cusdfacultysenate.com

Lots of things seem like good ideas at 3 in the morning.

—-LisaMarie

I thought I was done with “3am feedings”.  I remember the first time my son slept through the night when he was an infant.  I woke up in a panic, and rushed in to his room to check on him.  I watched him breathe until I was convinced he was OK.   Nowadays, because my son is 15 years old, I thought I was assured of at least a few more nights of uninterrupted sleep (at least until cars and curfews came around…).

The trouble with diabetes is you can’t tell they’re OK just by watching them breathe. 

My son got an insulin pump last week.  As we adjust to this new way of managing his diabetes, we need to very closely monitor his blood glucose and make changes to the pump settings until we find the levels that work for him.  This means either my husband or I (but usually both of us) get up at midnight and 3am every night to check everything.  That doesn’t mean just watching him; we’ve got to test the blood glucose and check the pump.  We have to make sure we are awake enough to think clearly, process information and make decisions.  No zombie-walking through the process; we’ve got to be alert.  The doctor has warned us that it could take as long as two weeks to get everything zeroed in. 

It’s a lot of work, stress and worry…and the learning curve is steep.  I imagine that the first night the doctor says we can all sleep through the night again, I probably won’t.  I suppose I will wake up anyway, and go in and just watch him breathe.

And I will thank the stars above that this is a problem that is manageable.

Things could always be worse.  Be thankful for what you’ve got—challenges and all. 

And don’t forget to breathe.

—–LisaMarie

Well, it is official.  The budget has given me my first sleepless night. 

—-LisaMarie

Super Bowl Sunday is this weekend.  Got any big plans?  Which team do you think will win?  Who are you rooting for?  That’s what everyone wants to know.  Well, this blog won’t answer any of those questions.  I have no big plans.  I don’t know which team will win and am rooting for no one. 

No, I don’t dislike football.  I love football.  I just don’t have an opinion about the two teams playing in this year’s big match-up.

In the fall of 1981, I was a freshman in the CHS marching band, and we had the opportunity to march a half-time show for the 49ers.  I had never been in a stadium that big.  I remember when we lined up on the sidelines, right before the end of the first half…we were standing right next to these absolutely HUGE guys…in full uniform they were GIGANTIC.  Anyway, the ‘Niners won that game, and I was hooked.  They went on that season to win their first Super Bowl, beating the Cincinnati Bengals.  It was a beautiful thing.  That day, I became a ‘Niner fan for life. 

Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, Dwight Clark, Ronnie Lott, Roger Craig…they were gods on the field; larger than life.  I watched every game.  There was a time when I could rattle off stats like an encyclopedia.  Joe was the master of the two minute drill.  He was, I believe, the greatest quarterback to ever play the game…and I’ll argue with anyone who disagrees.  Try me. 

During that magical decade or so of 49er dominance, the New Orleans Saints were not on my list of likeable teams.  From my perspective, they played dirty.  Their defense always seemed more interested in maiming players from the opposing team than actually stopping forward progress of the ball.   They were just as likely to rip your head off as tackle you.  I hated the Saints.  My husband constantly reminds me that the Saints of the 80’s are not the same guys on the field today.  He repeatedly tells me it’s a whole new team today, with a different playing philosophy than they used to have…but I can’t help it.  I still don’t like them. 

And the Colts?  Well, I don’t know a thing about them.  They have just never really been on my radar.  During my rabid ‘Niner fan days, the Colts win/loss record was a roller coaster of ups and downs.  I never really paid much attention to them. 

In college I worked at Gottschalks.  We sold game tickets through the Ticketron machine there, and I would buy tickets to at least one game every year.  I watched  all the other games on TV, and may have actually called in sick once to make sure I didn’t miss a game (shhhh…don’t tell).  I watched all of the great Super Bowls when the 49ers were in their glory.  Those Super Bowls with the ‘Niners were a National Holiday, as far as I was concerned.  They clobbered the Dolphins, rolled over the Bengals (Again!), and embarrassed the Broncos.  I watched the Super Bowl in 1994, and my beloved ‘Niners beat San Diego, although my heart wasn’t completely in the game, because Joe was not on the field, having gone to Kansas City already.  Truly, I questioned whether I was a ‘Niner fan, or a Montana fan… I decided I was both. 

So….I will probably watch the game on Sunday.  But I really don’t care who wins.  Whatever.  I’ll just munch on chips and guacamole and see what happens. 

Some day though, my mighty ‘Niners will be back.  Yes, you just wait.  ‘Niner fans are forever faithful…and very patient.   (We miss you, Joe.  It hasn’t been the same since you left.)

—–LisaMarie

Are we overstaffed?  Well, the easy answer is yes.  The problem is it may be an easy answer, but it is not a simple answer.  A better question would be why are we overstaffed?  There are lots of reasons, and it’s important that we talk about them.  As we examine the possibility of furloughs, and face an uncertain and ever changing budget challenge thrown at us from the state, people are scared.  Scared people sometimes make decisions based on fear.  According to Dorothy Thompson (American Journalist, 1893-1961), “The most destructive element in the human mind is fear.”  Very true.  So let’s make decisions based on facts instead.

I received an email a week or so ago that caused me some distress.  This person said that if the district had been so ‘irresponsible’ as to over-hire, then those new hires should be the first to go BEFORE we considered any furloughs or further cuts.  During this year, because of the budget concerns, I’ve probably received only three such emails/comments.  Some would say not to worry; it’s not even a statistically viable number, given that we have almost 5000 employees.  BUT where there is smoke there is fire.  That’s why I’m addressing the question. 

First:  We didn’t over-hire.  This year (Fall 2009) we hired 32 teachers.  That’s it.  32.  Of those 32, ten were Special Ed teachers and 17 were secondary.  Five were hired for elementary. 

If – and I want to stress IF—we were to have to lay off teachers, it would be more than 5.  It would be more than 32.  Considering the very specific and strict laws governing the necessary certifications for Special Ed teachers, if we laid off the ten we hired, we’d have to hire them right back to remain compliant with the services we provide to the students we serve.  Secondary education is also an area where specific qualifications are required.  Je parle un peu français, but I sure couldn’t teach it…so we have to hire for positions that we don’t already have qualified folks around to fill. 

Laying-off teachers is something that is outlined clearly in California Ed Code.  Section 44955(b) states in part:  “…when in the opinion of the governing board…it shall have become necessary…to decrease the number of permanent employees in the district, the governing board may terminate the services…of the certificated employees, permanent as well as probationary.”  It goes on to say “…the services of no permanent employee may be terminated under the provisions of this section while any probationary employee, or any other employee with less seniority, is retained to render a service which said permanent employee is certificated and competent to render.”  Translated into plain English, that means that seniority is a factor when layoffs are considered.  However, NCLB compliance and proper credentials are also considered, and in section (c) it says “The governing board shall make assignments and reassignments in such a manner that employees shall be retained to render any service which their seniority and qualifications entitle them to render.”  Administrative transfers would be absolutely necessary and appropriate if this were to come to pass.  People often think that it is the union that dictates how lay-offs are done; not so.  The process is spelled out completely and concisely in Ed Code.

So, getting back to the 32 we hired…based on the statement in Ed Code that a teacher “is retained to render a service which said permanent employee is certificated and competent to render” under a lay-off situation, I’d have to say most of those 32 new hires would very likely be staying right where they are.

Second:  The state changed the rules.  We originally staffed our elementary schools following the 20-1 ratio in 1-3 grades, under the Class Size Reduction (CSR) rules.  The state mandate penalized schools that did not follow those guidelines, and the penalty was huge.  However, the state changed the mandate and the penalty/funding structure of CSR.  With the new flexibility, we were no longer obligated to keep the class sizes at the absolute cap of 20.   The restructuring of our class sizes created an overage of teachers that we hadn’t planned for.   CUSD had made staffing decisions based on the facts available at the time, and then the facts changed. 

There are no easy answers.  These are difficult times.  Pointing fingers won’t solve the problems.  Offering sacrificial lambs won’t save the rest of us.  I’ve heard the story many times, of how Doc brought everyone into the Clovis High Gym and said if things got bad, they’d all turn off the lights, lock the doors and go home…together.  In an email which I shared with the Senate, Dr. Cash stressed the importance of not pitting employees against each other.  I sent an email to the senators last week, in which I said, “Many other districts will simply release teachers to balance their budget.  In the grand scheme of things, that’s the easy way to do it.  We are committed to doing it the hard way, if you will, and that means we need to be realistic about the sheer magnitude of the problem.”

It’s a crazy world…stick together out there.

—-LisaMarie

I sometimes wonder about the people that ask why we aren’t considering lay-offs…what would they say if I said “we are, and it’s you”?  Would that change the way they feel?

Just curious….

—-LisaMarie

What a whirlwind of information swirling around the planet this week!  Let me take you through a timeline:

Friday, Jan 15:  I received an email concerned about our CUSD Health Plan and the current Congressional Health Bill.  Also talk of if we had a “Cadillac plan” or not, and taxes.

Sunday, Jan. 17:  Columnist Bill McEwen writes in the Fresno Bee about the tax exemption deal that is proposed for union members in the latest version of health care reform.

Tuesday, Jan. 19:  Approx. 8am, received an email with questions about the McEwen column.  Later that day, Republican candidate Scott Brown upsets the democratic favorite in Massachusetts election.

Wednesday, Jan. 20:  President Obama interviewed by George Stephanopoulos says they lost sight of what the American people wanted, and may need to take a step back….

In the span one week, the future of the health care plans in Washington changed dramatically, and it’s not clear yet just exactly what will happen…or when. I thought it would be a good idea, however, for me to clarify some terms and questions that might be floating around out there.

What is a “Cadillac plan” and do we have one?  CUSD does have what (under current government definition) qualifies as a ‘Cadillac plan’.  A ‘Cadillac plan’ is defined by the cost of the premiums, not the coverage.  I found a fairly good explanation on a site run by Kaiser Health News (not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente), a nonprofit news organization focusing on health care issues. 

What’s this about a tax break for unions?  That was just one piece of the latest plan.  Part of the thinking is that union members have given up raises to preserve health care over the years.  I would venture to say that many employees—union or not—have done the same.  That is an empty argument as far as I am concerned.  The tax would be applied to insurers, not consumers.  (Although, we all know any cost incurred by businesses have a way of trickling down to the consumer in many different forms.)  Analysts are in disagreement over how this plan would affect those who “self-insure”, as we do in CUSD.  It would appear then, that there are several things wrong with this piece of the puzzle.  Just on the philosophical side of things, there are people concerned that large segments of the population do not have affordable health care available to them.  If you ‘fix’ it by offering a tax incentive to some but not to all, you’ve only created another segment of the population getting something others don’t.  How is that right?  It probably isn’t, and might even be unconstitutional.  There are also a lot of folks in government that think employees should be taxed on their total compensation, not just their wages.  That plays into this as well.  In my opinion, this is all part of the same backroom politics that got Nebraska their sweet deal. 

What is the impact of all this to our current health plan?  Don’t know.  Don’t know because the proposals change often, and much has been done in secret.  From what I hear, watching C-Span isn’t terribly helpful.  Bits and pieces of the congressional bill leak out, and no one knows the full picture. Even the Senate and the House can’t agree.  Now, with the political landscape changing, the only thing to be certain of is that there will be more change.  My advice?  Write to someone in Washington and tell them what you think.  I did.

 —LisaMarie

By now, you’ve all heard the Governor’s budget proposal, which was made public last week.  He says he is ‘protecting education’ with this budget.  Frankly, if this is protection, I don’t want to see the alternative…Sacramento would probably take the shirt off my back, a pint of blood and my first-born.

Long story short, as of 1/19, it looks like another $8mil in cuts for CUSD if the governor’s budget goes as he planned.  There’s still a lot that can happen between now and whenever an actual state budget is passed, but you can guarantee it won’t be pretty.  It appears to be a tactic of the Governor to pit employee groups against each other (One of them being proposing changes to gas sales taxes that would set up a “schools vs. transit” scenario). Not cool.  In an email to the Faculty Senators last week, I told them I had spent Friday morning (1/15) at a Budget workshop presented by SI&A (School Innovations & Advocacy).  There were administrators in attendance from all over the valley.  It was very informative.  I also told the senators that based on what I learned at the workshop, things look mighty grim.  Through some incredibly imaginative math and a terribly complicated shell game, the Governor has manipulated the Prop 98 numbers to claim that education funding is at or above some of last year’s levels.  Other strange things the governor is basing his budget on involve his assertion that the Federal Government will magically pay California $7billion (yes, billion with a “b”) that they owe.  The Legislative Analyst office says that the reality is it might be $3bil…maybe.  Oh, and the great news is that the Governor proposes to FULLY FUND THE COLA….at -.38% (Here…let me write that out for you, just in case you think it’s a typo…  NEGATIVE Point three eight percent.) A fully-funded-negative-COLA…that’s a bit of an oxymoron, isn’t it?  If you are scratching your head and saying “HUH?” you are not alone.

How do you fully fund a negative COLA, you might ask?  Well, you take the money off the revenue limit, that’s how.  How do you change Prop 98 guarantees, you want to know?  Well, you claim that since the level of funding certified in the language of Prop 98 was based on the state’s General Fund and the revenues to the state came in lower than estimated, the Prop 98 guarantee should be less.  Most of the governor’s proposals would require change in existing law…especially the Prop 98 stuff. 

It’s just nonsense. 

So what can we do?  In many ways, we should continue to do what we have always done.  We have to continue to provide quality educational experiences to our community, because they count on that.  We need to all do our best thinking to find ways to do more with less, whether it is conserving supplies or sharing resources. Most importantly, as employees, we have to prepare ourselves for difficult times and difficult decisions. 

Hang in there…

—-LisaMarie

You’ve probably all heard of “Race to the Top”.  I’ve talked about it a couple of times in the blog, and there’s been plenty of info about it in the news.  Just in case you’ve been too busy with life, I’ll review the highlights for you…

Race to the Top is a Federal grant program.  States are invited to apply and if successful in their application, must pass on 50% of the award to the districts that have signed on to participate.  Here, from the US Dept. of Education website:

          “Through Race to the Top, we are asking States to advance reforms around four specific areas:

• Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global economy;
• Building data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve instruction;
• Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most; and
• Turning around our lowest-achieving schools.”

With the signing in October of SB 19 (which deleted existing language in state law that prevented the state from using pupil data in teacher assignment and evaluation), California is forging ahead to get their application in place for the chance at some much needed money.  States that will receive the award will be notified in April, according to the website.

According to an article in the San Mateo Daily Journal (Jan. 5), almost 800 school districts statewide have submitted letters of intent to participate.  This is not surprising, given the budget concerns many districts are facing.  Here’s the complete list from the California Dept. of Ed website, if you’d like to see it.  Yes, CUSD is on the list.

What does this mean for CUSD?  Well, if CUSD participates and California is successful in obtaining the Race to the Top grant, it could bring some money our way to the tune of about $4mil a year for four years.  That is some much needed cash.  In order to catch this money train before it leaves the station, CUSD must submit an MOU (Memo of Understanding) to the State by Friday, Jan. 8.  Dr. Cash has asked our Governing Board to act on this motion at the Jan. 6 Board meeting. 

Those of you who have read the blog before will likely remember that I have expressed concern regarding the efforts to tie teacher evaluation and compensation to student achievement.  This is a concept referenced in the Race to the Top reforms.  This is still a concern of mine, however after a 90 minute meeting with Dr. Cash, I feel a little better about how it might look for us.  Dr. Cash assures me that this is an area over which CUSD has complete control.  We can create a model for teacher evaluation and/or compensation that will fit our core values and educational needs.  When it comes to compensation, we don’t have to create a system that pits teachers or schools against each other, but one in which cooperation and sharing of best practices is rewarded.  I grew up in CUSD under the Competition Model.  Been there, done that, bought the T-Shirt… We don’t have to do that again.  But we can create a model that works for us, based on multiple measures of growth.  As for evaluations, the “reform” the government is talking about could be as simple as adding a single piece to our current evaluation forms.  Whatever is decided, it will be CUSD’s decision, and not something dictated by an outside agency.  Dr. Cash also stated that any changes that affect teachers’ compensation or evaluation would not be made in isolation at the District Office.  Faculty Senate and the teachers we represent would have a place at the table as options are explored and decisions made. 

In a press release quoted by the San Mateo Daily Journal, State Superintendent Jack O’Connell said “I’m delighted that almost half of our local educational agencies already have stepped up to the challenge and agreed to partner with the state in making the fundamental education reforms called for in the Race to the Top competition.”  Personally, I don’t see many sweeping fundamental reforms we should make here in CUSD.  You can call me arrogant if you like, but I’m not alone in that assessment.  Here’s my proof.

In examining the Race to the Top application, there are many things we are already doing which are called for under the grant requirements.  Looking again at the bullet points from the US Dept. of Ed website copied above, some easy connections stand out.  For example, Standards-based assessments like the Math Benchmarks and LAFT not only ‘inform instruction’, but ‘prepare students for success…’.  Edusoft (like it or hate it; that’s a blog for another day) is a data system we use that would seem to meet the intentions of the second bullet point.  The PLC process also has elements which fit the requirements.  Our TGLE’s, PGLE’s and the CLASSI program all have a place within the outlined reforms…so we are ahead of the curve.  That is good news. 

Even so, I was still wary.  In my mind, I was trying to balance how badly we need the money (pretty damn bad) with how much of our soul we are willing to sell to the devil (government money, it seems, always comes with strings attached).  As I shared those concerns with Dr. Cash, he told me that in this particular case, if we are awarded the grant, and for some reason decide we don’t like the ‘strings’, we can back out.  That’s it.  We just quit.  AND we don’t have to repay any grant money already received at that point. 

I don’t know about you, but I feel better.  Put on your athletic shoes; we’re joining the race.

—-LisaMarie

Happy New Year!

Wow….2010…who’d a thunk it?  I remember when 2000 seemed like a long way off.  I hope that many good things happen in 2010 for all of us…

—LisaMarie