Nirvana!

This is just another Kunicki scam. When will the District Attorney get this guy? He is always one step ahead of the law. How stupid is this expenditure. Voters keep paying taxes and these idiots do something like this. And they let Kunicki negotiate the "deal". Quite a deal for him, I'm sure. How sad for the County to let this happen.

Nirvana-Nevermind

Don't get me started on Kunicki, I invested a lot of my personal dollars to circumvent a man with such low integrity in office. The problem is too many people are passive and do not know anything about the County Office of Education. What a pity! Our children lose in the end.

Hey, before we make this about Kunicki there is a larger story. Do local groups need a lobbyist to be effective with our member of congress?

Do you think the end result will be better educational programs for local schools?

Looks like this group had a great meeting witha gallegly staffer without hiring a lobbyist.

http://www.vccool.org/

And

http://vcreporter.com/article.php?id=4856&IssueNum=130

Brian,
The City does not have lobbyist in DC (as far as I know) but we do have one in Sacramento.

I don't get it. I thought we had Audra Strickland and Cameron Smyth to work for our interests.

Who exactly does our lobbyist lobby?

You endorsed Cameron Smyth in the last election. Didn't you endorse him because he would work for us? Is he not up to the task?

Brian:

I have read a few times of local communities out of state being approached by lobbyists from the federal level peddling potential federal earmarks for locally financed items. From a local government perspective, they just hire a lobbyist for $120,000 to get an earmark of federal money to pay for a local item that costs a few million. For a local district, it's a cost benefit, but for the federal government, it creates a larger deficit.

Anderson Cooper's CNN 360, "Keeping them honest" segment has started to really take a look at earmarks and it definitely has my interest.

I'm not sure many citizens are aware of this site put on by the US Census. So, I wanted to pass it on.

You can go on this audit site and it will tell you exactly what your local government's are expending in federal funds as they have to fill out this audit statement.

I checked the Ventura County Superintendent of Schools last audit and they expended $33,251,739 in federal funds up from $31,110,465 in 05.

I am hoping ML can clarify one item for me. Under the Ventura County Superintendent of Schools there is two line items entitled "Forest Reserve" for close to $30,000. Maybe, I'm uninformed, but I'm just curious what the Ventura County Superintendent's Office needs in spending federal funds on a Forest Reserve? How does that impact kid's education?

What is the education background of the board members? Anyone know?

Let me get this straight:

1.) Ventura County Superintendent's office needs a paid lobbyist in Washington, DC to check with Mr. Gallegly about whether or not he is working to appropriate and deliver Federal money to Ventura County;

and

2.) This same office needed another paid lobbyist in Sacramento to help Ms. Strickland push her bill through the state assembly and senate - with the very people that she works with on a daily basis.

Isn't it a fact that the County already pays lobbyists to take care of business in these places? It was an issue in the 4th district supervisor race when Mr. Foy and his supporters were slamming his opponent for having been employed as a lobbyist. Yet, it came out during the debate that the County has long employed lobbyists under contract to represent its interests in Sacramento and DC.

Now, a big supporter of Mr. Foy - Mr. Kunicki - argues to support the county hiring two more paid lobbyists - so his department can get help from two other big Foy supporters and make sure that they do their job for Ventura County in DC and Sacramento.

Whether or not you see value to the idea of paid lobbying, am I the only one who sees a bit of irony - or is the word hypocrisy - in their positions and actions?

Mommas, don't let your children grow up to be politicians.

Below are items that concern me. Mr. Yocca is head of Ventura Capital, the Sacramento lobbying firm we hired. Both lobbying firms (in the case for Ventura Capital, Mr. Yocca) contributed to Tony Strickland. Additionally, I have copied for readers minutes from our Board's April 13, 2007 that summarizes some of the issues regarding
these contracts.

While our meetings are not televised, citizens may obtain tapes through our offices our discussions/debates can be listened to and analyzed.

NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR CITY STATE/ZIP
JOSEPH G. YOCCA
SACRAMENTO
CA / 95814

ID NUMBER EMPLOYER OCCUPATION
CAPITOL VENTURE, LLC LOBBYIST

AMOUNT TYPE TRANS. DATE FILED DATE
TRANS #
$1,000.00
INITIAL
10/24/2006
10/25/2006
1211700-INC3246

NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR CITY STATE/ZIP
ANCHOR CONSULTING, LLC
ALEXANDRIA
VA / 22312

ID NUMBER EMPLOYER OCCUPATION
AMOUNT TYPE TRANS. DATE FILED DATE
TRANS #
$1,000.00
INITIAL
10/13/2006
10/13/2006
1207747-INC2987

This is under late contributions for Tony Strickland for Controller, late contributions 2005 - 2006. http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1277272&session=2005&view=late1

MINUTES

5. Report on Negotiation of Contracts with Lobbyist Firms Capitol Venture, LLC.,
and Anchor Consulting, LLC.
On January 22, 2007, Mr. Valenzano appointed Mr. Kunicki and Mr. Bates to a
Subcommittee to research potential lobbyists. On March 9, 2007, the Board
authorized the Subcommittee and Dr. Weis to pursue contracts with Capitol
Venture, LLC., and Anchor Consulting, LLC., and that following negotiations,
the fees be incorporated within the 2006-07 budget. Mr. Bates distributed copies
of the contracts with the lobbyist firms of Capitol Ventura, LLC and Anchor
Consulting, LLC and comments from Don Hurley, Assistant County Counsel, for
the Board’s review.


MINUTES of Agenda No. 07-07
04.13.07 Page 6 of 12
Mr. Bates noted that the first application for federal funding was filed with
Congressman Gallegly’s Office and was for $1.5 million to improve the facilities
at the ROP Airport. The lobbyists are also talking to Feinstein, Boxer, for
additional legislation.

Mrs. Peterson asked about the need for a lobbyist when there are elected
representatives. What other educational organizations have utilized lobbyists to
get funding? Dr. Weis reported that information on what agencies pay for
lobbyists and the amount paid, is available. He noted that there are a handful of
County Offices that have hired lobbyists. With the existing contracts, the Board
will become the 12th largest expenditure for lobbyists in the State, up with CTA,
LAUSD, and the CSU system. This is a larger expenditure that that of any other
County Offices of Education. Four districts in the County spent money on
lobbyist in 2005: Fillmore Unified, $12,000; Oxnard Union, $34,000; Oxnard
Elementary $63,000; Simi $24,000; and Santa Paula which spent 0 last year.
Mr. Kunicki noted that these lobbyists are probably hired for specific issues.
LAUSD spent $430,000 on lobbyists.

Mr. Bates noted that there is a termination of contract clause in both contracts,
and that it is not the job of the elected representatives to find funding for each
agency in their County. That is the lobbyists’ job.

Mrs. Peterson asked if there is information available on which lobbyist agencies
have given funds to what campaigns. Mrs. Peterson stated her concern that the
original estimate was $200,000 and these contracts are for $288,000. Mr. Bates
noted that it is a 15 month contract. Mrs. Peterson stated her concern that this is
using taxpayer money for venture capitalism. She will be concerned that this
money will filter down to campaigns, and will not be used to support and expand
education. She feels that we are taking public funds to benefit private enterprise.

Mr. Valenzano stated that it is the County Board’s job to search out funds to
support local education. He believes that if the Office and Board can spend
$300,000 to bring in over $1.5 million dollars, then they are successful. He noted
that the Office brought in $1 million dollars from a private firm. If this money
can be used to bring in additional funds, then he would like to pursue this.

Mrs. Peterson responded that it is the responsibility of Board member to go to
their legislators and lobby for additional funding. This is also the work of CCBE
and CSBA. Board members do need to do a better job of lobbying with their
legislators. She believes that we need to be very cautious with tax payer money.
This is very high risk when she feels we should be conservative with funds. This
should be done through a foundation, people who want to take this type of risk to
further education.

Mr. Kunicki stated that he is not satisfied with the amount of funding that ROP
receives and he would like to pursue this avenue. Mr. Kunicki noted that he is
prepared to move forward with these contracts.

MINUTES of Agenda No. 07-07
04.13.07 Page 7 of 12

Mr. Valenzano stated that he feels that the lobbyist contracts are not being funded
through public, tax payer money, but rather through the $1 million income which
came from private industry and he is willing to expend this money in this manner.
CSBA and CCBE have lobbyists, but this is not bringing money into Ventura
County. Public funds do go into the private sector as textbooks, lawyers, pencils,
paper are not purchased from public agencies.

Mrs. Peterson concurred that when we utilize public funds, we need to be prudent.
When we purchase textbooks, and hire contractors, we either know what we are
purchasing, or have entered into a competitive bidding process. Mrs. Peterson
stated that for this Office to be seen as having the 12th largest expenditure in the
State for lobbyists will be questioned by the public in the future. She cautioned
the Board to be cautious and prudent with the use of public funds.

Mr. Valenzano requested a copy of the report on lobbyist expenditures for 2005.
Dr. Weis will forward this information to all Board members.

Mr. Bates noted that this is not an action item. The pursuit of these contracts was
already authorized. This is a report on the final contracts. This item was
presented for information only.

Scott:

Your question re: Forest Reserves is excellent. I, too, was confused at first and had to ask a few questions. Here's the answer:

Districts where there are National Forests get paid because it is land that cannot be developed or taxed, therefore those districts lose a valuable funding source. These
funds are especially important for small school districts near very large forest reserves (for example, near Yosemite). Just as development rights are bought, here the federal government is buying tax rights from school districts. Basically, the federal government is paying Californians for land set aside for a national benefit.

Right now, the California School Board Association and the California County Boards of Education are lobbying Washington to retain those funds. Without those funds, many school districts could not be financially solvent (they do not have an adequate tax base).

Without those funds, those districts will go into receivership and all Californians will be required to bail them out. Not good for California taxpayer.

Interesting that of all the 1,000's of lobbyists, that the CBOE picks the ones that have donated to the Stricklands.

ML, do any of the trustees have a PhD? a MA? How about a Bachelors? Also, how many of them are educators? I do hope at least one of them have a background in finance - CPA?

The $1 million from the sale of our broadband rights is a one time windfall.
Our Offices found out about that opportunity through our state education organizations'
considerable connections with DC private industries. In this case, media outlets looking
for future expansion opportunities into local markets.

I don't see our Board being able to sustain a $240,000 per year expenditure to
lobby for uncertain additional funding. I wll be pressing for our Board to be more
active in collaborating within CSBA and CCBE, with other public agencies and with the public. There is strength and influence in numbers.

Since the vote and as I do more research, I have learned that hiring a lobbyist is not even in the top ten as a "major influencer in Congress." It ranks 18. Here are the 17 that are ahead of paid lobbyists:
1. Visits from constituents
2. Spontaneous letter from constituents
3. Telephone calls from constituents
4. Congressional Research Service
5. Articles in major daily newspapers
6. Editorials in major daily newspapers
7. Congressional Record
8. Editorials in district daily newspapers
9. Government publications
10. Orchestrated mail from constituents
11. Op-ed opinion pieces in major daily newspapers
12. Op-ed pieces in local daily newspapers
13. Spontaneous letters from state officials
14. Spontaneous letters from interest groups
15. Telephone calls from friends
16. Telephone calls from state opinion leaders
17. Spontaneous letters from Congressional leaders

Dennert Bloggers have more power than paid lobbyists.

Katie:
I can only speak for myself: I have a BA in English (minored in French and International Studies) and earned a Professional Clear Single Subject Teaching Credential (expired in 2005 and have not renewed it) in English and supplementaries in Introductory French and Government . Have completed graduate work towards a Masters in English.

So lobbyist's make campaign contributions to the Strickland's, the Strickland's help to finance County School Board races. County BOE give a big fat juicy contract to lobbyists who pay to play. ML is told it is not an action item and she has no say in who is hired because she was not on the "Committee to interview lobbyist." Ironicaly the only people who interviewed the lobbyist for the apparent "done deal" were the County BOE Trustees who had ties to the Strickland's and their campaigh finances.

Thank you ML for shedding light on this scam.

I would be curious to know the ratio of the VCBOE budget for lobbyist's to their overall budget.

" With the existing contracts, the Board (VCBOE)
will become the 12th largest expenditure for lobbyists in the State, up with CTA, LAUSD, and the CSU system."

Part of the job description of the VCBOE Trustees is to lobby, why are they outsourcing such a huge chunk of change for their responsibilities.

As soon as I read this story I wondered if somehow there would be connections to the Strickland campaign machine.

Let me get this straight.

1. We give tax money to the board.
2. The board gives it to lobbyists.
3. The lobbyists give some ( call it a kickback) to Tony Strickland.
4. The Tiger gives some to candidates for the board.

Where is a great investigative reporter when you need one?

I know some people will say this is just how democracy works, but if this is how democracy "works" then democracy no longer works.

Who do I support to get my democracy back?

Anyone know if any of the lobbyists donate to other area politicians?

I read a story today about the county board fighting over a new science textbook. Do they choose the books for my local schools? How many books total do they buy?

If this is just about students in the county school system, not our local schools these people have too much time on their hands. The people against the book are making a routine choice into a political football.

Kind of funny the one guy against it couldn't or wouldn't recommend another book.

Maybe instead of arguing about textbooks they could lobby their local reps themselves instead of paying a company to do it.

It's just another Kunicki idea to get himself enriched. He has played the game for many years. It got him thown off the Planning Commission, now he is at it again. How sad for the unknown School District. They had the convicted pedofile Albert Rosen, then got Kunicki. What a trade!

Lobbyist charge arount $500 per hour plus expenses. If the VCBE were to hire a grant writer the total cost would be less than $120,000 per year and the effectivness would be measurable. With the lobbyist your not sure if you got something because of them or not. I think CVUSD utilizes an in house grant writer

PVSD spent lots on a lobbyist for AB 780. Not money well spent.

John, do you have the name of the lobbyist for AB780? I know Camarillo Unified PAC paid for some lobbying work for the unification issue. Is this related?

Didn't notice the "Contest" til now. NIRVANA!

Katie-
The district and Cam Uni used the same firm. Once the PAC found out how much it would cost the district started paying for it. I found out when reviewing my board pack and question the sup. He was using a resolution, passed by the majority, in a very broad sense to cover the costs.

I forgot the name of the firm. I know they are representing some ultra conservative issues and it seems there was a tie to some local politicos. I'll get the name for you.

Also, above you mentioned qualifications for board members. In my opinion there is not a professional skill set that makes for a good board member. Education has a totally different set of rules and accounting standards. What good boards need are individuals that come with open minds and no single agenda. You want a person that will read the information and be prepared at the meeting. Most importantly is finding the person that will realize they represent the entire electorate in their sphere and not just those that elected them. I guess someone pragmatic and rational would sum it up. That’s just my fantasy world.

I guess the "diversity" issue is what I am trying to figure out - it seems like 4 out of 5 are cut from the same cookie-cutter and I'm wondering why. Do some of them have advanced degrees in something? Or is the common bond they are all right-wingers (with the exception of ML)? I know the board had no interest in Chuck Watson coming on board and he seemed eminently qualified (not that his opponent ML wasn't) but he was a Republican. He wasn't even endorsed by the local Republican party. ML, I hope you ask all the questions that Chuck would have - your constituents are depending on you.

Katie,
John A. is absolutely right in terms of writing grants. VCOE has actually been rather successful writing grants, We can be better. The House Appropriations Committee's 2008 Budget Request for Labor/HHS/Education reflects a 96.9% increase
for Vocational Education -- State Grants, $1,181,553. Congress is also in the process of changing the name from Voc Ed to Career and Technology Education.

The education community has been working for years to have the Federal government invest in techonology education. In 1995, the focus for the Convention on College Composition and Communication held in Washington DC was "Literacies, Technologies, Responsibilities." One of its emphases was equity in the availabilty of technology. Lobbying from both the education and business communities have been ongoing since
the 1990s.

We are at a tipping point at which both our state and federal government are setting aside funds and investing in secondary ed access to hands-on education and technology as a means for students to prepare for college AND for high wage jobs.

Success in accessing those funds, in my view, will be through grants rather than earmarks. Grants are designed to support what is already planned for and proven
to be successful. Funding merit.

Finally, it seems using profits from a one-time windfall should be used for a one-time expense (as in finishing portions of our new Conference Center) or directed to our reserves for future needs instead of possibly creating a line item in our budget for an ongoing expense.

Additionally, I wonder, if we do receive funds this year for ROP (Regional Occupation Programs), will it be funds for a one-time expense? If so, what does that look like? If it is for construction of a building, will it require matching funds? future maintenance? Do we have the funding for any on-going expenses? Where does that come from? What do we have to take away from for that?

Whatever comes our way might be doable, but, in my view, we would be wise to create possible funding scenarios, anticipating issues and possible solutions -- in short, planning ahead based on our priorities and funding sources before using lobbyists.

Mr Kunicki advocated a "shot gun" approach. I see the value in that if VCOE has a well established and funded research and development department, AND if we had already established secure funding streams from a variety of sources. In my view, "shot gun" approaches are for experimenting with new approaches in terms of instruction, delivery of instruction, creating experimental programs, applying research to these, etc . . . those seem to me the areas that are most suitable to "shot gun" approaches (I am thinking primarily in terms of what happens in private industry or research institutions
. . . the iPhone, stem cell research, etc." The "shot gun" model, in my view, is better suited in those situations. That is not the case here.

How does a one-time windfall allow us to sustain and continue to fund a lobbyist to get whatever kind of funding MIGHT be available this or next year?

What are Dennert Bloggers thoughts on this issue? . . . Could we look at the issues and make this a forum for personal attacks? I'd really would appreciate some feedback so I might re-examine or refine my thoughts on this issue. I would really appreciate Dennert bloggers views on this. Thanks for your engagement.

Correction: Could we look at the issues and NOT make this a forum for personal attacks?

I am not offended at the VCOE but I am offended that Elton Gallegly works with your lobbyist instead of you.

I am planning to write a letter to the editor unless Elton's staff comes here and explains why they have obviously been so unresponsive that the board under Kunicki's leadership diverted money from the classroom to a lobbying firm.

Alabama:

I am not so sure that Gallegly hasn't worked with our offices. On his 2000 re-election literature is the following quote:

"As a member of Congressman Gallegly's Education Advisory Committee, I have seen Elton's commitment to making our schools the best they can be. His successful efforts to help secure more than a billion dollars for students with disabilities has been a top priority and I thank him for his hard work." -- DR. CHARLES WEIS, VENTURA COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS

BUT HIS VOTING RECORD ON EDUCATION ISSUES IN THE 2 YEARS PRIOR SUGGESTS SOMEWHAT A DIFFERENT RECORD:

• Gallegly voted AGAINST hiring 100,000 new teachers and AGAINST reducing class size
• The National Education Association gave Gallegly a 20% rating in 1998 and a 30% rating in 1999
• Gallegly voted for CUTTING the Federal Student Loan Program by $10 Billion and separately voting to end the Direct Student Loan program altogether
• Gallegly voted for ELIMINATING the Department of Education

If Gallegly works just fine with you why didn't you fight to stop the board from hiring a lobbyist to do what gallegly was doing for free?

Alaska:

I did ask about the lobbyists ability to work both sides of the aisle. I was not confident that Gallegly really cared about education issues.

You're right, though, I should have fought harder to stop the board from hiring lobbyists to do what WE should be doing. I made that argument at our April 13th Board meeting. I will continue to press for more detailed progress reports. I have not found any bills introduced by Gallegly on education.

I mailed our Board President in November 2006 questioning the wisdom of pursuing this. He assured me that we would have multiple meetings defining our objectives. That did not happen.

I should have been more public. I will stay on top of it. I now wonder if these funds were intended to work its way back to help partisan campaigns much more than to help fund education.

While politics now play a dominant role in education, it still goes over the line when education is primarily used for political advancement rather than making good policy to advance good education.

The public needs to pay attention. Please continue to ask tough questions of alll of us in public office.

Alaska: Thanks for your skepticism. Keep questioning authority.

Bolivia:
What are your views on "state approved textbooks"? What if doctors could only
perform "state approved" surgical procedures?

What are your views regarding test-driven curriculum?

What becomes "routine" may lead to complacency.

While I do not want creationism taught in science classes, the different points of view presented by speakers was engaging and opened up an opportunity to have meaningful dialogue.

That seems healthy for a policy-making body.

I agree that there needs to be a state approved list of science textbooks because otherwise your board would go out of their way to adopt a Pro conservative Christian approved by the radical right "science" textbook.

Do you order these books for all schools or just schools run by the county? How many books approx. do you order?

Seems like a chance to suck up to a vocal activist contingent instead of doing other things.

Like talking to Elton Gallegly since he apparently ignores your requests unless you hire a lobbyist.

Thanks for answering our questions ML. It shows that you truly appreciate democracy and our system of government.

Arkansas:

RE: Textbook adoptions.
I was thinking more in line of teachers adopting textbooks from a professional organization's approved list (like The National Association of Biology Teachers).

Your point re: non-scientific perspectives finding its way into science instruction
if left to a local political body is well taken.

RE: "Sucking Up"
Whatever the politics of the "local activist contingent," I think we have an obligation
to listen to them. It's their civil right, also, isn't it? If one of my colleagues feels strongly about this, and he has been successfully elected by this contingent -- no stealth happening there -- doesn't he have the right to have this group try to influence other elected officials, regardless if it is successful or not?

Re: Gallegly
I agree. We have a responsibility to use other tools to influence him. In fact, my point earlier was that I am not convinced that a paid lobbyist used in this manner is as effective as has been argued.

Re: Pro Conservative Christian Right
I don't think it is public education's responsibility to be the place to be advocating a particular relgious point of view. It is our place to open up the discussion for comparing different belief systems, for discussing the histories of these beliefs,
to analyze how these beliefs may influence a variety of ways of knowing.

I think faith communities have enormous freedom and means in our country to do appropriate outreach and provide relgious instruction without imposing or interjecting a particular agenda on or into our public schools.

It seems that our 1st Amendment protects equally our freedom to pursue and practice our reason and to pursue and practice faith. Public schools provide access to the former; churches, the latter. Each should not be confused for the other.

Reasonable?
What happened to Arizona?

How many books are we talking about? You didn't devote all this energy for a class with 3 students at any one time in it did you?

I of course agree everyone should be listened to, but I am afraid the voice of science will be drowned out by a partisan group that has an agenda which isn't about the students in the schools you run.

Why haven't these same groups had a public meeting in CVUSD in front of Mike Dunn? He would be sympathetic to their cause? Is it because they know they'd be in violation of state law to adopt a non-science book for a science class?

It is the responsibility of educators to protect the academic process from special interest agendas whether they be liberal or conservative, humanist or religious. To allow any group to co-opt that process under a dubious claim of democracy is to endanger our children's futures and the well-being of the Republic.

GS:

CO-OPTING
I think you would have been surprised how very civil and reasonable the speakers were: they focused on science and religion, creationism, or intelligent design was not mention by the public speakers.

No one was co-opting the process. As a liberal, to have various points of view discussed and young adults learning how to analyze and weigh the merits of points presented have great value.

How does making room to hear evidence that questions particular aspects of
evolution (I accept evolution as a legitimate scientific theory) = allowing a
"group to co-opt [the academic] process under a dubious claim of democracy"?

CIVIL LIBERTIES
I am confident that the ACLU would defend members of the public to be able
to question any elected body that is charged in adopting a textbook for public classrooms. We have public hearings for that reason: to listen and weigh the merit
of citizen arguments.

Don't we protect and honor our democracy and the well-being of the Republic by opposing non-science in science with reason and persuasion rather than just silencing
those who make that argument? Silencing opposition leads push-back and fuels the kind of vitriol we hear on talk radio.

MIKE DUNN
I am not sure if Christian Conservatives have been silent in terms of supporting Mr. Dunn's agenda. I haven't been to a CVUSD meeting. I think teachers and those who
support excellence in science education need to be more persuasive than Mr. Dunn, if his agenda is to have religion become part of science curriculum. I and other school board members would oppose that.

ACADEMIC PROCESS
I thnk professional academic organizations should give textbook "seals of approval" instead of paid consultants, which many textbook companies hire to review texts. I agree that we should respect educators professional responsibility to protet the academic process.

What do we consider as the "academic process"? How does "academic freedom" play into that definition? What are the appropriate perameters in a middle and high school setting? I would really like to see teachers have more time to be able to have more control over their profession. It seems that we do not hear from them as much as we should. They should be our primary community resource on this issue. I would really appreciate hearing their voices in this discussion and give them the time and resources so they can be community leaders moving the discussion along on this and other important academic standard issues.

WHAT SHOULD WE BE DOING?
AGREED: PREFER TO SPEND ENERGY ON SOMETHING ELSE. BUT HERE WE ARE. . .

Arizona: We have hundreds of students who go in and out of our academic programs.
There are less 7th graders than older students. They need to have access to the textbooks that their home schools are using so they do not get far behind while they are with us. The textbook that was chosen was one that most of the other schools had chosen. It was a good fit in that respect. I found the textbook to be fine. My fellow Board member had a right to question one aspect of the text he found objectionable.

There are many barriers that interfere with what I beleive should be our focus in terms of the students we serve, not just the agenda of the vocal special interest groups.

Nudging seems to work better than a bulldozing. I often prefer a bulldoze (gentleness is not one of my strengths) but haven't found that to be very successful. It seems we just end up shoving around dirt.

BTW: Really respect Barbra Williamson for taking on the WM issue the way she has with her unofficial committee. A useful model for the rest of us. . . paying attention to learn from her example.

Let me get this straight. You were fighting over a textbook that only impacts 7th graders that are part of the county school system? You said it yourself that you deal with hundreds ( let's round that off to a thousand) of students but most are in the upper grades. I am going to go with 600 9-12 and 400 for 6-9.

That leaves us with about 1oo per grade ( 6-9) if we assume even distribution over the four grades.

If you have better numbers, please supply them. I could be totally off although I think I am being generous with the numbers.

So, for a textbook that impacts 100 students maybe ( and at that for only part of the year if they return to their home school) your board had meetings devoted to this subject even thought the following appears to be true.

1. You must use textbooks adopted and approved by the state and no book that was on such a list would please your board president.

2. You should be using books that the public schools that students came from or will return to use so there is more continuity for the kids.

3. You have to follow for state standards in a 7h grade science class which already leaves limited amount of time to get through them.

4. Nobody argued for somehow removing a standard to make room.

5. If you remove nothing but add something you give less time to other subjects. Like evolution, the cell structure, respiration, etc. You spent time to argue if more religion and less science should be in a science class.

6. The students you are accountable for are the most vulnerable in the county but it seems like they are a political football for a side that knew the law was against them but still wasted your time.

And during all of this time there was little substantive discussion over paying someone to talk to Elton Gallegly even though calling our local elected officials is free?

Did the people that wanted a philosophy book hire a lobbyist to the board?

It seems to be all the rage these days.

I think I remember something about " Millions for defense but not one penny for tribute". ( Can anyone identify the quote?)

I guess we need to arm up since Gallegly according to your board only helps if you pay a gatekeeper fee.

Or is the rest of your board wrong?

Did you ask Kunicki to come here and answer questions?

In case there is nothing better to do at the next board meeting bring up what educational leaders are doing in another part of the country.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/31172

The Star agrees something is wrong with hiring a lobbyist to work with a local elected official.

Check the editorial:

http://venturacountystar.com/news/2007/jul/03/uneasy-over-lobbyist-hire/

Interesting the lobbyist Capitol Venture also represented American Medical Response and California Ambulance Association. BOth of these outfits donated to Audra STrickland. American Medical donated $5,600 to Tony. CBOE trustee Valenzano is a employee of American Medical Response. I think I need CPR.

Kunicki answering questions? Yea, right! Kunicki only does Kunicki speak. It is a foreign language of lies, lies and more lies. They have more money than they know what to do with and Kunicki has found a small cave in which to run his own little headquarters of corruption. Remember, this is the same cave that pedofile Al Rosen was able to hide in for many years. How sad for the County that this is going on.

ML, my comment was global in context and hadn't referenced whatever meeting it was you referred to but I will maintain that any attempt to inject religion or creationism into the science curriculum is an attempt to co-opt the academic process. Kansas education officials also felt it appropriate to allow a "reasonable" discussion on the issue and allowed the wolf to sneak in with the sheep.

I agree about the potential for backlash by resisting this co-opting Perhaps we should consider removing local school boards from any involvement with the academics of education and leave them to deal solely with the funding of infrastructure.

At present we have one of history's worst collection of minds sitting on the Supreme Court bench. I would not trust the Nation's future to reasoned discourse by these men & women.

Reason alone will not protect the Nation's future. The problem is that our America can not suffer the failure of a single generation of thinkers...because after that there is no second chance.

DENNERT BLOGGERS ARE TOUGH.
Here are the nuts and bolts of politics as I am learning them from the perspective of an elected official (who has been accused of being a "political neophyte"):

AMERICA SAMOA:

ON THE LOBBYING ISSUE:

My fellow Board members have a different perspective than I do re: paid lobbyists. I think it is more effective when we work with our education-advocacy organizations, develop consensus of what needs to be accomplished for education, lobby individually and with our organizations, and have our staff lobby details that will make legislation effective.

Right now, the California County Boards of Education (CCBE) has a part-time executive director and this person is working closely with the California School Boards Association. Together, they are in almost daily contact with state legislators. As a statewide organization that represents hundreds of elected officials, each with their own constituent base, they are quite influential in Sacramento.

CCBE alone is not as effective because our membership dues are much lower than the California County Superintendent Educational Services Association (CCSESA). CCBE members (County Boards) pay approximately $3,000 to $5,000, depending on size; CCSESA (County Superintendents Offices) pay over $20,000 per year.

I have provided the link to how much educational organizations spent on lobbying last fiscal year.

CCBE alone cannot afford to fund a lobbyist. It is only through our collective power with CSBA do we have a significant voice in Sacramento.

Why must we pay a lobbyist? There are a plethora of interest groups competing for scarce state funds. Since most of school funding is from the state rather than from local sources, we need to have powerful numbers and funding to be heard. Lobbyists are paid to focus exclusively on particular goals established by organizations. They are there to persuade, persuade, persuade.

That becomes even more powerful if the lobbyist represents an organization that can also get out the votes.

CSBA and CCSESA are not always on the same page; sometimes we have conflicting interests. County Boards are set up to be part of the checks and balance in our local
elected school governance system.

My current opposition to VCOE hiring a lobbyist is both the expenditure and that we did not do advance planning and worked out how it fit in with what our statewide organization was doing.

My original vote was quite tentative: I gave my colleagues the benefit of the doubt that they would be conservative in negotiating our contract. When the contract negotiated came back at our April meeting at 15 months for $288,000, I was floored. Coupled with the lobbying firms' connection with strong Republican interests, I reached my limit on extending any further that benefit of doubt.

Again, I apologize. I will have to do better.

Better at reaching out to the public, providing timely information, articulating my views and questioning my colleagues more effectively, and working with local, state, and national elected officials and organizations for meaningful and well-funded education reform.

ML-
Was Kuniki questioned specifically on what other lobbying firms charged and offered compared to the two Strickland/AMR-Valenzano lobbying firms charged? He "said" he worked hard on this. Did he? Or did he just pretend to work hard and present the two pre-determined firms? And what about those unnamed/promised elusive monies that will come later. Doesn't the board have the right to know names?

I find it odd that Elton Gallegly , a Republican, won't talk to this board, 4/5 republicans, unless we pay a gatekeeper fee with tax dollars.

I also find it odd that this board as a whole supports Audra Strickland even though they have admitted with our checkbook she is ineffective.

As a Democrat I plan to make this a key issue in 2008 against Tony Strickland, Audra Strickland, Elton Gallegly, and other area Republicans.

Unless they can explain themselves of course.

GS:
You should be pleased with the results of the last election for that particular Kansas School Board race. . . . Elections matter and have consequences. The following had much to do with who got through Congress's advise and consent process as much as who was President.

Nixon --> Stevens; Carter --> Breyer; Reagan --> Scalia, Kennedy, Day O'Connor; Bush 41 --> Souter, Thomas; Clinton --> Bader Ginsburg; Bush 43 --> Roberts, Alito.

DUE DILIGENCE:
I asked Mr. Kunicki for that information through e-mail. During the March 9th meeting in which we approved the negotiation of the contracts, Mr. Kunicki stated that he would contact me within a week with more precise figures. That never happened. I made the wrong assumption that if it were going to be more than we discussed at our March 9th meeting that both Mr. Kunicki and Mr. Bates, our Board President, would have brought the contract back for final approval.

Mr. Bates and Dr. Weis signed off on the contract before it was presented to our Board. Our counsel looked it over. I am doing research to find out whether ed code or any other codes protect the public from a single board member and/or an elected superintendent can negotiate this amount without a particular amount of $ is approved.

Yes, a lot of checking is involved, especially when there are conflicting agenda and much of what we do is under the radar.

In the last two election cycles, many races were uncontested. Why is that, do you think? If there was more competition, do you think there would be more accountability? Why don't more citizens run for school board races and for other local, elected offices?

I'M HURT: Chris Valenzano was the Board member who suggested that our Board hire a lobbyist at our October 2006
"visioning process."

For those who wish to look directly at lobbying activity, go to:

www.cal-access.ss.ca.gov

This website details activities of lobbyists, lobbyist employers. camapign contributions, etc. There is a wealth of information, and you can find out which lobbyists' school districts, county's, cities, etc., have retained, how much they have been paid, and what bills or issues they have focused on. Lots of information!

Many school districts in the county hire lobbying firms. Prior to the County Board's recent activity. Oxnard Elementary (not to be confused with OUHSD) looked to be spending the most, but they also are lobbying a number of entities (State Board of Ed, Office of School Contrustion, etc)

Going back to 2000, OUHSD averages about $80,000 a year with a firm called School Services. Pretty big chunk of change, but a bargain compared to the county board! It looks like they just retained another firm (Ochoa), so maybe they are severing ties with School Services or they will employ two firms. The $80k/ annually DOES NOT include the lobbying activities of their unification attorney Tom Griffin, who has been on retainer with the district for I believe about 8 years. Griffin is not a registered lobbyist, so I don't believe he has to file reports. He does however, frequently lobby/speak with/correspond with the State Deparatment of Education regarding unification. It's too bad that what he is paid and his activities aren't reported on the Cal-Access website. I can't even find a discussion of what they pay Griffin in the minutes!

Katie: Pleasant Valley contracts with Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Meuller & Naylor. Not sure why John feels they cater to "ultra-conservative" clients. I just read their client list and it includes the counties of Contra Costa, Riverside, San Diego, American Airline, Apple, Bank of America, Fannie May, EBay, Merril Lynch and 7-Eleven (or for the next few months, Quikie Mart!) . Over the last 2 legislative cycles, Pleasant Valley has paid them a total of around $60,000. The main Lobbying activities have been listed as AB 780 and the appeal OUHSD filed with the State Board of Education.

The lobbyist hired by the county board is interesting. It looks to be a small new firm, and they charge a bundle. That seems like a red flag to me. However, I think it's a stretch to imply that AMR has some sort of influence here. If you take a look at their campaign contributions, they spend BIG money up and down the state and give to just about every politician around, Reps and Dems alike. I believe that is called hedging your bets.

Maybe AMR gave Valenzano a job as a favor...

ROYGBIV: For how much school districts pay attorneys, you will have to request from they business offices for ACCOUNTS PAYABLE or THEIR REGISTRY for each year. If you don't want to comb through all the records, I believe you can specify which kinds of records of payment you want copies for. You will have to pay for those records, most probably. They may also be part of consent items.

Lawyer fees paid out in each district and what our local school districts' JPA spent on lawyer fees this last decade would be useful information. I think voters would find that interesting and relevant.

It is useful to follow the money: to see who pays whom and how that affects local politics.

School Services of California, Inc. is a very reputable company that lobbies to make sure that our schools get Prop 98 funding and help legislators understand how funding affects school services.

Because school funding is so dependent on the political maneuvering in Sacramento (remember Villaraigosa's mayoral scheme?) and because School Services has a very long
and well-respected history in understanding and clearly articulating how school finance works they are effective in educating the turnstile AKA our elected state officials.

This particular company has institutional memory and understands that how we finance schools matter.

Been writing fast between projects . . . forgive the grammatical errors . . .

School Services Link.
Also a very good source for education orgs or those who are working on ed issues:
http://www.edsource.org/res.cfm

Roy,

For what its worth, some of the counties you mentioned are conservative strongholds. Riverside and San Diego for sure. Don't really know much about the whole public school/unification/lobbying thing.

I think that the hiring of lobbyists should have been an open process - particularly with the sums of money involved. It does seem odd that when some of the trustees were put into office by the Stricklands, that they need to hire a lobbyist to have Audra's ear in Sacramento. It is pretty common knowledge that $10,000's was spent by the Stricklands and their people to get Chris Valenzano into office. I don't think he needs to have a lobbyist run interence in order to talk to Audra.

ML - what % of the budget is represented by the $288K?

Ron Nehring, Chairman of the CRP is from San Diego County
Tom DelBeccaro, Vice Chairman of the CRP is from Contra Costa County

Katie,
While San Diego and Riverside are considered conservative counties, most of the time lobbyist hired by counties are working to monitor legislation that has a direct impact on county revenue. County lobbyist weigh in on transportation fuding (big time!) and legislation that may impact either mandated programs that the counties run (CalWORKS, MediCal, Food Stamps, Foster and Adoted Youth, law enforcement and public safety) or legislation that has an affect on them as employers. Often times lobbyist will actually write legislation that pretains only to that county--looks like that is what the Nielsen firm is doing for Contra Costa with a special document recording fee that will benefit affordable housing for low income folks. Last time I looked, social safety net programs and low income housing were not the top issues of most far right groups.

As far as the CBE is concerned, I agree that the fees are just outrageous and far beyond what should be spent. But the reality is they may actually NEED a lobbyist: Audra Strickland is a polarizing influence who has difficulty building support for any of her issues. Any bill that is going to pass needs major Democratic support, and there is no way Audra can attract it. There are a few Republicans who work well with the Dems--Audra is not one of them. I think trying to get her to carry anything on education is a waste of time and money. If the CBE TRULLY has issues they need addressed (and this remains to be seen), they should hire a mainstream firm with a strong track record on the Dem side of the aisle. Or have a conversation with Assembly member Pedro Nava--that might actually be cheaper!

There is alot of good information on these blogs, but I think that sometimes people make satements or assume facts not in evidence. Sometimes dots connect, sometimes they don't. I don't know which clients of PVSD's lobbyist John felt were "ultra conservative" --he may have some inside information that I can't find on the Cal-Access site. But the evidence doesn't support the statement, and that is what I was commenting about. Nielsen's client list is long and pretty diverse: add the County of Marin, Motion Picture Association, Comcast, T-Mobile, MEDCO, Merck, PG &E, LAUSD Personnel Commission along with the Los Angeles MTA to my list in the previous post. The only groups that might be supported by conservatives that I see on the list are Waste Managment and Phillip Morris.

ML,

People do not run for certain school board's (Such as Ventura County) because they know the history of campaign finance abuse and the huge financial/personal sacrifice they will have to make.

My campaign spent over $25,000 and $16,000 of that came out of my own pocket. The campaign (my family) forgave the debt so there will be no debt retirement.

That's a lot of money to be sacrificed and I was willing to make that sacrifice because I knew very well who my opponent Mr. Kunicki was, his history, his supporters and his tactics. My average donation was $50.00 from several hundred people as opposed to $5000-$10,000 from a handful of campaign contributors, slyly donated through the VCRCC, independent expenditures or PACS so the candidate could have their campaign fly under the radar.

I am a member of the Republican Party and I made a $100 donation that ended up being used to campaign for Kunicki under the "Guise of membership communictations." Shame on them, numerous members of the VCRCC complained about the fact that Kunicki had been endorsed two days after the development firm he consults for "Colton Lee" made a $5000 donation. The VCRCC had the recommendation down on paper without even giving me a chance to interview, that's just wrong.

The previous election when Kunicki ran (and lost) Colton Lee made the $10,000 donation directly to his campaign. Tony Srickland made $7000 donation.

ML we have been trying to let you know what goes on in SV now you have experieinced it first hand.

You saw the flyer that Kunicki sent out and the misleading information and half truths.

Ask Brian Parks of BK Consulting, campaign consultant to the Stricklands how it was that I paid him to put my name on a slate mailer "Non-Partisan Candidates Evaluation Council" and Kunicki's name showed up. PArks went as far as calling me after I paid for the one mailer NPCEC to see if I would also like to buy space on the California Club for Growth newsletter that Tony Strickland operates and Parks mamanges. If I had taken him up on that offer do you think he would have had my name on the slate or would my money be held to make sure I did not buy another slate that would list my name.

When you run for President of the United States the most you can receive for an individual donation is $6000, what makes Ventura County Board of Education more important than an election for the President of the United States that they need unlimited dollar amounts on their campaign contributions.

I believe other elected officials have seen the VCBOE as a vessel for laundering campaign contributions because you have not self regulated. It's an end run.

I read a post from one blogger on CVUSD who was outraged about their situation there. The blogger commented that he had never paid attention to local politics...until...there was a problem that made him notice, then he was indignant.

What can we do to get the public passionate about the Ventura County BOE when it serves a small minority of students that 90% of the general population are not personally connected to? There in lies the problem.

Mr. Kunicki and his family receive free health insurance and at his age that probably costs over $6000 a month if he had to pay it as self employed add this to his other perks and he has incentive to keep this job.

Kunicki can hire someone else to do his lobbying although it is within his job description as a Trustee. To hire the lobbying firms that makes campaign contributions to his campaign donors is clearly a conflict of interest.

I would ask for this to be investigated by the FPPC. I do not know why the Star is not all over this.

Roy,

If the CBOE needs a lobbyist because Audra can't get assembly passed, then CBOE needs to go on record that it is not getting the representation it needs. Right now, it look like they are trying to pull a fast one on the county - that's what happens when there isn't transparancy.

I hope Chuck Weis is reading this blog. I'll e-mail him with a heads up because it doesn't look real good for him either.

Brian, help - too many posts!

KATIE:
The portion of the budget that the lobbyist expenditures come out of is under
Fund 019 under Object 5000: Services and Other Operating Expenses.

The Board of Education under Fund 019, Object 5000 is Program Code 0960.

For 2006 -2007:
Board of Education Total: $264,499 Lobbyist: $108,000 = 40.83%

If you use all Object 5000 totals, the %age changes.
Total: $2,797,493 = 3.86%
(that includes Services and Other Operating Expenses for The Superintendent's Office, Business Services, District Reorganization, Educational Services, School Business Advisory Services, Technology Services, etc.)

For 2007 - 2008:
Board of Education Total: $423,342 Lobbyist: $180,000 = 42.51%
ALL Fund 019 Object 5000 Total: $3,154,209 = 5.7%

Without the one-time windfall income (2008 - 2009), if lobbying costs remain the same: Total: ~$2,914,209 Lobbyist: $240,000 = 8.23%
(I am figuring 12 months during the 2008 - 2009 rather than using the same kind of adjustments we made during the for 2006 - 2007 and 2007 - 2008 cycles.)

For 2008 - 2009, we would have to take the 8% lobbying fees from other services in Fund 019.

I think these figures are fair. They can be looked at a bit differently, but much of our funds are quite restricted. Only a relatively small percentage is available for discretionary spending.

First to ML----thanks ML for answering tough questions. No matter how mad I get I appreciate that someone is willing to face the heat.

Second to Prenta---have you tried calling the star? they pay attention when people bring it to them. Point out the information here on their own site.

Thanks for responding ML. It seems like a lot of money (40%+) to be paid out to a lobbyist(s) but I'm not that familiar with public education.

Are you guys going to investigate all the problems being had with PVSD (angry parents, school closures and school defections) and CVUSD (Trustee Michael Dunn)? Seems like money of that money should have been spent on an independent audit here in the county.

Here is what I do not understand about hiring lobbyist.

When I was on the Ventura County Mental Health Board I was sent to a retreat funded by California Institute of Mental Health where we had training's.

I attended a training that was held by a Legislative analyst to go over the Little Hoover Commission report that explained that had a table that showed the variety of funding streams and how much each County was receiving from those sources. I noticed immediately that we were one of the few counties that were not receiving EPSDT that provides mental health services to youth 0-22, Counties of like sizes were receiving 5-10 million dollars. I asked the Legislative analyst why and she informed me someone was not chasing the money. I met with Sup. Mikels and informed her of this opportunity, she in turn had an analyst meet with her and together the Mental Health Board along with the County Supervisors made it the political will to follow through on attaining our fair share of this federal funding.

Within one year we were able to develop $1.5 million in programs for psychiatric care for 0-5 year olds, therapeutic behavior services for youth at rick of being placed outside of the home either in hospitals, residential treatment or prison. TBS saves County Mental Health and all the Schools throughout Ventura County significant amounts of taxpayers dollars for a program that is much better for youth. To place a youth in a residential treatment facility cost approx. $6000 a month of which local school district's and VCBH paying approx. 50/50%. We were also able to establish a 70 bed transitional living facility for emancipated foster youth to help them become established adults.

Guess what, there was NO LOBBYISTS PAID FOR THIS RESOURCE! The programs continue to be provided for the last 8 years and my understanding is that EPSDT has brought in more than 15-20 million in programs that has taken some burden to provide mental health services for youth away from the local school districts, where it was encroaching on their general funds.

This is the way it is supposed to work.

No one on the Mental Health Board receives a stipend, health benefits or car mileage and they (MHB members) put in as many hours as the VCBOE Trustees. The MHB is one of the unsung heroes of our County, they get coffee and donuts at their meetings, no glory as public officials- which they are and subject to FPPC. They are a group of highly committed individuals with a deep desire to help those struggling with mental illnesses and help them to become happy, healthy and productive taxpaying citizens.

For those of you that read this blog please take time to acknowledge this hard working board that doesn't work for any personal gain.

A few of the outstanding MHB Members that I served with were;

Neal Andrews
Nancy Borchard
Pam Roach
Dr. Joan Blacher
Cheryl Heitmann
Irene Mellick
Karyn Bates
Dr. Hedda Markham
Dr. Thurston
Sup. John Flynn
Sup. Linda Parks

Next time you see one of these fine people thank them for serving and helping to develop programs, lobbying for free as a citizens oversight Board and securing millions of dollars for their constituents without paying lobbyists that use their profits from taxpayer dollars to make campaign contributions to buy influence with OUR TAX DOLLARS MEANT TO HELP TAXPAYERS!

sorry for all the typos and grammatical errors, I should have gone back and edited instead of sending.

Kunicki finally found himself in a cave with three idiots who will let him lay his games. After all, the cave was a hide-out for pedofile Albert Rosen for many years. Here, Kunicki can spin his web and use tax dollars to enrich himself and his handler Strickland. How sad it is for Ventura County. The Grand Jury should take on this issue at once.

As an aside to all the discussion; the album cover is Nirvana Nevermind. Brian, Gold star here. :-)

Hold it right there, buckaroo! I want at least half that star cause I identified the band (if not the title) July 1. Maybe we can each have custody of the star on alternating weeks.

Let me point out that on the first post dated 6/29/07 - I identified the band so I get half the gold star.

Oh Kuniki,
One of the VCRCC's biggest donors, Dave Gulbranson is on the new Grand Jury. Good luck getting any action.

Donna:
Thanks for that history. That is the kind of work that I have communicated to the Ventura County School Board Association's President that we might do. That Board in collaboration with VCOE and their staff could be very effective in creating the kind of countywide-multiple-stakeholder task forces and committees the Board of Supervisors have created.

To date, Dr. Weis has not invited members of VCBE to participate in the committees he has formed independently.

Dr. Weis does not allow Board members to speak to staff unless it goes through him.

From my perspective, it is crucial to have a balance between the elected Ventura County Board of Education and the elected Ventura County Superintendent of Schools so that more can be accomplished, especially in addressing the most difficult and expensive educational issues. To name of few:

1. the achievement gap,
2. gang prevention and intervention,
3. creating an ombudsman for investigating and helping low income parents who need direction in making their way through all the education legalese: they cannot afford a lawyer to help them (there are few are experts in the education code)
4. creating a system of mediation rather than having parents having to resort to lawsuits to find remedy for problems, *
*While it is only a minority of parents (legitimate and not legitimate lawsuits), it
occupies, in my view, too much time and money to resolve in the current system.
and
5. planning strategies to provide excellence and equityt for all students in Ventura County schools.

Collaboration is often much more effective than competition.

You got me, Katie! I never noticed that 1st post.

Dr. Weiss does not allow? Dr. Weiss can't allow anything that applies to the Boardmembers. Only the Board can set policy for the Board. This is the main problem. Boardmembers are apparently monkeys and Dr. Weiss is the ape. Common Boardmember, think for yourself.

I should get at least one point on that star, I was the first to point out the record cover was from the Nirvana Nevermind CD. Of course that is an edited version of the album cover which would not be appropriate for the Internet.

I conceed Katie was the first to post Nirvana, she's a quick one.

Now who can tell me the hit song on the album?

Teen Spirit?

Katie,

You are half right.

______ like Teen Spirit

Moondoggie:
I wish it were that simple. I have tried to work on policy: the Board is made up of a majority who promotes the corporate model of powerful CEOs and a Superintendent who benefits from that model being endorsed. It is not only a matter of "thinking for oneself" but also trying to work through all the barriers placed in front of us.
Here is an e-mail as example:

"From:
Date: February 15, 2007 8:48:38 AM PST
To: "ML Peterson"
Cc: "Chuck Weis"
Subject: RE: LWVC/EF Education E-List: Multiple Pathways--New Research Released Today

"Good morning ML,

"Thank you for forwarding this information from UCLA. This is very relevant and timely research on CTE. This would be an excellent resource to add to our High School Commission Report web site.

"As far as scheduling a meeting, our VCOE protocol is for our Board members to go through the Superintendent with any requests of staff for information or guidance. I’ll be very happy to provide any assistance or information at Dr. Weis’ direction.

"I appreciate your support of ROP and career and technical education for our students. It is rewarding to know that our Board values what we do and shows so much interest and effort in supporting our programs.

"With much appreciation,
Peggy Velarde"

Mr. Weis has worked to make sure that we do not speak to staff without him present or in complete charge. I have never asked any staff member to challenge or undermine Dr. Weis's responsbility as the lead administrator. I have only sought a more collaborative approach to governance. Unfortunately, any kind of shared authority has been perceived as a challenge to exclusive autonomy.

In my view, this is akin to President Bush not allowing Senate Members or US Representatives asking questions of the military re: Iraq or preventing them to ask questions of the Treasury or any other staff members in government.

Governance needs to be much more transparent with much more checks and balance. From my perspective, there needs to be much more transparency in how funds are spent and for what purposes they are spent.

How much is spent to effect changes agreed upon by the public and elected officials working with the public rather than to advance the interests of a few individuals?

Because so much is done below the radar coupled PR manipulating public opinion
rather than communicating facts, issues, and choices.

Isn't it important for the the public to make informed decisions, voters takeing action rather than being carefully manipulated, especially in terms of public education, where many do not see how it affects ALL OF US, regardless whether we have children enrolled in public schools or not?

Dennert Bloggers: What is the best way to get budget and audit information to the public? How many know the amount and the details of how funds are being spent?

Thanks for engaging these issues. Don't want to be a monkey and certainly do not want the public to be beholden to any ape.

Chuck Weis has weathered a number of complaints & charges from Board members in the past and I fully understand the need to establish protocols for dealing with his administrators. Perhaps the protocol exists because the Super understands that he will have to accept responsibilty for his administration and from his administrators, regardless of where complaints & charges come from in the future. If we are to hold him to that reponsibilty then doesnt the Super have every right to hold the Board to such a protocol?

If the protocol is causing problems keeping the public informed (which I don't see how unless the Boad members are either intimidated or don't know how to ask the right questions) then by all means go before the public and disclose those problems....that's what the Boards' for. But to suggest that there's something insidious going on and that the Board needs to take on the Super's job by dealing directly with his staff suggests there may be something going on within the Board.

Donna - Smells like .....

GS: Good point re: responsibility. What about access, checks and balance, getting timely information? So in your view, a countywide, publicly funded agency should be restricted to the responsbility and authority of one individual?

Unlike the D.A., who has a state bar to which the public can appeal to (think NIfong from the Duke case), to a large extent, the County Board of Education is part of the checks and balance. To limit is access and ability to make policy is to restrict that proper process, don't you think?

What complaints are you speaking? I am not familiar with complaints by other Board Members. The only controversy that I can think of is creationism. That can easily be handled through elections.

Don't you think education countywide can be better? It is just my view that too much control and restricting access to information too much hurts the process of creating institutional trust and finding effective, long-term solutions.

Making public agencies, especially in education, more transparent, accessible, equitable, and accountable takes all of us working together, not just top down.

Excellence is only going to happen when all of us care about children's education to be well informed and engaged voters.

ML:

How did the neighborhood council concept go over with your county ed peers? We blogged about that a couple months ago, but wasn't sure what happened with it or if I missed your follow up.

I have to admit sometimes I feel like the county board of ed is redundant and absorbs money that could be used at the local level by local decision-makers.

Out of the 33 million in federal funds spent last year by the county board how much went directly into local districts' classrooms and saved direct general fund dollars for our local districts?

Could these districts just have done it themselves?

As part of the mission, the County Board of Ed says it reduces costs on districts, but I don't believe I've seen a hard number on how much it's saving Simi Valley Unified or any other district.

How much has the county board saved Simi Valley Unified in real dollars?

In fact, how do I know county schools isn't directly competing with Simi Unified for federal and state dollars and reducing our chances of getting those funds directly into Simi schools?

Wouldn't it be more efficient to allow single or multiple local school districts the ability to enter into cost sharing arrangements around local concerns rather then allow this all to go through a county bureaucracy?

Scott:
I requested "Community Relations" to be placed on the Board Agenda. It hasn't happened yet, but I trust that is because our agenda has been quite full dealing with interdistrict transfers, the approval of the budget, and the issue of the science textbook. Additionally, there has been committee meetings on legislation at the state level.

I will be following up on that before September. That is when the Ventura County School Board Association's Executive Board will be resuming their meetings.

I am planning community meetings in Area I and putting together a power point. I don't think summer is a good time to get out there. I plan to get out at the end of August when more people have school on their minds.

Summer is somewhat a time for hiatus: a quieter time for planning and restoring ourselves: our daughter is home from college, working on a couple of personal projects, my husband are working on a couple of projects, taking short vacations, our son is prepping for high school . . .

I am wondering how you came up with the $33 million in federal funds? We will be receiving approximately $9 million. Some of the revenue is carryover from the previous years. Below is the federal funds revenue breakdown followed by an answer to your basic question of "Why a County Office and Board of Education?"

Fund #001 (Special Education Instruction) = $140,018 (Pass through for SELPA)
Fund #002 (Special Education Transportation) = 0
Fund #003 (Special Education Local Plan Area - SELPA, we only pass through these
funds so it is not really a part of our budget) = $25,374,981
Fund #013 (Restricted Categorical Projects) = $8,499,525
These funds are restricted based on gov't program parameters.
They primarily fund Special Education, Migrant Education, Title I, II, and
III (low income students in our Court and Community Schools), Teacher
Quality, and Voc Ed (Cal Perkins -- $16,196 this year, but Congress is
proposing to increase funding for Career and Technical Education by nearly
100%).
Fund #014 (Juvenile Court School Programs) = 0
Fund #015 (Community Schools) = 0
Fund #016 (Regional Occupation Programs) = 0
Fund #017 (Unrestricted Categorial Programs) = 0
Fund #018 (Capital Outlay) = 0
Fund #019 (County Office Operations) =$215,000
Most Federal $ in this fund, as I understand, are from grants, administered
and implemented by our County office and not passed through to district
personnel.
Fund #120 (Child Development) = $117,413
Child Care Planning Council and Pre-K Childcare Resource Program
Fund #140 (Deferred Maintenance Program) = 0

Why VCOE?
The programs we oversee are expensive. Regional Occupation Programs require very expensive equipment and coordination. Additionally, the students we educate have not been successful at their local district schools. We provide them a safety net and work to prevent them from dropping out of school. It is not only a matter of economy of scale; it is also a matter that these students have very high needs and are spread out throughout the county. For each district to create its own program for a relatively few students would be much more expensive than what we are able to provide. We can provide higher quality services at a better cost savings. If that were not the case, districts would provide their own programs.

I believe VCOE can continue to improve providing programs that reduce high school dropouts and help students develop skills needed (for example: anger management and other psychological health issues, literacy, and strategies to help with learning disabilities and/or non-traditional learning styles) to be successful in their home schools.

VCOE also provides professional development and are the oversight agency for local school district finances and some compliance issues. VCBE is quasi-judicial in that we
rule on interdistrict appeals and expulsions.

If interested, you may log on to the California Legislative Information and research what our legal responsibilites and authority are as stated in the Education Code at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov.

Here is a couple of examples:

1042. County boards of education may:
(a) Adopt rules and regulations governing the administration of
the office of the county superintendent of schools.
(b) Review the county superintendent of schools annual itemized
estimate of anticipated revenue and expenditures before the annual
itemized estimate is filed with the auditor as required by Section
29040 of the Government Code, and make any revisions, reductions, or
additions therein it deems advisable and proper. No itemized
estimate shall be filed by the county superintendent of schools or be
approved by the board of supervisors until it has first been so
reviewed and approved by the county board of education.

AND

1260. The county superintendent of schools, with the approval of
the county board of education, may:
(a) Conduct studies through research and investigation as are
determined by the county board to be required in connection with the
future management, conditions, needs, and financial support of the
schools within the county; or join with one or more school district
or community college district governing boards in the conduct of the
studies.
(b) Install and maintain exhibits of educational programs and
activities of the school districts and community college districts
within the county at any county fair or at any agricultural district
fair.
(c) Inform and make known to the citizens of the county, the
educational programs and activities of the school districts or
community college districts in the territory within his or her
jurisdiction.
(d) Subscribe for membership in any society, association, or
organization which has for its purpose the promotion and advancement
of public or private education, subject to the same restrictions as
are imposed by Section 35173 on governing boards of school districts
respecting those subscriptions.
(e) Provide in-service programs and coordinative services for any
school or community college district governing board or governing
board association in the territory under the jurisdiction of the
county superintendent of schools.

The High School Commission did not come to our Board for approval and neither did
BASICO. I have requested information but, to say kindly, those requests have been ignored.

ML:

I read the 33 million of federal funds expended from the US Census. Each entity throughout the country has to fill out this (audited) financial statement. The last one for Ventura County Superintendent of Schools was for fiscal 2005 and totals to 33 million in federal funds.

I left the link.

It says 21 million is for local assistance and about 4 million on migrant assistance. It's how I found the forest reserve line item.

ML:

You wrote: "Regional Occupation Programs require very expensive equipment and coordination. Additionally, the students we educate have not been successful at their local district schools. We provide them a safety net and work to prevent them from dropping out of school."

What is the fiscal allotment to this program? What is your success rate with the kids in this program?

You wrote: "For each district to create its own program for a relatively few students would be much more expensive than what we are able to provide. We can provide higher quality services at a better cost savings. If that were not the case, districts would provide their own programs."

What is the annual cost savings to each Ventura County district and what is the geographical breakdown of the total students your board serves?

You believe VCOE can provide higher quality services. What service level studies have been done on county programs by other districts?

Do you have a service rating system that measures satisfaction with your programs?

roygbiv-
You are correct that PVSD's lobbyist is from NMP. At one time one of the partners, Robert Naylor, was involved with the Pacific Legal Foundation,http://www.pacificlegal.org/. This is the conservative link I was thinking of.

By the way, never heard back from you on the Ed code I found for you. I guess it's not in your nature to admit when others are right.

Scott: Thanks for the link. It describes the funds we receive much more specifically. Most of the descriptions are clearn yet some of the information may lead to misinterpretation. I I will ask our Business Office which line items are directed to SELPA. I believe the Local Assistance and Mental Health are SELPA (we have programs that serve the severely emotionally disturbed). Additional, the Medi-Cal reimbursments pay for students who have medical needs that affect their learning, primarily in terms of mobility and communication.

RE: ROP
Our ROP management is specialized. In collaboration with the local business community, they research, rate the need for, and design career and technical education programs. Some examples of expensive programs: Dental Assistant, Welding, Graphic Design, Cabinet Making Additionally, there is the expense of insuring these programs. Some require higher insurance because students use machinery/tools with higher risk of injury. We have 78 programs. If each High School had to duplicate the services that our ROP management team provides and some countywide programs that are centrialized at our Camarillo site. Each high school would have to spend, I am guessng, about 1/3 of what we spend because there woud be a minimum of at least two administrative personnel (manager + assistant) with some of the other work having to be assigned to other existing personnel, who are already very stretched. If each had their own programs, the more expensive programs we have at the Camarillo might not be available.

Here is my best guestimate of additonal $ PER High School:
$90,000 - $150,000 for two to handle management and adiminstrative support service; $1-1.6 million for programs (I am assuming that each high school would not be able to duplicate the $5 million cost of the total programs we provide at our Camarillo sites.)

For the programs that we provide (78), many are located at high school sites, some only at our Camarillo site, adminstrative costs are:
Current:
Administration: $721,026
Support: $643,389
Total: $1,364,415

As Compared to:
pushing the costs to the 17 high schools + County Schools we currently serve and reducing our staff to equal what was guestimated for the high schools: $90,000 x 18 = $1,620,000

Or

pusing the costs to the 8 local school districts + County Schools= $150,000 x 9 = $1,350,000

This costs do not include programs now offered at the Camarillo site for all countywide students.

Scott: Do you think there is another way of slicing it that would produce a more cost effective with as many programs that we have to offer?

RE: Special Education
Special Education students are well protected by federal laws. During the 1980s and 1990s, parents of students with needs used these legal protections to make sure their children received the services their children needed. Schools are required to meet very specific needs and are articulated through Individual Educational Program (IEP) contracts, which are enforceable. If the County did not provide these services, parents have the right for their children to go to a private institution where they are provided the services, paid for through public funds. Parents have a choice, and because the County's programs are excellent, the majority of parents choose our programs over private ones. Our cost-effective, high quality programs are much less expensive the private providers.

RE: Service Rating Programs
This is an area that I am working on right now. The interdistrict and lobbying issues have sidetracked me. Ron Matthews and I met with Dr. Weis and have started the process to improve our collaboration and how we evaluate our quality of service to our communities.

May I get back to you on the details of how we currently rate our programs in August?

Additionally, NCLB requires TItle I schools to have strong local school governance through school site councils. I believe this will help schools to work more collaboratively witth parents and the community. School site councils are to be
oversight and planning bodies for each school. This will help the community understand school budgets and what programs are effective. We have them for
our Court and Community Schools. It is much more complicated for our schools
because we have a transient school population.

Finally, William Ouchi wrote MAKING SCHOOLS WORK. It provides a model for schools to get relevant feedback from parents and an interesting school budget model. I recommend this book. At one time, Calfornia educators and politicians were seriously discussing Ouchi's ideas (they have been implemented in school districts outside of California). I am not sure what his influence currently is. I beleive he continues to enjoy having a significant influence on Schwarznegger.

Thanks for the questions and follow-up.

ML:

I can tell from the past that we are philosophically different in our views, but I do enjoy your candor and presentation of what your experiences are. I left a link of a proposal to the Governor by the California Performance Review arguing that the 58 county boards of education should be consolidated regionally. It would establish 11 regions rather than 58 counties of bureaucracy.

Apparently, the county school structure is pretty much a California invention. Here is a breakdown by state from the link:

* In 18 states, there are no regional or county superintendents;
* In three states the county superintendent is elected;
* In three states the county superintendent is appointed;
* In 26 states, there are appointed regional or intermediate (not county) superintendents (or the equivalent);
* In 20 states there are no regional or county boards of education;
* In two states county boards are elected;
* In nine states regional boards are elected; and
* In 10 states, boards are appointed.

This is analysis of the cost savings from changing from 58 counties of bureaucracy to 11 regional units:

"Because seven county superintendents also are superintendents for the only school district in their county, this proposal will eliminate 40 boards and county superintendent positions. In addition, consolidation of county office functions will allow for elimination of at least one additional senior manager. Savings from elimination of these staff (2 PY per county at $100,000 per person) and board functions (about $200,000 per board) in 40 counties will result in ongoing savings of at least $18 million annually from a variety of Proposition 98 and non-Proposition 98 local, state and federal funds. The exact mix of these funds varies by county."

I am highly skeptical of this 11 regions proposal as well. I'm still not convinced that local districts couldn't just absorb and manage these programs or enter into individual cost sharing arrangements with other school districts for these services based on local needs.

What is your thinking on the regions proposal?

Scott, are you a Arnold Republican ?

Scott: Schwarzengger's Review was part of his campaign to "blow up the boxes" as we know it. In fact, that particular part of his Review was abandonned pretty quickly. After
further analysis, it was pretty clear that COEs were in fact the "regional" centers the Review was recommending. Basically, S. pretty quickly realized that what was being recommended was having a system dismantled only to have it rebuilt almost exactly the same. Not wise. COEs do need a little tweaking, which is currently happening. S. and
the legislature are pretty much in sync on this.

It is my understanding that the 20 states that do not have regional or county boards of education are much smaller states and are less populous that California. Under those circumstances, that makes sense, don't you think?

It was beneficial to have S. conduct that study because it gave us all an opportunity to
educate those who are not familiar with the services County Supt's and County Boads
provide regionally and throughout the state.

I would have to dig up older records and the discussions we had at the state level, but I am glad to answer any particular questions you have re: our responses to this study.

S. has commissioned another study. That report is due out sometime later this year or early next year. Jack O' has one underway also. Let's blog on those when they come out because those will be more timely and relevant . . .

Again, it is my understanding, S. wants us to focus on education next year.

Are there any questions re: what the Ed Code says about County Supt's, COEs, or CBEs?

Soctt: I believe in local control in education, but I also think there needs to be oversight. It's a fine balance. If all the oversight were at the state level, I think the system would be less responsive and effective. COEs and Local Boards, by far, have a very collaborative relationships with local boards. That is one of Dr. Weis's great strengths. He not only has great institutional memory, he is no Javert. I greatly respect those qualities in Dr. Weis.

ML:

From my perspective, what happens is bureaucracies are formed with boards and interests groups that support each other. These boards hire lobbyists as your board has done to pursue funds and grow the "importance" as defined by how large your budget is. The more objectives and funds a bureaucracy can hunt down and keep, the less likely it is to be seen as an ineffective/redundant organization with purposes that could be handled elsewhere.

Being that your a board member, I would never anticipate you to say, "no this belongs at the local level." You might not even be allowed to say it for all I know. Turf is key.

I've come to realize, as most should, real reform in public education is very difficult because of these "iron triangles" that reinforce each other and ensure bureaucratic survival and turf protection.

In terms of oversight, Shouldn't voters be the "oversight" of their local school boards?

I don't believe I've ever seen a report of "oversight" outcomes from the county school board on local schools boards.

Can you define oversight from the county schools perspective? What reports are available on the Simi school district? I can get more info on Simi through state and local means, so what do you do?

Of course, I know Simi Unified has yearly audits all open to the public, so again, isn't county school's role of "oversight" redundant?

Last, your post seems to imply that local education is an extension of the state rather than a locally controlled institution of parents, students, volunteers, teachers, and school board members.

Do you feel that public education should represent the will of those in power in the state or that of local citizens who just want to make sure their kids get a good education?

I too am interested in seeing these new reports/studies, but have felt each recommendation is really designed to get us to debate new measures and not look directly at what has been created from every successive failed reform and the results of those mistakes therein.

We've been arguing about "A Nation at Risk" since 1983. And we've been talking about achievement gaps and world competition for even longer. Remember, "Why Johnny can't read and Ivan can."

You'll say it's funding. I'll say it's financial management and teacher quality, but the bottom line is the best people equipped to educate their children are their parents. Without strong parents who make education a priority, you can spend moonshots of money or manage funds better or get better teachers, but none will have the impact that parents engaged in what their children are learning coud accomplish.

Scott:
Your point that

"[t]hese boards hire lobbyists as your board has done to pursue funds and grow the "importance" as defined by how large your budget is"

is well taken. I think all government agencies need to be smart, transparent, and accountable.

That is one reason I think the duites of Committee for District Reorganization should be transferred to the Ventura County Board of Educaiton. The Committee's only responsibility is to hear petitions for reorganization. In most counties, the County Board has the responsibility. Last year, our Board was basically forced to authorize $108,000 to pay for lawyer fees. If we're responsible for the funding, it seems fair that we share in the oversight and be the elected body that is clearly accounatble to voters.

I am wondering what your views are re: checks and balance?

What are your views re: the proper role of federal oversight of states, for example, the right for citizens to take court cases through the appeal process up to the Supreme Court?

What about other oversight agencies? What about the checks and balance among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, applied to all levels of government?

How do we protect fairness and equal protection without proper oversight and the ability to appeal decisions?

I think we can be smarter and be more streamlined without necessarily jeopardizing rights and responsilbilities, but we also need safety nets to protect our country's basic principles of fairness, responsbility, and accountability -- at all levels of government.

OVERSIGHT

Your wrote:
"In terms of oversight, Shouldn't voters be the "oversight" of their local school boards?

I don't believe I've ever seen a report of "oversight" outcomes from the county school board on local schools boards."

Yes, voters are the ultimate "oversight agency." However, when an issue needs to be addressed in a timely manner, I don't think it is very effecient or timely for citizens to have to wait every four years to receive some remedy. Elections and recalls are expensive. Elections are primarily about overall direction of an elected body; recalls are for egregious misconduct. They do not address the needs of an individual or a group of citizens.

Structural checks and balance is much more responsive and effective in addressing citizen needs/issues in a more timely basis.

I believe that one of the reasons that voters are not as responsive to school boards is that much of what we do voters see indirectly: most voters do not have children in public schools. In terms of city councils, voters see their effectiveness daily in the quality of their police, their streets, public utilities, etc. There are many more legal protections for local residents. Residents and advocacy groups are much more aware and versed in these legal protections.

The oversight of schools and its reporting in our county is the responsibility of our County Superintendent.

Here is part of ED CODE 1240:

"1240. The county superintendent of schools shall do all of the
following:
(a) Superintend the schools of his or her county.
(b) Maintain responsibility for the fiscal oversight of each
school district in his or her county pursuant to the authority
granted by this code.
(c) (1) Visit and examine each school in his or her county at
reasonable intervals to observe its operation and to learn of its
problems. He or she may annually present a report of the state of the schools in his or her county, and of his or her office, including, but not limited to, his or her observations while visiting the schools, to the board of education and the board of supervisors of his or her county.
(2) (A) For fiscal years 2004-05 to 2006-07, inclusive, to the
extent that funds are appropriated for purposes of this paragraph, the county superintendent, or his or her designee, shall annually submit a report, at a regularly scheduled November board meeting, to the governing board of each school district under his or her jurisdiction, the county board of education of his or her county, and the board of supervisors of his or her county describing the state of the schools in the county or of his or her office that are ranked in deciles 1 to 3, inclusive, of the 2003 base Academic Performance Index (API), as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 17592.70, and shall include, among other things, his or her observations while
visiting the schools and his or her determinations for each school regarding the status of all of the circumstances listed in
subparagraph (I) and teacher misassignments and teacher vacancies. As a condition for receipt of funds, the county superintendent, or his or her designee, shall use a standardized template to report the circumstances listed in subparagraph (I) and teacher misassignments and teacher vacancies, unless the current annual report being used by the county superintendent, or his or her designee, already includes those details for each school."

As I wrote before, Ed Code provides for

"1042. County boards of education may:
(a) Adopt rules and regulations governing the administration of
the office of the county superintendent of schools."

IN COLLABORATION WITH DR. WEIS, we are working on shared goals and responsibilities in terms of oversight, including ours, so we may be more responsive to Ventura County citizens.

The County Board is responsible in making sure that students receiive their due process in terms of interdistrict transfers and expulsions.

SCOTT: If you can be specific about what aspect of our responsibilities or a particular responsibility as stated in the Ed Code, I can better address your concerns.

PARENTS BEST EQUIPPED

I agree that parents is the first teacher and most influential in the shaping children.

However, I have a fundamental problem when citizens cite that as the panacea for public education.

From my perspective, then, we are basically relegating our system of government to a caste system: only if you happened to be born to parents who provide a psychologically, intellectually, and physically secure environment will you be able to have an adequate education. Parents are the only gateway to access to excellence.

Not all children are born into that situation. If children are not, would you prevent educators to work as best as they can to try to compensate for that? Or do you think we should first reform parents, then allow children to attend schools?

It seems that we are not all born with all the skills we need to be healthy, wealthy, and wise . . . We are not even necessarily born to parents who were born with or acquired those qualities. If so, what is our responsibility to each other to help create an environment that gives us access to acquire the ability to be healthy, wealthy, and wise?

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

This is a perennial criticism of public education. I beleive these are unfair and hypercritical standards placed on public education. It assumes that other organizations are much better at financial management. Every private businesses has had financial challenges: note how many bankruptcies there are each year and how many corporations through the years have been balied out by the government.

One of my favorite quotes: Corporations are Capitalists until they hit financial trouble. Then they are socialists.

As in all human enterprises, mistakes are made and there is the risk of corruption; hence the need for checks and balance.

QUALITY OF TEACHERS:

I have addressed this before: teachers are much more burdened, so many leave before they have developed mastery.

Additionally, at risk of offending some:
while teachers have not ever been the most highly paid professional, prior to the 1980s, women who were very well educated had very limited career opportunities. Teaching was one of the few that was available to them. Now that women have many more options and other careers offer better working conditions, education is not necessarily attracting and retaining the best.

"NATION AT RISK, 1983": Isn't it interesting that this report comes out after the "taxpayer revolution" at the end of the 1970s and during the Regan Administration when one of its agenda was to abolish the federal Department of Education?

Additionally, "Johnny" couldn't read then for many reasons: he had dyslexia, had illiterate parents, was deaf and blind and didn't have access to special education, and other reasons that was not necessarily the exculsive fault of public educaiton. Now,
"Johnny" can't read because his skills are being measured before he has access to quality education in the manner that best suits him in addition to his parents may be illiterate or that schools are geared more towards the learning styles of girls instead of boys, just to name a few.

Just as societies are complicated . . . and rich with possibilities, so are the problems of education . . . and its promise.

ML:

You speak of checks and balances, but the point behind checks and balances in our constitution were checks on power. In terms of our federal system there were divided powers. In your example, I believe it to be hierarchical and I'll demonstrate what I mean below.

At the federal level there are three branches of government who each having different powers over and under each other. Some argue with the growing bureaucracy, there is actually four branches now.

One example of this is The President appoints judges, Senate approves/disapproves judges, these judges provide judicial review of passed law, The legislative branch can limit jurisdiction of their review. Each branch has the ability to check and balance the other based on the powers granted in the constitution.

Your example that the county schools oversight of local school districts is not the same as the above. What checks and balances do local school districts have over county schools? The relationship would most likely be just "checks", but no real balances.

Ed Code requires a submission of API scores to the county board. I can get API scores for my district's schools online. In the ed code, you cited, it says these are reported at your meetings. I'm not sure how reporting what the newspaper and the state reports counts as oversight?

You asked:

"How do we protect fairness and equal protection without proper oversight and the ability to appeal decisions?"

This check is achieved through the courts as it's always been. Are you suggesting the County Board serves as a "Supreme Court" over local districts? Maybe, I need to read the Williams case again to see what the county schools role was in that case.

What is interesting is you said you want checks and oversight. But then shouldn't we recognize that this is one of many contributing factors to why teachers are burdened down and leave the profession? Sure, we can have checks on checks of checks and checks of checks checks... But, we also must recognize the impact of such a convoluted and redundant bureaucratic construction on those trying to achieve educational success as parents, teachers, principals or students.

I have more to write about your comments, but wanted to at least address a few things.

Scott:

RE: CHECKS AND BALANCES
I agree with your explanation of the checks and balances in terms of three branches of government. The three branches of government is one example of how our system separates power.

"Legislative," "Executive," and "Judicial" powers are separated somewhat differently in terms of school boards. We have, what is commonly referred to as quasi-legislative, -executive, and -judicial authority. The separation of powers among the branches of government applies more closely in the division of powers within the jurisdiction of each board: the relationship between the elected boards and the administration, the elected board-administration and students-parents, for example. In terms of quasi-judicial responsibility, students have the right to appeal to the County Board in only two areas.

There is another way in which the constitution separates power: the divided jurisdictions of the federal and state governments. While there are federal laws that overrides state laws, state rights are in place as a balance between federal and state powers.

That principle applies to the relationship between county and local boards. Local Boards have rights and responsibilities that the county must not interfere with.

Ultimately, as you have also pointed out, as each body works to make sure their jurisdiction is not violated -- if done well, to protect fairness, to improve transparency, and to ensure accountability -- each may always take their case(s) to voters. Voters are the ultimate checks and balances on the power of elected officials.

RE: API

We have not ever scheduled an official API report. If we did, it would allow us to begin a process to set up hearings so that voters could get a more in-depth understanding of the reasons behind those scores. In my view, I think voters only get a surface understanding of what those scores actually mean. School Accountability Report Cards (SARC) of which the API is a part tell a fuller picture but still should be contextualized so the public sees the connection between socioeconomics and test scores.

I believe that our Board does not take full advantage of what the Ed Code provides for in terms of engaging the public re: educational practices, effects, and issues.

COURT SYSTEM

I agree with the availability of remedies through the court appeals process; however, not all grievances warrent that. There are administrative and quasi-judicial remedies that are more appropriate and accessible. When I asked that question re: your beliefs, I was addressing your view that most of the county's responsibility to the local boards.

Again, just as some responsibilities are best suited for a partiicular level of governance, some of them require a check and others should definitely remain at the local without any interference from the county or state. It is through dialogue among a variety of stakeholders with our basic principles of checks and balances considered that laws are passed, refined, or altogether replaced by other laws.

In California, most decisions affecting education happen at the state level. For everything to remain at the state level without the county as an intermediary body,
it would be much more bureaucratic than it is now.

I think we are trying to work to have our system be not too cold -- not too much at state level, not too hot -- not too much at the local level, but just right -- some at the state, some at the county, and some at the local.

RE: REDUNDANT

I am wondering what do you consider redundant in education bureaucracy? I do think there are some inefficiencies, but without knowing to what you are referring, I hesitate to discuss this in generalities. I think much more could be done at the local level: it would improve the quality of teaching and improve communication between educators and other stakeholders, but it would also be more expensive. I beleive the inefficiencies you see as bureaucracies is not from the "layers" but from the need for government agencies to try to consolidate too much at varying levels and is less responsive as a consequence.

RE: CHECKS ON TEACHERS
I agree with your point re: bureaucracy affecting teacher quality. I think that teachers should be "overseeing" their colleagues through working together, sharing best practices, researching and doing shared research. Much that kind of bureaucacy comes
from the demand for better test scores, from, in my view, the manufactured crises that arose from reports like "A Nation at Risk." This kind of bureaucracy was created to address the Republican criticism of teachers in public education without taking into account how their policies actually lead to the deprofessionalization of teachers and the drive to cut costs by diminishing the role of teachers in the education of children.

I believe that several laws that Jack O' sponsored during Davis's administration was to appease Republican criticism of public education.

What I don't understand is this: most of us accept that a product or service costs are based on their quality. Value is determined by the nexus between price and quality (reliability, workmanship, durability). We usually expect to pay more for higher quality. That principle doesn't seem to apply when addressing what we should be paying most for: our children and our future government, workforce, and neighborhoods.

I look forward to your responses to my other comments.

The average amount spent per year per child is around $6000 (times 30 per classroom = $180,000 - just using rough numbers for examples here)
Fact 1- My children get extra credit for bringing kleenix or blank paper to class because the school can't afford them.
Fact 2- My son's school saved money for a couple of years by only running the air conditioning in the administration building - not the classrooms - it was pretty obvious who was important.
This is anecdotal, I know, but they are my personal experiences.

The public perception is that there is too much waste in the bureaucracy, and not enough dollars spent in the classroom (teachers, books, kids). Until the reverse is true, or at least the perception, the school systems will not be viewed as a good value. They can now longer just SAY "it's for the kids!" - they need to convincingly demonstrate it.

BTW ML - I appreciate your complete and thoughtful answers to bloggers' questions. We all need to be better informed on how the system works from someone that is involved on a daily basis.

Hi Leslie.

"The average amount spent per year per child is around $6000 (times 30 per classroom = $180,000 - just using rough numbers for examples here)"

Response: That's right, at the elementary grades. For middle school and high school, divide the $180,000 by 6.

Additionally, that pays for most everything: certificated (teachers, paraeducators, counselors, administration) and classified (secretaries, maintenance, food service staff, bus drivers) salaries, nurses, special education, classroom materials, technology, maintenance supply, gas, electricity, insurance (both for employees and to cover school-based accidents), legal fees, etc.

"Fact 1- My children get extra credit for bringing kleenix or blank paper to class because the school can't afford them.
Fact 2- My son's school saved money for a couple of years by only running the air conditioning in the administration building - not the classrooms - it was pretty obvious who was important."

RESPONSE: I agree with your conclusion . . . to some degree. I wonder, when making budget decisions, if administration work on budgets they use the criteria of what items are easiest to get parent volunteers to buy or raise money for. ( I don't know because I am not privy to all the inner workings of administrative decisions.)

"The public perception is that there is too much waste in the bureaucracy, and not enough dollars spent in the classroom (teachers, books, kids). Until the reverse is true, or at least the perception, the school systems will not be viewed as a good value. They can now longer just SAY "it's for the kids!" - they need to convincingly demonstrate it."

RESPONSE: I absolutely agree with you: we have an absolute responsibility to convince the public we are spending our money wisely. School Site Councils can go a long way to do that.

While I have theories, I am not exactly sure how most of the decision-making and budget priorities moved away from the classroom, moved to administration, and became overly manipulated in Sacramento. I think it had much to do with the Serrano decision coupled with Prop 13 and a large influx in a relatively short period of time immigrants from all over the world (unfortunately coinciding with the cutbacks from Prop 13). For example, from the late 1970s-1980s, Grant High School in Van Nuys (San Fernando Valley) went from primarily being a bi-/tri-lingual school to one at which nearly 100 different languages were spoken. Additionally laws were passed that provided high need students with legal protection to services.

Money now follows legal rights, which were needed in many circumstances; however there have been abuses. All children deserve to have access to fulfilling their potential. In my view, instead of taking from Peter to pay for Paul, I think our state is wealthy enough to pay for excellence for all children.

I think that there are some costs that can be redirected from central offices, but I don't think we have enough $ to be able to redistribute some of the responsibiliites to the local level without requiring $ that would effectively allow for that (reduced class sizes --> more classrooms --> more teachers --> more individualized instruction and better parent and community communications).

"BTW ML - I appreciate your complete and thoughtful answers to bloggers' questions. We all need to be better informed on how the system works from someone that is involved on a daily basis."

Leslie: Bloggers' questions and responses have also been complete and thoughtful and have required me to think through important educational issues. Dennert Bloggers are fair and probing. It's gratifying.

ML:

I'm glad you agree with so much of what I'm writing. I did want to address a couple of other things, then address your most recent post if time permits. BTW, I am enjoying the debate even if our comments a running a little long winded. Sure beats name-calling, doesn't it?

Have you ever read the history of how public compulsory education came to exist in this country and what nations we used as models? If not, I recommend it because it puts so much of what we're debating into context. Some might be surprised, but the motivations for forming compulsory state education were not from the best intentions.

I am happy you agree that parents engaged in their children's education are the major predictor for educational success. It is a likelihood, not a total certainty. However, I do disagree that a parent oriented system would just lead to a "caste" system.

People are so creative and are constantly capable of moving up in the world despite adversity. A lot of times it's just a matter of someone taking their dreams seriously and going for it. It happens every day without the government declaring it so or classifying one as an identified group.

So, I don't accept for a minute that without public education people would be stuck in one class or another. Edison, after all, was home-schooled.

Actually, your comment underlines a major challenge with public education. It must treat every individual as if they are the same intelligence level and disallow the notion that students start at different levels in life and have different learning styles and capabilities. You will notice that schools are segregated by age group, not by merit and personal academic ability for the most part. There is AP with great teachers, but sometimes students are in between. There is a set pace of teaching that is either too fast for some and too slow for others, but just right for a few others. Yet, everyone is generally in the same classes.

In fact, kids that misbehave tend to get more individual attention and more dollars thrown at them, correct? So, in a sense, isn't the government encouraging kids to lash out in order to get more help?

I'm not sure if this is true, just would like your straight answer.

We all know kids are different and have different skills, talents, and interests. I'm sure this hasn't changed since I was in school. It was often my experience, that there was a consistent pounding of us into the square peg, so to speak. I wonder if this has changed, but imagine with standardized testing it's gotten worse.

I think you hit it on the head when you said the design of education is to create a workforce, future government employees, and neighborhoods. While I agree, these are important to some extent, I believe it is more important to allow self-reliant, curious, thinking individuals to grow and develop their own curiosities and interests, not just production of people that can perform tasks for others.

I also notice you're really wanting to compare private and public organizations as if they are the same. To me, they have entirely different assumptions and goals underneath their purpose. There are numerous reasons, but in short, I'm not sold that private and public organizations are the same. You can take parts and pieces, but you can't run a comparison and turn it into a rule.

ML:

I want to address redundancy because you requested I be little more specific. But, before I do, I want to make it clear that by no means am I putting down staff. Most do a very good job.

#1 The first area I notice is personnel services at Simi Unified and Human Resources at the county. I would assume the county schools would want to be one personnel clearinghouse for all districts under one jurisdiction to save funds for local districts, yet if one were to apply, it would go directly through the school district. Both have their own separate Human Resources departments, so it appears if a teacher wants to apply for a bunch of districts in an area, they need to submit multiple applications to many districts rather than just one. Seems rather redundant.

#2 If you go on Simi Unified's website there is a professional development catalog of opportunities to improve teacher quality put on by Simi Unified's Curriculum & Instruction Department. (Looks pretty good) If I go to the county website it's teacher support services department discusses what it does for new and veteran teachers for professional development. Why not consolidate those services?

#3 Why does each school district need to have it's own separate payroll system? Seems rather costly and would again make more sense to share administrative costs for all districts. Yet, Simi and other districts have it's own payroll system and I imagine Ventura County schools has it's own as well.

These are just three to get the ball rolling. I post more examples later tonight.

ML:

I noticed you used the economic concept of value saying the higher the quality, the higher the price. Price is determined by supply and demand and competition and most likely doesn't apply to public organizations.

For instance, because education get's it's funding from taxes the concept of free exchange of goods and services does not apply. That is, we don't freely purchase education services based on supply and demand. We pay for education because it has been determined how much we pay by the government. So again, I'm not sure your value idea works for public organizations because in a free market people generally freely comparison shop and derive value based on that.

In public education, we basically say you drive a chevy or a chevy, which makes it tough to derive true value. True value compared to what?

Maybe we as voters can elect people that have a background in government getting things done like writing grants.

KUNICKI, VALENZANO, MATTHEWS, BATES = SNAKES IN THE GRASS!