Last fall I wrote about Prop 2, the ballot measure that restricts the amount of reserves a district can hold. The ballot measure was a give-away from Gov. Brown to the California Teachers Association (CTA) that was slipped in at the last minute during the budget process. Read my original post here.
At the time, a few folks told me I was being reactionary, and that the terms of Prop 2 wouldn't kick in for a long time. Surprise, Surprise! The State Legislative Analysts Office (LAO) has announced that Prop 2 limits might kick in as soon as this year or next year.
https://www.cabinetreport.com/budget-finance/soaring-tax-collections-could-trigger-budget-caps-in-2015-16
This is just a reminder that we need to stay active and engaged in the legislative process. California is still near the very bottom in per student spending. These kind of shenanigans in Sacramento aren't helping our kids.
I'd love to be able to urge you to contact Jerry Hill and Rich Gordon to ask them to correct this. Unfortunately, the voters in California have been duped, and now it is back to us to correct this problem. I would hope that the CSBA is looking at legal options to try to invalidate Prop 2. At a minimum, there's a conflict between Prop 2 and Prop 98. Hopefully someone can craft a legal argument that Prop 98 guarantees should be honored- but I'm not optimistic.
Showing posts with label sacramento. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sacramento. Show all posts
Monday, January 26, 2015
Friday, October 24, 2014
Why I'm Voting No on Prop 2
I am a strong proponent for conservative spending plans. Last year, when LASD saw our first budget surplus, I advocated setting aside some of that money to shore up our future pension liabilities. When, then would I be voting No on Prop 2?
On the face of it, Prop 2 creates a rainy day fund to even out state expenditures in lean times. Like much of what we see in politics, though, there's a catch. Prop 2 also puts a cap in place, limiting the amount of reserves local school districts can carry. In the case of LASD, that means we'll lose the ability to save for a rainy day ourselves. We will depend entirely on Sacramento. We won't be able to have a special reserve to cover our healthcare obligations to retirees, and we won't be able to save money for the next recession when it comes.
Gov. Brown's logic is that the State of California will carry the reserve, which will then remove the need for local Districts to carry one. That would be great, if the State had a solid track record in this regard. However, one only need look at how they've handled their Prop 98 obligation (wherein the voters required that at least 39% of state budgets go to education). In the past several years, when times got tight, Sacramento said simply "we'll owe you that money". Literally- we have an outstanding Prop 39 receivable from the State of California that we never expect to get paid.
I want to keep control here at the local level. We know what is best for our community. Let our local community formulate how we spend and save. Keep control here.
{If this post sounds familiar, it should. I wrote about this back in June. At the time, we were hoping that the Legislature would correct this problem before Prop 2 made it onto the ballot. unfortunately they did not. As a result, I can't support the measure.}
On the face of it, Prop 2 creates a rainy day fund to even out state expenditures in lean times. Like much of what we see in politics, though, there's a catch. Prop 2 also puts a cap in place, limiting the amount of reserves local school districts can carry. In the case of LASD, that means we'll lose the ability to save for a rainy day ourselves. We will depend entirely on Sacramento. We won't be able to have a special reserve to cover our healthcare obligations to retirees, and we won't be able to save money for the next recession when it comes.
Gov. Brown's logic is that the State of California will carry the reserve, which will then remove the need for local Districts to carry one. That would be great, if the State had a solid track record in this regard. However, one only need look at how they've handled their Prop 98 obligation (wherein the voters required that at least 39% of state budgets go to education). In the past several years, when times got tight, Sacramento said simply "we'll owe you that money". Literally- we have an outstanding Prop 39 receivable from the State of California that we never expect to get paid.
I want to keep control here at the local level. We know what is best for our community. Let our local community formulate how we spend and save. Keep control here.
{If this post sounds familiar, it should. I wrote about this back in June. At the time, we were hoping that the Legislature would correct this problem before Prop 2 made it onto the ballot. unfortunately they did not. As a result, I can't support the measure.}
Monday, September 8, 2014
NY Times Article on Success Academy
Author's note: Although I am grateful for the recently signed peace treaty with BCS, I still have concerns about how charter law is structured. Just as I assume BCS will continue to advocate for what they believe in, I will continue to highlight issues that I believe are important to the education community. This article shouldn't be interpreted as a specific concern with BCS, but more a concern with the way state and federal laws are structured.
The NY Times presented a piece of Eva Moskowitz, head of the NYC charter chain Success Academy. You can read the article here.
Diane Ratvich, a former charter advocate and now charter critic, was quoted in the article. The quotes in the article seemed somewhat benign. However, Diane has recently posted a follow-up of her own, indicating that the NYT author watered down her comments. Here's a link to her article.
Whatever the truth is, I believe that the charter model can only be successful if it proves itself on a representative sample of students. The only way for that to happen is really through conversion charters. In a conversion charter, an entire school is converted in place. That school must admit all students in the area, and must meet all of their needs. This approach would avoid the question of whether the student body is representative of the wider population. Then we can gauge the results. I look forward to seeing peer reviewed articles that look at this type of data.
The NY Times presented a piece of Eva Moskowitz, head of the NYC charter chain Success Academy. You can read the article here.
Diane Ratvich, a former charter advocate and now charter critic, was quoted in the article. The quotes in the article seemed somewhat benign. However, Diane has recently posted a follow-up of her own, indicating that the NYT author watered down her comments. Here's a link to her article.
Whatever the truth is, I believe that the charter model can only be successful if it proves itself on a representative sample of students. The only way for that to happen is really through conversion charters. In a conversion charter, an entire school is converted in place. That school must admit all students in the area, and must meet all of their needs. This approach would avoid the question of whether the student body is representative of the wider population. Then we can gauge the results. I look forward to seeing peer reviewed articles that look at this type of data.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Gov. Brown, the Meddler
Darn it! I wish Sacramento would just keep their darn hands off local Districts. In the latest affront to common sense, Gov. Moonbeam has passed a law that will require Districts to cap our reserves at 10% of revenues. (article)
For those not familiar with the nuances of school funding, we are required by law to have a reserve of 3% of our annual revenue. It's prudent to require that local districts have some amount of cushion that we can draw upon when times get lean. But what genius thought it was a good idea to cap that reserve? If we could squirrel away a larger reserve (say, 15% or 20%) and then guarantee that we wouldn't have to issue a single pink slip in a big recession, wouldn't that be a GOOD idea? The article says some districts have reserves of 30%-50%. I challenge lawmakers to show us one district with over 1000 students that has that kind of reserve. LASD has 11% reserves, and we're considered very fortunate.
Unfortunately, this seems to be the Governor's way of buying political support. At a state level, the CTA continues to press to minimize reserves because the most logical way a district spends reserves is on salary. By forcing districts to spend reserves, it helps the CTA membership, who in turn support Gov. Brown. Nice trick, Jerry.
Now, I want to be clear. I supported our recent pay raise for our teachers because it was the right thing to do. They've worked very hard and have implemented a first class program that is achieving great results. In negotiations, our particular teachers really do have a sense of cooperation with us. But at a state level, the CTA and Jerry are just nuts.
PS: The rationale behind all of this is that the State is going to carry reserves to make sure we don't need as much in our safety net. That's great- except that the State has consistently raided the Prop 98 guaranteed funding we are supposed to receive.
For those not familiar with the nuances of school funding, we are required by law to have a reserve of 3% of our annual revenue. It's prudent to require that local districts have some amount of cushion that we can draw upon when times get lean. But what genius thought it was a good idea to cap that reserve? If we could squirrel away a larger reserve (say, 15% or 20%) and then guarantee that we wouldn't have to issue a single pink slip in a big recession, wouldn't that be a GOOD idea? The article says some districts have reserves of 30%-50%. I challenge lawmakers to show us one district with over 1000 students that has that kind of reserve. LASD has 11% reserves, and we're considered very fortunate.
Unfortunately, this seems to be the Governor's way of buying political support. At a state level, the CTA continues to press to minimize reserves because the most logical way a district spends reserves is on salary. By forcing districts to spend reserves, it helps the CTA membership, who in turn support Gov. Brown. Nice trick, Jerry.
Now, I want to be clear. I supported our recent pay raise for our teachers because it was the right thing to do. They've worked very hard and have implemented a first class program that is achieving great results. In negotiations, our particular teachers really do have a sense of cooperation with us. But at a state level, the CTA and Jerry are just nuts.
PS: The rationale behind all of this is that the State is going to carry reserves to make sure we don't need as much in our safety net. That's great- except that the State has consistently raided the Prop 98 guaranteed funding we are supposed to receive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
