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).