While adult immigrants are often aware of the risks they take in moving to a new country, children are not, and they bear the worst burden.
June, 2011
With the United States facing tough financial times and the misinformation of many citizens as to the myriad contributions of documented and undocumented immigrants to our economy, the anxiety level about immigration reform is high
I served on a panel, Education in a Digital World, at the Iowa Education Summit today. Here is what I said during my 5 minutes of opening remarks.
Good afternoon,
We have to start with the recognition that digital technologies are transforming EVERYTHING.
Technology is allowing everyone to do more powerful and also more complex work, but that creative power is accompanied by significant disruptive impacts. For example, the same technologies that allow us to have a voice, find each other, and work together also are destroying geographic boundaries. We're seeing to our dismay that offshoring and outsourcing allow everyone, everywhere to compete with each other and with us. In addition to replacing jobs here with folks overseas, jobs also are being destroyed by software. If the Industrial Revolution was about replacing humans’ physical labor with machines, the Information Revolution often is about replacing
Quality in early education and childcare is indisputably important. Some regulation of these facilities is essential in order to ensure safe and enriching environments for young children, whether they are based in a home, community-based site, or school setting. However, there is a point where regulation can become a mishmash of silly mandates and hoops to jump through, if not an outright intrusion on educator practices. Colorado’s Early Childcare Division in its Department of Human Services has proposed changes in its Rules and Regulations to enable providers to obtain a license. This 98 page document, still in draft form, is definitely drawing
My name is Jose Vilson and I have a confession to make: I hadn’t read the entirety of Jonathan Kozol’s seminal work Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools. I read so slow that I’m often drawing pictures line by line, making connections between every experience I’ve ever had with that sentence, and branch out into some reflective wondering before I get back into the text. At times, I zone out wondering if the phrase I just read applies to me, has anything to do with what I’m doing now, or if I could ever imagine myself doing what I just read. Often, it’s little things that can trigger it. The use of the word “differentiation.” The implication of alcohol-induced nights. The name Schomburg.
The first time I picked up the book was in 2007, during my most disappointing year in the classroom in my career. A couple of months into the 07-08 school year, and I knew I had already done a disservice to the kids by not being absolutely prepared for the worst scenario. While I won’t go into the composition of the class or the personal parts of my life during that period, I will say it was the best and worst time to pick up Kozol’s work. For
On July 30, thousands of citizens who worry about the impact of federal policy upon public education will unite at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. in common cause to say enough is enough.
In the last few years, we’ve seen millions of federal and foundation dollars pour into education nonprofits, charter management companies, and corporate test prep pockets at the expense of children in our regular public schools. Meanwhile, we’ve stepped backward in our efforts to provide pre-school education to even our most needy children. The arts have been downsized and eliminated in many school districts across the country sending a strong message to young people about the value of our culture to the nation. Unlike their parents’ generation, today’s students often are assessed fees to participate in all things extracurricular so that districts can continue to offer athletic, club, and after-school programs. Hundreds of thousands of educational positions have been cut despite an increasing number of students attending schools across the country. Teachers are demoralized by the constant barrage of negative stories promoted by a media that seems to be swayed more by corporate headquarters than the reality of classrooms of dedicated educators. We’ve seen more and more focus
Click here to view the embedded video.
There is growing frustration among educators regarding the direction, or lack thereof, in regards to a serious reform effort for the public education system in the United States. In fact, some would suggest that we, the educators, are the problem. When you think about it, can you argue against the fact that people who are charged with leading America’s schools and classrooms have given in to the concept that a standardized test/curriculum and “high stakes testing” are the solution.
Will Richardson summed up the frustration pretty clearly with his post today How Can You Not Be Angry? He summed up the whole frustrating scenario clearly stating:
“As a community, we’re in a fight, whether we like it or not, yet we seem more inclined to
Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill Monday giving students 30 days after the start of the academic year to obtain a whooping cough vaccine and submit verification to their school.
This school year marks the first time that the vaccine — typically in the form of a booster shot called the Tdap — has been required for students entering grades seven through 12.
The start of a small number of year-round schools in Los Angeles Unified on July 5 presaged potential problems. At Huntington Park High, 76% of the 2,420 students arriving for class had not met the requirement. Having to send students home would disrupt instruction and also cost the funding provided for each day a student attends classes.
The San Diego Unified School District also warned of a potential health risk without the 30-day grace
Those who have read me writing long enough know how I feel aboutthe Iowa Core Curriculum. I think it stinks. It has huge problems. It’s history curriculum stinks to high heaven. It centralizes educationand further removes educational decisions from parents.
There is nothing good about it. Iowa Governor Terry Branstad today in his speech at the Iowa Education Summit said that the way to improve the Iowa Core was to in my estimation replace it with something worse. He said, “The State Board of Education’s decision to add the new, voluntary Common Core State Standards in math and literacy strengthens the Iowa Core.”
How does it do that?
Consider some facts about the common core standards…
July 25, 2011
Dear County and District Superintendents, Direct-Funded Charter School Administrators, and County Chief Business Officers:
On June 30, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 87 (Chapter 33, Statutes of 2011), the Budget Act of 2011. In addition to the Budget Act, the Governor signed various “trailer bills” that amend the California Education Code and other California codes to reflect technical changes necessary to implement the budget. In enacting the 2011 Budget Act, the Governor and the Legislature were obligated to take drastic measures for the fourth year in a row to bring the state budget into balance.
Prepared by the California Department of Education (CDE) fiscal policy staff, this letter provides information on budget provisions affecting kindergarten through grade twelve (K–12) education. Copies of this document, as well as other budget-related documents, are available through the CDE Education Budget Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fr/eb/. Official state budget documents are available through the Department of Finance Web site at http://www.dof.ca.gov/ (Outside Source).
Governor’s Budget Proposal and March Actions
On January 10, 2011, Governor Jerry Brown released his proposed budget for 2011–12. The plan identified a $26.4 billion deficit for 2010–11 and 2011–12. Although the economic downturn played a part in the state’s fiscal condition, reliance on temporary remedies, savings proposals that did not materialize, and other actions, such as the Economic Recovery Bonds, worsened the problem.
The Governor proposed to close the deficit through a combination of program reductions and reforms ($12.5 billion), extension of the temporary 2009 tax increases along with other revenue proposals ($12 billion), and one-time solutions. The budget proposal assumed voter approval of a ballot measure to extend the temporary taxes in a June 2011 special election. To meet ballot deadlines and ensure that projected savings would be fully realized, the Governor asked the Legislature to accelerate its usual budget schedule.
In March, the Legislature passed a package of bills that, with some modifications, implement the program reductions and reforms proposed by the Governor. This legislative budget package contained the level of expenditure solutions proposed by the Governor; however, the Legislature did not approve the Governor’s revenue proposals or a proposal to eliminate redevelopment agencies. The Legislature approved a proposal to shift responsibility for some public safety services from the state to local governments, but did not approve the measures needed to provide financing for the proposal.
The Governor signed a number of trailer bills on March 25, 2011, including an education trailer bill. The Legislature passed a budget bill but did not transmit it to the Governor.
Governor’s May Revision
On May 16, 2011, the Governor released his revised budget plan. After accounting for the actions taken in March and improvements in the General Fund revenue picture, the Governor projected that additional solutions totaling $10.8 billion were needed to bring the budget into balance. The Governor proposed additional expenditure reductions of $2.3 billion and revenue solutions of $9.3 billion. (The May revision also reflected increased costs of $745 million.) As part of the revenue solutions, the May revision proposal continued to assume voter approval of extension of the 2009 temporary tax increases.
Final Budget Act
The Legislature did not approve the Governor’s revenue proposals. The Governor worked with the Legislature to develop alternative solutions to balance the budget. Fortunately, the state’s revenue estimates improved prior to the final budget passage, which allowed for a revised funding package for the Governor’s proposals. As of passage of the final budget act, the budget deficit was estimated at $27.2 billion. The actions in March, together with final budget actions, close the deficit through improvement in the state’s revenue outlook ($8.3 billion), expenditure reductions ($15 billion), revenue solutions ($900 million), and other solutions ($2.9 billion).
The budget includes the following major components:
Major Budget Cuts Outside of K–12 Education
For higher education, the budget package cuts the University of California and the California State University by $650 million each—and triggers $100 million more in reductions each, if revenues fall more than $1 billion short of the level anticipated (Tier One). It cuts community colleges by $400 million and increases community college fees by $10 per credit unit.
In health and human services programs, the budget package:
The budget also cuts trial court funding by $350 million.
Proposition 98 Changes
2010–11 Proposition 98 Changes
At the time the 2010–11 budget was enacted, the minimum funding level required by Proposition 98 was projected to be $53.8 billion. The 2010–11 budget package suspended the Proposition 98 guarantee by $4.1 billion. SB 851 (Chapter 715, Statutes of 2010) declared the minimum funding level for schools and community colleges
(K–14) education to be $49.7 billion.
The 2011–12 budget package assumes a Proposition 98 funding level (K–14) of $49.8 billion for 2010–11. The increase in funding since enactment of the 2010–11 budget is due primarily to changes in average daily attendance (ADA).
2011–12 Proposition 98 Changes
The Governor’s Budget proposed a Proposition 98 funding level of $49.3 billion. This funding level assumed that the Legislature would place the Governor’s tax extension proposal on the ballot in May 2011, and voters would approve the ballot measure. In the May revision, the Governor proposed a Proposition 98 funding level of $53.4 billion. This higher amount was based on improvements in the state’s fiscal situation and continued to assume that the tax extensions would be approved.
As indicated above, the Legislature did not place the tax measures on the ballot. The Governor worked with the Legislature to develop alternative proposals. The final 2011–12 budget package provides a Proposition 98 funding level of $48.7 billion, a reduction of $1.1 billion compared to the revised 2010–11 level.
Given the increase in revenues since the January budget was released, the reduction in Proposition 98 spending requires explanation. There are several reasons for the reduction. First, there are two major program shifts: child care, excluding Preschool, has been moved out of Proposition 98—$1.1 billion—and educationally necessary mental health services for children in special education has been moved into Proposition 98—$221.8 million. The Proposition 98 guarantee has been “rebenched” to account for these program changes.
Second, $5.1 billion in sales tax revenues associated with the realignment proposal is not included in the revenues used in the Proposition 98 calculation, pursuant to AB 118. The provision in AB 118 is contingent on passage of a ballot measure before November 17, 2012, that provides additional funds for schools in an amount sufficient to hold Proposition 98 funding harmless. If the ballot measure is not passed, the amount of the shortfall in funding in 2011–12 (i.e. the amount of the $5.1 billion, estimated at $2.1 billion, required to be provided to K–14 education if the sales tax revenues were included as General Fund revenues) would be repaid over five years as settle-up beginning in 2012–13. The repayments would be used to reduce deferrals, pay mandate obligations, and to support other one-time purposes.
Proposition 98 has also been rebenched as follows:
K–12 Changes
The budget package assumes K–12 funding under Proposition 98 will be $43.9 billion in 2010–11 and provides $43.2 billion in 2011–12. The 2011–12 funding level is a reduction of $717.2 million compared to the revised 2010–11 level.
Figure 1 (next page) lists major changes to K–12 spending between 2010–11 and 2011–12. Cuts were necessary to replace one-time reductions that were implemented in the current year.
Deferrals
The budget package defers an additional $2.1 billion in revenue limit funds from 2011–12 to 2012–13. This deferral is in addition to the ongoing $1.7 billion deferral adopted as part of the 2010–11 budget package. The deferral was enacted in March. The March package also changed the schedule of intra-year deferrals in a manner that reduces unpredictability and avoids deferral of funds extending over two fiscal years.
Figure 1
K–12 Proposition 98 Funding
2011–12 Adjustments (in millions)
| Program or Activity | Amount |
|---|---|
| Backfill for one-time solutions/includes deferral | 2,095.2 |
| Revenue limit adjustments | 267.7 |
| Growth | 212.7 |
| Child care adjustments | -180.8 |
| Sunset of special disabilities adjustment | -74.0 |
| Sunset of special education settlement | -25.0 |
| Other special education adjustments | -28.2 |
| Restore CalWORKs Stage 3 veto | 256.0 |
| Mental health services | 221.8 |
| Mandates | 80.4 |
| Categorical funding for new charter schools | 11.0 |
| Partnership academies | 3.2 |
| Defer payments to 2012–13 | -2,063.8 |
| Remove child care from Proposition 98 | -1,054.5 |
| Child care policy changes | -242.7 |
| Use one-time funds for special education | -148.6 |
| Other changes | -47.4 |
Total | -717.2 |
Mid-Year Reduction Triggers
If General Fund revenues fall $2 billion or more short of the amount assumed in the budget (Tier Two), a new reduction of up to 4 percent ($1.5 billion, according to the Department of Finance) will be imposed on revenue limits for school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools. The actual amount will be proportionate to the amount the shortfall exceeds $2 billion. If the reductions are imposed, local educational agencies (LEAs) may reduce the number of instructional days and minutes by up to seven days, subject to collective bargaining agreements. These seven days would be in addition to the five-day reduction allowed previously. This provision is effective February 2012.
In addition, up to $248 million will be reduced from Home-to-School Transportation, if the shortfall exceeds $2 billion. This provision is effective January 2012.
The mid-year reduction trigger provisions were new in June.
Cost-of-Living and Growth Adjustments
The budget package does not provide a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). The statutory COLA is 2.24 percent, which would have resulted in an increase of $1.2 billion. A deficit factor was established for school district and county office of education revenue limit apportionments to reflect the lack of a COLA.
The budget package assumes a 0.24 percent increase in average daily attendance (ADA). The budget package provides growth funding for programs listed in Figure 2.
Figure 2
Programs Receiving Growth Adjustments
Program and Resource Code
Charter school categorical block grants (0000)
County office of education revenue limits (0000)
School district revenue limits (0000)
Special education—state portion only (various)
Economic Impact Aid (7090 and 7091)
Child nutrition (5310)
Local Budgeting
The budget package specifies that school district and county office of education budgets for 2011–12 “shall project the same level of revenue per unit of average daily attendance as [the agency] received in the 2010–11 fiscal year and shall maintain staffing and program levels commensurate with that level.” The budget package further specifies that school districts and county offices of education “shall not be required to certify in writing whether or not [the agency] is able to meet its financial obligations for the two subsequent fiscal years.”
The budget package also suspends a provision of existing law that allows certificated staff layoffs in August if revenue limits increase by less than 2 percent.
The local budgeting provisions were new in June.
Special Education
The former Governor vetoed $133 million provided in the 2010–11 budget for prior-year mandate claims submitted by county mental health departments for mental health services for special education pupils (AB 3632 services), stating in his veto message that the mandate was suspended. The effect of suspending the mandate was to require LEAs to assume responsibility for providing these services. The March budget package provided $80.8 million in one-time funds for school districts to support mental health services in 2010–11.
The final 2011–12 budget package:
These actions were proposed in the May revision. The January budget had proposed to continue the mandate on county mental health departments.
Child Care and Development
The former Governor vetoed $256 million for CalWORKs Stage 3 services in 2010–11. The funding for these services was restored through actions in March and one-time funding identified by the CDE.
The Governor’s Budget proposed to reduce child care funding by $716 million. The March budget package reduced child care by $483 million instead of $716 million. The final budget package reduces child care by less than the March budget
package—$242.7 million. The specific actions in the budget package include:
An additional cut of up to $23 million will be triggered if General Fund revenues fall short by more than $1 billion (Tier One).
Charter Schools
The budget package provides $5 million in one-time funds (non-Proposition 98) to supplement the Charter Schools Revolving Loan Fund, which provides low-interest loans to new charter schools. The funds may be used for startup and initial operating capital. This proposal was included in the January budget.
The budget package also provides $11 million for categorical funding ($127 per ADA) to newly established charter schools. Under current law, charter schools established after the base year used for allocating categorical funds (made flexible in 2008–09) may receive an allocation for these programs if they are eligible for the programs as they existed before they were made flexible. Conversion schools are excluded from eligibility; instead, school districts are required to pass through funding to conversion schools.
Student and Teacher Data Systems
The budget funds the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) but not the California Longitudinal Teacher Integrated Data Education System (CALTIDES).
The January budget proposed eliminating some funds for these systems. The May revision proposed eliminating additional funds and shifting available federal funding to student assessments, assuming all federally required data collection and reporting can be performed through the older California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS), pending further review of the state’s data collection, testing, and accountability requirements. The Legislature restored funding for these systems in its June actions but the Governor vetoed funds for CALTIDES.
Mandates
The budget package provides ongoing funding of $80.4 million for reimbursement of K–12 mandates in 2011–12. This is the same level of funding as provided in 2010–11 (funding in 2010–11 was from one-time funds), and assumes suspension of the same group of mandates that was suspended in the current year. The May revision had proposed to suspend an additional group of mandates but this proposal was not approved by the Legislature.
Federal Funding
The budget provides $21.3 million in federal Title I set-aside carryover funds to be distributed based on the Title I, Part A, Basic, program methodology. The budget package directs $3.5 million of these funds for professional development and other activities related to adoption of the Common Core Standards.
The budget eliminates new funding for several programs to conform to recent federal budget actions.
Other Actions
The March budget package:
The June budget package:
Bill Citations
The budget package includes the following specific bills:
If you have any questions regarding the 2011–12 budget, please contact the Legislative Affairs Division by phone at 916-324-4728. You may also contact Carol Bingham, Senior Fiscal Policy Advisor, Fiscal Policy Office, by e-mail atcbingham@cde.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Tom Torlakson
TT:cb
| NOTICE: The guidance in this letter is not binding on local educational agencies or other entities. Except for the statutes, regulations, and court decisions that are referenced herein, this letter is exemplary, and compliance with it is not mandatory. (See California Education Code Section 33308.5.) |
Search Related Stories
