Have San Leandro schools solved their money problems?

I'm glad to see that the school district is financially sound. I haven't looked at a spread sheet recently, but the actions of school administration sure make it look like there's no money problem in the district.

Why else would the principal at Garfield Elementary have rejected a gift made by teachers to support the school crossing guard program? That's right, she returned the donation. San Leandro Teachers' Association, the Union representing San Leandro's 500 teachers, made a contribution to each of the elementary schools in the district to support the financially endangered school crossing guard programs. Most of the schools graciously accepted the gift, but apparently the Garfield Principal determined that the school has no need for the money.

At least I'd like to think that the contribution was rejected because of an improving district budget, because it's past time for teachers' salaries (among the lowest in Alameda County) to catch up with our neighbors. Although, I admit, the district has been sending out mixed messages. After all, teacher salaries were reduced last year by cutting a staff development day from the school calendar. And then, the district offered Muir teachers the opportunity to work that day for only 25% to 35% of their normal salary. (District to teachers: We want you to do the work, we just don't want to pay you for it.)

I guess it leaves me wondering, if the contribution weren't rejected because of the district's improving financial situation, then why would the contribution to Garfield be rejected? Could it be that the district now views teachers as social pariahs? You know, so despicable that they are unworthy of making charitable contributions? Akin to tobacco companies and alcohol companies? That doesn't seem like a strong basis for good staff relations and positive school climate.

I just can't believe that would be the truth. That would be a bit insulting. I'd much rather believe that a big offer for a pay raise to catch San Leandro teachers up with their neighbors is just around the corner.

Parking scandal at San Leandro High School

After teaching long days at San Leandro High School, many of our school district’s valued teachers have been surprised to find school-district issued parking tickets on their car windows.

Apparently, the school district has cut a deal with a parking ticket vendor to administer a shakedown of people who park at the high school. The district has agreed to a cut of the revenue in exchange for this service. Tickets are $40, and if you don’t pay, the violations get turned over to the DMV. What’s even more surprising is that the parking tickets are being written by one of the assistant principals.

In other words, the school district is paying an administrator’s salary to an assistant principal whose job is to harass teachers by ticketing their cars. So, even after taking a salary cut, teachers are being fleeced further in this new parking ticket scam, and district resources are being wasted to make it happen.

So I have two questions. Is the Superintendent still surprised because teachers don’t feel valued? And, does the School Board know about this?

Racial Impact of RIFs

Lost in the outcries over the state budget and the painful cuts to our schools is the racial impact of those cuts.  If the youngest teachers in California are given pink slips, who will the students see in their classrooms?

 

Teachers of color are more likely to lose their jobs than white teachers.  San Leandro is not unlike most districts in California. More than 70 percent of the students are people of color, but more than two-thirds of the teachers are white.  Yet, at a CTA-hosted meeting of San Leandro teachers receiving RIF (reduction in force) notices, 23 teachers showed up, more than half (12) were people of color and 21 were women.

 

Of course, the RIF lists are determined by a combination of factors, especially seniority and appropriate credentials for the teaching assignment.  But older teachers are more likely to be white, and teachers of color tend to be younger, with less tenure.  So after the cuts are finalized, our kids of color (the majority throughout California) are more likely to see teachers in the classroom who don’t look like them.

 

The bad news is magnified when you consider that the schools likely to see the greatest turnover are the schools with the least-tenured teachers.  Those schools tend to be more urban, more diverse, and more impoverished. The bigger the district, the bigger the impact. 

 

So in schools where talented young teachers of color have stepped into leadership roles, many of those students will now see older, whiter teachers fill those classrooms, teachers who haven’t established relationships with the students or their parents.

 

The truth is that students will be seeing less of whichever teacher they have, with the dramatic increases in class size that are coming from the budget cuts.  No surprise, that impact will also be greater in schools with more kids of color.

Deep-Fried Schools

Last night, the good people at the  San Leandro school board meeting pledged allegiance to fried chicken strips.  Most of us didn't even notice.  It was the most rational thing that happened.

Mike Katz, the school board president, called the meeting to order and people stood for the pledge.  Only, the meeting place had changed at the last moment.  The location ended up being the high school cafeteria.  So we dutifully rose for the pledge, turned to face the spot where everyone assumed a flag would be if there were a flag, and said the pledge of allegiance.  To a cafeteria advertisement for "Sunset Strips."  From the picture, they were delicious, crispy, golden brown, deep-fried chicken strips.

Deep-Fried, like the future of California.  I guess when music programs, physical education, librarians, counselors, days of school, and even lawyers and consultants (the most important people in the school community) are on the list, no absurdity seems all that unusual.

These meetings have taken place all over California.  In many places, the potential cuts will be far deeper.  Even the schools in the wealthier communities will have to dig into their reserves.  The Senate Republicans have just fired their leader, Dave Cogdill, because he is seen as most likely to "give in" on a tax increase.  That's right, they want deeper cuts.  This budget won't smash enough dreams and kill enough people for them yet.

They must have pledged allegiance to deep-fried chicken strips a long time ago.

Equity: Courageous Redirection of Resources!

Like most school districts, San Leandro Unified is facing the challenge of closing the “achievement gap” and helping students be successful regardless of race or gender.

San Leandro's administration would like you to believe they have taken an aggressive approach, hiring consultants who have focused their work in two directions -- having "courageous conversations" among staff about perceptions about race and student achievement, and developing "culturally relevant" teaching strategies. The focus of the work has mostly been on what happens at staff development meetings and what teaching strategies teachers use in the classroom.

Most of the teachers that I know have chosen to teach in San Leandro because of the community's diversity, even after considering the unfortunate promise of lower pay. They enter San Leandro's classrooms deeply committed to guiding all of their students to success, and reversing the trends of hundreds of years of racism. Despite this commitment, there has been a great deal of grumbling lately about the district's approach to equity. Teachers complain about too many meetings at which we talk about the same things over and over again and reconsider a handful of already-presented teaching strategies. It's time to have real courageous conversations in our district about the limitations of their approach.

The district's approach is not misguided, it's just not enough. While focusing on miracles that sometimes happen in the classroom, it doesn't consider or address many of the real causes of inequitable achievement. I agree with the district’s approach as a part of the solution. Teacher perception of student ability is important. Race absolutely matters. There's too much evidence to conclude otherwise. If a student is attending a classroom where she doesn't feel valued, encouraged, or a sense of belonging, she will likely not do her best work. So the work on culturally relevant teaching strategies is important.

However, we will fail our students unless we examine the other, more significant roadblocks to student success for our kids of color.

Most of the racism that keeps kids of color from achieving is not the racism of perception, stereotype and cognitive filters. Most of the racism that inhibits achievement is the racism of resource allocation, family support, and community support for student success. The only way to confront those challenges is by making changes to the educational program. We have to meet our kids where they are, and put more of our resources in the direction of the kids with the most need.

Issues of race, class and opportunity intersect on so many levels that it is foolish for school districts to take one-dimensional, consultant-driven approaches to closing the “achievement gap.” If a kid doesn’t go home to a place where there is parent or guardian who can sit and monitor homework, that kid is at a disadvantage. When English isn’t the first language, and the kid is pushed out of an ELL program too quickly, the kid’s at a disadvantage. Students with parents who didn’t complete college or high school are at a disadvantage. Kids in families that can’t afford college don’t as easily envision their own future as a college student. Unfortunately, these characteristics tend to be more often true for our kids of color.

To meet students where they are, we need to invest our resources in a way that gives teachers opportunities to work more directly with their students and families:

• More opportunities for after-school mentoring by teachers. The one-meeting-after-another approach to staff development is actually getting in the way of teachers meeting with students. Imagine if instead of attending all of those meetings, teachers could actually spend their after-school time working with students. Add a mechanism that encourages students who are struggling to take advantage of teachers who can stay after school to work with them, and you can finally reach students who don’t have sufficient academic support at home.

• Revitalize the ELD Program. ELL students need smaller class sizes with more individualized vocabulary work and more opportunities to communicate, much more support in their primary language, strengthened bilingual education program, and significantly more parent outreach. Since Superintendent Lim has been at the helm in San Leandro, the cuts to ELD (English Language Development) Programs have been dramatic, despite the fact that the population which requires the program keeps increasing in size. This year, the program was practically gutted, though a few ELD coaches still exist when budgeted for by school site funds. What used to be a team of eight great teachers is now a team of four, serving an increasing number of students.

• Better investment in real college-bound mentoring programs, like AVID. Give the program coordinators the necessary resources to expand the program, which focuses on kids who might often become the first generation from their family to attend college.

• More aggressive community and parent outreach efforts, directly connecting parents to the classroom, and expanding the school’s role in the betterment of the community.

Each of these strategies comes with a price tag. We’ll never have real success unless we’re willing to invest. But the potential future cost in lost opportunities for our students and our community is far greater than the real expense of any of these strategies. And sharing a vision is the first step towards realizing it.

A Way Through the State Budget Crisis

Dear Progressive State Legislators,

 

So I understand that you folks in the State Capitol aren’t having any fun.  Budget stalemate, $20 Billion deficit, Republicans swearing not to raise taxes ever.  State programs already cut to the bone.  You need 60% of the votes to pass a budget, and you’re looking for a way out right about now.

 

Well, how about playing hardball.  If the Republicans won’t allow you to approve some new revenue sources (there are lots to choose from) then pass legislation changing the way that school districts are funded, stressing equity between districts.  You should be doing this anyway.

 

The way school districts are funded, you’ve got more money going to richer communities that have FEWER needs.  Meanwhile, more urban, diverse, working-class school districts are left trying to figure out how to do more with less revenue.    The difference is compounded when you consider a wealthier community’s ability to raise more money locally.  Wealthier communities are more able to pass local parcel taxes and bonds, and usually have very substantial community foundations that also support their schools.

 

Here are some Bay Area examples from 2006-2007.  Pleasanton, a suburban district with only four percent of their students on reduced lunch and only five percent of their students classified as language learners, received $6,199 per student in base revenue limit from the State.  San Leandro, also in Alameda County and adjacent to Oakland, has 50% of its students in the reduced-lunch program and 26% in a language learner program, yet only receives $5,517 per student.  The difference between how the state funds the two districts is $682 per student.  Add in other sources of revenue, and the Pleasanton USD is able to spend $800 more per student than San Leandro USD.

 

Not surprisingly, Pleasanton teachers make a lot more than San Leandro teachers, anywhere between 12 and 17 thousand dollars per year per teacher.  If you’re an experienced teacher with proven classroom success and you’re district-shopping for a new job, where do you apply?

 

So, dear state legislators, here’s your mission.  If the Republicans aren’t willing to approve some new revenue, then change the way the money gets spent.  Fix the disrict-by-district inequity. 

 

Here’s the new piece of legislation you should champion.  Rank districts by state revenue received through the last 10 years.  Flip the rankings.  Give more money to the districts that have received less. Then, give bonuses for the number of language learners, the number of resource students, and the number of students who qualify for reduced lunches. Of couse, you should allow for regional variation (obviously it’s more expensive to operate in the Bay Area than in Fresno).  In other words, give more resources to the schools with most need.  Dare anyone to tell you why this shouldn’t be the way that it works anyway.

 

At the very least, float this idea.  Use it as a bargaining chip.  Imagine the reaction in those rich Republican enclaves when they find out that their school districts are going to be sacrificed if their legislators don’t approve some new revenue sources.  

Teachers on Steroids!

I'm a little jealous of Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds.  Cameras follow these guys wherever they go.  Government agencies want to hear from them.  Congress holds hearings.  But teachers can't even get local school boards to listen.

I keep wondering what it's going to take.  This week, 250 teachers (more than half) in my school district showed up at a board meeting - asking for a little attention.  It seems as though they were all fed up about the same things... low pay, low morale, low respect.  The crowd cheered support for speaker after speaker.

Official Board Response... A couple of smirks. 

Clemens has been the recipient of moral outrage and righteous indignation.  Congresspeople were tripping over each other trying to ask the next question.  The media is having a field day.   Don't get me wrong here, but Clemens is just a baseball player.  It's not like the future of our children is depending on anything that might have happened in those hearings.  Why aren't people all up in arms about the state of education?

Desperate times deserve desperate measures.  So, it's time for me to make some startling revelations about what goes on in our schools.

Teachers are using performance-enhancing drugs.  That's right, after numerous interviews from multiple sources, it's time to leak this story -- Teachers are on steroids.

A veteran teacher, who only spoke on the condition of anonymity, said, "The pressure is too high.  We face impossible test score expectations.  They're threatening to shut our school down."

Said another, "Those No-Child-Left-Behind expectations - every student above average - this isn't Lake Wobegon!"  

Yet another teacher who was interviewed for my story talked about the pressure of paying bills.  "I have to work two jobs just to pay the mortgage and health care.  I turned to steroids because I have no time to sleep."

These revelations bring every AYP and API ranking in the entire country under scrutiny.  It's unclear who is supplying our schools with steroids, though one teacher speculated that educational consultants who wander from school district to school district with their power-point staff-training presentations might be the source.  It's unclear the role that superintendents are playing in this, but it seems as though they have been knowingly looking the other way, hoping that those test scores would get the boost.

To do the important research for this story, I had to guarantee my sources that I would never release their names.  Subpoena me if you feel you must, but I will remain true to my word.  

Anyway, Bring on the cameras.  Schedule the hearings.  Call up the talk radio people.

Maybe our school board will pay attention to us now.

Why is the San Leandro School District Attacking Its Teachers?

(An open letter to the San Leandro School Board of Trustees)

As a 10 year teaching veteran of the San Leandro Schools, I am horrified by the district's recent attacks on its teachers and on our Union.

The biggest insult is the continuing saga of our pay scale.  The district has been dragging its heels at the bargaining table, despite knowing that teachers in San Leandro are among the lowest-compensated teachers in Alameda County.  The district has made no effort to improve the status of our pay-scale.  While neighboring district (Castro Valley most recently) have passed on  COLA increases to their workers, our District has refused to make a commitment to its teachers.

Several other districts in the County have lower revenue, but still manage to pay their teachers more than San Leandro.  As a Board, please examine how those districts succeed, and then instruct our Superintendent to make it happen.

Unfortunately, the disrespect shown to teachers by the District does not stop at the salary scale.  These recent events show the District's motives:

* Reduction of permitted release time for SLTA officers, and reneging on the agreement of how the release time should be compensated.  The district recently informed SLTA that it would significantly reduce the President's release time, and eliminate the release time for the Vice President altogether.  This is clearly a Union-busting maneuver.  The district has nothing to gain by this decision other than silencing the voices of teachers.  As a Board, did yoiu approve of this anti-teacher tactic?

* The Budget-Cut process, in which teachers (at staff meetings) were forced to state which vital student programs we could live without.  (District Office administrators' positions, perks, expense accounts and salaries were not listed in the menu of potential cuts.)  The Union's bargaining team represents teachers.  Talk with us at the table.  (That's the law.)

* Discouraging Union Input.  The SLTA President was given notice of his "invitation" to address the Board about budget cuts on the afternoon of the meeting that was scheduled later that night.  It's clear that his voice really wasn't wanted at your meeting.

While a cynical person might be able to dismiss some of the bargaining and budget-cut shenanigans as "business-as-usual" for a District that has never shown an interest in fairly compensating its teachers, the next insult from the district is unfathomable.

* Denial of Bereavement Leave.  A teacher whose spouse died was denied bereavement leave.  After the leave was denied, the grievance was rejected.  And now the district is going to fight this case all the way to arbitration.  Is the District really going to spend the $40,000 it takes to send a case to arbitration just to avoid spending a few hundred dollars?  Do you, as a member of the School Board, really approve the District's effort to deny leave for a grieving spouse no matter what the cost?  This is a dedicated, well-loved teacher in our District!

In the past, I had heard it said that even though teachers in San Leandro have always been under-compensated, that this was a good district to teach in because people are treated with respect.  Clearly, the spirit of respect has changed.  As Board Members, ultimately, the way the district treats its employees is your responsibility.  The Superintendents answer to you.

Sincerely,

Thomas B. Morse