-starved states,” said Richard Pomp, a University of Connecticut law professor and commission member who opposed the final proposal. “If California thinks it has found the Holy Grail, other states will follow. But the emperor has no clothes.”
Schwarzenegger vowed not to let naysayers stand in the way.
“People are scared of new things,” he said, adding that he hoped to “challenge the legislative leaders to be courageous . . . to think outside the box.”
Under the plan, the state’s half-dozen income tax brackets would be reduced to two — a 2.75% levy on income up to $56,000 for a married couple, and 6.5% on income exceeding that threshold.
Although all Californians would pay less income tax, the wealthy would benefit most. Those making $1 million or more a year would pay $109,000 less, compared with a $3 savings for those making less than $50,000.
Boosters of the plan said that was inevitable given the commission’s key goal: to reduce volatility in state revenue. More than half of California’s income tax revenue is paid by those with incomes of $200,000 or more.
The group also called for replacement of retail sales and corporation taxes with a broader business tax that would tap practically every type of free enterprise, including service providers such as lawyers and business consultants.
That new tax would be capped at 4% of net receipts — a firm’s gross receipts minus the cost of purchases from other businesses — and affect companies with at least $500,000 in gross annual revenue.
The commission proposes ushering in the changes over five years.
Other suggestions include strengthening the state’s “rainy day” fund and the creation of an independent tax dispute forum.
eric.bailey@latimes.com
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
——————————————————————————————————————-
Orange County agencies have some of the sweetest public pensions in California
September 25th, 2009, 5:00 am · 104 Comments · posted by Teri Sforza, Register staff writer
Which public agencies in Southern California enjoy the most generous retirement benefits?
We’ve been wondering about that – as have many of our readers! – ever since we discovered that the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California wants to hike employee pensions by 25 percent.
Most employees at SoCal cities and special districts have far better pension benefits than folks who work for the state of California – or for Met. (Insert song here: ‘Mamas, don’t let your babies grow up to work for anything except a SoCal municipal water district!‘)
Let’s see how Bill, our generic retiree, does under the various formulas. Bill makes $100,000 a year, and has put in 25 years of service.
THREE PERCENT AT SIXTY
With the caveat that it depends on just how old you are when you retire and how many years you have in, one could argue that the most generous public pension plans in Southern California for rank-and-file employees (not public safety employees, mind you) belong to three Los Angeles County water districts, which give their employees 3@60. They are:
The Water Replenishment District of Southern California (manages groundwater for southern LA county), the Central Basin Municipal Water District (buying imported water from Met for central LA county) and West Basin Municipal Water District (buying imported water from Met for southwestern LA county).
This means that Bill, at age 60, would get 3 percent of his top salary for every year worked – or, 75 percent of his salary, upon retirement, every year, until the day he died. That’s $75,000 a year.
TWO-POINT-SEVEN AT FIFTY-FIVE
Next up? The 17 cities and speical districts that offer 2.7@55. Bill, at 55, would take home $67,500 a year under this formula.
Orange County agencies have a heavy presence here. They are:
The OC cities of La Palma, Orange, Anaheim, Irvine, Los Alamitos, Mission Viejo, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana; the County of Orange; and OC’s Santa Margarita Water District.
Outside OC: Rancho California Water District, Santa Monica, Walnut Valley WD, Long Beach, Otay Valley WD, Compton and East Valley MWD.
TWO-POINT-FIVE AT FIFTY-FIVE
Then there are the 2.5%@55 folks. This is the formula Met is wants for its employees (they’ve got 2%@55 now, like state employees). Bill would take home $62,500 a year under this formula.
There are 24 agencies in this group, and they are:
OC’s Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Westminster, Irvine Ranch WD, Orange County SD, SOCWA and Trabuco Canyon WD
Outside OC: Beverly Hills, Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena, Eastern MWD, Inland Empire UA, San Diego CWA, Western MWD, Cucamonga County WD, , Coachella Valley WD, Rainbow MWD, Rowland WD, Santa Clara Valley WD
IN A CLASS OF ITS OWN
There’s only one that offers 2.16@ 55: Los Angeles. Bill would take home $54,000 a year under this formula.
TWO PERCENT AT FIFTY-FIVE
And in the more modest 2%@55 category (where Met, and state workers, currently are), there are 39 agencies. Bill would take home $50,000 under this formula.
OC’s Aliso Viejo, Brea, Cypress, Dana Point, Fullerton, La Habra, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Placentia, San Clemente, Seal Beach, Stanton, Tustin, Yorba Linda, Yorba Linda WD, Laguna Beach County WD, Moulton Niguel WD, Municipal Water District of Orange County, South Coast WD, Mesa Consolidated WD
Outside OC: Calleguas Water District, Elsinore Valley WD, Foothill MWD, Las Virgenes MWD, , Metropolitan WD , Rincon Del Diablo Water District , San Fernando, San Gabriel Valley WD, San Marino, Three Valleys MWD, Torrance, Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD
TWO PERCENT AT SIXTY
So these six cities and special districts are somehow managing to operate without major meltdowns while offering what is probably the least-generous retirement formula in the area – 2@60. Bill would still take home $50,000 a year – but he’d be older when he starts, likely cutting down the number of years the city would have to pay.
OC’s Laguna Woods, Laguna Hills, Villa Park, Serrano WD, East Orange WD
Outside OC: La Habra Heights WD
ND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
The Orange County Water District, and theEl Toro Water District, have different retirement programs – 401 a and 401 k programs, respectively. More details in the chart below.
A very big thanks here to the staff of the Municipal Water District of Orange County, which saved us an enormous amount of work by surveing close to 100 SoCal cities and special districts to find out what their pension formulas are. The information this report is based upon what was given to MWDOC’s directors, as they weigh an up-or-down vote on Met’s new contracts next month.
ADDENDUM: We’ve been asked to point out that a lot of folks in the system pay into their own retirement funds, and that is indeed the case for many agencies
The reason public pensions are such a hot-button issue, however, is because these payouts are guaranteed whether the money that’s been kicked in is enough or not.
If it’s not – and the public pension system in California is billions shy of where it needs to be to meet its obligations right now – the taxpayer has to pay the difference.
AgencySystemFormula
Water Replenishment District PERS 3@60
Central Basin MWD PERS 3%@ 60
West Basin MWD PERS 3% @60
La Palma PERS 2.7@55
Long Beach PERS 2.7@55
Otay Valley Water District PERS 2.7@55
Orange PERS 2.7%55
Santa Monica PERS 2.7%55
Anaheim PERS 2.7%@55
Compton PERS 2.7%@55
East Valley MWD PERS 2.7%@55
Irvine PERS 2.7%@55
Los Alamitos PERS 2.7%@55
Mission Viejo PERS 2.7%@55
Rancho California Water District PERS 2.7%@55
San Juan Capistrano OCERS 2.7%@55
Santa Ana PERS 2.7%@55
Santa Margarita WD PERS 2.7%@55
Walnut Valley WD PERS 2.7%@55
Eastern MWD PERS 2.5@55
Inland Empire UA PERS 2.5@55
San Diego CWA PERS 2.5@55
SOCWA PERS 2.5@55
Western MWD PERS 2.5@55
Cucamonga County WD PERS 2.5%55
Beverly Hills PERS 2.5%@55
Buena Park PERS 2.5%@55
Burbank PERS 2.5%@55
Coachella Valley Water District PERS 2.5%@55
Costa Mesa PERS 2.5%@55
Fountain Valley PERS 2.5%@55
Garden Grove PERS 2.5%@55
Glendale PERS 2.5%@55
Huntington Beach PERS 2.5%@55
Irvine Ranch WD PERS 2.5%@55
Newport Beach PERS 2.5%@55
Orange County SD OCERS 2.5%@55
Pasadena PERS 2.5%@55
Rainbow MWD PERS 2.5%@55
Rowland Water District PERS 2.5%@55
Santa Clara Valley WD PERS 2.5%@55
Trabuco Canyon WD PERS 2.5%@55
Westminster PERS 2.5%@55
Los Angeles LACERS 2.16% @55
East Orange WD PERS 2%@60
La Habra Heights WD PERS 2%@60
Laguna Hills PERS 2%@60
Laguna Woods PERS 2%@60
Serrano WD PERS 2%@60
Villa Park PERS 2%@60
Aliso Viejo PERS 2%@55
Brea PERS 2%@55
Calleguas Water District PERS
2%@55
2%@55
Cypress PERS 2%@55
Dana Point PERS 2%@55
Elsinore Valley WD PERS 2%@55
Foothill MWD PERS 2%@55
Fullerton PERS 2%@55
La Habra PERS 2%@55
Laguna Beach County WD PERS 2%@55
Laguna Beach PERS 2%@55
Laguna Niguel PERS 2%@55
Lake Forest PERS 2%@55
Las Virgenes MWD PERS 2%@55
Mesa Consolidated WD PERS 2%@55
Metropolitan WD PERS 2%@55
Moulton Niguel WD PERS 2%@55
MWDOC PERS 2%@55 Placentia PERS 2%@55 Rincon Del Diablo Water District PERS 2%@55
San Clemente Private Plan 2%@55
San Fernando PERS 2%@55
San Gabriel Valley WD PERS 2%@55
San Marino PERS 2%@55
Seal Beach PERS 2%@55
South Coast WD PERS 2%@55
Stanton PERS 2%@55
Three Valleys MWD PERS 2%@55
Torrance PERS 2%@55
Tustin PERS 2%@55
Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD PERS 2%@55
Yorba Linda WD PERS 2%@55
Yorba Linda PERS 2%@55
El Toro WD 401k matching contibution up to a max.of 9% Orange County WD 401a District contributes 16.65% of salary after first yr. and employee contributes 4.65%
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Are Blue Ribbon schools really the best?
Federal recognition is just one measure of school quality.
By FERMIN LEAL
The Orange County Register
National Blue Ribbon awards are often called the “Oscars” for schools.
The selection process can be very competitive, somewhat subjective, and winners carry the title with them for the rest of eternity.
But for schools, other measurements – including tests scores, graduation rates, the quality of college and career preparation programs – also help identify the ones that do the best job of educating children.
“Winning a Blue Ribbon is a tremendous honor,” said Lucinda Nares-Clare, the principal at Middle College High in Santa Ana, which was awarded a Blue Ribbon on Tuesday.
Other measures of quality
To qualify in California, schools must score in the top 10 percent statewide over the past three years on the Academic Performance Index, or in other standardized tests for private schools.
Middle College High, Mission Parish in San Juan Capistrano and St. Paul’s Lutheran School all won Blue Ribbons in this category.
Mission Parish and St. Paul’s each won by ranking in the top 10 percent of private schools on scores of the Iowa Test of Basics Skills.
Middle College High each year has 100 percent of students passing the California High School Exit Exam and all students graduate eligible to attend University of California and California State University systems. And students in the school also score in the top 5 to 10 percent of all schools countywide on state math and English tests.
But with all these accomplishments, Middle College High perhaps had an advantage this year for winning because the school had not won before, while some of the other top schools countywide already owned Blue Ribbons.
Schools that receive a Blue Ribbon are ineligible to win again for the three years following their award. But educators say the federal government is often hesitant to award Blue Ribbons to schools within a decade after they win the prize, so as to spread recognition around to other schools.
Local campuses that constantly rank in the top 10 in Orange County on the API and other test scores, including Oxford Academy in Cypress, Troy High in Fullerton, Weaver Elementary in Los Alamitos and Bonita Canyon Elementary in Irvine, have all won Blue Ribbons in the past 10 years.
“The beauty of the award is that when a school wins, they are a ‘Blue Ribbon School’ for life,” said county Superintendent William Habermehl. “That’s why some of our top schools don’t win every year even though they continue to have the high marks.”
Schools with challenges also win
Schools that have at least 40 percent of their students from disadvantaged backgrounds can also qualify for the award by dramatically improving on the API in the previous three years. At least a third of the all nominees nationally must meet this criterion.
Federal Education Secretary Arne Duncan has said he wants to ensure schools with challenging demographics also win recognition.
Murdy Elementary, where 70 percent of students are low-income students and 71 percent are English learners, won in this category. The school has boosted math and English test scores over the past three years by 15 to 20 percentage points.
This year, 65 percent of students passed state English tests, and 85 percent passed in math. The school’s API score has also grown by 89 points in the past three years.
“We may not have the top test scores, but the teachers and students have been working wonders over the past couple years,” said parent Thi Nguyen. “I’m so happy that Murdy is being celebrated with a Blue Ribbon.”
Not everyone applies
Schools don’t become automatically eligible for Blue Ribbons just because of top-tier scores, or significant improvement on tests. To win, schools first need to apply.
Principals must fill out extensive 12- to 32-page applications, reporting on demographic data, staff, school strengths, curriculum, test scores and other information.
State teams also visit campuses for tours. The entire application process can take several months to complete.
Many principals never bother applying, saying they just don’t have time, or believe they have no shot of winning, said officials with the U.S. Department of Education.
The department does not release how many schools actually apply each year for the award, but officials said it’s less than half of all public schools nationally.
Five states – Oregon, Maine, Michigan, North Dakota, and Vermont – don’t participate in the Blue Ribbon awards program at all.
Contact the writer: 714-704-3773 or fleal@ocregister.com
—————————————————————————————————————-
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
CSU Fullerton nursing program gets $2 million boost
UnitedHealth Group gift will help fund more students in the entry-level nursing classes.
By BARBARA GIASONE
The Orange County Register
FULLERTON Cal State Fullerton’s nursing department has received a major dose of funding – a $2 million grant from UnitedHealth Group to bolster the number of students in the program from 80 to 200.
As part of the private-public partnership, CSF renamed its $1.6-million high-tech nurses training facility the UnitedHealthcare Nursing Skills Lab. University President Milton Gordon said the lab, with $700,000 in equipment, is the most-expensive room in the university.
Last year, 1,300 students applied for 46 open spots in the new nursing program, Gordon told an audience gathered in the lab on Tuesday.
“Addressing the medical needs of 47 million uninsured Americans is going to take a whole lot more,” Gordon said.
Nursing student Boudsakhone Sundara-Nunez said the grant couldn’t have come at a more opportune time considering the economic landscape.
“This is a great partnership,” she added.
“There’s a great need because of the aging population,” said Cindy Greenberg, nursing department chairman. “It’s becoming more challenging for students to find jobs, because of the economy. Retirees are coming back to work, and part-time nurses are filling full-time positions.”
Said Claire Hanks, a register nurse and chief nursing officer at St. Jude Medical Center in Fullerton: “Nurses are the lifeblood of our healthcare system, but a lack of training programs has made it increasingly difficult for qualified individuals to enter the profession.”
Contact the writer: 714-704-3762 or bgiasone@ocregister.com
—————————————————————————————————————
Monday, September 28, 2009
Nicholas scholars receive $500,000 in college aid
First 24 Santa Ana high school students mentored through centers started by Broadcom co-founder now attend college.
By FERMIN LEAL
The Orange County Register
SANTA ANA – Students in the first graduating class tutored and mentored through the Nicholas Academic Centers have received more than $500,000 in scholarships and grants this fall as they attend colleges and universities across the country.
Nearly all of the 24 students, graduates this spring from Santa Ana high schools, are also the first members in their families to attend colleges, including UCLA, Allegheny College, Denison University, UC San Diego, UC Davis and Cal State Fullerton.
Laura O’Campo, for example, received approximately $35,000 in scholarships and grants, including a $6,000 scholarship through Nicholas’ foundation to cover her mother’s expected contribution cost.
O’Campo, who is attending Allegheny College in Pennsylvania this fall, is the first in her family to attend a four-year school.
“I always wanted to attend college but I needed help getting on the right path,” O’Campo said. “I didn’t think I would go this far, but I’m actually doing it; I’m living my dream.”
Other Nicholas Academic Center students include Julio Cruz, who is attending UCLA with a $100,000 scholarship; Rocio Hurtada, attending UC Davis with $20,000 in scholarships and grants; and Lisbeth Pedroza, attending Allegheny with $35,000 in scholarships.
“It is our goal to provide the highest quality education possible to every young student,” Nicholas said. “These students have the drive and the smarts to succeed. We just gave them a chance.”
The two Nicholas Academic Centers provide after-school tutoring and mentoring for disadvantaged at-risk but high-potential students in the Santa Ana Unified School District. The centers serve hundreds of students on a daily basis throughout the school year and summer. The centers were created and funded by Broadcom co-founder Henry T. Nicholas, III.
The centers are based on a program started by retired Juvenile Court judge Jack Mandel, who spent more than a decade mentoring Santa Ana High students, and helping them get into college.
The first center opened in downtown Santa Ana in 2008. The second opened last year on the Valley High campus.
Students receive help with homework and college applications, visit college campuses, take SAT prep courses, attend performances at the Orange County Performing Arts Center and explore extracurricular interests such as cooking and guitar lessons.
“These exceptional students were limited because their home environment was not conducive to studying; with a little encouragement and support, they’re accomplishing goals they could only dream of,” said Mandel, executive director of the centers.
“In a few years, I am certain we will establish ourselves among colleges as one of the leading sources in the country for generating educated students of diversity.”
Nicholas has pleaded not guilty to 25 criminal counts that he distributed illegal drugs and conspired to illegally backdate $2.2 billion in employee stock options as head of Broadcom. His trial in the backdating case is scheduled to start next February to be followed by a separate trial on the drug charges.
Contact the writer: 714-704-3773 or fleal@ocregister.com
————————————————————————————————————
latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lausd26-2009sep26,0,687449.story
latimes.com
Garfield High is eligible for takeover
Control of the East L.A. school, setting for ‘Stand and Deliver,’ could shift because of its low academic standing.
By Howard Blume
September 26, 2009
Garfield High, which became nationally known as the real-life setting for the film “Stand and Deliver,” will be among the initial 12 local campuses, including six high schools, eligible for takeover because of persistent academic failure, officials announced Friday.
The nation’s second-largest school system will invite bidders from inside and outside the district to run these schools next year through a proposal process that is still being developed.
The Los Angeles Board of Education authorized this school-control plan in August; it applies to low-achieving existing schools and to 51 new campuses set to open over the next four years in the Los Angeles Unified School District.
Garfield, which for decades has served a largely immigrant Latino population in East Los Angeles, reached a high-water mark in the 1980s, when math teacher Jaime Escalante built his famed calculus program.
Under his leadership, dozens of students passed the Advanced Placement calculus test every year, a rare feat even at the nation’s elite schools.
Last year, only 5% of Garfield students tested as “proficient” in any math class.
“All these schools need the attention that this will focus on them,” said board member Yolie Flores Aguilar, author of the policy.
Other schools include:
* Maywood Academy in the southeast Los Angeles County city of Maywood. The school opened four years ago. Maywood city officials are interested in obtaining substantial control over the school, said City Councilman Felipe Aguirre.
* Jefferson High in Central-Alameda. District officials successfully opposed a previous charter conversion attempt by Steve Barr and his Green Dot Public Schools. Barr later engineered a takeover of Locke High.
* Lincoln High in Lincoln Heights. Teachers helped staff a volunteer summer school after budget cuts slashed district offerings. One potential course that failed to attract sufficient enrollment was an activism seminar with the proposed class project of recalling Flores Aguilar because she voted for budget cuts that resulted in layoffs.
* Burbank Middle School in Highland Park, where parents have long worried about gang influence on campus. The school also has two new magnet schools that, some argue, already are the basis of a promising reform.
* San Fernando Middle School, the only Valley campus.
The other schools are Gardena High, San Pedro High, Carver Middle School in South Park, Griffith Joyner Elementary in Watts, Hillcrest Elementary in Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw, and Hyde Park Elementary in Hyde Park.
L.A. schools Supt. Ramon C. Cortines said that being on the list “should not be viewed as a negative” and that “this process is about providing our schools with the appropriate supports.”
More than 250 schools are eligible under the board resolution, which applies to schools that consistently failed to meet federal benchmarks for at least three years.
Cortines refined the formula as recently as midweek, finally deciding that the “focus” schools, as he called them, would meet additional criteria: fewer than 21% of students proficient in math or English and no school-wide improvement on the state’s Academic Performance Index, which is largely based on standardized test scores.
In addition, high schools would have a dropout rate greater than 10%.
Garfield qualified easily.
The school also owns the lowest rank, 1 of 10, when compared with schools statewide. But that does not make Garfield’s selection incontestable.
When compared with schools that serve similar students, Garfield rates a 6 of 10, which puts it in the upper half of state schools.
And although Garfield dropped three points on this year’s Academic Performance Index, it had improved by 44 and 25 points the previous two years, among L.A. Unified’s better gains.
Garfield’s uncertain future has engendered fear and anger among the faculty, said social studies teacher Brian Fritch.
“We have a lot of teachers confused about what the next step will be,” he said. “People don’t feel included in the process and feel rushed.”
Fritch is hustling to organize an internal reform proposal.
Junior Karen Flores, 16, said she and her classmates are worried about the loss of cherished Garfield traditions and a disrupted senior year, with the potential to affect classes and college applications.
“It feels like people are giving up on us,” she said.
Garfield became a reform battleground as a target of the Parent Revolution, which emerged out of Green Dot.
Its organizers have asserted that they have signatures from dissatisfied community parents equal in number to more than half the Garfield student body and that the district must either improve Garfield or face competition from start-up charter schools that would surround it.
Green Dot has agreed to step aside and let another charter group, the Alliance for College-Ready Public Schools, manage new charters near Garfield.
Alliance chief executive Judy Burton said she’s interested in submitting a proposal both for Garfield and for a new high school, under construction, that will relieve Garfield’s overcrowding.
howard.blume@latimes.com
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
————————————————————————————————————
Going Broke: State’s a wreck – can it be fixed?
swiegand@sacbee.com
Published Sunday, Sep. 20, 2009
Three inarguable facts dominate California’s system of financing state government:
• It’s a mess.
• It’s currently a mess in large part due to the deepest and most pervasive global recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
• It’s been a mess for much of the past three decades because the combination of an out-of date tax system, reckless spending and fickle voters has made state government extremely vulnerable to the ebbs and flows of the economy.
While there’s not much the state’s elected leaders can do about the worldwide economic woes, they have tried for decades – mostly unsuccessfully – to wrestle with the triple threat of taxes, spending and ballot-box budgeting.
Now a special commission is set to present the Legislature with proposals to dramatically restructure the tax system. Two other reform groups are pushing changes that include, among other things, revising the state’s budgeting process and overhauling the state constitution.
How well any of the reforms succeed in improving California’s financial stew may depend on how much the state has learned from the deficiencies of the current recipe. For example, that stew just doesn’t have enough rich people.
Catching pneumonia
It may seem intuitive that the wealthy pay more income taxes because they have more income, but in California they pay a lot more.
In 2006, according to the Franchise Tax Board, Californians making more than $500,000 a year filed just 1 percent of all state income tax returns – and paid 47.2 percent of the taxes.
That works out fine for the state treasury when the economy is humming along, since wealthy taxpayers derive much of their income from capital gains and investments. But when stock markets sag, so do the incomes of many wealthy taxpayers – and that has a major impact on state income tax revenues.
Since California relies so heavily on those revenues – more than half of general fund income comes from income taxes – it makes state government extremely susceptible to swings in the economy.
“When the market tanks, those taxpayers sneeze,” said H.D. Palmer, the veteran spokesman for the Department of Finance. “And when those taxpayers sneeze, the state budget catches pneumonia.”
Statistics give weight to Palmer’s quip. From 1999 to 2000, for example, state general fund revenues jumped 23 percent as the dotcom boom reached its peak. At the other end of the spectrum, revenues plunged 17.5 percent from 2007 to 2008 when the housing bubble burst.
Unintended consequences
How California came to rely so heavily on its top-income taxpayers is an object lesson on the law of unintended consequences.
In 1987, Congress and the administration of President Ronald Reagan had just overhauled the federal income tax system. California lawmakers determined it was a good idea to “simplify” the state’s system by conforming it to the federal government’s system – and win points with voters by reducing taxes for most of them.
The final bill – approved, as is legislative custom, on the last night of the session – included tax breaks for a relatively small number of businesses, reduced the state’s top personal income tax rate from 11 percent to 9.3 percent and decreased the number of tax brackets from 11 to six.
“This bill does something not seen in California taxes, ever,” declared then-Sen. John Garamendi, the Walnut Grove Democrat who co-authored the measure. “We are achieving simplicity and broadbased tax relief.”
Broadening the brackets meant immediate tax cuts for about 70 percent of California taxpayers – and increases for the rest, mainly families with incomes of more than $100,000.
The lasting result of the 1987 law was a dramatic shift in the income tax burden. In 2006, taxpayers making more than $500,000 paid nearly half of the state’s income taxes.
When adjusting for inflation, taxpayers making the 1980 equivalent had paid only 12 percent of the income taxes.
“That was a pivotal point,” said Fred Silva, a senior fiscal policy adviser with the reform group California Forward, who in 1987 was the Senate’s chief budget consultant. “We said ‘upper income people, you’re going to pay more, and we’re going to rely on you more.’ ” Not everyone thinks that’s a bad thing.
“The state income tax is the fastest growing revenue source, so you don’t want to retard that,” said Steve Levy, director of the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy. “The richest taxpayers pay most of the taxes because they are making most of the money … and that’s an equitable situation.”
Levy is not entirely right. According to figures from the Franchise Tax Board, while Californians making more than$500,000 a year were paying 47.2 percent of the income taxes, they were earning 24.8 percent of the adjusted gross income.
Even so, those who support the current system and oppose “smoothing out” the income tax burden by increasing the proportions paid by middle- and low-income earners contend that the current system’s benefits outweigh the problems caused in bad-economy years.
“Do you kill the golden goose that lays eggs four years out of five?” said Jean Ross, executive director of the California Budget Project, a nonprofit group that advocates for the interests of the poor and middle class.
“The personal income tax – that part of the system works.”
‘A penny for Jimmy’
Like the income tax, the other major component of California’s tax system is also a child of the Great Depression. In July 1933, prodded to action by temperatures that climbed to 107 degrees in the legislative chambers – which then lacked air conditioning – state lawmakers adopted a sales tax.
The rate, initially applied to food as well as other goods, was set at 2.5 percent. That was a hefty figure back then, when the average family’s monthly income was $125.
Resentful Californians disdainfully called the tax “a penny for Jimmy,” referring to then-Gov. James “Sunny Jim” Rolph.
Two years later, legislators approved a personal income tax with rates ranging from 1 percent to 15 percent.
For much of the past 75 years, the two taxes tended to balance each other in terms of their impact on taxpayers.
(The sales tax is “regressive,” meaning everyone pays the same rate no matter what their individual financial status is. The income tax is “progressive,” meaning that those who have more income generally pay at a higher rate.)
While the state’s tax structure has remained largely unchanged, tectonic shifts in the economy, as well as changes in tax laws, have affected the role each tax plays.
Taxing doughnut holes
For the first 50 years or so of its existence, the sales tax chugged along pretty steadily as state government’s dominant source of income.
Then, as the building blocks of California’s economy shifted from the production and sale of goods to a heavier emphasis on services – instead of buying a lawn mower, you pay someone to mow the lawn for you – sales tax revenues became less vital.
In 1984, revenues from personal income taxes surpassed the sales tax as the state revenue’s top dog. That caused two things to happen.
One was that the state now counted on a less reliable tax as its main source of revenues, since income taxes tend to swing more wildly than sales taxes with changes in the economy.
The second has to do with doughnut holes.
For decades, legislators and governors have tried to figure out ways to extend the sales tax to untaxed goods and services – taxing both the mower and the mowing service – while drawing the least amount of squawking from consumers and industries that might be targeted.
In January, for example, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger floated a proposal to impose sales tax on a variety of services, from veterinary care to washing machine repairs, as well as entertainment venues such as golf courses and amusement parks.
An avalanche of protests from the affected businesses promptly buried the idea.
But even extending the sales tax to currently untaxed goods has proved to be an iffy proposition. In 1991, lawmakers desperate for revenues extended the sales tax to snack foods, bottled water, and newspapers and magazines.
Defining exactly what constituted a snack food, however, became a daunting task for tax officials. Tortilla chips, peanuts, granola and whole apple pies, the state Board of Equalization decided, were not taxable. Doritos, pretzels, granola bars and slices of apple pie were taxable.
“Doughnuts aren’t taxable, but doughnut holes are,” fumed Assemblyman Mickey Conroy, R-Orange. “I think it’s a disgrace.”
So did voters. The following year, they decisively repealed the “snack tax.”
While there’s no shortage of ideas about how to fix the state’s tax system – most of them centering on increasing taxes only if absolutely necessary and only if they’re imposed on someone else – there is an equally vociferous argument that the tax system isn’t even the state’s biggest fiscal headache.
“It’s not the tax system that is causing the problem,” said David Doerr, the senior tax consultant at the California Taxpayers Association and the man who literally wrote the book (“California’s Tax Machine”) on the history of the state’s tax system.
“The tax structure has been pretty consistent in providing income,” Doerr continued. “It’s spending.They (elected officials) just can’t say no.”
I have lost interest in reading the blog because people keep on posting long posts. Please place a link to the post to not take up the space.
Since SAUSD teachers and admins love numbers so much, i just wanted to share with you what facts i have been digging up.
The bottom line is Santa Ana ADA per student is over 10,000+ per student. Teachers in Santa Ana make more than the teachers in Irvine- encluding priciples at over 120,000 + year. This does not enclude QEIA grants ect…. and below is the results. Its not the kids that are failing, its the teachers and the district that is failing the kids. Parents are also a big problem, but your never going to solve anything unless the teachers take pride and expect only the best from their students and themselves.
I was shocked at OUSD results, disgusted at SAUSD.
California Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR)
Santa Ana Unified District
All Students
Total Enrollment on First Day of Testing: 41,632 County Name: Orange County
Total Number Tested: 41,437 District Name: Santa Ana Unified District
Total Number Tested in Selected Subgroup: 41,437 School Name: —-
CDS Code: 30-66670-0000000
California Standards Test Scores – 2008
Grades
——————————————————————————–
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 EOC
——————————————————————————–
Reported Enrollment 4,610 4,324 4,255 4,267 4,160 4,169 4,141 4,260 3,922 3,524
CST English-Language Arts
Students Tested 4,554 4,258 4,185 4,180 4,114 4,121 4,098 4,160 3,795 3,369
% of Enrollment 98.8 % 98.5 % 98.4 % 98.0 % 98.9 % 98.8 % 99.0 % 97.7 % 96.8 % 95.6 %
Students with Scores 4,546 4,256 4,183 4,178 4,114 4,121 4,092 4,145 3,767 3,346
Mean Scale Score 330.0 314.4 339.9 328.4 326.1 326.3 322.6 324.8 313.8 305.3
% Advanced 8 % 3 % 15 % 8 % 8 % 9 % 8 % 10 % 10 % 7 %
% Proficient 26 % 19 % 27 % 25 % 21 % 25 % 23 % 22 % 16 % 16 %
% Basic 36 % 42 % 37 % 40 % 40 % 31 % 35 % 32 % 30 % 28 %
% Below Basic 19 % 22 % 14 % 18 % 19 % 21 % 19 % 23 % 25 % 25 %
% Far Below Basic 10 % 13 % 7 % 10 % 11 % 14 % 14 % 12 % 19 % 25 %
CST Mathematics
Students Tested 4,551 4,262 4,188 4,181 4,114 3,936
% of Enrollment 98.7 % 98.6 % 98.4 % 98.0 % 98.9 % 94.4 %
Students with Scores 4,545 4,254 4,187 4,179 4,114 3,935
Mean Scale Score 339.1 358.8 355.8 336.7 326.3 334.3
% Advanced 14 % 22 % 21 % 12 % 7 % 12 %
% Proficient 28 % 31 % 31 % 26 % 22 % 26 %
% Basic 28 % 26 % 29 % 27 % 34 % 30 %
% Below Basic 24 % 16 % 16 % 26 % 29 % 23 %
% Far Below Basic 7 % 5 % 3 % 9 % 7 % 9 %
CST General Mathematics (Grades 6 & 7 Standards)
Students Tested 2,265 406 2,671
% of Enrollment 54.7 % 9.5 %
Students with Scores 2,263 405 2,668
Mean Scale Score 312.1 277.4 306.8
% Advanced 3 % 0 % 3 %
% Proficient 20 % 4 % 18 %
% Basic 34 % 19 % 32 %
% Below Basic 29 % 45 % 32 %
% Far Below Basic 13 % 31 % 16 %
CST Algebra I
Students Tested 108 1,813 2,754 931 357 5,963
% of Enrollment 2.6 % 43.8 % 64.6 % 23.7 % 10.1 %
Students with Scores 108 1,812 2,742 924 353 5,939
Mean Scale Score 377.4 357.7 290.1 269.6 266.5 307.7
% Advanced 25 % 15 % 1 % 0 % 0 % 5 %
% Proficient 36 % 38 % 10 % 3 % 4 % 18 %
% Basic 31 % 26 % 26 % 14 % 10 % 24 %
% Below Basic 6 % 17 % 43 % 50 % 50 % 36 %
% Far Below Basic 2 % 4 % 20 % 33 % 36 % 18 %
CST Integrated Math 1
Students Tested 1 1 1 3
% of Enrollment
Students with Scores 1 1 1 3
Mean Scale Score * * * *
% Advanced * * * *
% Proficient * * * *
% Basic * * * *
% Below Basic * * * *
% Far Below Basic * * * *
CST Geometry
Students Tested 967 1,991 968 3,926
% of Enrollment 22.7 % 50.8 % 27.5 %
Students with Scores 966 1,988 961 3,915
Mean Scale Score 323.7 262.4 250.1 274.5
% Advanced 7 % 0 % 0 % 2 %
% Proficient 22 % 2 % 1 % 7 %
% Basic 31 % 12 % 5 % 15 %
% Below Basic 36 % 53 % 48 % 47 %
% Far Below Basic 4 % 33 % 47 % 29 %
CST Integrated Math 2
Students Tested 1 1
% of Enrollment
Students with Scores 1 1
Mean Scale Score * *
% Advanced * *
% Proficient * *
% Basic * *
% Below Basic * *
% Far Below Basic * *
CST Algebra II
Students Tested 17 819 1,255 2,091
% of Enrollment 0.4 % 20.9 % 35.6 %
Students with Scores 17 817 1,255 2,089
Mean Scale Score 337.6 312.2 263.6 283.2
% Advanced 0 % 3 % 0 % 1 %
% Proficient 47 % 18 % 3 % 9 %
% Basic 41 % 38 % 14 % 24 %
% Below Basic 12 % 28 % 34 % 32 %
% Far Below Basic 0 % 13 % 48 % 34 %
CST Summative High School Mathematics (Grades 9-11)
Students Tested 26 721 747
% of Enrollment 0.7 % 20.5 %
Students with Scores 26 718 744
Mean Scale Score 360.6 303.6 305.6
% Advanced 19 % 3 % 4 %
% Proficient 31 % 16 % 17 %
% Basic 23 % 30 % 30 %
% Below Basic 23 % 40 % 39 %
% Far Below Basic 4 % 10 % 10 %
CST History-Social Science (Grade 8 Cumulative)
Students Tested 4,084
% of Enrollment 98.6 %
Students with Scores 4,080
Mean Scale Score 318.9
% Advanced 8 %
% Proficient 17 %
% Basic 35 %
% Below Basic 23 %
% Far Below Basic 17 %
CST World History
Students Tested 54 3,639 251 3,944
% of Enrollment 1.3 % 92.8 % 7.1 %
Students with Scores 14 3,632 218 3,864
Mean Scale Score 219.9 304.3 270.2 302.1
% Advanced 0 % 6 % 2 % 5 %
% Proficient 0 % 14 % 4 % 14 %
% Basic 0 % 25 % 12 % 25 %
% Below Basic 7 % 19 % 22 % 19 %
% Far Below Basic 93 % 36 % 61 % 38 %
CST U.S. History
Students Tested 3,320
% of Enrollment 94.2 %
Students with Scores 3,313
Mean Scale Score 313.6
% Advanced 9 %
% Proficient 17 %
% Basic 27 %
% Below Basic 22 %
% Far Below Basic 25 %
CST Science (Grade 5, Grade 8, and Grade 10 Life Science)
Students Tested 4,176 4,084 3,752
% of Enrollment 97.9 % 98.6 % 95.7 %
Students with Scores 4,173 4,081 3,738
Mean Scale Score 319.3 338.4 315.9
% Advanced 4 % 19 % 7 %
% Proficient 23 % 26 % 19 %
% Basic 39 % 24 % 30 %
% Below Basic 21 % 16 % 24 %
% Far Below Basic 13 % 15 % 20 %
CST Biology/Life Sciences
Students Tested 945 2,977 1,768 5,690
% of Enrollment 22.2 % 75.9 % 50.2 %
Students with Scores 945 2,975 1,767 5,687
Mean Scale Score 353.0 305.1 305.7 313.3
% Advanced 13 % 2 % 4 % 4 %
% Proficient 40 % 12 % 12 % 17 %
% Basic 39 % 38 % 35 % 38 %
% Below Basic 5 % 23 % 24 % 20 %
% Far Below Basic 3 % 25 % 26 % 21 %
CST Chemistry
Students Tested 711 1,136 1,847
% of Enrollment 18.1 % 32.2 %
Students with Scores 711 1,135 1,846
Mean Scale Score 331.5 301.0 312.8
% Advanced 9 % 4 % 5 %
% Proficient 22 % 9 % 14 %
% Basic 48 % 32 % 38 %
% Below Basic 11 % 23 % 18 %
% Far Below Basic 11 % 33 % 24 %
CST Earth Science
Students Tested 3,142 36 102 3,280
% of Enrollment 73.8 % 0.9 % 2.9 %
Students with Scores 3,139 36 102 3,277
Mean Scale Score 305.8 295.1 291.6 305.2
% Advanced 2 % 3 % 1 % 2 %
% Proficient 9 % 6 % 10 % 9 %
% Basic 43 % 25 % 25 % 42 %
% Below Basic 23 % 33 % 22 % 23 %
% Far Below Basic 22 % 33 % 42 % 23 %
CST Physics
Students Tested 3 221 224
% of Enrollment 0.1 % 6.3 %
Students with Scores 3 220 223
Mean Scale Score * 343.4 343.0
% Advanced * 16 % 16 %
% Proficient * 26 % 26 %
% Basic * 37 % 37 %
% Below Basic * 13 % 13 %
% Far Below Basic * 7 % 7 %
——————————————————————————–
California Department of Education
©2009 California Department of Education
Page generated 12/2/2009 8:08:38 PM
I am sorry for the long post, I could not post the link.
I really want you to take a good look at your work. These kids are screwed, because of your lack of advocation. You know they are failing, yet you sit back and take the paycheck. Speak up and have some respect for a job that can break a life or guild it!
I was going for build it!
sorry:(
Michelle,
We also like spelling……I think you meant include, as there is no such word as enclude- you could ask my class of 2nd graders from last year whom were 95% proficient in language arts- even they know how to spell. There’s a number for you to, as you say ,”enclude” to your statistics.
What Irvine 2nd graders? Good idea!
Hmmm – do you think Michelle know the difference between principle and principal? We know she can’t spell and she does well with cutting & pasting long, long, posts.
You are right, I can’t spell!
But I sure can speak, and I am making you angry enough to get all juvenile!
Am I hitting too close to home? GOOD!
“The principal ingredient to a good education is an excellent teacher; Santa Ana has very few!”
“The principle of Willard is surrounded by idiot’s!”
Is that right?
To #15 and #16
Sure, try to deviate the message by focusing on spelling. Maybe the reason why Michelle didn’t spell words correctly is due to the inferior performance of people involved in education, like you! Who gives a f&#@, how Michelle spelled! IF THERE WAS AN OUNCE OF GOODNESS IN YOUR HEART, YOU WOULD HAVE TAKEN THIS OPPORTUNITY TO REITERATE THE MESSAGE USING THE WORDS SHE MISSPELLED CORRECTLY. Shame on you for trying to ridicule Michelle… She actually brought to the table valid information.
Michelle, never mind these jerks, you are pushing their buttons, that is obvious… By the way, I understood your point. If “Anonymous” and “teach me says” are so tight a@# that they can’t understand what you meant, that is an amplified indication of their enormous limitations!!! Both of you should get out of the education environment because your “grandeur” is keeping you from connecting to the community you are EXPECTED to RESPECT, and SERVE!
Thank you MegaFed-Up, but I have these idiots running like scared rats! They can ridicule me all they want! If they think my spelling and grammar is bad now, they obviously did not read any of my post’s a year ago!:)
I love the tips on my spelling and grammar it’s actually very helpful!
TO MICHELLE,
As someone involved in education I understand your disappointment. I know future generations are getting screwed by a system which sets high standards (in CA, in particular, above the national) and then ties the hands of parents, teachers and administrators alike.
Many of us are scared to speak the truth. Many of us will not admit, publicly, that we are being set up for failure by a group of self-serving politicians. Yes, there are a few pseudo educators/administrators out there. But in reality the grand majority of people in education intend to do the best for the students. The truth, we are not being allowed to do our job!
The power to control education is being taken from the hands of the community and educators alike! When a system doesn’t allow parents, administrators and teachers to do their job, a job they know how to do, by forcing them to follow programs designed to “teach to the test” and then in turn blames them for the low performance of students, you know there is a set up.
Dear Michelle, please think about this message. Please know that most of the people involved in education are there because of true vocation. Most of us are there because we want future generations to get a hold of the information we have mastered. Most of us, idealist as it may seem, are here because we believe that the future is in the hands of our children. I ask you to join good teachers and good administrators (and everyone knows who, in every school, is a true educator) to defend the rights of our children. Together we can demand that the rights of future generations of students be honored. Demand lower teacher student ratios. Demand time for students to do less homework and have more time to dialogue with their family. Demand more enrichment programs: debate, science, music, art, field-trips, etc. I once read that Native-Americans believe the land/world we occupy belongs to the next generation of children. We are here merely in a “borrowing” mode. As someone who borrows, it is our duty to, at least, maintain things as we obtained them. If possible, we are expected to return the world in the same or better condition, never worst!