Home › Blogs › No Issues Left Behind
« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »
October 28, 2005
Go Obama!
In light of the reform efforts in California, this is an important statement from Senator Obama of Illinois, according to the "Teacher's Commission"
---In a speech to the Center for American Progress this week, United States Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) proposed the creation of twenty innovation districts "with the best plans to put effective, supported teachers in all classrooms and increase achievement for all students."
In these districts, said Obama, the following reforms would be expected:
Better Recruitment. "Right now we don't have nearly enough effective teachers in the places we need them most: urban and rural schools, and subject areas like math and science."
Better Pay. "[T]eachers in these Innovation Districts who are successful in improving student achievement would receive substantial pay increases, as would those who choose to teach in the most troubled schools and the highest-need subject areas, like math and science."
Better Support. "[T]eachers would be paired with mentor teachers who've been there before."
Better Hiring, Funding and Transfer Policies. "Districts would work with unions to tackle these problems so that we can provide every child with an effective teacher."
"We now live in a world where the most valuable skill you can sell is knowledge... And today, a child in Chicago is not only competing for jobs with one in Boston, but thousands more in Bangalore and Beijing who are being educated longer and better than ever before," said Obama. "If we hope to give our children a chance, it's time we start giving our teachers a chance. We can't change the whole country overnight. But what we can do is give more school districts the chance to revolutionize the way they approach teaching."
Read or view Senator Obama's full speech here.
I like innovative ideas, and the people who bring them into the debate. What do you think?
Tim
Posted by Tim Keaney at 03:16 PM
October 27, 2005
$12 million?
There is a number being floated around by the opponents of Prop 76, that Simi Valley Schools will lose $12 million immediately if Prop 76 passes. That this "draconian" measure would cut school funding, drastically change and alter the prop 98 landscape and cripple schools.
But is this true?
Where do the opponents get to the $12 million number? According to the measure, if state tax revenues go up, then school funding will indeed go up. Perhaps not as dramatically as we have seen in the past with large upswings, but then the downswings would not be as bad either.
Is it possible that the opposition is quietly saying that they know other legislation they've been backing for years is actually hurting jobs and companies in the state, and forcing many to leave? This would lower state revenue, and inevitably, hurt schools.
SO is the $12 million number real? Where are the facts that is based on? What do other districts report? Why doesn't the Independant Legislative Analyst report such radical drops in funding?
Prop 76 is complicated indeed, but it is made more complicated by head-fakes and half-truths.
Debate anyone?
Tim Keaney
Posted by Tim Keaney at 08:52 AM
October 26, 2005
Keep Politics OUT of the classroom
Politics should stay out of the classroom. In many cases, politicians and those running for ofice use classrooms as a back-drop, or campaign directly on campus in violation of the education code. It happens all of the time, happens locally and should be stopped.
This goes for statewide campaigns, and local school board campaigns. Keep politics out of the classroom, keep the politics away from our kids, and don't use facilities and equipment provided by the taxpayer to advance your agenda or cause. It's not right.
Here is an e-mail that was distributed across campus e-mail systems:
Subject: How Our Union Dues Are Being Spent
>From the Desk of:
Lillian Perry, Fontana Teacher
>From the Desk of:
Larry Sand, Los Angeles Teacher
October 12, 2005
Dear California Teacher:
We are also California teachers and are writing to you because we're concerned about what the leaders of our union, the California Teachers Association (CTA), are doing to our union and with our hard earned dollars that we send to them in Sacramento every month.
Here's the bottom line: Our current leadership is on the verge of bankrupting the CTA to fund a political agenda that many of us do not support.
Every year, union leaders in Sacramento take more than $100 million dollars from California teachers' paychecks. This is approximately $300 per teacher per year. Much of this is used to fund a political agenda over which individual teachers have little control. Even worse, this is taken from our paychecks without our permission.
Earlier this year, the CTA leadership decided it still didn't have enough money to spend on politics, so the union leadership decided to take an additional $60 each year from our paychecks for the next three years. This forced assessment gave the union leaders an additional $50 million or more of our money for their political agenda.
According to court documents filed last week, the CTA has at least $34 million in outstanding loans. Now, these same union leaders are trying to borrow ANOTHER $40 million through a line of credit.
When will enough be enough? Where has the money gone?
To dozens of consultants and political firms (getting paid millions of dollars), pollsters, television and radio advertising, direct mail firms and the list goes on and on.
Much of this "Sacramento slush fund" has been used to oppose Prop. 75 - a very simple measure that says the CTA must ask our permission before political campaign funds are taken from our paychecks.
Why would CTA be so opposed, and spend tens of millions of dollars, to having to ask our permission?
Could it be that union leadership is concerned that we might not agree with their political agenda - like spending millions to qualify a measure that would have raised property taxes and millions more for measures that have nothing to do with education?
Proposition 75 will give teachers a choice, a voice and a say. It will bring accountability to the CTA. Please read the measure for your self. If you agree with us, please join us in voting "YES" on Proposition 75.
Prop. 75 is about union democracy, a voice for teachers and guaranteeing us the right to choose how our money is spent. Visit www.organizenotpolitics.org to learn more.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Paid for by Teachers, Firefighters, and Law Enforcement for Paycheck Protection, Yes on 75, A Coalition of Taxpayer Associations with funding by Robin P. Arkley, II and Frank E. Baxter, 1500 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 113, Sacramento, CA 95833.
---end--
Keep politics - my kind, and your kind, out of our classrooms so teachers can teach, not advocate.
Tim Keaney
Posted by Tim Keaney at 10:35 AM
October 24, 2005
Are you spooked by the lack of Information?
On the first day of school this year, I made the following entry in this blog:
The SVUSD is currently violating the law in relation to:
As stated in Education Code section 15280 (b):
"The Citizens Oversight Committee shall issue regular reports on the results of it's activities. A report shall be issued at least once a year. Minutes of the proceedings of the Citizen?s Oversight Committee and all documents shall be a matter of public record and be made available on an internet website maintained by the governing board."
Here's the district web site maintained by the governing board. I don't see regular reports or minutes. Do you?
---end---
It's now a week before Halloween, and yet today, the SVUSD has made no web site to report in public the record of the Oversight Committee, or the use of your $145 million. In subsequent newspaper articles, the Daily News reported that the district had committed $10,000 to build a web site, and yet, where is it?
SVUSD remains in violation of the State Education Code. In other words, they are breaking the law with your tax dollars.
Inquiring minds want to know why.
Tim Keaney
Posted by Tim Keaney at 07:42 PM
October 19, 2005
Proposition 75 - An Endorsement...
Not from me, but from a linchpin of democratic politics - The Los Angeles Times.
According to the Times:
We support this more narrowly tailored initiative primarily as a means of lessening the power of public employee unions in Sacramento, but also as a way of reinforcing the right of union members to insist that their hard- earned income not be diverted to political causes they don't endorse.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that union members cannot be forced to finance political activity, and Proposition 75 merely requires that public employee unions get written consent from their members before their dues and fees are used for political purposes. Currently, union members must request specifically that their dues not be spent on politics, and there is some question about how realistic a choice this is in some unions. Shifting the burden to the union to gain the consent of a member -- as Washington, Utah and other states now require -- does not seem onerous, and may even encourage greater accountability on the part of union leadership.
Proposition 75 opponents argue that this is unfair because there is no similar move to curtail the discretion of business lobbyists to invest shareholder resources in politics. But the analogy is flawed, given that this initiative applies only to public employee unions. It's not private businesses that sit across the negotiating table from public employee unions; it's the taxpayers and their elected representatives, acting as stewards of the public interest.
If this notion sounds almost quaint, it is, because it has become so divorced from reality. At many levels of government, public employee unions, aided by their political war chests, have gained control over both sides of the negotiating process. When public employee unions wield the type of influence they now do in California, too much governing becomes an exercise in self-dealing.
The entire editorial can be found on latimes.com, but they will charge you $4 for it.
More:
To take one example, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has acknowledged it will take a "holy jihad" to assume control of the local school district because teachers unions are so powerful in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Although the mayor opposes Proposition 75, his statement illustrates the need for it.
What do you think of 75, and the Times repudiation of the anti-75 argument?
Tim Keaney
Posted by Tim Keaney at 07:35 PM
October 17, 2005
Where have all the children gone?
From today's Star
Fewer children enrolling in county schools
And...
In this blog, we are going to tackle the issues of the day. What is causing Ventura County schools to lose enrollment?
Is it housing prices? Housing is at a critical juncture in the county and the combination of the lack of available housing for young families, and the demand to live in coastal California, and you have a recipe for high home prices.
How does SOAR play into this? Obviously, SOAR is having an effect on cities and the county being able to provide an adequate supply of housing. here is what the article says about Ojai: "Again, the main problem in Ojai is housing that's beyond the reach of most young families. On top of that, the city has a limited-growth policy, so few new houses are being built."
Well, um - Where are the kids to live then???
What do you make of the fact that California enrollment is largely flat, Oxnard is growing at 1% to flat? Are people leaving the state in droves?
What do you make of the fact that Oak park is recruiting heavily from out of district?
You're an educational leader in Ventura County. What would you do to stem the tide, and can it be done?
Tim Keaney
Posted by Tim Keaney at 04:58 PM
October 15, 2005
From the Wall Street Journal
With apologies to Dennert:
It Takes a Hurricane
October 14, 2005; Page A10
We shouldn't need a catastrophe on the scale of Katrina before folks like Ted Kennedy stop obstructing educational freedom in the U.S. But maybe that's what it takes to get some politicians to think anew.
Last month the Bush administration proposed using federal vouchers to meet the educational needs of the estimated 372,000 Louisiana and Mississippi children displaced by Hurricane Katrina. Up to $7,500 would follow student evacuees "wherever they are enrolled."
Mr. Kennedy, the ranking Senate Democrat on education matters, initially couldn't abide this nondiscrimination and wanted private and religious schools excluded. More recently, he's softened that stance. Congressional Quarterly reports that while Mr. Kennedy is still not ready to sign on to the President's plan, he now favors allowing federal money to be "routed through the local public school system -- so they technically would not be vouchers -- to serve private and religious students."
This is a revealing way to put it. His private school concessions notwithstanding, Mr. Kennedy still doesn't want to give parents the money directly so they can decide where to send their children to school. Keeping the money in "the system" allows him and his teacher-union supporters to maintain their political control.
Other Democratic converts to school choice include Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu, who sends her own children to a private school but last year didn't support a pilot voucher program for the poorest of the poor in the District of Columbia. Post-Katrina, she's cosponsoring a bill, as part of a larger relief package, that would use federal dollars to cover tuition at private and religious schools. Even Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, another longtime voucher opponent, now says he could support them on a temporary basis.
The former students of such educational wastelands as New Orleans' Ninth Ward, where drop-out rates and participation in free- and reduced-lunch programs far exceed the national averages, could have used help on this front long before Katrina's visit.
But better late than never.
---end wsj opinion---
What do you say?
Why do politicians and many educators send their kids to private school, while those with the most need for educational opportunity are trapped in failing schools?
Tim Keaney
Posted by Tim Keaney at 07:44 PM
October 14, 2005
Roger Kurachi
Long-time Simi School Board member Carla Kurachi lost her husband yesterday. Roger passed away unexpectantly, and we are all shocked and saddened.
Let's all put our debate and politics aside today, and keep Carla and her family in our thoughts and prayers as they go through this difficult time.
Tim
Posted by Tim Keaney at 01:24 PM
October 12, 2005
Get your kicks, on Prop 76
When the idiots in Sacramento actually learn how to legislate again, and do their jobs we pay them over $100,000 a year (plus car, plus benefits etc..) to do, let's hope there is never again, a PROP 76.
Here is what I am talking about, from the official voter information guide:
Prop 74 = 6 pages
Prop 75 = 4 pages
Prop 76 = 11 Pages
So, what kind of time to our legislators think the average voters have to do their jobs for them? As Reagan said, when Congress sent him a budget resolution that when stacked, was 3 feet tall: "Don't send me something like this ever again".
Now, for the details of Prop 76:
Should Californians make major Constitutional changes to create an additional state spending limit, grant the governor substantial new power to unilaterally reduce state spending, and revise key provisions relating to Proposition 98, school and community college funding, and transportation funding authorized by Proposition 42?
A YES vote on this measure means:
State expenditures would be subject to an additional spending limit based on an average of recent revenue growth. The Governor would be granted new authority to unilaterally reduce state spending during certain fiscal situations. School and community college spending would be more subject to annual budget decisions and less affected by a constitutional funding guarantee.
A NO vote on this measure means:
The state would not adopt an additional spending limit, the Governor would not be granted new powers to reduce state spending during certain fiscal situations, and existing constitutional provisions relating to schools and community college funding would not be changed.
Here is the link to the Independant Legislative Analysis
Read more here...
Proposal
This measure adds a second limit on the annual growth in state expenditures. Beginning in 2006‑07, combined expenditures from the state’s General Fund and special funds would be limited to the prior-year level of expenditures, adjusted by the average of the growth rates in combined General Fund and special fund revenues over the prior three years.
In years in which actual spending falls below the limit, the spending limit for the subsequent year would be based on the reduced level of actual expenditures. Spending could temporarily exceed the limit in the event of a natural disaster (for example, fire, floods, or earthquakes) or an attack by an enemy of the United States.
What Happens If Revenues Exceed the Limit? If revenues exceed the limit, the excess amount would be divided proportionally among the General Fund and each of the state’s special funds. The exact way in which this allocation would occur is not specified in the measure. The portion of the excess revenues that is allocated to special funds would be held in reserve for expenditure in a subsequent year. In the case of the General Fund, its share of the excess revenues would be allocated as follows:
25 percent—the state’s reserve fund.
50 percent—allocated through annual budget acts to repay any of the following: (1) the Proposition 98 maintenance factor outstanding (see below) at a rate of no more than one-fifteenth of the amount per year; (2) state-issued deficit-financing bonds; and (3) loans made from the Transportation Investment Fund in 2003‑04 through 2006‑07, with annual amounts not to exceed one-fifteenth of the amount outstanding as of June 30, 2007.
25 percent—for road, highway, and school construction projects.
Funds allocated for the above purposes would not be counted as expenditures for purposes of calculating the following year’s spending limit.
Fiscal Effect
Based on budget actions taken in 2005 and the recent strong revenue growth trend, the new spending limit is unlikely to constrain state expenditures in 2006‑07—its first year of implementation. This is because the limit would likely exceed projected revenues and expenditures under current law.
Over the longer term, however, we believe that the spending limit could have significant impacts on annual state spending. This is because of the way in which the new spending limit would interact with changes in the economy and state revenues over time. California’s revenues are highly sensitive to economic changes. That is, they tend to grow fast during the upside of business cycles when the economy is expanding, and slow—or fall—when the economy is on the downside of business cycles. As a result, the new spending limit—which is based on a rolling average of past revenue growth—would grow more slowly than actual revenues when the economy is accelerating, and grow faster than actual revenues when the economy is in recession.
School Funding
How the Measure Would Change School Spending Guarantee for K-12 and Community Colleges
How Current Guarantee Works
ü Proposition 98 Minimum Guarantee. Is based on the operation of three formulas (“tests”). The operative test depends on how the economy and General Fund revenues grow from year to year.
Test 1—Share of General Fund. Provides 39 percent of General Fund revenues. This test has not been operative since 1988‑89.
Test 2—Growth in Per Capita Personal Income. Increases prior-year funding by growth in attendance and per-capita personal income. This test is generally operative in years with normal-to-strong General Fund revenue growth.
Test 3—Growth in General Fund Revenues. Increases prior-year funding by growth in attendance and per-capita General Fund revenues. Generally, this test is operative when General Fund revenues fall or grow slowly.
ü Suspension of Proposition 98. This can occur through the enactment of legislation passed with a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature, and funding can be set at any level.
ü Long-Term Target Funding Level. This would be the K-14 education funding level if it were always funded according to the provisions of Test 2. Whenever Proposition 98 funding falls below that year’s Test 2 level, either because of suspension of the guarantee or the operation of Test 3, the Test 2 level is “tracked” and serves as a target level to which K-14 education funding will be restored when revenues improve.
ü Maintenance Factor. This is created whenever actual funding falls below the Test 2 level. The maintenance factor is equal to the difference between actual funding and the long-term target amount. Currently, the
K-14 funding level is $3.8 billion less than the long-term target funding level—that is, the current outstanding maintenance factor is $3.8 billion.
ü Restoration of Maintenance Factor. This occurs when school funding rises back up toward the long-term target funding level. Restoration can occur either through a formula that requires higher K-14 education funding in years with strong General Fund revenue growth, or through legislative appropriations above the minimum guarantee.
What This Measure Does
ü Eliminates Future Operation of Test 3. In low-revenue years, the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee would no longer automatically fall below the Test 2 level.
ü Eliminates Future Creation of Maintenance Factor. If in any given year K-14 education was funded at a level less than that required by Test 2 (through suspension or Governor’s reductions), there would no longer be a future obligation to restore that funding shortfall to the long-term target. These reductions would permanently “ratchet down” the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee.
ü Converts Outstanding Maintenance Factor to One-Time Obligation. The measure converts the outstanding maintenance factor (estimated to be $3.8 billion) to a one-time obligation. Payments to fulfill this obligation would be made over the next 15 years. These payments would not raise the future Proposition 98 minimum guarantee (in contrast to existing law).
ü Counts Future Appropriations Above the Minimum Guarantee as One-Time Payments. Spending above the minimum guarantee would not raise the base from which future guarantees are calculated.
Fiscal Effect
Given the uncertainty about future economic growth and budgetary circumstances, it is not possible to predict how the measure’s changes would affect actual state spending for K-14 education and other programs. In general, the elimination of Test 3 and future maintenance factors means that year-to-year changes in the minimum guarantee would be less volatile than in the past—absent a suspension or a reduction by the Governor.
Decreases Minimum Guarantee Over Long Term. Over time, however, the net impact of the Proposition 98 changes and related changes in the measure would be to lower the minimum guarantee for K-14 education, as discussed below:
Since K-14 education accounts for almost 45 percent of the state’s General Fund budget, it is likely that policymakers would need to consider reductions in this area whenever the budget fell significantly out of balance. Whenever such spending was reduced—either through suspension or through Governor’s reductions—the state would no longer be required to restore that reduction in the minimum funding guarantee in subsequent years.
The provision making future appropriations over the minimum guarantee one-time in nature would also hold down the minimum guarantee relative to current law. For example, if this provision applied to 2005‑06, it would convert an estimated $740 million in appropriations above the guarantee in the 2005‑06 budget to one-time spending. This would lower the minimum guarantee for 2006‑07 by a similar amount compared to current law.
By converting the $3.8 billion outstanding maintenance factor to a one-time obligation, the measure eliminates the requirement for $3.8 billion to be restored into the annual base funding over time.
Combined, these changes would result in a lower minimum guarantee over time compared to current law.
Unknown Impact on K-14 Spending. A lower guarantee, however, does not mean that actual spending for schools would necessarily be lower. Policymakers would still be free to spend more than required by the minimum guarantee in any given year. Since spending above the guarantee for K-14 education would no longer permanently ratchet up the guarantee, future Legislatures and Governors might be more likely to spend above the minimum guarantee in a given year. Overall, the measure’s Proposition 98-related changes would result in the annual budgets for K-14 education being more subject to annual funding decisions by state policymakers and less affected by the minimum guarantee.
Are we ready to debate it?
Prop 76 - bring it on.
Tim Keaney
Posted by Tim Keaney at 09:09 PM
October 11, 2005
Next up... Prop 75
The special election is looming in this "year of reform". Here is all of the information you need to make a good decision about 75, and all of the information we need to have a good debate.
This information was compiled from smartvoter.org, as well as related Campaign web sites.
Proposition 75
Prohibits using public employee union dues for political contributions without individual employees' prior consent. Excludes contributions benefitting charities or employees. Requires unions to maintain and, upon request, report member political contributions to Fair Political Practices Commission.
A YES vote on this measure means:
Public employee unions would be required to get annual, written consent from government employee union members and nonmembers to charge and use any dues or fees for political purposes.
A NO vote on this measure means:
Public employee unions could charge and use dues or fees for political purposes without annual, written consent. Fees from a nonmember of a union could not be spent on political purposes if the nonmember objects.
From the Impartial legislative analyst
Background
Unions for Government Employees. Groups of government employees—like employees in the private sector—can choose to have a union represent them in negotiations with their employers over salaries, benefits, and other conditions of employment. Individual government employees may choose whether or not to join the union that represents their group of employees. A union’s negotiations affect all employees in the group—both members and nonmembers of the union. As a result, members of the group—whether they join a union or not—typically pay a certain level of dues and/or fees to a union for these bargaining and representation services.
Use of Union Dues or Fees for Political Purposes. A union of government employees may engage in other types of activities unrelated to bargaining and representation. For instance, public employee unions may decide to charge additional dues for various political purposes, including supporting and opposing political candidates and issues. Any fees collected from a nonmember of a union cannot be used for these types of political purposes if the nonmember objects. Each year, unions must publicly report what share of their expenditures was for political purposes.
Proposal
This measure amends state statutes to require public employee unions to get annual, written consent from a government employee in order to charge and use that employee’s dues or fees for political purposes. This requirement would apply to both members and nonmembers of a union. The measure would also require unions to keep certain records, including copies of any consent forms.
Interesting stuff from "easyvoter"
Official web site in favor of 75
Here is some rhetoric from the "pro" folks (FROM OFFICIAL WEB SITE):
The Paycheck Protection initiative will give public employees the choice of whether they want their union dues spent on political campaigns. It will require public employee unions to receive annual written consent from members before the member's dues may be used for political purposes. This initiative will not prevent unions from collecting political contributions, but those contributions will be voluntary, rather than mandatory.
Further, the initiative requires public employee unions to maintain and submit to the California Fair Political Practices Commission records concerning their political contributions. The initiative does not apply to dues collected for charitable organizations, health care insurance or other purposes directly benefiting the public employees.
Essentially, the Paycheck Protection initiative will strengthen public employee union members' political rights. It will give them the option of choosing whether they want their union dues spent on political candidates and campaigns.
Here is some rhetoric from the anti-75 folks (FROM OFFICIAL WEB SITE):
As with many previous California ballot initiatives, Prop 75 has a hidden agenda. Proposition 75’s real agenda is to cut funding for public schools, cut health care and roll back retirement security.
Proposition 75 was designed and orchestrated by Governor Schwarzenegger’s supporters including right-wing extremists and his corporate campaign contributors who want to cut funding for education, health and safety. They have supported President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security, calling that program “immoral” and “unethical.” One even argues that minimum wage laws defy the Bible.
Supporters of Prop. 75 aren’t for workers rights. They’re using that argument as a smokescreen to push their real agenda. They’re against the minimum wage, against strengthening employee health care and against the eight-hour work day. And they support cuts to education, health care and oppose retirement security.
Individual workers won't have more choices under Prop. 75, they will have less privacy as workers who participate in political efforts will have to file a government form every year.
Make no mistake - Prop. 75 is simply the first step in an effort to cut education, health care and retirement security.
Impartial analysis from the League of Women Voters
THE QUESTION
Should public employee unions be required to obtain annual written consent from each member in order to use a portion of that member's dues for political activity?
THE SITUATION
Public employee unions collect dues and/or fees from employees in their employee group-both union members and non-members-in order to represent them in negotiations over salaries, benefits, and working conditions. Some of the dues money collected is used to support candidates and issues that union leaders believe will benefit their members.
THE PROPOSAL
Proposition 75 will require public employee unions to get annual written consent from each member in order to use any of that member's dues for political activities. It will also require unions to keep certain records, including copies of signed consent forms and to report member political contributions to the Fair Political Practices Commission.
FISCAL EFFECT
State and local governments could incur minor increased costs to implement and enforce the consent requirements of this measure. These could be offset in part by revenues from fines or fees.
SUPPORTERS SAY
It is unfair for unions to use a member's dues money to support political causes with which the member may not agree.
In other states where union members are explicitly given the choice of declining to support their union's political activity, many do so.
This initiative does not prohibit unions from collecting political contributions, but requires that the contributions be voluntary instead of mandatory.
OPPONENTS SAY
Instead of protecting the rights of teachers, nurses, and firefighters, this measure will make it harder to obtain fair wages, fair hours, and health care.
Corporations significantly outspend labor prior to elections. Without political activity by unions, voters would not hear both sides of many issues.
Any requirement that those affected must annually consent to use of their money for political purposes should apply to corporate stockholders as well as to union members.
---end---
Ok - so is that enough info. Enough links here to get educated about this issue? Bring on the discussion about prop 75
Posted by Tim Keaney at 06:44 PM
October 10, 2005
Ready to Rumble? UH - NO!
The answer is no... Not according to the California Division of the State Architect. From the Orange County Register:
Quake alert goes unheard at schools
Most school districts had not seen a list of O.C. buildings that may be at risk.
By JENIFER B. McKIM and TONY SAAVEDRA
The Orange County Register
Children are attending classes, eating lunch and playing sports in hundreds of Orange County school buildings that could crumble in a major earthquake, according to a 3-year-old document largely ignored by state and local officials.
The Division of the State Architect flagged at least 566 public school buildings in 21 Orange County districts, saying they could be at risk. Orange, Garden Grove and Saddleback districts have the largest number of questionable buildings in the county. Statewide, more than 7,500 school buildings are on the list.
Sunday, October 9, 2005
Quake alert goes unheard at schools
Most school districts had not seen a list of O.C. buildings that may be at risk.
By JENIFER B. McKIM and TONY SAAVEDRA
The Orange County Register
Children are attending classes, eating lunch and playing sports in hundreds of Orange County school buildings that could crumble in a major earthquake, according to a 3-year-old document largely ignored by state and local officials.
The Division of the State Architect flagged at least 566 public school buildings in 21 Orange County districts, saying they could be at risk. Orange, Garden Grove and Saddleback districts have the largest number of questionable buildings in the county. Statewide, more than 7,500 school buildings are on the list.
State and local officials blame each other for not taking action. Most Orange County school officials say they weren't even aware of the list until reporters from The Orange County Register called. And many said they don't have funding to retrofit schools.
State officials have done little to get the attention of educators, beyond mailing a form letter saying the list was available for the asking. Many school officials insist they never received the letter. They say a tight budget has curbed efforts to do much more and that districts have a responsibility to examine the problem.
"This is being passed around like a hot potato," said Gary McGavin, a newly appointed member of the California Seismic Safety Commission. "At some point we will have an earthquake. We've been very lucky a child hasn't been hurt. In some of the older schools our luck is going to run out."
At issue is the 2002 list that shows about 14 percent of the total square footage of California school buildings might fail during an earthquake, putting tens of thousands of children in possible danger.
Staff from the Division of the State Architect examined plans, stored in their offices, of about 16,000 buildings based on type of construction, proximity to a seismic fault and age. They didn't visit the schools.
State officials emphasized that being on the list doesn't definitively mean that a building is unsafe but that school districts should hire experts to evaluate them.
"You need to have the evaluation to know what situation you've got," said Dennis Bellet, the state architect's principal structural engineer who led the team of nearly 30 engineers over a period of 13 months to complete the inventory. "This should be evaluated because it could be possibly dangerous."
Some local parents and students said wherever the responsibility lies, something should be done.
"I think there is no excuse for negligence," said Elaine Rivera, 42, a mother of two children at Riverdale Elementary School in Anaheim, where eight buildings are flagged on the 40-year-old campus "Why should we wait until something happens to do something?"
Rivera's 11-year-old son Luke worries that schools aren't doing their best to protect him.
"If I'm there doing my schoolwork and I look up and the roof is gone, I'm not going to be happy," said the 5th-grader, one of some 300-plus students at the school.
The list targets the types of buildings that historically have collapsed or been damaged during quakes, including concrete tilt-up construction and those with non-wood frame walls that do not meet the minimum requirements of the 1976 Uniform Building Code.
Seismic experts say standards are not solely based on the magnitude of an earthquake that a building can withstand. Factors such as soil conditions and a school's proximity to a fault also come into play.
School libraries and gymnasiums often have so-called tilt-up buildings, in which walls are made of poured concrete. These wallscan fall outward, causing the roof to collapse and dropping concrete and debris onto the heads of children below. Other classroom buildings can lean in a big quake, trapping students in rooms with jammed doorways and broken windows.
list kept confidential
In theory, public schools are safer than other buildings in the state, thanks to the 1933 Field Act, enacted one month after the Long Beach earthquake in which multiple schools were destroyed. But regulations have become stricter over the years, and seismic experts worry that older buildings, up to code at the time, are no longer safe.
The 1994 Northridge earthquake, with a magnitude of 6.7, served as another wake-up call. The quake caused more than 100 school buildings to be red-tagged as unsafe or yellow-tagged for limited entry, according to the seismic commission. Large light fixtures ripped out of ceilings and landed on desks.
If the quake had occurred during school hours, children would have been injured or even killed, a seismic commission study found. And Northridge was a relatively mild earthquake compared to the magnitude 7 or above quake that some disaster planners expect to hit the state by 2024.
In 1999, legislators ordered that school buildings be reviewed for seismic safety. However, then-Gov. Gray Davis insisted that potentially dangerous schools not be publicly identified, so the list was withheld while a more general report was released in November 2002.
"They were fearful the public would pull out of schools that are considered to be more vulnerable to earthquakes," said Fred Turner, a structural engineer with the commission. "This allowed the state and school districts to proceed in a more casual pace, much to our chagrin."
Soon after the release of the report, state architects sent letters to district superintendents notifying them that the list was available. But less than 1 percent of the districts in California requested the data.
The state commission, thinking districts were avoiding the information for fear of liability, sponsored legislation this year to give local officials immunity if they analyzed and acted on the information.
The bill died after lawyers for the state Assembly determined school officials already were immune if they addressed the problem and instead could be liable if they did nothing. Now the commission is drafting letters to notify schools about the list.
"There is a risk of life loss and serious damage," the commission's Turner said. "The best thing school districts can do is not put their heads in the sand but do their best to manage the risk. As building owners they are ultimately responsible."
With the change in administration, the state agency recently decided it could publicly release the list of schools but almost no one has asked for it. The Register and a Northern California newspaper requested a copy of the list last month.
Orange County districts, home to the second largest number of at-risk buildings in the state, after Los Angeles County, said they weren't avoiding the list. They just didn't know about it.
The Register called all 28 school districts in the county and found that only one - Newport-Mesa Unified School District - said it had requested the information. Most superintendents, communications directors and facilities officials said they had no knowledge of the letters or the list. Three of the 28 districts did not respond to repeated calls for comment.
Some Orange County school officials criticized the state for withholding the list unless districts asked for it.
"This is helter-skelter, happenstance, hide the football, don't give information until you request it. It is silly," said William Eller, superintendent of the Cypress School District, which has 13 buildings at four schools on the list. "And who is going to pay for a seismic evaluation?"
seismic list overlooked
Bellet, from the Division of the State Architect, acknowledged that some of the notification letters were returned or could have gotten lost in the high number of documents sent by his office. The state did not follow up.
He said his office hesitated to send the entire school list in part because of its shortcomings. The list accurately details the extent of the problem statewide, he said, but local data can be faulty.
Because the division's staff didn't actually visit schools, the list includes buildings that have been renovated, renamed or shuttered. The list also may have left out other buildings, he said.
A Register analysis of the state data found several discrepancies. The list shows 802 school buildings potentially at risk in Orange County. But 29 percent, or 236, could not be accurately located. Either they were linked to the wrong district or to no district at all. In other cases, the buildings had been demolished or sold.
Seismic experts say even with the inaccuracies the list contains hundreds of buildings that do exist and need to be evaluated. Many school district officials said they were now scrambling to assess the risk.
"In public school, we force children to be there. We have a responsibility to keep them safe," said Lucy Jones, a U.S. Geological Survey seismologist and a member of the state commission. "I think that checking (the list) is incredibly important."
Newport-Mesa school officials, one of only a handful of districts statewide to have undergone seismic safety studies, said they reviewed the list weeks after it was first available. Flush with $170 million in state and local money for modernization and seismic upgrades, the district found problems with 80 to 90 percent of the 23 buildings flagged by the state, administrative director Tim Marsh said.
Soon after, the district closed one of its classroom buildings because of concerns it wouldn't hold up in an earthquake. Marsh could not break down how much of the funding went directly to retrofitting but said the district is on pace to fix about 90 percent of identified seismic problems in the short term. The district is pushing a bond measure to complete the projects.
"Early on this district made a determination we are going to look at seismic safety," said Marsh, who was surprised that more districts haven't looked at their own schools. "We at least know there was a problem."
No funds to make fixes
Many school districts said that even if they had reviewed the list, they don't have the money to do seismic evaluations, much less renovations.
Fixing the buildings' structural weaknesses could cost a minimum of $4.7 billion statewide - with related costs potentially tripling the price tag, the 2002 report estimated.
This sum would have taken a significant chunk of the $28 billion in bond funding state voters approved for school construction and modernization since 1998 - but none of this money was allocated for seismic safety.
Other school districts said that if they had known about the list they could have recommended fixes to voters during local bond initiatives. Since 2000, voters in Orange County school districts have approved more than $1 billion in bond money. But almost none of it has been set aside for seismic safety.
Capistrano Unified officials, for instance, said they likely would have made a priority the 36 buildings on the list in their district.
Capistrano has access to more than $100 million in state and local funds for construction and renovations projects approved by voters in 1999.
"Our ultimate purpose is to make sure that every building will be safe during an earthquake," said David Smollar, Capistrano Unified's communications director.
Several local districts said they believed seismic safety was taken into consideration during recent modernization efforts, but state officials said that's unlikely. Modernization typically fixes lower cost items such as electricity and disability access. Seismic retrofitting costs much more, said Dave Zian, manager of fiscal services for the state Office of Public School Construction.
Many local officials pointed to the state to come up with funding. Despite the billions of dollars that go to schools each year, district officials say they are struggling to maintain old buildings, keep down student-teacher ratios and pay teachers salaries.
"If there is a compelling state interest to retrofit this building there should be compelling state interest (to provide) the resources," said Alan Trudell, public information officer for the Garden Grove Unified School District. "What programs should we sacrifice in order to carry out the recommendations of the report?"
Lawmakers and government officials don't yet have the answer. The list came with recommendations to rank, evaluate and find funding to address seismic safety issues at public schools. None of this was done.
Former Assemblywoman Ellen Corbett, who introduced the bill calling for the state list, said she advocated at the time for the Legislature to take action but was thwarted by fiscal constraints. The San Leandro Democrat hopes policy makers will learn lessons from the Gulf Coast tragedies and make disaster preparedness a priority.
"What we need to do is make sure we find some way to put more resources toward this," said Corbett, who is now running for state Senate. "I'm hoping the tragedy will help focus policy makers on how important that is."
Diane Waters, an architect for the state Department of Education, said it's up to districts to do the evaluations. And if the schools need funding, the Legislature should step in.
"You can do a report, but if the Legislature does not fund it there is nothing that can be done," Waters said. "They have to allocate money to this program to upgrade buildings. If they don't do that then there is no money to do it."
Sue Broderson, a teacher at DeMille Elementary in Midway City, said schools are in a financial squeeze, having to weigh seismic safety against salvaging education programs. "We're just trying to survive right now."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Tim Keaney at 11:22 AM
October 03, 2005
Trick, or Treat?
It's October. The special election is one month away. Will California once again be swept up in the euphoria that was the recall election, or will voter fatigue send the "year of reform" packing?
There are two issues on the ballot in November that are about Education:
Prop 74
Prop 75
While I have been critical about both and their "reforms", it is now time to bring you the issues, straight from smartvoter.org, a non-partisan, information gathering web site from the League of Women Voters.
I will bring you the information, links, reasonings etc.. And then you can decide. You need to think beyond your kids, your schools and your districts. You can also use this blog to suggest solutions, alternatives and debate.
If you think this information is helpful, pass the link to the blog on...
First up: Proposition 74.
Public School Teachers. Waiting Period for Permanent Status. Dismissal -- State of California (Initiative Statute)
Should the probationary period for public school teachers be increased from two to five years, and should the process by which school boards can dismiss a permanent certificated employee be modified?
Should the probationary period for public school teachers be increased from two to five years, and should the process by which school boards can dismiss a permanent certificated employee be modified?
Summary Prepared by the State Attorney General:
Increases probationary period for public school teachers from two to five years. Modifies the process by which school boards can dismiss a teaching employee who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations.
Fiscal Impact from the Legislative Analyst:
Unknown net effect on school districts' costs for teacher compensation, performance evaluations, and other activities. Impact would vary significantly by district and depend largely on future district personnel actions.
Meaning of Voting Yes/No
A YES vote on this measure means:
The probationary period for new teachers would be extended from two to five years, and school districts could dismiss permanent teachers who received two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations using a modified dismissal process.
A NO vote on this measure means:
The probationary period for new teachers would remain two years, and no changes would be made to the dismissal process for permanent teachers.
Click below on "Continue reading Trick or Treat" for links to smartvoter.org and the pro/con web sites and statements:
Prop 74
Impartial Analysis from the Legislative Analyst
Full Text of the Prop (In PDF - be careful!)
YES on 74 (from the Governor's web site)
No on 74 (from the official web site)
League of Women Voters "Pros & Cons analysis"
That enough to digest? This enough to debate? You can go to each web site, or the sample ballot that should be in your mail box to see who is supportive, and who is opposed.
Prop 74 is on the November Ballot - What will YOUR ballot say? What do you say about this step towards reform, and is it?
Step up and post a comment...
Tim Keaney
Posted by Tim Keaney at 07:36 PM
Covering the Bases
The El Tejon Unified School District has a bond issue on the November ballot. Read it carefully before voting for it. Personally, I like how specific they are, and how they want to use the money for NEW classrooms. Since we've posted a lot about Simi's C4 bond, I wanted to give equal time to an equally important decision for these taxpayers.
This is the language on the ballot:
---
Measure E. Bond -- El Tejon Unified School District
To relieve school over crowding, improve school safety and provide facilities that best serve the students and community, shall the El Tejon Unified School District replace portable class rooms that are currently 57%, or 39 instructional class rooms, of the school district with equipped permanent class rooms, and build a multipurpose facility at Frazier Park Elementary School, construct and equip a new elementary school by issuing $7.120 million of bonds at interest rates below the legal limit?
---
Small district and small dollars, but if you're the taxpayer - pay close attention.
T
Posted by Tim Keaney at 07:31 PM
