Educators get schooled in politics
ACSA's members walk halls of State Capitol
Many offices were visited; many words were spoken; few, if any, minds were changed Monday, the Association of California School Administrators’ annual Legislative Action Day.
That’s hardly surprising. In the taxonomy of ACSA Executive Director Bob Wells, there are saints, sinners, and “savables.” This year, in the polarized Capitol, there are few of the latter – at most a dozen, really: those Republicans, five in the Senate, seven in the Assembly, who have declined to sign the anti-tax pledge of Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform. For a two-thirds majority, Brown and the Democrats need two from each chamber to say yes to allow voters to decide on extending $12 billion in taxes for five years. But which two? And what will they demand in return? That was no clearer by the end of the day than at the beginning.
The rest of the 120 legislators have made up their minds or had their minds made up for them. But that didn’t stop about 400 school administrators, including a couple dozen superintendents, from fanning out in groups for appointments with Assembly members and senators representing their school districts – or, as in most cases, with members of their staff paid to listen and be polite.
Wells said the day at the Capitol presented an opportunity to thank Democrats for their support and to keep lines of communication open with Republicans who will vote on bills separate from the budget. Because of term limits, many legislators weren’t around a few years ago and need to be told about past spending cuts, he said.
For a couple hours, I followed principals and superintendents who had the unenviable challenge of trying to change the minds of two conservative Assembly Republicans from the Central Valley.
Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, we were told, was in the office but busy being briefed on one of her bills, so an aide, Siobhan Guiney, escorted all 18 of us to a sixth floor cafeteria. Had I been she, I would have reached for my second box of Kleenex and for my wallet after hearing what would happen to schools in Grove’s rural district if the tax fails and at least $2 billion more is cut from schools statewide.
At Sierra Sands Unified, if taxes are not put to a vote – or are rejected – one of two middle schools will close and sixth graders will return to the elementary schools, which will mushroom to 600 students under one administrator, said Bonnie Kaufman, a middle school assistant principal. Middle school sports are gone; high school sports that cannot be self-sustaining will be next. There will be a five-mile distance from a school for a bus pickup. (Get a pair of good boots, Abe Lincoln.) A continuation high school for high-risk students will close; there will be no summer school for high school students struggling for credits. There will be an increase in the dropout rate, Kaufman predicted. Classes in middle school already have 40 students.
“Our students get one opportunity for an education,” she said. “The experiences they miss are irretrievable.”
Alan Giles, director of Human Services for the Hesperia Unified School District, said 20 percent of support staff in the schools have been let go. Class sizes in the middle school are already in the upper 30s, “and there are only so many desks you can put in a portable.” Staff members already have taken between nine and 14 furlough days along with cuts in benefits and freezes in raises. Tech support will vanish in the next round of cuts, along with adult education. “I don’t know how we will be able to deal with it,” he said.
Guiney offered little sympathy but did give some Realpolitik advice: “You are seasoned professionals,” she told the group. “The Democrats can put taxes on the ballot without Republicans, but they want GOP cover; that’s where we are now.”
Grove, she said, will vote no unless there are alternatives, including structural reform. Among her demands: a suspension of AB 32, the landmark environmental law governing greenhouse gases, until the unemployment rate falls below 7 percent (it’s 12 percent now). “So I encourage all of you to go to Democratic offices and tell them about the importance of being open.”
One of the administrators reminded Guiney that they were advocating for what’s best for children. To which she said, “There’s a drinking game in this building. Every time we hear ‘it’s all about the children,’ it’s another shot.”
Connie Conway, whose huge district stretches from Visalia to Barstow, has not signed the no-tax pledge, but that’s only because, as the Assembly Repblican leader, she wasn’t asked to. If there is any daylight between her view of taxes and those who signed the pledge, her legislative director, Leigh Carney, shut the shades.
Assemblywoman Conway opposes putting taxes on the ballot. “Voters have already rejected tax increases as not the right solution for California,” she told Hesperia’s Giles, Elvin Momon, superintendent of Victor Valley Union High School District, and Nils Karlsson, a retired elementary principal from Rialto Unified. “Reforms and restructuring must take place first.”
Under Brown’s budget, budget cuts would last two years (the current and next fiscal year), while taxes would last five years, she said. He has it backwards; start with reform.
Sabrina Lockhart, Conway’s spokeswoman, elaborated for me after the others left.
Taxes are a non-starter, she said, for they will further damage the economy. “Assembly Republicans are the last line of defense for the California economy.”
Conway doesn’t believe in quid pro quo for taxes. Pension reforms and spending caps should be done separately and done first, she said.
As for the $2 billion in further cuts for schools if the tax extensions fail, Lockhart said there are other ways to save money for education. There should be more flexibility for spending categorical grants and districts should be freer to contract out their services. “Cut the strings from Sacramento,” she said.
Today, the final notices will go out to teachers who will be laid off if the tax measures fail. Soon, education will be all strings, no cloth.
17 Comments
"Darn, I wish I had read that over again before I hit send.” Don’t let this be your lament. To promote a civil dialogue, please be considerate, respectful and mindful of your tone. We encourage you to use your real name, but if you must use a nom de plume, stick with it. Anonymous postings will be removed.
 |
Featured Video |
Did You Know?
Just the Facts
Other Sites to Watch
View More >>
SVEF is the education foundation advocating for the needs of school districts across Silicon Valley. SVEF seeks to improve public education through establishing partnerships with the private sector and the education community ..
The response from the Grove staffer is absolutley incredible! Wow…I’m almost speechless!
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I agree. A “drinking game”??? Incredible lack of sensitivity to the importance of the issue.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Children’s ability to become educated members of a democratic society is not a drinking game! Who hired that woman and what is she being paid…at the taxpayers expense!
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
“Every time we hear it’s about the Children, it’s another shot.” A drinking game? Outrageous!!
Well, at least there is one honest person in the GOP who will say how they really feel about the plight of education in California!
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
You just don’t get it. Education is an easy 40% plus of the state budget and what has it produced? Take a look at the LAUSD as a prime example: Hundreds of millions in debt, a 50% dropout rate and 670,000 mostly low-income minority students. Do take a look at the demographics closely. At least 55% of those parents of low-income students, make less than $40K a year and 41% not even 30K a year (2000 Census). So you’re all educators, do the math. The simple fact is that you have a huge part of the population, taking more out, than they’re paying in. The average number of children for a latina woman is 2.9, so let’s round that out to 3. Take the LAUSD figure of $12, 500 per student and it’s almost $37K a year, courtesy of the small portion of California Taxpayers (15% or the so-called rich), that pay 85% of the State’s Taxes.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
So to be clear, Bob Wells is calling Republican legislators irredeemable sinners? I guess that’s not shocking at all.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
As one of two public educators in my family, I can easily see Guiney’s point of view. I’ve heard enough of that “we’re here for the children” pabulum to last me multiple lifetimes. And no public employee should be able to retire on 100% pay, I don’t care what they do. And if I could have only 10% of what my site wastes in public funds, I could retire tomorrow.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Regis,
Would it be different if the kids were white? Why add it up per family? The kids have no control over their parents. The education provided by the state serves us all in the long run. It’s an investment in our future, not a handout.
And if you want to talk about tax equity, it’s worth noting that the state and local level, the poor pay a higher percentage of their income into taxes and fees. That’s because people with lower incomes spend almost all that they earn – translating into sales tax, fuel tax, agency fees, property taxes, etc. The wealthy are able to set aside significant portions of their income. So, if you want to talk about equity, make sure to note that at the state and local level, we have a regressive system.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Santa Clara Unified School District facing a $9 million dollar cut list. The high tech new buildings will remain but not the librarians, counselors, music teachers. Voters should vote for parcel taxes before voting for bonds. The buildings can’t instruct, guide or counsel the kids!
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
One more thought: it’s unfortunate that some people are so cynical about what we “do for the kids.” To those of us who spend every day working with them and for them, it’s not a joke. It’s pretty easy to tell the difference, actually, between the people who just talk the talk, and those who walk the walk.
Does that mean every single time I speak up as a teacher that it’s all about the kids? Of course not. Call me greedy, but I want healthcare benefits for my family. There, I said it. And I’m okay with letting my union bargain for those benefits.
But when I write, when I call legislators, when I visit them, when I talk about the conditions in which I work, then yes, it’s about the kids. I want to be excellent at my job. I want the time and resources to better help the children I work with each day. It makes ZERO difference in my income or benefits when I ask for evaluation reforms (see my blog/website), advocate for changes in professional development practices, or speak up about the necessity of improving California’s worst-in-the-nation staffing ratios. So, that nice legislative aide can have a few more shots if she ever reads this post, but I’ll have to pass. Many more essays to grade tonight, and over 100 students depending on me. How many non-educator lobbyists can say that?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Found on this website, “Almost all the politics of education concerns rearranging adult power and privilege. “ (See: Why the politics we’ve got won’t produce the schools we need.)
I don’t drink, but when I watch hour long debates, and witness forceful opposition to the reauthorization of minimal school choice programs like the “districts of choice”, I can’t help but agree with the sentiment that adults regularly hide behind ”the kids” while vigorously fighting to maintain their own “power and privilege”.
Until we empower parents to choose where they enroll their child, all of the other reforms will be window dressing. Without consequences (e.g. declining enrollment for failure to meet the needs of students) there is no real accountability, and without real accountability the politics of adult “power and privilege” will continue to deny equal opportunity for all children to access the best possible educational environment.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Well said.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
As an educational administrator who was at the meeting that is referred to in this blog, I am absolutely appalled that this blogger, took two comments made by Siobhan Guiney out of context. This was an opportunity for administrators from Assemblywoman’s Conway’s Districts to have dialogue with her staffer about the budget and education. This was not the time or place for someone to take the opportunity to undermine our organization or cause by attacking a legislative staffer. This blogger has done education no favors.
The way in which the blogger took the comment, “There’s a drinking game in this building. Every time we hear ‘it’s all about the children,’ it’s another shot” was completely out of context and unfairly targets a legislative staffer. As a school superintendent and a constituent of Assemblywoman Grove, I believe her Capitol and district staff considers our schools a priority and I am proud of the work that we have done cooperatively to support students throughout the county.
In addition, It was never stated that Asm. Grove was demanding that AB 32 be suspended before she could support any revenue extension. It was simply asked if how, as administrators, felt about Assemblywoman Grove’s bill, AB333, that would suspend AB 32 until better budgetary times. Once again, this blogger took freedom in adding a twist to what was actually said. It makes me question the remainder of his blog about Asm. Conway.
This does not need to be an adversarial process. Meetings with our legislators should be about getting particular points across, hearing their point of view, and holding our legislators accountable to their constituents.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Whatever the context, the drinking game remark is hilarious, and right on the money.
As classroom teachers, if we stopped using “it’s for the children” to justify working extra hours for free, buying supplies with our own money, and having so little control over our work environment, parents and taxpayers would have to take us seriously. First and foremost, I’d like to see our work evaluated by the tests in the FLSA. Not highly-compensated – check. No staff-supervisory authority and limited intellectual-decision-making authority – check. Routinized work – check. From this would follow hourly pay, which I would welcome. Even if I were paid at the minimum hourly wage, I would earn more than the pittance that I make today, and district- and site-level leaders would finally have an incentive to limit demands on my time.
That observation was an aside, but to return to the main point of the blog entry, if more schools close, if class sizes surpass 40, and if failing students can’t make up credits in summer school, the public will be receiving exactly the level of educational service that it wants. Voters elected these Republicans, knowing their now-absolute (i.e., post-Maldonado) opposition to extending, let alone increasing, taxes. Voters approved Proposition 13, with its predictable and far-reaching effects on school funding. And so on and so on.
I will close by adding that the Association of California School Administrators counts some corrupt and contemptible individuals among its membership, including superintendents who write phony “temporary” contracts year after year and who actually appreciate the revolving door teacher staffing climate created by the state-mandated layoff process, because it allows them to keep average teacher wages lower than they would otherwise be.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Terri: I quoted Siobhan Guiney’s comment on “it’s all about children” in full and in context. Regardless of whether you consider the remark insensitive or candid, she said what she said. And her comment about suspending AB 32 was in reference to the structural reforms — in this case rescinding an environmental law — that Assemblywoman Grove wants as a precondition to discussing more education funding. I thought the aide was very clear about Grove’s position. I did not say the discussion was adversarial.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I’ve been trying to imagine what other context could exist.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I’m sympathetic to the principle of choice and have some experience with it as a student and as a parent. However, when the discussion starts sounding like a business model of supply and demand, I worry that advocates of choice are a bit cavalier about how it would play out. When businesses ride the waves of supply and demand, I have a feeling it’s a bit easier to adjust. When demand for your services increases, you can extend hours, hire more staff or pay overtime, squeeze out less profitable clients, expand facilities, etc. Your clients can wait a little longer, choose online or phone or electronic options to conduct business. You can choose not to meet the excess demand. You can extend timelines for the services you provide, or modify and customize the services you provide. If you mess up and your business fails, it’s bad news for you and your employees, but other businesses can pick up your customers and they might not suffer from the change.
Moving students around in the midst of their overall education ought to be considered a bit more carefully. And what happens to the students and families who would choose a school that is otherwise seeing decreased enrollment. At some point, they might have to move despite their choice.
Even if policies allowed for this type of flexibility in schools, there are serious constraints as long as we still have school years, school days, curricular standards, college-elligibility requirements, some rigid ed. code regulations (instructional days and hours), long-term contracts, buildings, a budget constrained by politicians and tax revenues, hard limits on resources and materials (both human and capital), and no choice for public schools regarding which students they accept and educate. (I’m not arguing that public schools should be selective, just pointing out some students need more services than others).
When I hear an argument for market-style choice that includes some recognition of these matters, I’ll be more receptive.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity