No Layoffs Continued as Sacramento continues to Churn!!

I congratulate the CSEA team and applaud their efforts.  Last night they, as the teachers, ratified by 80% (to 20%) a tentative agreement that "freezes" the existing furloughs, contracts, and MOUs -- thereby guaranteeing no layoffs until June 30, 2012.  Kudos to all!!

At the same time, Governor Schwarzenegger called another Special Session (along with the swearing in of new Legislators) to resolve the $25 Billion budget deficit.  Needless to say, there are those that aren't sure that they wish to resolve the budget mess with a "lame duck" Governor.  On Wednesday, Governor-elect Brown began his messaging about where he intends to go with the budget -- with the first of 3 budget forums.  Senate leader Steinberg summed the situation up fairly well saying, “When you boil down all the complicated formulas and the complexity of the state, it comes down to one question: ‘what do we want as a state and how are we going to pay for it’?”

And guess what, NOW we have a $28 Billion deficit (based on the federal estate tax actions).  The news is NOT improving.

On a positive note, the Governor-elect did acknowledge that with national comparisons with other states, we are in trouble and need help.  He specifically recognized that we are ranking 49th in teachers-per-student, 49th in counselors-per-student, 50th in librarians-per-student, and 47th in administrators-per-student. The new governor seems aware of the magnitude of the problem our schools and students face.

Stay tuned, it should be an interesting couple of months!

NO layoffs!!

I was most excited to hear a couple of weeks ago that the RCTA team along with the RUSD team had reached a Tentative Agreement (TA) that essentially “froze” the existing agreements including furloughs, etc. – and we would guarantee NO layoffs. GREAT work on their part.

Friday, I was even more excited that the agreement was approved by the members of RCTA – which moves the issue forward to Board for ratification on Monday night. It is my sincere hope that CSEA members will similarly ratify the TA on Wednesday with their vote.

The idea that we will NOT layoff employees is tremendous. This is good NOT only for our staff members – it is good for our students and their learning. Some relief of this tension allows us to focus on the real work of our District – our students.

There are certainly “unknowns” about the budget and what exactly the state will or will not do with their budget. But to provide this certainty at this time is important for us all. Who is to say what things in California will look like in 18 months? Dan Walters posted a very interesting (somewhat counter-intuitive view of the budget situation). All signs, signals, and conversations with Sacramento tell us that the “deferred” $1.8 Billion promised just a couple of months ago – is none existent and will certainly be taken away. The larger question that seems to be will there be a mid-year reduction or additional reductions for 2011-12.

On the positive side, we can all hope that the financial situation improves under the new representatives in Sacramento – which would give us all the opportunity to get things back on track.

Our "New Normal" Future from DC?

Since we seem by state and financial initiative to be increasingly linked to the action and direction of those in Washington D.C. it would seem appropriate to consider what is in our future with them.

In the middle of November, U.S. Secretary of Education Duncan contended that we have a "new normal" and should "do more with less".  At a time when the Department of Education has far more resources than ever before -- Secretary Duncan lays out to the American Enterprise Institute that we need to reduce waste and seize new opportunities in our "new normal."  Secretary Duncan opened with a bold statement. “I am here to talk today about what has been called the New Normal,” he said. His basis for his statements would seem to be his 7 years as the CEO of Chicago Public Schools [which BTW in 07-08 when he left, was funded at $11,536 per student -- or twice RUSD levels].  The Secretary's suggestions for the transformational reforms that can also boost student outcomes would include such actions as:  rethinking policies around seat time requirements, class size, compensating teachers based on their educational credentials, the use of technology within the classroom, inequitable school financing, and the over-placement of students in special education.

Duncan goes on to argue that "In some cases, government may have to spend more now, to get better returns on our current investment. Race to the Top and i3 are good examples."  For me, I am a little unsure of what "return on investment" he might be referring to at this time.

Finally, Secretary Duncan lays out what we can anticipate with the coming reauthorization of federal educational programs and their related categorical funding. "Our ESEA reauthorization proposal consolidates 38 programs into 11 new funding streams -- so we can focus on achieving fewer, larger goals, better -- and it reduces red tape for people at the state and local level. Congress accepted the administration's proposal to eliminate four programs in fiscal 2010. And in fiscal 2011 we proposed eliminating six more programs.

I would agree with Secretary Duncan it looks like we will be "in" for a "new normal" from the Department of Education in Washington D.C.  What seems to be missing from the discussion is some idea of what we "get" in terms of outcomes, with our "new normal."

Interesting Thoughts from Around the Nation

• Digital Education’s Description of a New Partnership Between The Florida Virtual School and Pearson: “The Florida Virtual School and educational publishers Pearson have announced a partnership that will offer FLVS-designed courses through a program called Pearson Virtual Learning… Schools worldwide will be able to choose from one of four options to offer middle and high school content to students. The programs vary based on whether a subscribing school is using its own teachers and learning management system, and whether it is paying for courses on a per-student or a subscription basis. Information provided by Pearson does not include more specific pricing models for the program.” (Digital Education)
• Jay Matthews (Washington Post) questions how we might be more creative with school options including motivation regarding assessment and performance:  ...What would happen if we would only provide an "I" for incomplete rather than an "F" for failing on student report cards or records?  "Would the Washington suburbs [or anyplace else] ever tolerate a system in which families could choose schools with radical approaches, such as insisting students pass the final exam or retake the course? Would any parents expose their children to such experiments?"  (Washington Post)
• On the Opinion Side of the Map ...Friedman cogently comments on the State of the Economy and Role of Education: Friedman provides a very concise, though compelling view, of the triple whammy (i.e., globalization, technology, and superior education) driving our economic situation both from a personal and national (and arguably Riverside) perspective. And then fosters the notion that high-quality education is the way out with the view from immigrant parents that, "learning is the way up." (New York Times)

Thanksgiving

Obviously this is the time of year for Thanksgiving – the holiday. As such we take the week off for students, staff, and families to enjoy the season and their time with each other. However, it is also the time for me to be thankful for all that I have been blessed with, including my family.

I would also like to say that I am tremendously thankful for all of you here in Riverside. We have a great teaching staff that is highly committed to doing the best for students.  Additionally, we have a great support staff that is committed everyday to do what they can to make instruction successful for students.  Frankly, there is NO place that I would rather be than here in Riverside.  What we can do together is tremendous and exciting.

On a more personal note, I am thankful for all of those in Riverside who have befriended us since our arrival.  In the true Riverside spirit you have welcomed us.  Indicative of that spirit, 2 years ago when we arrived on Christmas Eve (literally), we were greeted by Gary and Collette Lee along with warm soup and a small Christmas tree.  That same spirit by many others has prevailed since our time here.  I am thankful.

So How Exactly DO We Get A State Budget?

As referenced earlier in the week – we are into a new budget creation process again 30 days after the conclusion of the last round. However, this go around promises to be a bit different – as indicated by the Press Enterprise (amongst many others).

Given the passage of Prop 25 the democrats would appear to be in charge and can pass the budget with a simple majority (50% + 1) rather than the previous supermajority (2/3). From that view, they probably think things are improved as they don’t have to get any consensus or votes from Republicans. However, the 2/3 requirement for ANY tax increase more or less cuts off the revenue sources that they were counting on. The election also eliminated many of the mechanisms the Legislature has used to raid local funds for state purposes (e.g., Redevelopment funds).

So, from my view, the Democrats now have the power and responsibility to deliver the state budget for both this and next year. However, there is loss of power to access revenue sources which only leaves reduction of programs as a solution for their (our) budget problems – both this year and next. Obviously, that puts schools and districts at the center of attention – yet this is philosophically in contrast to the principles of the Democratic Party (who have typically supported schools and sought revenue enhancements rather than budget reductions).

A simple majority vs. a supermajority requirement for passage of the budget is likely to have a number of “unintended consequences.” I suspect that other propositions are likely to have similar impacts that may fundamentally modify our budgetary system in California.

Budget? What Budget?

Remember 33 days and one election ago when the Legislators and Governor in Sacramento approved (October 8th) the state budget 100 days late? Well, that was then and this is now. Apparently they were surprised to find out that they had overestimated the revenue by over $6 Billion. This $6 Billion added to the existing $19 Billion deficit for next year adds up to being $25.4 Billion short for the next 18 months. So says the non-partisan LAO (Legislative Analyst Office) report. By the way, the total existing state budget is $86.6 Billion – so this equates to 22% of that total.

So the news outlets from Sacramento to San Diego and nationally is alive with the news that the Governor has now (November 11th) called his 18th Special Legislative Session to resolve the issue. The interesting part is that the Special Session starts on Monday, December 6th (after all the new legislators are sworn in). So the session essentially begins less than a month before the new Governor is sworn in on Monday, January 3rd. So by my calculation, the legislature probably has about 2 weeks working time before the new Governor arrives. To add to the drama, newly-elected Governor Brown has a legal responsibility to issue his budget plan for 2011-12 about a week after he is sworn into office.

Blogger John Fensterwald adds to the excitement by adding his understanding of the LAO’s comments that there is an “easy fix” for almost $2 Billion of the issue – by taking back the money we just received in schools – one month ago. Fensterwald said:

• “But the LAO did say that the Legislature should consider reneging on funding $1.8 billion that it added to Gov. Schwarzenegger’s May revised budget. That money is to be deferred to next July, after the start of the next fiscal year, but cutting it would erase about a third of this year’s estimated budget deficit. And it wouldn’t make much difference anyway since “most districts have been cautious in increasing 2010-11 program support as a result of recent deferrals.”
• Which is a diplomatic way of saying, Go ahead, legislators, and take it back, because most districts were smart enough not to trust you in the first place.”

We have and do fully expect the State to take back these funds they just delivered to us – and required us to modify our local budgets. Hang on tight!

In Tough Times -- This is Good News

This past week, I was pleased to hear (via the RCTA and CSEA negotiations update) that the joint negotiating teams from both the union and the district arrived at a tentative agreement. This was true for both the CSEA and RCTA groups. Essentially, the agreements (subject to ratification) do the following things:

• Freeze all existing agreements/MOUs in place – including the 5 furlough days
• Freeze all RCTA / CSEA employee positions (NO layoffs) for the remainder of this year and for all of the next school year (2011-12)
• Increase the district contribution to medical benefits from $9,000 to $9,500 for a one year period (with the hope that things will improve in the interim)
• And a few other tweaks and twists

Bottom line, if we can save jobs (and families) and provide confidence to them for the coming holiday season and new year – THAT would be fantastic. I applaud our combined teams and the critical, time-sensitive work that they have put into these proposed agreements.

Kudos to all!! Hopefully, this happens and things improve so that we NEVER need to undertake layoffs again.

Elections and Budgets

Interesting times!! The election is over we now know who the Governor is along with the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI). We also have the opinion of the electorate on issues of taxation, etc. Needless to say, there are lots of news articles, bloggers, and political pundits weighing in on what it all means.
Where there seems to be absolute clarity is with the idea of the budget – both current year (2010-11) and next year (2011-12). While all seem to understand the influence of special interests in the entire election process – there is a gorilla in the room that must be dealt with {an unfunded budget}. As such there seems to be all kinds of signs that there will be a mid-year modification of the current budget that is likely to affect us all. Governor-elect Brown has already indicated that he is reluctant to raise taxes without an affirmation of the people AND they just said (Prop 21) they aren’t interested in an $18 fee on their car registration.

As if this is not enough of a challenge for Governor-elect Brown and Superintendent-elect Torlakson, there is an issue of common core national standards. Clearly, and legislatively, California is committed to those common core standards. The challenge is that with a NEW set of standards – there is NO money to actually impement those standards. Implementation would probably at a minimum require: new textbooks, new training, and an entirely new state assessment system – ALL of which would require a substantial injection of dollars to support this development and deployment at the state and local level.

Again, realizing that all guesses are correct – some are just a bit closer – here’s mine. I am thinking that Governor-elect Brown acts quickly and creates a mid-year reduction for schools AND others to do what he can to reconcile a huge and growing (?) budget deficit. Followed by a rather draconian budget proposal for the 2011-12 budget year. Why? Because he “inherited a tough situation” and he believes it is his job to “fix it.” From a political view, if he doesn’t resolve it now it becomes “his” problem – if he resolves it now it is an “inheritance” issue.

Another view is that we have been focused in the last several years on the “Big 5” and their negotiations of a budget deal that is then ratified by the Legislature. Given the Prop 25 change (50% +1 to pass the budget) of the budget process, are we now faced with the appearance of a “Big 5” but the reality of a “Big 3?” There is no longer a functional need of Republican support to approve a budget – SO it would be entirely possible for the Governor and the Democratic leadership in the Assembly and Senate to determine a solution (“Big 3”) without much discussion or concurrence of the Republican representatives.

The Governor-elect still has some time before he is inaugurated into office – however, the race has begun.

Don't Forget To VOTE!!

Tomorrow is Election Day – and I hope you are planning and preparing to vote. I have already voted via mail. Clearly tomorrow’s activity and our various votes are critical, based on our system of governance. Additionally, there are very important issues to be resolved including the leadership of our state for the next 4 years, along with the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and 1/3 new legislators to determine our laws. We also have important initiatives that are likely to have long-term impacts (one way or the other) on us and our state.


I hope you find the time to make sure and vote your conscious on these important matters.

Perris Valley Line

I don't know about you -- but I am concerned by what has been called the Perris Valley Line -- which is an extension of the Riverside Metrolink to Perris by RCTC (Riverside County Transportation Commission).  We all surely understand and can even support the enhancement of transportation in our area or any other metropolitan area.  That is certainly good for all of us.  However, at what cost?

My fear is that while we currently have a stable situation with limited risk -- THIS solution has unacceptable risk for our RUSD students and staff.  The current situation involves two of our schools and very limited train traffic and low speed of travel.  RCTC is suggesting track improvement that will ultimately mean many more trains and much greater speed on the section of track that is adjacent to the Highland and Hyatt Elementary Schools.

To give you some perspective on the issue, I have included above a picture of the train situation at Hyatt Elementary along with a YouTube video of some of the issues.  At Hyatt there are concerns about a train derailment that could land on the Hyatt playground with students.  In Highland's case, there are the normal train issues and complications; however, there is a privately owned high-pressure fuel line (to March Air Base) which has potential with great speed and numbers of trains to create a situation with some similarity to the recent San Bruno disaster.

What can you do, if you have concerns?  Certainly contact our local representatives on the RCTC, including our Riverside City Councilman -- Steve Adams or his alternate, Councilman Andy Melendrez.

Budgets and Money

We had the Riverside Legislative Summit on Friday with our various legislators and the California Secretary of Education.  One of the more interesting statements that was made and reported in the Press Enterprise was regarding the relationship between money and performance.  It seems at some level we always go there and yet rarely get what I would consider to be the whole story.  In this case, I understand that basic notion presented -- however, it seems that we miss some of the relevant information that exists in our current times and circumstances.

I don't think anyone would contest that learning (when it has value) costs something (money).  So the question becomes how much money and what is the priority of those funds within the economy and spending patterns.  Obviously the corollary is that money alone does not equate to performance in education or, for that matter, anything else (probably the best example I can provide is the recent blog post I provided).  That issue of equity and levels of California funding was recently presented in what I would consider a fair manner by a Silicon Valley blogger, John Fensterwald.  To be clear, I am not asking for "Newark funding" -- just pointing out that money obviously has a connection and it needs to appropriate.

Additionally, it has long been understood that poverty never caused poor performance in learning.  However, it has long been understood that it has been associated (correlated) with educational performance.  I can point out that while I can take no credit for this, RUSD has shown a longitudinal overcoming of that poverty/learning correlation (as demonstrated below).  While levels of affluence have dropped in the community (as a function of free/reduced lunch counts), levels of learning (math and language arts) have improved.  While that is great and kudos to our teachers and all staff, I will be the first to say that we can do even better -- and we are!

Biker's Paradise

As promised there was the Citrus Classic this weekend.  It was a great ride that provided lots of different venues of Riverside {I saw places I had never seen}.  The Leadership Riverside Class of 2010 is the best ever as they had about 600 riders and are still counting their money (though I understand they are expecting more that $30k to provide to REEF and AEF).

For me, it was a great day with colleagues, friends, and community.  I rode the 27 mile version -- though some of our principals rode the more exciting distances.  I rode most of the ride with Lanna Goffman -- one of our administrators.  She was kind and waited for me to catch up along the way.  A good chunk of the Board of Education and Cabinet were running the rest stop about 1/2 way along the way -- just before the Santa Ana River Trail.

I am sure that Lanna wondered what happened, as she was ahead of me -- and yet I finished before her.  Explanation -- I got lost ...but was found by a bike-riding Marine who guided me back to safety and the finish (orientation skills).  Like I said a great ride with great people.  The money goes to our kids/teachers in RUSD and Alvord Education Foundation.  So this was the 1st annual Ride -- I am already looking forward to the 2nd annual ride -- though I probably should get in shape this time.

Thanks again to Leadership Riverside and all the great sponsors that participated and made it a great day.

Citrus Classic

Well I am trying to get ready for the big ride (Citrus Bike Classic) this weekend for the benefit of our students and staff -- hope you are as well.  Citrus Classic was the "brainchild" and project for the 2010 Leadership Riverside group and is intended to be a 3 year project (making the Classic an annual event). 

I took my bike in for its "tune-up" and its looking good.  I am signed up for the event. There's only one problem -- I am not "tuned up."  Oh well, it should be fun on Sunday anyway and definitely for a GREAT cause -- our RUSD and Alvord kids

Attached is a picture from last Saturday of some of our principals as they "train" and help set up the route for the Classic.  Who are they?  I am looking forward to Sunday's ride -- hope to see you there!

Rick

And the Future of Public Education?

More than once since I have been here in RUSD, people have asked me -- So what will the schools of the 21st Century really be like? This is a really tough question with any answer being a GUESS. My suspicion is that it is likely to be much different than any of our estimates -- as it is a very volatile time with much change on every level -- including non-public school levels.

Recently, we adopted our newest RUSD technology plan (vision) available online (as you might expect). This particular plan not only addresses the normal technology purchasing provisions {as required by the State} BUT in this case it begins with an attempt to foresee what 2020 might look like in RUSD (and elsewhere) classrooms. The 2020 theme is included throughout and is linked to the federal documents: Blueprint for Reform and the National Technology Plan for Education.

There is a bit of a trap for those that might be reading this to believe that I/we don't appreciate what we currently have and what public education has done for all of us (me included).  Without going into my personal story and the stories of others -- be clear I/we appreciate what we have gained from the current system.  BUT it doesn't mean that we shouldn't be and aren't concerned about how to make public schools even better.

I believe that our tech plan committee did a great job with a tough question and have at the very least laid out a clear vision of what we might expect in 2020. You might find it to be interesting reading AND there will be opportunity for inclusion in future committees to implement the plan. Additionally, it would be interesting to know what YOU think.

Finally a Budget

After 100 days and over 3 months past the deadline for the state budget we finally have one. Early Friday morning the Legislature passed the budget and sent it on to the Governor’s desk for signature. Friday afternoon, the Governor signed the budget along with about $1 Billion in line-item vetoes – thus the saga finally ends. It was only a couple of years ago when our total budget in California was $110 Billion – this budget comes in at $87.5 Billion.


Of course, now we are left with trying to figure out what all of it means, as most of it was done “behind closed doors” – such that even the Legislators arguably had limited information about what they were voting on. Additionally, as of about noon – no one seemed to know exactly what was in the Billion dollars of line-item veto items.

In a general sense, from all sources including the staffers of the Sacramento folks – there was something here for everyone. However, even in their terminology this is a budget of “smoke and mirrors” that is not realistic and leaves in place huge deficits along with a structural deficit for the future (read 2011-12 – 9 months away). There has been an overestimation of the revenues (“counting on money that is not there”) including federal help, sale of state buildings (that we will rent back from the new landlords), and optimistic tax revenues. Meanwhile there has been an under-estimation of the expenditures – that are surely going to be exceeded. So those that are newly elected in November will have quite a task on their hands in January as they take office.

As far as K-12 education, it seems that we are okay for the current year -- IF you believe the promise and that there won't be mid-year reductions from the newly elected state folks.  There is great concern about the deferrals (another $1.7 Billion) and a general acknowledgement that all of this makes next year (2011-2012) -- which was viewed as a "bad" year -- worse.

Kudos to UCR for $10 million for their/our Med School.  As we figure this all out and its impact on public education & RUSD we will let you know.

Why is this so complicated?

We rightfully continue to get questions about the budget and requests for information.  We are committed to both transparency and communication about District operations -- including the budget/finances.  However, we should realize that we will always fall somewhat short of that goal and will always be in pursuit of perfection and completion of the transparency/communication target.

Essentially all financial documents are stored on our District webpage for public access and review.  Additionally, as we prepare explanatory documents regarding the budget -- they too are available in similar webpage locations.

As an example, yes -- as reported, we have a $71 million fund balance that goes from one year (2009-10) to the next (2010-11) -- this clearly shown in our documents.  Additionally, Mike Fine has explained this on a number of occasions -- most recently at our September 7th Board meeting (with the materials available at and the Board podcast which is also on the website).  We also try to provide "short" documents that explain as simply as we can (without detail) the circumstances of the budget.

Commonly, there seems to be concern and confusion about why we are having such a tough time offering what we always have in terms of services and options for students and parents.  The fact is that we have, as a reduction in state funding (our income), had to reduce almost $100 million in the past 3 years.  Looked at another way, Do you remember the year 2000?  When:

• Bill Clinton was President
• Harry Potter didn't have a movie and glasses yet
• The "hot" movie was Erin Brockovich
• and before 9/11 had terrifying meaning

That is the "new" level of funding we have in California (and RUSD) for public schools.  I am sure that a number of you have the same problem.  However, the fact is that while "income" may be pegged at 2000 levels prices and costs somehow remain at 2010 levels on their way to 2011.  A "lost decade" effects families and effects schools/students.

Budget Watch

Sacramento says that the budget is complete -- though there are NO details yet as to what that might mean.  The NEXT step is to move to the Legislature for a vote.  The projection for the vote is Thursday, though there is some discussion about that being too soon -- as it is not enough time for the legislators to know what they are voting on.  I am sure we will get more details throughout the week.

An Opportunity of Support

For those of you who are so inclined, there is a local run, next Sunday (Ocotber 10th) -- that supports the efforts of SmartRiverside with our students and families.  SmartRiverside and their efforts have certainly assisted RUSD in delivering more technology to our students and staff.

A recent shift at SmartRiverside is that their ATT contract for the city-wide wireless system has ended and therefore been modified.  The net effect is that there now actually a greater bandwidth (capacity) that is being provided across the City of Riverside to all of us.

So IF you like to run, Citrus Heritage Run is not only a great run -- but a great cause.

$100 Million??

I was pleased to hear last week about the $100 million contribution from Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook to the Newark Public Schools in Newark, New Jersey. What a great contribution!


But from my perspective in Riverside, CA – HOW bizarre!! For that matter, this feels a bit like the bizarre qualities of much of the “federal reform” of the states-rights educational systems. Newark, like much of the East Coast, is funded at an incredible level compared to anything here in California or more locally in Riverside. So here are the statistics (by THEIR report to their Board – 3/29/2010):

• Enrollment: 38,400 (for 09-10)
• Budget: $800 million (10-11) plus another $140 million in “grants and entitlements” …they like us in RUSD lost about $50 million for this current year
• Per student funding: $14,658 per student

In contrast, here in Riverside, RUSD’s numbers are:

• Enrollment: 42,631 students
• Budget: $297 million (10-11) …and we reduced about $45 million in our budget this past year
• Per student funding: $4,990 per student

So what was the Newark difference in performance? While each state is substantially different in their assessment, it is clear from the Great Schools website analysis that Newark is significantly below the New Jersey state average in every category.

While I truly wish Newark and Zuckerberg all the best, it boggles my mind to think how $100 million in the Newark system will make ANY difference at this point. It also strikes me these differences are larger than Riverside and Newark – it essentially describes a difference between the East and West coast in its funding and therefore the educational opportunities that can be provided.

More on Value-Added Data

The discussion on linking student data to the evaluations of educators has been and continues to be volatile -- and generally somewhat biased.  I addressed this issue in part with an earlier post (last Monday -- "Is The LA Times Correct?").  However, I recently ran across an article in Time magazine that provides a brief, reasoned perspective on the matter -- I thought you might find it interesting.  There is LOTS more to consider and discuss before anyone rushes to judgment on this matter.

What did YOUR student do this summer?

This summer there was a Time magazine article, built around the somewhat long-standing research (I saw the research 6 or 7 years ago) from Johns Hopkins University -- regarding the impacts of summer on the learning of students.  Essentially the basic idea is that there is little or NO difference in the learning of students (whether improvised or not) during the regular school year.  So far so good!!

The problem is ...that when summer comes -- essentially students of poverty go home for the summer and the learning input stops.  Meanwhile, those of more affluent means are enrolled in any number of programs that continue their learning.  Obviously, as we spread this effect out over the course of an elementary school career for students -- there is a HUGE difference (that begins to amount to years).  This is probably most visually illustrated with a recent 4 minute You Tube video. 

So, in my view, the question for us becomes HOW can we modify our system to make sure that ALL of our students are learning well, completely, and to HIGH levels?  How can we capitalize on summer opportunities and begin planning now to improve the learning for our students? 

Budget Progress??

As reported in the media and elsewhere -- there seems to have been "progress" on resolving the state budget.  However, there is little or no detail.  Some think that means things are better for us ...while others are sure it is worse.  Bottom line, it seems that NO one knows anything {which may mean there is structure but no specifics at this time}.  Our best resources seem to suggest that there MAY be a deal by the start of next week with a vote by the end of the week.

Have a good weekend.

Superman!!

Coming soon to your local movie house is the movie/documentary Waiting for "Superman" -- of the Al Gore -- An Inconvenient Truth genre.  The movie has been created by Davis Guggenheim who also produced Inconvenient Truth and is scheduled to be released September 24th (today) in both LA and NYC.  Not surprisingly, the film is attacking in nature and essentially vilifies teacher unions (and therefore teachers) while promoting charters.  Guggenheim touts himself to be a supporter of public education, though he educates his three children in a private school.

I understand that charters can be good -- as well as fraudulent or worse. In like kind, we certainly have all known educators and others that would similarly fit that description.  School reform is something we should all be interested in and willing to pursue; however, there should be consideration and caution.  It seems that many of these "national reformers" havent' figured out that no matter the approach to reform -- it's hard and complicated work -- otherwise lots of people would have done it a long time ago. 

The film has already created lots of controversy and many columns either in support, against, or somewhere in between.  It is also interesting to note that Michelle Rhee, Chancellor of D.C., one of the heroines is likely to be leaving D.C. based on the will of the electorate and with assessment results that have leveled.
While I understand the "complaint" of many relative to public schools, etc. -- what is ALWAYS amazing to me is that they don't seem to understand the dedicated, passionate effective professionals that describe MOST of the teachers that I know.  Since most of them were actually educated in public schools themselves, have they forgotten that many of them are successful due to one of those impassioned, dedicated teachers working with them?  In fact, you can NOT have great schools (charter or otherwise) without GREAT teachers and many of us already see a number of great teachers (but not all) in our schools.

Will you go see this?  Have you seen it?

UCR

I had the pleasure of attending the CUC (Citizen's University Committee) meeting last night where they honored 3 groups of individuals -- all very deserving -- PLUS it was just a nice evening.   For me, probably the MOST inspiring was the young lady that recently graduated from UCR and is now heading off to graduate school (UCR). 

Her story helps us remember what this is all about and clearly she is also highly motivated and talented.  Her name is Pricila Lara -- from Hemet.  While at UCR she joined the Chamber group -- as a Saxophone player!!?  Most recently she is established the Hemet Youth Orchestra and is it's conductor (on the way to being conductor for the LA Phil?).  Pricila has a series of firsts in her family (which has given her great encouragement and support).  She was the first in the family to graduate from college, high school, and middle school.

The other UCR honorees (i.e., Francis and Jane Carney, Tim White) were certainly deserving as well, but Pricila reminds us of the students and miracles that happen before our eyes every day.

Is the LA Times Correct?

At this date, it is well known that the LA Times published a number of articles on the quality of LAUSD teachers as measured by their "value-added" calculations of student tests.  In the aftermath, I am confronted by the apparent reaction to the Times.  It seems that people fall generally into 2 camps:

1. Educators -- Who while not resistant to the concept of accountability ARE concerned by the LA Times approach.
2. The Rest of the World -- Who are predominately of the opinion -- "Well absolutely, is there any question on the matter?"

My opinion is probably someplace in the middle.  Clearly, we are and must move for all of us being more publicly accountable for our work and progress.  The "value-added" approach certainly provides an improvement over the other existing notions of "performance" based on API and AYP.  I detailed some of this in one of my earlier blogs.

My problem with the Times approach is that while the approach may be correct, the information can be very suspect.  Why not use the Sanders {Tennessee} approach that is proven over time / multiple locations and been reviewed a number of times?

My concerns about the Times approach are:

1. I think we have the wrong unit of analysis.  We should from a data / statistical / pragmatic view probably be more focused on the school rather than the teacher -- which is how Sanders approached the matter.  Often teachers have unique student populations (e.g., GATE, English Learners, Special Education, etc.) that can skew the results.  Additionally, teachers would lack incentive to undertake instruction of these classes for obvious reasons.  However, schools are generally large enough to handle the variations mentioned -- AND would address the low-performing educators and low-yield instructional practices that are limiting the value-added performance of the school.  I DO like how the value-added notion (ala Sanders) appropriately accounts and controls for the demographic variable.
2. At a normal class size of 30 (and there are certainly those that either exceed or are vastly less than 30) -- it at strains the normal notions of required sample size to make the conclusions valid.
3. The normal test instrument we use in California (CST -- California Standards Test) and therefore by the LA Times was and is designed to assess the effectiveness of programs NOT students.  Therefore, when it is applied to looking at students as the "outcome" and performance of teachers (or any of the rest of us) -- it leaves a lot to be desired AND ultimately does not stand the test of statistical validity.  This has been a long-standing issue in California.  If we appropriately change the test, it will work.

What is your view on this matter?  Should we be taking about some value-added approach (not necessarily the LA Times / LAUSD approach) to improving our public accountability with an easy-to-understand metric?

A Response?

We have made it a practice to not engage a debate or "respond" to your comments.  The basic idea is that I have my point of view and try to share it in the limited space provided herein -- YOU also have an opinion and point of view which you should be able to share through comments -- without my interjection, bias, or debate.  However, I would like to make an exception in this case and attempt some clarification around some budget issues -- based on "questions" that you have posed.

As to the length of the budget documents and related materials -- they are long and they are complicated!  I don't really know how to make them much simpler and at the time avoid providing information that would appear to be biased or slanted by an author.  There is a one-page set of FAQs for the budget on a button on the right side of the opening webpage -- that might be generally helpful.  The reality is that we have $350-$400 million that we are responsible for and must provide on-going audit and state / county review documents.  By volume alone, that will be long and complex.  Sorry.

As to the federal "jobs" money, we appear to be receiving authority to spend it.  However, there is a clear and consistent sub-story from Sacramento that we will have the final budget {whenever it is adopted} that will be shorted by a similar value.  That obviously leaves us in a position that we really can't responsibly spend any of this money until we understand what Sacramento is going to do with the other half of this equation -- the state budget for 2010-11.  Assuming we got that information, in my opinion we would be best served to wait and use the money for 2011-12 -- and thereby avoid further layoffs (about $8 million worth).  That is not good news for those that are currently laid off -- but it could be good news for those that would be laid off in this coming spring.

What is the solution to all of this?  I agree with one of the comments -- it is not likely to be found in the election of a new Governor -- from either party.  Part of the problem is that there IS a real economic problem in this state -- along with a Legislative system that was less than rational before this all started.  The ONLY solution I know is that we need to fundamentally change our educational system.  When we are funded based on 2000-01 revenues in a world of 2010 costs/expenditures -- I see no other solution.  What do you see?

State Budget ...sooner or later?

We are 3 months after we adopted our RUSD budget and a full 2 and a 1/2 months after we started spending money according to the 2010-11 budget -- and guess what!! -- NO state budget.

Meanwhile we have received verification from California Department of Education of our federal jobs allocation ($7.8 million) -- to be spent by 9/30/2012.  However, given all the discussion regarding the "check being in the mail" this is a reimbursement program -- where we spend money FIRST and then wait for our reimbursement.

So in my Friday's conversation with one of our Sacramento lobbyist, he made a variety of estimates or conjectures about our State budget future that might be of interest.

• Given the state probably won't run out of cash and need to issue IOUs until November, and given we have an election in November, there is now beginning to be discussion that we won't have a state budget until AFTER the Novermber election.
• We will get the our federal money (as indicated above); however, "they will figure out how to take it back from us in the budget process."
• The 2011-12 budget year is likely to be even worse than this year.

Overall, I see that our current budget still "works" with the newest information.  However, we have not really gained any additional revenue and there are lots of questions and concerns about what the 2011-12 state allocations and budget will look like with a new Governor.

Student Fees?

As many of you know, last year we took on through policy and practice the issue of student fees and the legal requirement for education to be "free" {without fees}.  That was difficult and certainly stressed all of us as many around us choose not to take similar actions.  Therefore, we were often trying to compete and provide activities -- while others were charging for them through the use of student fees.

We changed our practice and policy based on a somewhat long-standing Hartzell vs. Connell, in 1984 and subsequent lawsuits.  I must say that our administrators, coaches, activity directors, band directors, etc. have all worked hard to maintain quality while struggling with our alignment with the law.  They have done well as our students have done well -- though it has not been easy.

Friday, the ACLU filed a class-action lawsuit in Los Angeles against the Governor and others for not holding school districts accountable for this situation.  In the suit, they named 32 school districts along with specifying the type of violations that were occurring.  Of the 35 mentioned statewide -- one was a Riverside county school district.

While no one knows how this will be resolved, it would seem obvious that they will find in favor of the ACLU -- and they are essentially requesting an immediate injunction against fees.  Therefore, the districts, schools, and programs would face a very difficult circumstance where they are immediately without fees and have no plan to cope with the issue.  Additionally, these schools and districts are likely to suffer further financial loss with court fees and penalties.

Progress...

Yesterday was a historic day for some of our students, RUSD, and public education in California. At Earhart with a group of Algebra students we introduced the new FUSE Algebra pilot program from Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH). This is an innovative program that is the first interactive, mobile device program to be used to deliver a full curriculum. HMH is partnering with the Riverside, Long Beach, Fresno and San Francisco Unified School Districts along with a nationwide total of 400 students.


The pilot represents the launch of a new era in K-12 curriculum delivery, where interactive platforms and mobile devices allow learning to come to life for students by moving beyond the one-way experience they receive with a traditional textbook. Through the multi-touch iPad and this HMH Algebra program, an interactive learning environment is created where a student can, through the touch of a finger, receive instant feedback on practice questions, write and save notes, receive guided practice and instruction, utilize video re-teaching, access graphing calculators, and more.  {Don't 'ya wish you were an Algebra student in these classes?}

Botomline, this pilot provides each student with a fully able iPad device along with the FUSE program – at NO cost to the District or School. This was a project was reported in the media in various forms, but MOST importantly it offers our students and teachers new opportunities with 21st century learning options.  While this particular pilot is experienced by one school and one set of Algebra students -- it opens up the opportunity for all over time.

Thanks to our many staff members that made this pilot and relationship with HMH possible for our students.  Further information and video is available on the School Tube website.

PTA -- Parent-Teacher Association

School has begun and lots of things are in motion.  EVERYONE seems to be aware of the unbelievable budget/economic circumstances in the state that effect local schools and our programs.  We can accept that as "bad luck" on our part, or we can take initiative.  It would seem in these circumstances, we can rely LESS on what Sacramento and the State of California will do for us, and begin to count on each other more.  Our shared community of interest is where we have opportunity to succeed and flourish.

While there are many options within our shared community of interest, this is a great time to consider partnering with your local PTA at your local school.  Whether we are staff members, parents, or local citizens, the LOCAL (neighborhood) school is at the heart of our shared concerns.  The PTA has long been and continues to be a great organization to facilitate accomplishment and engagement at that school.  THIS is the time of year to become a member and get engaged with PTA.

We have been blessed with a very active group of forward thinking people in our Riverside PTA Council.  Through their combined efforts, they have made a great difference in our schools already {providing over $2 million in time investment last year} and promise to make even a greater difference in this year.  I hope you will consider joining and becoming involved.

Race To The Top (RTTT) Analysis?

We seem to be in the new world of RTTT -- one way or the other.  Apply or don't apply -- win or don't win -- it seems that we will be living with the effects either way.  The California list of Persistently Low Achieving Schools (along with some its 800 API schools) is only ONE reflection of this matter with which we will be living.

I found it MOST interesting in a Time magazine article on the Obama Stimulus that Secretary of Education Duncan is bit incredulous (as am I) that even without money States have rushed to change things -- just with the potential of being eligible.  "'We've seen more reform in the last year than we've seen in decades, and we haven't spent a dime yet,' says Education Secretary Arne Duncan."

There is a good analysis of the RTTT scoring for the California application at the Educated Guess blog site -- interesting!  For a "from-beyond-California" view, here is also a NY Times editorial on the RTTT matter from an east coast (and RTTT winner) view.

More Money Talk

So somewhat as predicted, the information I gave you yesterday is wrong today -- such is the matter in Sacramento.  The new new formula distribution as proposed in SB 847 does NOT equally distribute money on a per ADA (student) basis which would be obvious and equitable.  Instead the money according to this proposal would be distributed to districts based on last year's Revenue Limit (RL) -- which vary from district to district.

Theoretically, the winners and losers in the matter would look like this:
"Losers"

• Elementary School Districts -- They have a lower RL to begin with
• Growing or Flat Enrollment Districts -- Overall they will have more students than their RL from last year

"Winners"

• High School Districts -- They have the highest RL of all districts, so they will get more per student
• Declining Enrollment Districts -- Because their funding would be based on the prior year -- even though they have fewer students this year

It would appear, as we have been a slightly declining district, that we will be a "winner" in this competition.  But wait, that of course is based on the potential passage of SB 847 -- by TONIGHT -- when the legislative session ends -- and this is Sacramento.  So failing passage tonight, who knows what how these dollars will be allocated or WHEN they might actually get here.

More Budget Madness ...but some good news

Okay, once again there is NO budget ...so there is ONLY speculation, including mine!!  But assuming that we all want to know the latest "guesses" of those in Sacramento closest to the engagement, I provide the following:

Remembering that this is NOT official and is just another in a series of guesses... I spoke with one of our Sacramento friends on Friday, and the basic budget story is that Sacramento is continuing to “talk” about the budget and actually beginning to get serious. Apparently for the FIRST time the “Big 5” met (as a total group) this past week. There is NO anticipation that this budget will be resolved prior to at least the middle or late September – which is probably optimistic. The overall anticipation is that the education budget is likely to look much like the May Revise – though there may be changes that harm us in RUSD and the potential for some of this to be ONE-time money.  Another though similar view of this was in yesterday's Sacramento Bee from long-time political columnist Dan Walters.

On the federal "job dollars" front, there is a Sacramento opinion that we will actually get the money and it will be ADDITIVE – that’s great news if it happens. There is a legislative bill (AB184) on the table that would provide the structure. The allocation at this point seems to be on a pure ADA basis (e.g., $200/ADA) versus by Title I which was discussed at one point (and is an inequitable distribution). The restrictions on the money are that it must be spent on site-level personnel (versus District Office) and must be spent within two years (i.e., 10-11 or 11-12).  What this would likely do for us, IF this is accurate -- it could help us mitigate further layoffs and reductions that we know right now we will need to resolve our 2011-12 deficit of $30 million.

Annual Report

At the beginning of this coming week there will be an ANNUAL REPORT provided by the Board of Education to our community.  I bring this to your attention as this is the first time that we have provided this report in RUSD.  As such, you should be aware of a variety of pieces regarding this annual report:

1. This report is provided in color to enhance its legibility and interest.
2. The report will be delivered to the homes of parents in RUSD for ease of access.
3. The report will also be available for community distribution sites (e.g., Chamber of Commerce, local businesses, etc.).
4. The intention of the Board is to provide an informative report that is also authentic -- and not necessarily a "glitzy" marketing report.
5. The entire cost of this report is paid for by Altura Credit Union.
6. There is a one page insert that tries to descibe short answers to Frequently Asked Questions regarding the budget.
7. We hope and believe that this is the FIRST report and that we will be providing similar reports every year as we progress forward.

We hope that this annual report will be helpful to you and inform you of just a few of the things that are happening in our School District.  Of course, we continue to provide daily updates on any number of topics through our District webpage at: http://www.rusdlink.org/

In The News

California competed in Round II of Race To The Top (RTTT) and once again was not selected.  While there is great interest in system reform in California, we have not been competitive in this national competition.  Regardless of RTTT and federal dollars, we in California need to continue to be more aggressive in moving our system to a 21st century model that responds to the global competition.

Also this past week the Governor has encouraged local school districts to be transparent in their reporting of financial and budgetary information.  We certainly applaud the Governor's effort and have consistently been attempting to do exactly that ourselves.  While we hope that is has been obvious and there is a great deal of budget information on our District website under Budget Update and Budget Information.  More specifically, the Governor requested reporting on:

• The amount of money going to our classroom instruction (teachers, etc.) -- which we have previously reported -- on slide #13 on page #7 on our website -- which is significantly above any state requirement.
• Additionally, there is the actual state report (along with many others) that is available on the website for public review and information.

Certainly, our continued goal is to provide transparency and improve our communication to all concerned regarding all of our RUSD operations.

"A Penny Saved Is A Penny Earned"

When we think and talk about budget times like those that we are currently in -- the vast majority of the conversation is on how, when, and where to make reductions.  We sometimes miss the other side of the equation of how we enhance what we have or as Ben Franklin "coined" it, "A Penny Saved Is A Penny Earned" -- except we are talking about dollars not pennies.

While there obviously has been lots of discussion on the reduction side of things, we have also been working on the "savings" side of things.  More specifically, we have been working to save energy and their related costs.  We have for some time been aggressive about pursuing energy savings by investing in equipment and software that gives us maximum utilization.  However, we have recently been engaged in a program to help us with modifying our behavior -- which has effects on our energy uses.

We have been engaged in this endeavor for less than a year -- and have a six month data report.  The news of 1/2 of a year is good!! We have saved (avoided energy costs) over $560,000.  Those savings can obviously go to preservation of jobs and other critical costs.  Stated in an environmental manner, this would be similar to removing over 260 automobiles from our highways and streets every year.

I commend our Energy Managers as well as the entire staff on this effort and the savings that have been achieved to date.  While I am encouraged by the results and am thankful for the savings, I know we can even do better, as we work together to make this program effective.

Performance on "testing"

As we come upon the time when the state releases the state test data from last Spring, it seems appropriate to try to clarify a couple of things.  Recently, I was accurately quoted in a Press Enterprise column as saying, "I think we are frankly much better than our test scores."  I stand behind that statement, but would like to clarify some of my intention:

• We can, should, and will improve our student learning that is demonstrated on state assessments (which I also said when I made the earlier statement).
• Test data is one thing -- but typically it is somewhat narrow in its scope (e.g., focuses on math and language arts to the exclusion of science, arts, etc.).
• We have students and programs that don't show on "tests" but nonetheless have extraordinary results by any measure.  Some examples would include:
• Arlington HS Envirothon Team -- the North American Champions of this highly competitive assessment
•  A number of our athletic teams that are recognized across the county and CIF as having "best in sport" grade point averages -- demonstrating that athletics and academics do go together.
• Many of our HS bands and performing arts programs that are renowned regionally (and beyond).
• Our students in high performing activities of Science Fair, History Day, and Mock Trial -- that are regionally and nationally recognized.
• Our recently initiated AP Chinese class at North HS where 100% of the students scored a perfect score on their national Advanced Placement examination.

I commend our students, parents, and staff on providing great experiences and performances, beyond those that are "measured" by a single test assessment.

Jobs Bill -- Revisited

I know there is much concern about the federal jobs bill and its potential impact on both our District and those teachers and classified staff that have been laid off.  I also know that my scenario of how RUSD may, in fact, not receive much, if any, assistance with this bill is very disconcerting. 

As such, I want to share an article in the Sacramento Bee that I became aware of today.  I am sharing it NOT because it is going to be what happens -- but because it again offers some perspective of the complexity and options in this situation.

Jobs Bill -- Round II

After my last post on this topic, the feds did indeed pass the bill (a FAA bill at that).  However, questions continue to abound.  While there is clear language in the federal bill, it gets might muddy after that, and bottom line we need to understand what the "rules," issues, and requirements are with this (and any) legislation.

All states (including California) need to turn their application into Washington, D.C. by September 9, 2010.  Assuming the approval of the application, the money will be released after that time.  In the case of California, there are at least two key issues:

1. Maintenance of Effort (MOE) -- The state has legal obligations to continue paying for what they start.  Our best interpretation, at this moment, is that the state cannot qualify in this category until they make some adjustments.  Of course, the larger question might be can CA legitimately take on any new MOE efforts when they can't pay their current bills?  But that is for Sacramento to determine.
2. The State Budget Situation -- When Sacramento is looking for money to balance their budget (which they are), it has been obvious that any and all use of "smoke and mirrors" is appropriate to get to that end.  Thereby, leaving us with the question -- Do we (local school districts) actually get any money out of this deal?

As I stated earlier, there is a question as to how California or any state will distribute their federal job funds.  It is now clear that they can choose either to do it in the normal manner on a per student basis OR they can utilize the Title I procedure -- which favors the less affluent schools and districts.  Potentially, with a Title I distribution there may be questions as to how the funds can be spent (as with all Title I funds).  By federal law, the funds must be spent by September 30, 2012.

It does appear from the regulations that the money can be used for all employee groups (i.e., teachers, classified, and principals) at the school site level. 

While there are many politicians claiming victory for "saving teachers jobs" with this bill, they have provided something less than clarity on the matter. Obviously, given all the above, how many employees would be positively effected and when -- are impossible questions to answer at this point.  We will continue to monitor and report progress on this important item.  I am sure we will make every effort to move forward as quickly and prudently as possible in this matter.

Changes in the SYSTEM?

An interesting, if not a provocative, article in a recent issue of the LA Times.  They are moving the same direction as the feds with a move from HQT (Highly Qualified Teachers) to HET (Highly Effective Teachers).  In the case of the times, they are asking about the data available in LA Unified and the efficacy of individual teachers (somewhat like the RTTT requirements for teacher evaluations to be based on student data).  Of course the next question is, what does effective mean?

In this case, the Times has utilized a statistical approach with student test scores to come to their "value-added" conclusions.  More specifically they have utilized individualized student scores from the annual, state-required California Standards Test (CST).  While there are certainly other measures that are valued and valuable -- that is what they choose.  Additionally, they attempted to account for variations in all the normal student demographic variables.

This approach (Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System) was pioneered by Dr. William Sanders in Tennessee several years ago (1993) -- and while controversial has arguably assisted Tennessee in making serious progress in their public education system.  Part of Sander's conclusion when the data was fully analyzed statewide was that there were lots of surprises -- a number of affluent schools did not perform well -- a number of less-affluent schools performed well.  However, Sander's analysis was based on a school-by-school basis, not a teacher-by-teacher basis.

Regardless, of the varied views on this matter (and there are varied views), it is clear that this is the direction that the federal Department of Education is headed with our state leadership close behind.

Help or no help!

There continues to be lots of discussion and media accounts of the possible $26 Billion bailout bill from the feds to assist in the rehiring of teacher (avoidance of job loss).  The problem is that few of us know what it means AND it is NOT approved yet -- meanwhile school is starting in a week and a half.  Specific to the California issue and problem the following things seem relevant to the issue (at least today).

• This is "one-time money" and as such fixes things for one more year, but does not resolve the basic problem
• Estimates of the distribution of funds would indicated that California would receive something approximating $1 Billion and "save" approximately 13,000 teachers across the state.
• Typically this type of money has what is called a "maintenance of effort" (MOE) requirement -- which in the past CA has figured out how to skirt the issue.  MOE is intended to make sure that the state doesn't take the money before it gets to us.
• Best estimates at this time are that IF there is an MOE, California cannot meet the requirements -- but who knows that could change.
• A related matter, is after the fed bill is approved and they make their rules, THEN the state typically takes the money and make the state rules (none of which we know at this time).
• Should this bill and should CA qualify and should ... and should ...  THEN local school districts should receive approximately $140-160 per student -- which obviously would be a great help.
• Probably the biggest question of all is HOW the money will be distributed.  Currently there are two theories:
• Money is distributed as an equitable allocation to all districts/schools
• Money is distributed through the federal Title I program.  Should this occur there definitely will be a LACK of equity between schools and districts.  Additionally, there are lots of rules with Title I that will make expenditure of funds somewhat problematic and at times will seem irrational.
• Finally, IF all of this happens -- the next question would be WHEN we would actually receive the money (which is never fast).  MY best guess is that the earliest we can expect to see any of these funds would be during this coming Spring in anticipation for 11-12.

While this is kinda where we are today, this obviously can and does change on a daily basis.  Aren't you glad I "cleared" all of this up?

One More Time!!!

After winning multiple local, regional, and state championships -- The Arlington Lions Envirothon Team won the NATIONAL title yesterday in Fresno, California where the 2010 Canon International Envirothon Contest was held on the CSU Fresno campus (and environs).  The competition is the largest high school environmental science competition in North America with typically 500,000 students being involved.  The Arlington HS team won 1st in Soils and 1st Overall.

These student winners not only won recognition for themselves and their high school, but also substantial  scholarship / cash awards to support their further study and collegiate journey.

The team also has been supportive of their  fellow students and the community.  Most recently, they spent the day at Longfellow Elementary assisting with the Space Day by providing elementary students with environmental science activities and lessons to complement the space and engineering fare.

Congratulations to Arlington High School and especially their Envirothon team led by Ms. Shari Harris, science teacher at Arlington.

Mark THE Day

Recently (July 20, 2010), via the New York Times, Amazon announced that for the first time ever, their sales of eBooks were greater than their hard copy books.  While I have no idea of how many books Amazon sells in a given week or month, I have heard that it is quite a few.  Therefore, it seems significant and is impactful on what we do in schools and elsewhere in our lives.  Personally, I LOVE books (meaning the hard copy version), but that doesn't change the progress and options available.  Clearly this is a trend that we will continue to see along with the proliferation of digital textbooks and other digital material in our classrooms.

Budget

So we still don't have a state budget and have not much of an idea of when that might actually happen.  So what does it all mean?  When will it  happen? etc.  So if I could, I would like to share my guesses (realizing that ALL guesses are accurate -- some are just closer). 

First, I think the budget will be late -- but we will have one as Sacramento will at some point need to get home and campaign for the election.
Second, this is an election year -- so I seriously doubt that we will see much more than a "get out of town budget" -- that will not make changes and will not deal with the basic problem.
Third, there will be a variety of new people elected in November (based on others being "termed out"), they take office in January.  The Governor's budget in January and mid-year modifications are not likely to be too crazy as people won't be sure what to do -- given the circumstances and the size of the problem.
Fourth, we will hit the wall with the May Revise as Sacramento is forced to deal with the issue and politically they are in the best place to fix it and to blame it on their predecessors.  The 11-12 Budget Year will be very difficult (as if we were already dealing with enough).

That's my guess -- what's yours?

One step forward, one step...

Amazing times, we have the call for RTTT (Race to the Top) and related federal and state initiatives to "improve" education for our students (a worthy goal) while at the same time conditions have gone in the exact opposite direction.

We in California, now have the funding that we had in 2000-2001 (yep, 10 years ago) with obvious impacts that you have been seeing and hearing about for TOO long.  Beyond Riverside there was an interesting report that came out recently that also reflects the antithetical changes -- that shows that of the 30 largest districts in the state (we are one) 16 of them have necessarily reduce their school year and the amount of time that students have access to learning.

Kinda makes one wonder what is going on?

More jobs saved!!

After working together and sorting through many options and obstacles, CSEA membership last night ratified an agreement that provides 5 furlough days in this school year.  More importantly, it saves classified jobs throughout the District.  That is obviously important to the people who might have otherwise lost their position.  Additionally, it is important to all of us as we need everyone to make all of this work.  ANY loss at this point is TOO much.  With this ratification ALL of us throughout the District are contributing 5 or more furlough days to the health and well-being of RUSD.

Kudos to the CSEA leadership for their perseverance and willingness to confront difficult issues.  Kudos to the District team for working together with CSEA to get to this important agreement.

1000 Schools

Recently (last week) the State Board of Education in Sacramento decided to identify the top 1000 schools that needed "fixing."  On the face of it there is some appropriateness to that task.  However, the "devil" resides in the details.  AND we can once again thank RTTT (Race to the Top) for rushed legislation that certainly lacks clarity.

There are many questions raised about this issue and some press comment on the inequities and somewhat insane process of identification of these schools.  Probably the best representation that I have found was published in the SF Chronicle.   Arguably many of us can improve but this makes little sense.

As an example, there is a 10% cap on the number of schools that can be identified in any district (e.g., LAUSD).  The demographics spell out that while there still plenty on the list, there are 6 schools that exceed 800 on their API?  The fact is that there are good schools that are doing good work that are on the list (that is not to say that there aren't others that are appropriately placed on the same list).  Another interesting exclusion from the list (if we must have one), are all charters (while I understand the membership there is voluntary, it is interesting that they cannot be designated as "bad").

So when it is all done what happens to these "bad" schools?  The parents are notified and allowed to transfer to another school (which we do already).  That's it!  An inaccurate system, some public embarrassment (maybe), and the option to transfer.

As to our plight, we like many schools and districts in Riverside County (and the rest of the state) are on the list.  We have 3 of our specialized alternative programs that serve special populations identified (i.e., Summit View, Opportunity, and Lincoln HS).  Additionally, we have two elementary schools identified (i.e., Liberty and Fremont) with API scores of 713 and 722 respectively (both of which have a similar school rank in the 3rd decile).