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.