It's been a long time that we've seen a communication from the Superintendent of our MDUSD. We used to get Monday Memo's and other updates periodically, but not much of late. I guess he's busy, and with staff cuts, just not enough time in the day to update us. I hope these keep coming. So here you go:
May 6, 2010
Message from the Superintendent
Steven Lawrence
Dear Parents and Guardians,
As superintendent of the Mt. Diablo Unified School District, I have witnessed many great things in my three months on the job. I have seen academic excellence by the recent recognition of Delta View and Hidden Valley elementary schools as California Distinguished Schools; I have felt the dedication of committed teachers and staff members; and I have observed the desire of young minds looking to learn and grow.
Unfortunately, I have also spent the better part of my tenure trying to find solutions to the biggest budgetary challenge school districts in California have ever faced.
I am writing you today to provide you an overview of the fiscal challenges that are currently facing the Mt. Diablo Unified School District and what we are doing to address them.
BUDGET OVERVIEW AND CHALLENGES
The combination of budget cuts from the State and a decline in student enrollment has created major budgetary challenges for the District. For example, the District had a total budget of $295 million in 2006-07. Today the 2010-11 budget is estimated to be $264 million, or a decline of over $30 million in just a few short years. While this seems gloomy, it is actually worse as our costs continue to rise.
Significant reductions in State funding have severely impacted education revenues for the District. Since 2007-08 our primary source of funding for education, the State of California, has been cut dramatically due to the economic downturn. In fact, on a per student basis, the District receives $132 less per student than it did four years ago.
Declining enrollment also contributes to reductions in the District budget. In 2004-05, the District’s enrollment exceeded 34,000 students. Today we have approximately 2,000 fewer students with projections indicating continued declines in children attending District schools. As mentioned above, the District budget is primarily funded on a per student basis and the loss in students over the years has meant a loss in revenues. Also, since students don’t leave the district in neat numbers, like 30 students in one grade level at one school, it is challenging to make staff reductions that match the decline in enrollment.
Operating expenses continue to increase further pressuring our general fund. While the revenues of the District are in decline, many expenses continue to rise. Along with the rest of the state and country, healthcare costs and utility costs among others are increasing. We’re currently working with our teachers and other employee groups to manage costs in a way that helps our short-term and long-term ability to provide the best possible education to all students.
WHAT THE DISTRICT IS DOING TO ADDRESS THE CHALLENGES
Using budgeted reserves and making cuts. When the District realized that funding would be greatly reduced, leaders began the process of making budget reductions and drawing down reserves that had been saved up over time. Similar to the homeowner who has a change to their employment status (loss of hours, reduction in pay, etc.) who then “tightens the belt”, uses savings, and reduces expenses, the Mt. Diablo Unified School District took a similar approach. 2008 budget cuts provided $3.7 million in annual relief.
As the economy continued to stagnate and the state continued to cut funding to schools, the district continued to draw down its reserves and make tough, but needed, budget cuts. 2009 cuts in staff levels across the board resulted in $15.9 million in relief.
With little improvement to the state economy and continued declines in enrollment, the district in 2010 is looking at even more cuts. This time an estimated $8.2 million in reductions are proposed.
In total, the district has made or proposed a staggering $27.8 million in cuts to its budget. These cuts affect our students, teachers, staff, and facilities. However, these cuts are still not enough to balance the budget. Additionally, we have proposed $9.8 million in reductions through labor negotiations. Failure to achieve these reductions may have dire consequences including the State taking away local control of our schools. We will soon learn more about our funding when Governor Schwarzenegger comes out with the May Revise budget report. We are not hopeful that the state will help us solve our fiscal problems, so we are looking at local solutions.
Measure C on the June ballot will help alleviate some budget pain and improve our classrooms. While the state is not doing its part to assist the district, Measure C, a local school improvement measure, is a tool to provide general fund relief and to make major classroom and school facility improvements. If passed by voters, Measure C is projected to free up $1.4 million annually by eliminating or reducing facility payments.
Furthermore, Measure C will improve energy efficiency to schools throughout the district through solar panel installation and other energy saving projects. In some districts, these energy saving improvements have cut the utility bills by half, which will result in even more money to the classrooms.
Finally, Measure C will renovate, upgrade, and modernize our classrooms and school facilities to provide a better learning environment for our students. It will fix leaky roofs, replace outdated electrical and plumbing systems, improve student access to computers and modern technology, and make health and safety improvements at schools in the district.
While there are significant budgetary and educational challenges ahead, I am confident that we can collectively work toward a common goal. Our goal should be to have Mt. Diablo Unified School District a destination district where parents are proud to send their kids, teachers and staff have an ideal working environment, and the community benefits from the by-product of quality schools – well-educated students, safer neighborhoods, improved property values, and the leaders of tomorrow.
We are heading in the right direction. Please let me know how we can continue to serve you and the community to achieve our common goal.
(Contact: 925-682-8000 x4006 or email lawrences@mdusd.k12.ca.us )
Link to this message:
http://www.mdusd.org/superintendent/Pages/supmessage.aspx
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Bill to move Kindergarten start date moves forward
A bill (AB 1967) by Assemblyman Tony Mendoza has moved forward this past week. This bill will move the "must be 5 by..." date to September 1st, from the current December 2nd. This bill would take effect for the 2012-2013 school year and is said to possibly impact over 100,000 students.
This bill proposes that those students with birthdays between September 1st - December 2nd, be enrolled in school district sponsored pre-school programs.
It is estimated this change would save the state over 700 million dollars a year due to reduced student enrollment. Half of that would go into supporting the district maintained pre-school programs, and half would go back into the troubled education budget (though don't you start to get the feeling the legislatures will just find another way to take it away from the schools?)
There is a similar bill, SB 1381, written by Senator Joe Simitian, which is essentially the same but phases in the change one month at a time over a period of 3 years.
This bill proposes that those students with birthdays between September 1st - December 2nd, be enrolled in school district sponsored pre-school programs.
It is estimated this change would save the state over 700 million dollars a year due to reduced student enrollment. Half of that would go into supporting the district maintained pre-school programs, and half would go back into the troubled education budget (though don't you start to get the feeling the legislatures will just find another way to take it away from the schools?)
There is a similar bill, SB 1381, written by Senator Joe Simitian, which is essentially the same but phases in the change one month at a time over a period of 3 years.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
State Legislature takes on Teacher Tenure (SB 955)
Check out the MDUSD Voice Blog. They've written about SB 955 that takes on the issue of tenure reform.
From their blog:
On April 21st, a California legislative education sub-committee voted 5-4 to pass along Senate Bill 955. SB955 revises the teacher layoff notice deadline from March 15 to June 15, removes the seniority provision and allows districts to layoff teachers based on subject needs and teacher effectiveness, and provides school boards the final say when firing a teacher thus shortening the process of removing a teacher from the classroom.
Check it out. Something tells me that parents may be open to changes in this regard, and something else tells me teachers will not. Hmmmm, how do we close that gap? What kind of private sector job can you have that you're essentially guaranteed job security as long as you just keep showing up?
Update: The MDUSD Voice has reported the following:
State Senator Mark DeSaulnier has met with CTA and has decided to support CTA’s decision to oppose the bill. Senator DeSaulnier represents the 7th District which includes all of MDUSD. Senator DeSaulnier’s phone number is (925) 942-6082 or you can email him by going to his website http://dist07.casen.govoffice.com/Senator DeSaulnier’s staff could not confirm if the Senator also met with parents in his district to hear their concerns.
From their blog:
On April 21st, a California legislative education sub-committee voted 5-4 to pass along Senate Bill 955. SB955 revises the teacher layoff notice deadline from March 15 to June 15, removes the seniority provision and allows districts to layoff teachers based on subject needs and teacher effectiveness, and provides school boards the final say when firing a teacher thus shortening the process of removing a teacher from the classroom.
Check it out. Something tells me that parents may be open to changes in this regard, and something else tells me teachers will not. Hmmmm, how do we close that gap? What kind of private sector job can you have that you're essentially guaranteed job security as long as you just keep showing up?
Update: The MDUSD Voice has reported the following:
State Senator Mark DeSaulnier has met with CTA and has decided to support CTA’s decision to oppose the bill. Senator DeSaulnier represents the 7th District which includes all of MDUSD. Senator DeSaulnier’s phone number is (925) 942-6082 or you can email him by going to his website http://dist07.casen.govoffice.com/Senator DeSaulnier’s staff could not confirm if the Senator also met with parents in his district to hear their concerns.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Let's Talk Teachers. Last In, First Out? There's another way...
Last In, First Out is something we hear when talking lay-offs. If you were one of the last teachers hired, you'll be the first ones asked to go. What about performance? WOW! What a concept I know. But don't we all know some teachers that stay and survive the "pink slip" year after year because they have that thing called "seniority?" Yes, we do. Sadly, there are teachers in our school who are sour, and more interested in drama and politics than the students. Those are likely the ones there a long time, the ones in many cases who NEED TO GO! Do you know one of these?
Surely I will be the first to say I know MANY, MANY lovely veteran teachers with oodles of experience and years of structured know how that benefits students every year, but there are those.... I hate that they "get to stay" simply due to their seniority.
New York has another idea... see this article for a new approach that I wish we could attempt here. But imagine, if we wanted to deal with teachers on a "performance" measure vs. seniority, I'm certain there would be some sort of war declared.
But there, I said it, there are some teachers who need to go.
After what I've seen at my own school this year, I will be hard pressed to ever stand shoulder to shoulder with teachers in support of their "rights." What about the rights of my student(s) to have happy, focused teachers? What about a school community free from political drama and infighting? What ever happened to working together, team work, community?
We don't talk about it because we don't want to discredit our schools, bring disrespect to the teachers who do a great job every day, or create a hostile environment for our students. So we stay quiet... sad but true.
What are your thoughts? Certainly not all brand new teachers are automatically bright and wonderful either? Some say it would allow the districts to lay off more senior teachers because they cost more. I don't advocate that either, but there must be a better way. Arizona abolished seniority rules, so maybe we should take a closer look at how that's going. I'll admit, I've only begun the research...
Ok, so from the article:
“Nobody I’ve talked to thinks seniority is a rational way to go,” Mr. Klein said. “Obviously there are some senior teachers who are extraordinary. You recruit young talent you think is good for the future, and to just get rid of that by the numbers seems to me to be a nonsensical approach.”
Surely I will be the first to say I know MANY, MANY lovely veteran teachers with oodles of experience and years of structured know how that benefits students every year, but there are those.... I hate that they "get to stay" simply due to their seniority.
New York has another idea... see this article for a new approach that I wish we could attempt here. But imagine, if we wanted to deal with teachers on a "performance" measure vs. seniority, I'm certain there would be some sort of war declared.
But there, I said it, there are some teachers who need to go.
After what I've seen at my own school this year, I will be hard pressed to ever stand shoulder to shoulder with teachers in support of their "rights." What about the rights of my student(s) to have happy, focused teachers? What about a school community free from political drama and infighting? What ever happened to working together, team work, community?
We don't talk about it because we don't want to discredit our schools, bring disrespect to the teachers who do a great job every day, or create a hostile environment for our students. So we stay quiet... sad but true.
What are your thoughts? Certainly not all brand new teachers are automatically bright and wonderful either? Some say it would allow the districts to lay off more senior teachers because they cost more. I don't advocate that either, but there must be a better way. Arizona abolished seniority rules, so maybe we should take a closer look at how that's going. I'll admit, I've only begun the research...
Ok, so from the article:
“Nobody I’ve talked to thinks seniority is a rational way to go,” Mr. Klein said. “Obviously there are some senior teachers who are extraordinary. You recruit young talent you think is good for the future, and to just get rid of that by the numbers seems to me to be a nonsensical approach.”
Monday, March 22, 2010
MDUSD board votes to eliminate jobs and hours Tuesday night
Theresa Harrington at the CCTimes has recapped the cuts the MDUSD is looking to make at Tuesday night's school board meeting. Check it out: Contra Costa Times
Monday, March 8, 2010
MDUSD Schools Named as "Persistently Lowest Achieving"
The names are out. Here is the PRESS RELEASE from the California Department of Education.
According to the press release:
State and federal laws associated with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) and the School Improvement Grant (SIG) program require California to identify the state's low-achieving schools and to require the persistently lowest-achieving 5 percent of those schools to implement one of four school intervention models. The identification of the 5 percent of persistently lowest-achieving schools in California is a multi-step process that is informed by both federal and state law (SBx 51) by Senator Darrell Steinberg, (D-Sacramento).
The 6 Mt. Diablo School District Schools include:
Tier 1 Schools (Tier 1 List):
Tier 2 School (Tier 2 list):
Mt. Diablo High School
For more information on the Persisently Lowest Achieving Schools including definitions of Tier 1 and Tier 2 check it out HERE.
So it looks like some major changes are in store for these schools. Stay tuned...
According to the press release:
State and federal laws associated with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) and the School Improvement Grant (SIG) program require California to identify the state's low-achieving schools and to require the persistently lowest-achieving 5 percent of those schools to implement one of four school intervention models. The identification of the 5 percent of persistently lowest-achieving schools in California is a multi-step process that is informed by both federal and state law (SBx 51) by Senator Darrell Steinberg, (D-Sacramento).
The 6 Mt. Diablo School District Schools include:
Tier 1 Schools (Tier 1 List):
Tier 2 School (Tier 2 list):Mt. Diablo High School
For more information on the Persisently Lowest Achieving Schools including definitions of Tier 1 and Tier 2 check it out HERE.
So it looks like some major changes are in store for these schools. Stay tuned...
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Board Meeting March 9th - Agenda
Some very important items on the agenda this time around, including:
BUDGET CUTS - see agenda item for spreadsheets and supporting data in order to cut over 15 million dollars annually. Includes district wide support staff, special ed cuts, change of high school graduation requirements, more.
The Second Interim Report will be discussed.
14.4 Resolution ordering an election to authorize up to $348 million of General Obligation Bonds and establish specifications of the election order. Resolution PDF
Parent Involvement Policy Revisions
Certificated lay-offs / Agenda Item
Elimination of PM custodians at Diablo View Middle currently funded by City of Clayton
Roll over (through 2013) of current collective bargaining agreement with MDEA. Agenda
BUDGET CUTS - see agenda item for spreadsheets and supporting data in order to cut over 15 million dollars annually. Includes district wide support staff, special ed cuts, change of high school graduation requirements, more.
The Second Interim Report will be discussed.
14.4 Resolution ordering an election to authorize up to $348 million of General Obligation Bonds and establish specifications of the election order. Resolution PDF
Parent Involvement Policy Revisions
Certificated lay-offs / Agenda Item
Elimination of PM custodians at Diablo View Middle currently funded by City of Clayton
Roll over (through 2013) of current collective bargaining agreement with MDEA. Agenda
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Day of Action Around Town
Statewide Day of Action!
Will you participate after school? See the MDEA site for information about after school activities. KRON 4 news this morning has been having ongoing coverage outside El Monte Elementary in Concord.
This is a photo a friend sent just now from in front of El Dorado Middle School on Concord Blvd. Hopefully we'll see more photos and more involvement throughout the day. Will Sacramento listen? Why do I feel pessimistic about that?
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
March 4th Statewide Day of Action
Have you heard? Schools around the state, and within MDUSD, will be recognizing the Statewide Day of Action, this Thursday , March 4th.
Here is some more information about the Statewide efforts:
Locally, I heard the Mt. Diablo School District schools will be having a "disaster drill' at each school at 8:30am.
From CVHS:
On March 4, 2010 the Clayton Valley High School community will START THE DAY FOR STUDENTS!
On March 4th please join CVHS students, teachers, staff and community members in the Statewide Day of Action in an effort to speak out about the painful effects cuts are having on students, schools and communities throughout California. In the last two years, $17 billion was cut from California schools and colleges and now students and schools are being threatened again. We can't let that happen!
On March 4, 2010 the Clayton Valley High School community will START THE DAY FOR STUDENTS!
On March 4th please join CVHS students, teachers, staff and community members in the Statewide Day of Action in an effort to speak out about the painful effects cuts are having on students, schools and communities throughout California. In the last two years, $17 billion was cut from California schools and colleges and now students and schools are being threatened again. We can't let that happen!
We are asking you to join us and be a part of the campaign to fight for the resources our CVHS students deserve.
On Thursday, March 4th at 7:00 a.m. we will gather in front of the high school to send a message to Sacramento that education is essential to building a better California. Please consider joining other parents and community members in this important demonstration of support for our school.
There will be a district-wide "Disaster Drill" at 8:30am.
This "Disaster-Drill" will occur simultaneously at MDUSD schools to symbolize the disastrous conditions our students face as a result of the cuts to public education in California.
At CVHS there are ways to get involved too:
On Wednesday, March 3 in the afternoon and evening we will be working on posters in the C-Wing. Please consider joining us. Everyone is welcome.
If you prefer, make signs with your students at home. We do ask that all signs use appropriate and inoffensive language. Some examples of slogans include:
Public Education Cuts are a Disaster
State Cuts Threaten the Future of CVHS
Protect CVHS Students from the Budget Disaster
Budget Cuts = The Death of Quality Education
___________________________________________
Finally the Mt. Diablo Education Association (MDEA) is organizing after-school demonstrations at the following locations:
Finally the Mt. Diablo Education Association (MDEA) is organizing after-school demonstrations at the following locations:
Ygnacio Valley Rd and Oak Grove;
Treat and Clayton Rd; and
Monument and Contra Costa Blvd
MDEA has also posted links to flyers, information pdf documents and more. They call for the district wide disaster drill to be at 9am, so I do believe they are leaving it to the school sites for the most convenient times. I hope you'll join in somehow. Our voices need to be heard.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Special Ed needs meaningful discussion, is the status quo working?
So .... after reading the CAC parent letter about the MGT report, and characterizing it as recommending a "dismantling" of MDUSD Special Ed programs, it seems clear that CAC did not like the report recommendations. If I am correct, CAC agreed with the choice of MGT, or perhaps even recommended MGT as the firm to conduct the study. Now, MGT came up with a solution that could, if adopted, save the district upwards of 29.5 million dollars. (See Exhibit ES-1 on page 10 of the MGT study).
Also according to the study, I see that it notes that our students are not performing as well. The report notes "Lower percentages of students with disabilities scoring at each level for both English and Language Arts and Math compared to the state." Are we concerned that it appears our special ed students are underperforming when compared to the state and other districts? (Exhibit 1-5).
I guess what I'm curious about, and maybe others are as well, is what is the solution? For a savings of 29.5 million dollars it certainly seems the report deserves a good, objective look, don't you think? In light of the findings that our kids are underperforming those statewide and in comparable districts, shouldn't we consider there might be a better way? I'm just asking . . . and hope we can bring some intelligent, objective solutions to the table.
In light of the fact that special ed is ~23% of our district's budget, yet serves only 11% of our students, it seems we need to be diligent in the assessment of what next...
Are kids transported all over because specific programs are built in particular (sometimes far away) locations, and not necessarily served at their home schools?
Should Principals be empowered at their own school sites? Or are the directives from the "top down" (district to school site) the best way?
I'd like to see discussion amongst parents. Objective, thoughtful discussion and ideas would be useful now. Completely bashing the report in light of some of the discoveries within it, hardly seems reasonable. So what next? Share your ideas here.
Also according to the study, I see that it notes that our students are not performing as well. The report notes "Lower percentages of students with disabilities scoring at each level for both English and Language Arts and Math compared to the state." Are we concerned that it appears our special ed students are underperforming when compared to the state and other districts? (Exhibit 1-5).
I guess what I'm curious about, and maybe others are as well, is what is the solution? For a savings of 29.5 million dollars it certainly seems the report deserves a good, objective look, don't you think? In light of the findings that our kids are underperforming those statewide and in comparable districts, shouldn't we consider there might be a better way? I'm just asking . . . and hope we can bring some intelligent, objective solutions to the table.
In light of the fact that special ed is ~23% of our district's budget, yet serves only 11% of our students, it seems we need to be diligent in the assessment of what next...
Are kids transported all over because specific programs are built in particular (sometimes far away) locations, and not necessarily served at their home schools?
Should Principals be empowered at their own school sites? Or are the directives from the "top down" (district to school site) the best way?
I'd like to see discussion amongst parents. Objective, thoughtful discussion and ideas would be useful now. Completely bashing the report in light of some of the discoveries within it, hardly seems reasonable. So what next? Share your ideas here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)