In This Issue:
 |
| • |
LADWP CREWS TEST FOR WATER CONTAMINATION IN SOUTH LA |
|
| • |
UTLA-COMMISSIONED REPORT SAYS CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE BLEEDING MONEY FROM TRADITIONAL ONES + Report + Policy Brief + smf's 2¢ |
|
| • |
The MGA Report: SEPARATING THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF |
|
| • |
JERRY
BROWN SEES BUDGET TROUBLE FOR CALIFORNIA, WANTS TO HOLD LINE +
RESPONSES TO EARLY EDUCATION SPENDING CUTS IN MAY REVISE BUDGET |
|
| • |
HIGHLIGHTS, LOWLIGHTS & THE NEWS THAT DOESN'T FIT: The Rest (but
not necessarily the best) of the Stories from Other Sources |
|
| • |
EVENTS: Coming up next week... |
|
| • |
What can YOU do? |
|
Featured Links:
|
|
|
|
These pages don’t usually repeat those news stories
about Race Riots at High Schools and/or horror stories about lead or
other toxic heavy metals in the municipal water supply. The Godzilla
Creation Myth is all around us, told+retold.
My reasoning is quite simple: Those stories are usually thin on news and fat on headlines.
When I was a senior at a famous LAUSD high school – back when dinosaurs
ruled the earth – a bunch of us young people gathered on the lawn and
expressed our disinterest in returning to class during a
triple-digit-heatwave. There may have been clapping+chanting in unison.
Clap-Clap, ClapClapClap
ClapClapClapClap: Too Hot!
The page one/Eight-column-wide headline in the next day’s Herald-Sensationalist: RIOT AT HOLLYWOOD HIGH!
THE DWP (a huge-and-sometimes-unaccountable bureaucracy not to be
confused with the LAUSD) had a problem with some contamination in their
water pipes in South Central back on Jan 15th. All the proper
procedures were followed, tests were run, community meetings were held,
and minor politicians wrung their hands. Notices were posted. [It is
interesting to note that the DWP PR machine somehow spun the problem as
partially LAUSD’s]
Two months later – in an abundance of caution – a school principal shut
down some drinking fountains and brought in some bottled water.
Headline: LADWP CREWS TEST FOR WATER CONTAMINATION IN SOUTH LA
Ladies+gentlemen, boys+girls: Green Meadows is NOT the second coming of Flint, Michigan!
And the metaphor and Dr. King’s Dream notwithstanding, Los Angeles is a lousy melting pot.
We toss odd bottles of discolored water and good intentions and an
invite to the prom into the stew and it simmers+splatters as the
Scottish Play’s dark sisters would have it do: “Double double,
toil+trouble…” Keep an eye on that pot on the back burner; our
concoctions are often explosive than not: The Chinatown Massacre, Watts,
Rodney King. This is the sad+oft-repeated history of race in our City
of Angels.
Headline: PARENTS, LEADERS OUTRAGED BY BRAWL AT SYLMAR HIGH SCHOOL
At Sylmar High School – responsible adults – with all the right
Restorative Justice tools+training in their toolbox – and with a strong
School Wide Positive Behavior Support Plan in place – ignored the
history+training+warning signs+rubrics-of-implementataion and let the
trouble boil over.
Trouble at the prom on Friday = Big trouble at school on Monday.
• A dozen police officers.
• Forty students involved.
• A set piece “rumble” at noon in the quad? Really? A meme (/ˈmiːm/
meem) is "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person
within a culture" Isn’t this one of those?
• All parents and guardians have been notified about the incident, and “appropriate disciplinary action is being taken.”
• None of that sounds like much of an enlightened intervention.
School officials have not commented on what caused the fight and how
many students received punishment, citing privacy laws. King wished any
students who were injured a speedy recovery.
The police officers could be seen trying to separate students as they fought in cellphone footage that surfaced online Monday.
Bow tie daddy dontcha blow your top
Everything's under control
Bow tie daddy dontcha blow your top
'cause you think you're gettin' too old
Don't try to do no thinkin'
Just go on with your drinkin'
Just have your fun, you old son of a gun
Then drive home in your Lincoln.
THE GOVERNOR, in his May Revise to the State Budget, thinks it’s time
for a bit of the old austerity. Starting with eliminating Transitional
Kindergarten.
And UTLA has commissioned a study by MGT of America, Inc. on the fiscal
impact of all these charter schools on LAUSD’s fiscal future. While not
exactly nonpartisan – or even ‘fair+balanced’ – it paints a dire
picture: see: UTLA-COMMISSIONED REPORT SAYS CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE BLEEDING
MONEY FROM TRADITIONAL ONES + Report + Policy Brief + smf's 2¢
¡Onward/Adelante! - smf
LADWP CREWS TEST FOR WATER CONTAMINATION IN SOUTH LA
From CBS2/KCOP9 News | http://cbsloc.al/229h719
May 11, 2016 :: WATTS (CBSLA.com) — Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power crews Wednesday tested for water contamination within
neighborhoods and schools in South Los Angeles.
According to the Los Angeles Unified School District, the cloudy water
recently appeared at Flournoy Elementary, Compton Avenue Elementary,
96th Street Elementary, Grape Street Elementary and Florence
Griffith-Joyner Elementary.
Students at Grape Elementary School were subsequently told to stay away
from water fountains. They were instead given bottles of water to drink
from.
No other school is using bottled water and water service to the schools has not been disrupted.
“The safety of our students is always the district’s top priority,” OEHS
Director Robert Laughton said in a written statement. “We will continue
to monitor this situation to ensure the highest quality of water is
supplied to our schools.”
LADWP crews tested the drinking water on Friday and found that it was safe to drink even though it looked unappetizing.
In fact, crews report that pipes in the South Los Angeles area are much newer than those in other parts of town.
It is possible, however, that the murky water appeared because of sediment shifting in the pipes.
LADWP has agreed to replace all water bottles being used in response to the incident.
On Jan. 15, a chlorine pump at the 99th Street Wells Water Treatment
Facility malfunctioned. For six hours, residents living in the
neighborhoods of Green Meadows and Watts were exposed to water that was
not fully disinfected.
LADWP crews insist the recent cases of cloudy water is unrelated to the water treatment failure.
Pipe-flushing tests will continue throughout the month.
The Los Angeles City Council has scheduled a hearing for late June to receive more answers.
UTLA-COMMISSIONED REPORT SAYS CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE
BLEEDING MONEY FROM TRADITIONAL ONES + Report + Policy Brief + smf's 2¢
by Howard Blume, L.A. Times | http://lat.ms/1T3TEbM
May 10, 2016 2 AM :: A teachers union-funded report on charter
schools concludes that these largely nonunion campuses are costing
traditional schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District millions
of dollars in tax money.
The report, which is certain to be viewed with skepticism by charter
supporters, focused on direct and indirect costs related to enrollment,
oversight, services to disabled students and other activities on which
the district spends money.
L.A. Unified has the most charters — 221 — and the highest number of
charter students — more than 100,000 — of any school system in the
nation. Charter students make up about 16% of the district's total
enrollment.
The union gave The Times the study in advance of its scheduled
presentation at Tuesday's Board of Education meeting, with the
stipulation that the report not be distributed to outside parties.
[smf: The Report and the Policy Brief Follows]
The study calculates that services to charters encroach on tax money the
district intended to use for traditional schools, adding up to at least
$18.1 million a year and growing.
The biggest financial problem for the district, however, is that money
follows students and a huge number of students have enrolled in charters
instead of traditional district schools. With more education tax
dollars going directly to charters, the result is a decline of more than
$500 million a year — about 7% — in the district's core budget, the
researchers say.
The effects of this drop are difficult to quantify because fewer
students in traditional schools also means a reduced need for teachers
and other personnel.
But even with reduced staffing, the district faces a net loss of about
$4,957 per student, the study says. That amount accounts for fixed
costs, such as maintaining buildings.
Whatever the exact amount, the district has less money to spend with the
flexibility its leaders would prefer or to offset legacy costs that
include aging school buildings and retiree health benefits.
L.A. Unified magnets accepted less than half of applicants this year
“The findings in the report paint a picture of a system that prioritizes
the growth opportunities for charter school operators,” according to a
separate policy brief co-written by the union.
Charter supporters take a different view, seeing the district as the fundamental problem and charters as an important solution.
“Like all businesses, the district has to compete for its customers,”
said Eric Hanushek, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at
Stanford University.
“The growth of charters is putting pressure on the district. The
district can't do what it did in the past and come out ahead,” added
Hanushek, who hadn't seen the report. “They can try to compete for the
students or sell off the buildings. But the point is: Charters look
attractive to parents, which means that the district is not attractive.”
Prompted in part by concern about the district's judgment in how it
spends money, a group of philanthropists and foundations has bet big on
charters in Los Angeles, subsidizing their growth over the last two
decades. Last year, local philanthropist Eli Broad spearheaded a
proposal to more than double the number of charters over the next eight
years, hoping to reel in half of district students.
About six months ago, a group formed to develop Broad's vision for new, high-quality schools.
Meanwhile, both the district and employee unions have been trying to
develop counter-strategies. From the district, the push is to increase
enrollment, to compete with charters more aggressively and possibly to
limit their growth. Until now, the union has been most visible at the
bully pulpit, speaking at gatherings and leading demonstrations.
The new report is from Florida company MGT of America. It builds on the
work of an earlier, independent district advisory panel, which concluded
that charter growth is one of several factors threatening the solvency
of L.A. Unified.
This latest analysis was reviewed by pro-labor Washington group In the
Public Interest, which prepared the separate policy brief with the
union.
“Unmitigated charter school growth limits educational opportunities for
the more than 542,000 students who continue to attend schools run by the
district, and … further imperils the financial stability of LAUSD as an
institution,” the brief states.
Charters pay 1% of the tax money they receive from the state to the
district for oversight through its charter division, but this isn't
enough, according to the report. The charter division monitors academic
progress at charters and reviews their financial health and management
practices.
The division spends about $2.9 million more than the available funding, which is limited by state law.
The report also tallies an additional $13.8 million in annual
administrative costs related to charters, and $1.4 million more for work
by the district's inspector general and special education division.
The full effect on services to the disabled is actually much higher but difficult to nail down, according to the researchers.
The federal government mandates that every disabled student should
receive a free and appropriate education, but does not fully pay for it.
The state, in turn, spreads out this funding equally between students,
regardless of their disability. L.A. Unified enrolls a much higher
percentage of the disabled students who cost more to educate.
“A student with a need for speech therapy might need only monthly
support/monitoring that might cost the district $3,000 per year,” the
report states. “A student with emotional/behavioral or health
impairments with significant needs might need residential placement or
daily feeding or medical monitoring and might cost the district upward
of $120,000 per year.”
Schools and districts pool their resources — and share the expense — of
serving disabled students, but L.A. charters don't have to partner with
L.A. Unified. Some have cut costs by affiliating with another district.
To keep other charters in the fold, L.A. Unified provides a special deal
that essentially shortchanges the district, the report concludes.
Another indirect cost of charters relates to audits and investigations
conducted by the district's inspector general. A routine audit takes
three to six months and costs about $70,000. More extensive reviews cost
at least twice as much.
The California Charter Schools Assn. has challenged the need for much of
this work, calling many of these investigations unneeded and intrusive.
Jason Mandell, a spokesman for the association, said in an email that he
could not comment on the report because he hadn't seen it. But any
focus on charters, he said, was intentional misdirection away from
financial problems that are of the district's own making. He noted that
the earlier advisory panel study concluded that “even if charter schools
didn't exist, the district would still face a crippling decline in
enrollment due to entirely separate factors.”
The MGT report, which cost $82,000, doesn't fault charters, saying that
the problems have more to do with state and federal policies as well as
district decisions.
But in the policy brief, the union takes a more aggressive tone, arguing
for changes that include full funding from the federal government for
disabled students and equitable distribution of these dollars by the
state; more money for charter oversight — either from the state or from
charters; and charging higher district fees, where possible, to
charters.
CAVEAT: L.A. Times' Editor's note: Education Matters receives
funding from a number of foundations, including one or more mentioned in
this article. The California Community Foundation and United Way of
Greater Los Angeles administer grants from the Baxter Family Foundation,
the Broad Foundation, the California Endowment and the Wasserman
Foundation. Under terms of the grants, The Times retains complete
control over editorial content.
_______________
●●smf's 2¢
OK:
Eli Broad gets what he pays for from the LA Times.
UTLA gets what they pay for from MGT of America.
Read on and let's see if we voters and taxpayers can get the public
education for our kids we pay for from California and LAUSD.
_________________
►Policy Brief | TheCostOfCharterSchools.org | http://bit.ly/1TbTRzf
►LAUSD Charter School Effect Study 050916[1] | http://bit.ly/1ZS5Gcg
New report reveals a fiscal crisis that could have deep negative
implications for both district schools and existing charter schools.
TheCostOfCharterSchools.org
A report by MGT of America, an independent research firm, reveals that
LAUSD has lost an astonishing $591 million to unmitigated charter school
growth this year alone. If costs associated with charter school
expansion are not mitigated with common sense solutions, the district
will face financial insolvency, according to an analysis of the report.
As the number of independent charter schools continues to grow, it
becomes increasingly important for LAUSD to quantify, forecast, and
manage the costs associated with independent charter expansion. LAUSD
oversees more charter schools than any other district in the country.
Charters are privately managed despite relying heavily on district and
taxpayer funding.
Taken together, the findings in the report paint a picture of a system
that prioritizes the growth opportunities for charter school operators
over the educational opportunities for all students.
UTLA-COMMISSIONED REPORT SAYS CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE BLEEDING MONEY FROM TRADITIONAL ONES + Report + Policy Brief + smf's 2¢
by Howard Blume, L.A. Times | http://lat.ms/1T3TEbM
May 10, 2016 2 AM :: A teachers union-funded report on charter
schools concludes that these largely nonunion campuses are costing
traditional schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District millions
of dollars in tax money.
The report, which is certain to be viewed with skepticism by charter
supporters, focused on direct and indirect costs related to enrollment,
oversight, services to disabled students and other activities on which
the district spends money.
L.A. Unified has the most charters — 221 — and the highest number of
charter students — more than 100,000 — of any school system in the
nation. Charter students make up about 16% of the district's total
enrollment.
The union gave The Times the study in advance of its scheduled
presentation at Tuesday's Board of Education meeting, with the
stipulation that the report not be distributed to outside parties.
[smf: The Report and the Policy Brief Follows]
The study calculates that services to charters encroach on tax money the
district intended to use for traditional schools, adding up to at least
$18.1 million a year and growing.
The biggest financial problem for the district, however, is that money
follows students and a huge number of students have enrolled in charters
instead of traditional district schools. With more education tax
dollars going directly to charters, the result is a decline of more than
$500 million a year — about 7% — in the district's core budget, the
researchers say.
The effects of this drop are difficult to quantify because fewer
students in traditional schools also means a reduced need for teachers
and other personnel.
But even with reduced staffing, the district faces a net loss of about
$4,957 per student, the study says. That amount accounts for fixed
costs, such as maintaining buildings.
Whatever the exact amount, the district has less money to spend with the
flexibility its leaders would prefer or to offset legacy costs that
include aging school buildings and retiree health benefits.
L.A. Unified magnets accepted less than half of applicants this year
“The findings in the report paint a picture of a system that prioritizes
the growth opportunities for charter school operators,” according to a
separate policy brief co-written by the union.
Charter supporters take a different view, seeing the district as the fundamental problem and charters as an important solution.
“Like all businesses, the district has to compete for its customers,”
said Eric Hanushek, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at
Stanford University.
“The growth of charters is putting pressure on the district. The
district can't do what it did in the past and come out ahead,” added
Hanushek, who hadn't seen the report. “They can try to compete for the
students or sell off the buildings. But the point is: Charters look
attractive to parents, which means that the district is not attractive.”
Prompted in part by concern about the district's judgment in how it
spends money, a group of philanthropists and foundations has bet big on
charters in Los Angeles, subsidizing their growth over the last two
decades. Last year, local philanthropist Eli Broad spearheaded a
proposal to more than double the number of charters over the next eight
years, hoping to reel in half of district students.
About six months ago, a group formed to develop Broad's vision for new, high-quality schools.
Meanwhile, both the district and employee unions have been trying to
develop counter-strategies. From the district, the push is to increase
enrollment, to compete with charters more aggressively and possibly to
limit their growth. Until now, the union has been most visible at the
bully pulpit, speaking at gatherings and leading demonstrations.
The new report is from Florida company MGT of America. It builds on the
work of an earlier, independent district advisory panel, which concluded
that charter growth is one of several factors threatening the solvency
of L.A. Unified.
This latest analysis was reviewed by pro-labor Washington group In the
Public Interest, which prepared the separate policy brief with the
union.
“Unmitigated charter school growth limits educational opportunities for
the more than 542,000 students who continue to attend schools run by the
district, and … further imperils the financial stability of LAUSD as an
institution,” the brief states.
Charters pay 1% of the tax money they receive from the state to the
district for oversight through its charter division, but this isn't
enough, according to the report. The charter division monitors academic
progress at charters and reviews their financial health and management
practices.
The division spends about $2.9 million more than the available funding, which is limited by state law.
The report also tallies an additional $13.8 million in annual
administrative costs related to charters, and $1.4 million more for work
by the district's inspector general and special education division.
The full effect on services to the disabled is actually much higher but difficult to nail down, according to the researchers.
The federal government mandates that every disabled student should
receive a free and appropriate education, but does not fully pay for it.
The state, in turn, spreads out this funding equally between students,
regardless of their disability. L.A. Unified enrolls a much higher
percentage of the disabled students who cost more to educate.
“A student with a need for speech therapy might need only monthly
support/monitoring that might cost the district $3,000 per year,” the
report states. “A student with emotional/behavioral or health
impairments with significant needs might need residential placement or
daily feeding or medical monitoring and might cost the district upward
of $120,000 per year.”
Schools and districts pool their resources — and share the expense — of
serving disabled students, but L.A. charters don't have to partner with
L.A. Unified. Some have cut costs by affiliating with another district.
To keep other charters in the fold, L.A. Unified provides a special deal
that essentially shortchanges the district, the report concludes.
Another indirect cost of charters relates to audits and investigations
conducted by the district's inspector general. A routine audit takes
three to six months and costs about $70,000. More extensive reviews cost
at least twice as much.
The California Charter Schools Assn. has challenged the need for much of
this work, calling many of these investigations unneeded and intrusive.
Jason Mandell, a spokesman for the association, said in an email that he
could not comment on the report because he hadn't seen it. But any
focus on charters, he said, was intentional misdirection away from
financial problems that are of the district's own making. He noted that
the earlier advisory panel study concluded that “even if charter schools
didn't exist, the district would still face a crippling decline in
enrollment due to entirely separate factors.”
The MGT report, which cost $82,000, doesn't fault charters, saying that
the problems have more to do with state and federal policies as well as
district decisions.
But in the policy brief, the union takes a more aggressive tone, arguing
for changes that include full funding from the federal government for
disabled students and equitable distribution of these dollars by the
state; more money for charter oversight — either from the state or from
charters; and charging higher district fees, where possible, to
charters.
CAVEAT: L.A. Times' Editor's note: Education Matters receives
funding from a number of foundations, including one or more mentioned in
this article. The California Community Foundation and United Way of
Greater Los Angeles administer grants from the Baxter Family Foundation,
the Broad Foundation, the California Endowment and the Wasserman
Foundation. Under terms of the grants, The Times retains complete
control over editorial content.
_______________
●●smf's 2¢
OK:
● Eli Broad gets what he pays for from the LA Times.
● UTLA gets what they pay for from MGT of America.
● Read on and let's see if we voters and taxpayers can get the
public education for our kids we pay for from California and LAUSD.
_________________
►Policy Brief | TheCostOfCharterSchools.org | http://bit.ly/1TbTRzf
►LAUSD Charter School Effect Study 050916[1] | http://bit.ly/1ZS5Gcg
New report reveals a fiscal crisis that could have deep negative
implications for both district schools and existing charter schools.
TheCostOfCharterSchools.org
A report by MGT of America, an independent research firm, reveals that
LAUSD has lost an astonishing $591 million to unmitigated charter school
growth this year alone. If costs associated with charter school
expansion are not mitigated with common sense solutions, the district
will face financial insolvency, according to an analysis of the report.
As the number of independent charter schools continues to grow, it
becomes increasingly important for LAUSD to quantify, forecast, and
manage the costs associated with independent charter expansion. LAUSD
oversees more charter schools than any other district in the country.
Charters are privately managed despite relying heavily on district and
taxpayer funding.
Taken together, the findings in the report paint a picture of a system
that prioritizes the growth opportunities for charter school operators
over the educational opportunities for all students.
The MGA Report: SEPARATING THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF
The MGA Report: SEPARATING THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF
From the AALA Weekly Update | Week of May 16, 2016 | http://bit.ly/1TeKN7d
May 12, 2016 :: At the meeting of the Board of Education on Tuesday,
May 10, 2016, all of the labor unions ceded their time to Alex
Caputo-Pearl, UTLA President, in order to share the findings of a study
on the fiscal impact of independent charter schools on the District that
UTLA had commissioned. MGT, a national consulting firm that works with
government agencies and nonprofit organizations, reviewed the data and
Susan Zoller, a former teacher, principal, and deputy superintendent,
presented the report.
AALA appreciates UTLA's efforts to stimulate a genuine conversation of
the intended and unintended consequences of independent charters on the
District, and the negative fiscal impact as a corollary. It gives us
pause to think that some of the issues are caused by the District and
others legislatively. Accordingly, the opportunity presents itself to
collaboratively problem-solve and right the wrongs with all the affected
stakeholders at the table.
The Board Members asked the Superintendent and District staff to respond
to the presentation at an upcoming Board meeting. In the meantime, AALA
is sharing the findings because of the general interest to the
membership, and how they can potentially negatively impact the delivery
of a quality educational experience to every student if policies and
legislation are left unaddressed.
While awaiting the District's interpretation of the findings, AALA’s
stance is to trust, but verify. For example, a cursory check-in with one
of our members, a District official, yields that in the 2016-2017
school year, only two LAUSD independent charters have elected to join
the El Dorado Special Education Local Planning Area (SELPA). If so, that
means over two hundred independent charters are in the District SELPA.
This contradicts the potential revenue loss due to the SELPA issue that
is highlighted in the findings to follow. Secondly, the Charter School
Division's operating budget in the report varies significantly from the
one publicly presented to the Board in November 2015. Lastly, the report
finds the District can statutorily assess a 3% fee for charter
colocations and instead chooses to collect only 1% oversight fee in
addition to fees charged to all charter schools on District property. A
closer look at the regulations states the District can collect up to 3%
if
the District provides facilities substantially rent-free; we understand
that it does not. Perhaps the District has a viable reason for only
assessing the
1%.
It remains to be seen if there really is a proverbial pot of gold at the
end of the rainbow. In the meantime, the findings are at the very least
thought provoking and intriguing. One major conclusion is that MGT
estimates that the District is losing almost $600 million this year
alone, due to the number of charter schools and the students enrolled in
them. There are 221 independent charter schools and the students make
up 16% of the District’s total enrollment. Since money follows students,
about 7% of the District’s budget is going to charters. Of course,
fewer students also means less staff to fund, but the dollars saved in
the loss of staff does not make up for fixed costs, such as
infrastructure and oversight from the Charter Schools Division, Special
Education, and the Office of the Inspector General, etc., that the
District must still absorb. The report estimates that the District loses
about $4,957 per student who attends a charter school. By law, charters
pay a
maximum of 1% of the money they receive from the state to the District
for oversight from the Charter Schools Division; however, the costs are
almost $3 million more than is received. In addition, the report finds
that an additional $13.8 million is spent by the District annually in
other administrative costs related to
charters.
MGT explains that the report is not intended as a review or critique of
independent charter or public schools in Los Angeles, LAUSD’s policies
and procedures, operations, or oversight practices... [it] accepts and
does not judge the district’s existing practices … The report does,
however, identify various state laws or regulations as well as district
practices that impact the district either financially or procedurally.
The report finds that some of the costs are the results of statewide
legislation and guidelines, while others are due to the District’s
process decisions that could be addressed by LAUSD board decisions and
one is part of the LAUSD-UTLA contract. There are twelve key findings,
however, the majority are state issues. We are extracting from the
report those over which the District has direct control:
1. The annual oversight revenue collected from charter schools does not
cover the annual budget of the Charter Schools Division (CSD). The cost
to the district for the space occupied by the Charter Schools Division,
estimated at $92,006/year, represents a direct cost to the district that
is not covered by charter school oversight funds.
2. There are direct costs to the district for oversight that are beyond
those allocated to the CSD and not currently funded by the oversight
revenues. The additional oversight activities occur in the Special
Education Division (SPED) and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG).
The total cost is estimated at $1,416,259. Allocating any portion of
the charter school oversight revenue to divisions other than CSD is a
district decision.
3. There are significant and quantifiable indirect costs to LAUSD for
the independent charter schools operating in the district. Indirect
costs include time/opportunity losses when district staff spend time
managing or dealing with charter schools, rather than district schools.
Many district functions have these time/opportunity costs in support of
charter schools, but they have not been identified, gathered, or
quantified. The indirect administrative cost is estimated at
$13,845,203. These costs are not supported through the 1% oversight fee
that is collected and used to fund the CSD. The allocation of the
revenues from the 1% oversight fee is a district decision.
4. There are 56 charter schools in LAUSD that are operating in district
facilities. The law allows the district to collect a 3% oversight fee
for charter schools located in district facilities that are not paying
rent. None of the 56 schools is paying the 3% fee. The estimated
oversight revenue lost is $2,062,517. This is a district decision.
5. The LAUSD – UTLA contract allows teachers to take a Leave of Absence
(LOA) and work in a charter school and return to LAUSD/UTLA status.
There may be an impact on LAUSD due to the legacy benefit costs. The
estimated cost is $250,000 per employee. This is a contract issue.
As you are aware, the District has more charter schools and more
students enrolled in them than any public school district in the country
and the fiscal impact is tremendous. In addition, charter schools
enroll fewer special education students or English learners than the
average District school, leaving the majority of these special needs
students in the regular schools with fewer dollars. The MGT report makes
it clear that the District’s future solvency is jeopardized and that
charter schools contribute to that grim prediction.
JERRY BROWN SEES BUDGET TROUBLE FOR CALIFORNIA, WANTS
TO HOLD LINE + RESPONSES TO EARLY EDUCATION SPENDING CUTS IN MAY REVISE
BUDGET
• State’s economic recovery is beginning to cool off
• Governor cuts revenue estimate in revised budget
• ‘Very resolute’ attitude means conflict with liberals
By Dan Walters | Sacramento Bee | http://bit.ly/24T471i
May 14, 2016 1:54 PM :: Gov. Jerry Brown unveiled his revised budget
on Friday the 13th, which implies that he’s not superstitious.
However, amid signs of a cooling economy – and therefore flattening
revenue – Brown’s run of fiscal luck may be ending, and he knows it.
“Things don’t last forever,” Brown told reporters – to whom he had given
copies of Aesop’s fable about the thrifty ant and the profligate
grasshopper. “The surging tide of revenue has begun to turn as it always
does.”
Brown’s revision cuts projected 2016-17 revenue by $1.9 billion,
reflecting a shortfall in current revenue, and he’s telling his fellow
Democrats in the Legislature to cool hopes of raising health and welfare
spending, saying it would “spend money you don’t have.”
“To me it’s so obvious,” he said, pointing to the likelihood of an
economic downturn and implying that liberal legislators don’t want to
see it. “We’ve got to get ready for a deficit (and) I’m going to be very
resolute on this budget.”
When Brown returned to the governorship five years ago, the economy was
emerging from the worst recession since the Great Depression, and that,
coupled with a temporary tax hike he sponsored in 2012, has produced a
cornucopia of money that Brown has concentrated on schools, debt
retirement and reserves.
Unions, health care advocates and other groups are sponsoring an
extension of the 2012 measure’s income tax hikes on high-income
Californians, but Brown pointedly refused to say Friday whether he
supports or opposes it, only repeating that he meant it to be temporary.
But he warned that income taxes, especially those on the most affluent
Californians, tend to be even more volatile than the economy as a whole,
calling it a “zig-zag reality” that bounces against spending
commitments to create deficits.
The tax extension, if passed by voters in November, would keep the
budget in balance, unless there’s another recession, Brown said, but
without it the state could see deficits circa 2019 even without a
recession.
“I’m prepared to manage with it, I’m prepared to manage without it,” Brown said.
Underlying the budget are signs of an economic slowdown, particularly in
the technology-heavy San Francisco Bay Area, which has largely
generated the big revenue surge.
Venture capital investment in the region has flattened, its red-hot real
estate market has cooled, tech companies are shedding employees and the
global economy has been sluggish, even in China.
Brown rightfully notes that the recovery he inherited has already lasted
longer than the average post-recession expansion and therefore, his
budget introduction warns, “The next recession is getting closer – even
if we cannot tell exactly when it will hit.”
Brown’s “very resolute” attitude on holding down non-school spending and
building reserves creates conflict with liberal legislators and their
constituent interests, such as unions and advocates for health and
welfare services to the poor.
They had been counting on 2016 to be the year in which the service cuts
imposed during the depths of recession and that Brown has largely
maintained – except for schools – would vanish and new spending,
especially for child care and early childhood services, would begin.
Brown, however, is clearly contemplating the last few years of his
second governorship and his place in the history books, and the last
thing he wants is to hand his successor a budget awash in red ink.
That, as he certainly remembers, is how his first governorship ended in 1983.
______
RESPONSES TO EARLY EDUCATION SPENDING REQUEST IN GOV. BROWN'S MAY REVISE BUDGET
By Jeremy Hay | EdSource Today | http://bit.ly/1Xc6ABh
May 13, 2016 | No Comments :: The May revise – the latest draft of
Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed state budget – was released today. Brown’s
proposal for early education mirrors the plan he introduced in January:
Consolidate spending on the California State Preschool Program,
transitional kindergarten, and a preschool quality and improvement
system into a $1.6 billion block grant. The proposal includes
significant changes to how the system is managed; it also includes no
new early education funding.
Advocates from around the state have called for the consolidation plan
to be removed from the budget process for further study. Observers
around California are reacting here to today’s announcement.
May 13, 5:05 PM
By Nina Buthee
It's disappointing that the May revise proposal provides no priority to
the early care and education field. There is no additional general
funding for child care and the revise removes the very modest cost of
living adjustment increase that had finally been restored after many
years of no increases. And there is no acknowledgement of the incredible
impacts that the minimum wage increase will have to families trying to
qualify for subsidy, and for the agencies that run these important
programs. We strongly support the Joint Legislative Women’s Caucus'
request of an $800 million investment in our child care system. And
lastly, we appreciate the administration’s interest in reform of the
child care and early education system, however the budget process is not
the method to make sweeping policy changes.
- Nina Buthee is executive director of the California Child Development Administrators Association.
May 13, 2:48 PM
By Elsa Jacobsen
The governor’s revised budget does not address the significant need that
exists for increases in provider reimbursement rates, early learning
slots and quality measures. Also troubling is the elimination of a
transitional kindergarten program that has seen success in multiple
school districts. Also, the governor’s Early Education Block Grant
proposal puts private providers at risk of losing state funding and
thereby jeopardizes the state’s mixed delivery system. Ultimately, we
believe that refinement of the state’s multifaceted early learning
system should occur through the policy process, not the budget process,
with adequate time for vetting of reforms and careful planning.
- Elsa Jacobsen is senior policy analyst for Los Angeles Universal
Preschool, an advocacy group for preschool quality and access.
May 13, 12:51 PM
By Giannina Perez
The May Revise fails to address the reality of children and families.
Costs are going up but state funding for child care is going down – even
a basic cost of living adjustment for preschool and child care was
taken away. This is the wrong direction; we agree with the Women's
Caucus ask, which will secure the foundation and invest now in provider
reimbursement rates so families can have access to quality early care
and education. We do appreciate the stakeholder process effort related
to the Early Education Block grant, however we still believe that the
state should not make massive policy changes like the block grant as
part of the budget process.
- Giannina Perez is senior director for early childhood policy with Children Now, a research and advocacy organization.
May 13, 12:28 PM
By Paul Warren
The governor’s proposal would recast public preschool programs in the
mold of the Local Control Funding Formula – providing more flexibility
while establishing performance standards. This could lay the foundation
for a larger program where all K-12 districts provide preschool to
target students who will most benefit most from early assessment and
services.
- Paul Warren is a research associate at the Public Policy Institute of
California, where he focuses on K–12 education finance and
accountability.
May 13, 12:25 PM
By Jennifer Greppi
We are disappointed that the governor doesn't see that investing in
child care is a priority to build the Golden State that we can all be
proud of! He is proposing $6.7 billion for The Prop. 2 rainy day fund.
We just want .7 of that, which represents the Legislative Women's Caucus
ask of $800 million for child care. For parents it's raining now. They
can't work and take advantage of the increased minimum wage without
child care and they can't pay for child care without working. They are
taking pay cuts and turning down promotions because of decade old income
guidelines. And the child care providers they depend on can't afford to
serve children with subsidies because the rates are so low. We need
stability in our system, not a dismantling of it like the governor is
proposing.
- Jennifer Greppi is statewide lead chapter organizer for Parent Voices,
a parent-led organization that campaigns for affordable, quality
childcare.
HIGHLIGHTS, LOWLIGHTS & THE NEWS THAT DOESN'T
FIT: The Rest (but not necessarily the best) of the Stories from Other
Sources
UTLA-COMMISSIONED REPORT SAYS CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE
BLEEDING MONEY FROM TRADITIONAL ONES +Report+Policy Brief+smf's 2¢
http://bit.ly/27bii3V
TRUMP'S EDUCATION AGENDA CAN BE EXPLAINED IN 52 SECONDS - The Atlantic
http://theatln.tc/1XgbIom
Ancient History? - The Donald v. LAUSD: TRUMP TUSSLED WITH LOS ANGELES SCHOOL BOARD OVER HISTORIC HOTEL – EdWeek
FIGHT BREWING OVER NEW SCHOOLS ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM | 89.3 KPCC
DESPITE NEW LAW, CALIFORNIA LAGS IN PERSONAL FINANCE EDUCATION | 89.3 KPCC
SCHOOL DISTRICTS ARE A BIG REASON FOR THE RISE IN INCOME SEGREGATION IN THE U.S., STUDY SAYS
http://bit.ly/1rBV9qO
LAPD INVESTIGATING APPARENT GRADE TAMPERING AT WEST L.A. CHARTER SCHOOL
http://bit.ly/1WhMl60
EVENTS: Coming up next week...
RESCHEDULED - Budget, Facilities and Audit Committee - May 17, 2016 - to May 24, 2016
CANCELLED - Successful School Climate Committee - May 17, 2016 - 4:00 P.M.
*Dates and times subject to change. ________________________________________
• SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE:
http://www.laschools.org/bond/
Phone: 213-241-5183
____________________________________________________
• LAUSD FACILITIES COMMUNITY OUTREACH CALENDAR:
http://www.laschools.org/happenings/
Phone: 213-241.8700
What can YOU do?
• E-mail, call or write your school board member:
Scott.Schmerelson@lausd.net • 213-241-8333
Monica.Garcia@lausd.net • 213-241-6180
Ref.Rodriguez@lausd.net • 213-241-5555
George.McKenna@lausd.net • 213-241-6382
Monica.Ratliff@lausd.net • 213-241-6388
Richard.Vladovic@lausd.net • 213-241-6385
Steve.Zimmer@lausd.net • 213-241-6387
...or the Superintendent:
superintendent@lausd.net • 213-241-7000
...or your city councilperson, mayor, county supervisor, state
legislator, the governor, member of congress, senator - or the
president. Tell them what you really think! • Find your state
legislator based on your home address. Just go to: http://bit.ly/dqFdq2 • There are 26 mayors and five county supervisors representing jurisdictions within LAUSD, the mayor of LA can be reached at mayor@lacity.org • 213.978.0600
• Call or e-mail Governor Brown: 213-897-0322 e-mail: http://www.govmail.ca.gov/
• Open the dialogue. Write a letter to the editor. Circulate these
thoughts. Talk to the principal and teachers at your local school.
• Speak with your friends, neighbors and coworkers. Stay on top of education issues. Don't take my word for it!
• Get involved at your neighborhood school. Volunteer in the classroom.
Join your PTA. Serve on a School Site Council. Be there for a child -
and ultimately: For all children.
• If you are eligible to become a citizen, BECOME ONE.
• If you a a citizen, REGISTER TO VOTE at http://registertovote.ca.gov/
• If you are registered, VOTE LIKE THE FUTURE DEPENDS ON IT. THEY DO!
|
