- 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.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
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).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If RUSD were to receive these funds in the Spring, would that hlep to prevent futher lay-offs next year?
ReplyDeleteWould it prevent further lay offs & bring back the teachers that are still RIF'd?
ReplyDeleteThe Spring?? Really??? I know things are slow, especially in California, but everything I have read has said that they are trying to rush this money through to the schools because it is intended to help for THIS school year. To help bring back teachers who are currently laid off, not to provide relief for lay offs a year from now. I can't imagine that the House would be called back from vacation early to vote on something that will be used to plan for the school year that starts a year from now. If the money gets here sooner, will RUSD use it to bring back teachers this year?
ReplyDeleteAlso, if all of the "ifs" work out, how many jobs does $140-$160 per student (or 13,000 in California) save in RUSD? I just have no perspective as to what that means. Is it a few jobs, 50 jobs, 100 jobs? Any insight would be helpful.
HR 1586 just passed the House, on its way to the President's desk, step one of the hurdle has passed.
ReplyDeleteThe NEA reports that,
ReplyDelete"U.S.Department of Education estimate that some 161,000 educators who had received pink slips will be heading back to school this fall as a result of this (the bill that passed today) win."
It says this fall not next spring or the following fall. I know there are variables, but is there any chance of bringing back teachers for this year?
Also, the estimate for our congressional district is 270 teaching jobs saved. What does that mean to RUSD?
When it comes to the State and Federal Government, I certainly wouldn't count my chickens before they're hatched! Let's hope for the best but prepare for the worst...
ReplyDeleteWe shouldn't take this money! We still won't have enough money to cover our spending. This is silly. Let's be adults here and admit WE CAN'T AFFORD THIS.
ReplyDeleteIt makes no sense to send our local money to the bigger wallets for them to send us back our money with rules and regulations attached to it. If we can't afford it we shouldn't get it. These decisions should be made on a local basis. Therefore, our local money should be kept local so we can make these decisions ourselves.
Or, are we not adults?
I truly confused...I just read in article from AP that says just the exact opposite.
ReplyDelete"In California, where 16,500 teaching jobs were saved from the chopping block, top education official Jack O'Connell called the federal help "an urgently needed Marshall Plan" for his state's hard-hit schools."
It also state the money would be sent to schools for this current school year and the government is trying to expedite the money to schools. I would just like a clarification. Also, is RUSD makeing a back-up plan if additional funds are made available to rehire teachers?
Thank you
Transparancy is needed, from the Federal level to the state level to the local Districts. President Obama said the $10 Billion will bring back education jobs now, this fall. We are no longer in the dark, we are following each step of this process, we need the funds now, not this spring.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read this post, as a laid of teacher, I just saw many reasons (or even excuses) as to why we can't be brought back. What I hear from the Press, the NEA, the government, surrounding districts is, let's get these teachers back before school starts or as close to school starting as possible. What I hear in our district is let's try to find a way to use the money to close the gap for the following school year.
ReplyDeleteI could be wrong, but it is just my perception. I know that there are many unknowns and that the press is not always the most reliable source, but I feel that nearly everyone, except my own district, wants to do what it takes to get the remaining laid off teachers back in the classroom NOW- this year.
I feel that my own district doesn't care if I am hired back or not. I get the impression that we (the remaining laid off teachers) have been written off and what's done is done. It's as if the district is starting at 0 and trying to find ways to preserve the teachers who have been hired back for the following year.
I wonder how the House, who came back early from their vacation and voted to get teachers back in the classroom for the beginning of the school year, would feel about a district that has 70+ teachers laid off and doesn't bring back any of those teachers?
Are we so narcissistic that we cannot think beyond ourselves anymore?
ReplyDeleteWe need to ask ourselves the question of who is really going to be paying this extra money to keep you teachers afloat?
The kids. My kids and their kids. We don't have the money. The state doesn't have the money. The federal government doesn't have the money. What price are you truly willing to pay to continue with a budget we can't afford to pay for?
@ American Angel, who are we hurting here, not only the educational staff, but our students, our children, your children. If we do not have the educational staff to support, (teach) our communities children, the future of our state is at stake. Our children will not have the basics to continue to pursue higher education. We all pay the price if we do not use the funds as they were intended, to bring back educational staff. We already have RUSD schools in jeopardy, do we want an entire district to join them in underachievment?
ReplyDelete@ AmericanAngel, It seems to me that you are barking up the wrong tree. We are a school district not the government. We don't make the laws, we live with them. The legislation has been passed. If you have a beef, lobby your (and my), government. If you don't like how funds are allocated, then get on the stick and speak with your representatives and do something to illicit change.
ReplyDeleteWhile I feel for laid off teachers, a greater percentage of classified employees have also been laid off who also have a positive impact on our children!
ReplyDeleteThe bailout is NOT earmarked for only teachers! It's earmarked for ALL those in the educational system.. including CLASSIFIED!!!!
In this bill it clearly says we have to promise to maintain the same amounts for next year. We are being handed money to cover our expenses this year. How on earth are we going to afford the whole amount next year?
ReplyDeleteI'll do simple math for anyone not paying attention: We can afford 1 teacher but with this money we can get 2 as long as we promise to keep #2 for next year too. We can't afford 2 teachers this year therefore, we won't be able to afford 2 teachers next year.
Thank goodness we aren't in Texas they have to promise to pay the same through 2013. (Don't make the feds mad!)
California is not doing anything to bring more taxes in. So, do we act like adults and deal with what is in front of us or do we bury our heads in the sand and wait for someone else to fix it for us?
@AmericanAngel I will agree with on one point and that is the 'bury our head in the sand.' I am not sure when is the last time you have been in a classroom. This is not about the teachers but the STUDENTS. IF you think we dont have money wait now wait about 3-5 years when we have students who did not receive the best education because they were in a kinder or first grade class with 30 students. We do need to do something NOW. I will not accept less and neither should you. There are other districts out there that are using unique ways to raise funding for education. We need a plan for the future of our students' learning.
ReplyDelete@American Angel, I think you are confusing 2 parts of the Bill.
ReplyDeleteThe maintaining funding is a stipulation for the state. Under this Bill, the school district is not obligated to keep the same amount of teachers for 2 years. It is the state that is obligated to maintain the same amount of funding for education in order to recieve the funds. This was put in place to try to keep the state from taking away more money from the schools because the federal government was giving more money. The point of the federal money is not to replace state money.
The issue with the 2 years is that the school districts have 2 years to spend the money. So, school districts can choose to spend part this year and part next. For example they could hire back 10 teachers for 1 year or 5 teachers for 2 years. (these numbers are hypothetical) Obama is encouraging school districts to use the money this year to hire back as many teachers as possible, but the districts do have the option to spread it over 2 years.
I hope this is more clear.