On Tuesday, December 14, 2010, Governor-elect Jerry Brown hosted a second Budget Summit at UCLA, this one primarily for state and local education officials. Superintendent-elect Tom Torlakson sat with Governor-elect Brown, Brown's Director of the Department of Finance Ana Matosantos, State Treasurer Bill Lockyer, and State Controller John Chiang, as they presented much of the same information they'd shared in the first Summit to quantify California's Budget problem. Brown reiterated that the goal is to get a common understanding of the facts of the situation.

Governor-elect Brown described the situation as unprecedented in his lifetime, and suggested that the Budget problem might be worse than it was in the Depression when Government played a smaller role than it does today. Brown said he has taken 20% out of the Governor's office budget already, and will take more; he wants to lead by example.

Brown gave some clues regarding what to expect in his January Budget. He indicated that there will be more cuts to public education, but said he would do his best to minimize them. When asked about midyear cuts, he deferred to his Director of Finance, who said that their focus will be on how to close the 2011-12 Budget gap, and noted that Governor Schwarzenegger's Special Session Budget proposal maintained Proposition 98 funding at the Budget level. Brown suggested that people sit down when they read stories regarding his January Budget, and said he wants a Budget agreement done within 60 days.

About half of the Summit was devoted to questions and comments from audience members. Many individuals focused on the magnitude of cuts that K-14 education has already taken--half or more of the real cuts over the last three years. Suggestions from superintendents included supporting a lower threshold to pass parcel taxes (Senator Simitian [D-Palo Alto] has again introduced a measure, Senate Constitutional Amendment [SCA] 5, which would amend the State Constitution to reduce the vote requirement for the imposition, extension, or increase of a parcel tax by a school district, community college district, or county office of education from two-thirds of its voters to upon the approval of 55%, if the proposition meets specified requirements). Several individuals emphasized the need to extend current categorical flexibility and expand flexibility to all categoricals. Many in the audience suggested that the approach must be balanced or said that revenues must be part of the solution, but Brown did not indicate when or if he would seek tax increases. While most of the audience questions came from individuals in K-12, Brown asked about community college fees, and Chancellor Jack Scott told him that if fees must go up, the increases should be gradual and moderate, and that the community colleges should keep the additional funds.

Stay tuned . . .

--Deborah Harmon

On December 8, 2010, Governor-elect Jerry Brown hosted a two-hour long Budget Summit for invited state and local elected officials to quantify the magnitude of California's Budget problem.  Brown's message was that we need to have consensus on what the problem is before we can develop solutions. Brown turned to Ana Matosantos, who, as Brown announced on December 7, will continue as Director of the California Department of Finance (DOF) in his Administration, and to Legislative Analyst (LAO) Mac Taylor, to describe the magnitude of the deficit, the state's expenditures and revenues, and how California compares to other states on various metrics. Treasurer Bill Lockyer was asked by Brown to explain the state's borrowing, and Controller John Chiang was tasked with talking about cash. Following the formal presentation, state and local officials were given the opportunity to ask questions.

Scope of Budget Problem

The takeaway from today's Summit is that California's Budget problem is much worse than the Budget problems the state has experienced in the past decade. First, the 18-month Budget deficit could be as high as $28.1 billion, $2.7 billion worse than the LAO has projected, depending upon what Congress does with the federal estate tax.

The LAO said that revenues are in line with spending. The problem is that temporary solutions--such as $8.3 billion in temporary taxes--are expiring, and California will have less to spend because the federal stimulus dollars will go away. The ongoing problem is about $20 billion.

The LAO explained that California went into the recession in poor fiscal shape, with no reserves. The recession devastated revenues--we lost more than 25% of what the LAO projected in 2008. The revenue loss is partially attributable to personal income taxes that are not being paid by unemployed workers. California's 9% job loss during this recession is more than twice what California has experienced in any prior recession. The LAO is projecting it will take about eight years (from the beginning of the recession) before California's job total is back to where it was before the recession, although we are starting to grow modestly.

The presenters said that California has had three categories of Budget solutions in the last decade: temporary, one-time, and solutions that made the long-term deficit worse. For example, to achieve one-time monies, California accelerated its collection of revenues and shifted state employee payroll from June 30 to July 1. Solutions that made the long-term deficit worse included the sale of state office buildings, which is expected to occur this month.

Most of the discussion of cuts was at a macro level, with a broad discussion of the programs that have experienced cuts in recent years, but without quantifying the percentage cuts that other programs have taken. Matosantos did acknowledge that education has accounted for a substantial portion of the cuts. Proposition 98 funding for K-14 education has gone from $56.7 billion in 2007-08 to a projected $47.5 billion in 2011-12, a reduction in state funding of more than 10%, and a $9 billion drop in base funding. Next year, there will be another reduction in Proposition 98, and no additional federal stimulus funds to cushion the reduction.

To further stress the importance of getting California's fiscal house in order, Ana Matosantos cited other threats to California's finances, including its $100 billion to $500 billion pension liability, its $10.3 billion unemployment insurance deficit, outstanding budgetary borrowing of $15.3 billion, and the estimated $3.5 billion cost for health care reform.

Borrowing

Treasurer Bill Lockyer presented a startling picture of the cost of the state's debt. Because the state's outstanding debt has increased dramatically since 2003, its debt service has grown from $2.5 billion to almost $6 billion per year. In fact, debt service is expected to peak in two years at more than 10% of the General Fund revenues. There is another $54 billion in bonds that have been approved by voters or authorized by the Legislature that have not been sold. California has the worst credit rating of the 50 states, meaning that it pays 1.10% higher interest on its bonds than if those bonds were AAA rated. If all of the authorized bonds were issued, this higher interest cost would amount to an extra $12 billion cost over the life of the bonds.

Cash

The state needs cash to pay its bills. In a bit of good news, Controller Chiang said that California is not expected to face a cash crisis in the current year. However, without a balanced, on time Budget, he said California's cash position could be a negative $4.6 billion in September 2011. He said that we can't wait for an upturn in the economy, because economists are seeing protracted slow growth for California and double digit unemployment. California is increasing its borrowing; in July 2007 borrowing represented 12% of the General Fund, but borrowing is now 23.5% of the General Fund, and that does not include the deferrals or the economic recovery bonds. Moreover, California has been operating in the red for the last three years.

Conclusion

Brown concluded by suggesting that we don't point fingers regarding the current Budget problem, but that we join hands to get Californians together to get the state back on track. The task is monumental, as the data presented illustrates. Moreover, the politics won't be easy. Although the December 8 Summit was to have focused only on identifying the problem, some elected officials could not resist providing suggested solutions, which were of a partisan nature. However, Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) said it best in his introductory remarks. It comes down to answering the following question: What do we want in California and how do we pay for it? Governor-elect Brown provided no hints as to how he will address those questions in his January 10 Budget Proposal.

Positives, negatives, problems and some suggestions for tenure

Posted on 12/03/10 • Categorized as Tenure

By Stephen Blum

The term tenure describes the employment status of a permanent teacher in most public school systems. Tenure provides permanent teachers a "property right" to employment and provides significant guarantees of due process for a teacher facing dismissal charges.

Much has been written recently regarding tenure for public school teachers. Tenure is often misunderstood and politicized. Here are some positives, negatives, problems, and suggestions.

Positives of tenure

Tenure was instituted  years ago to protect good teachers from angry parents, micromanaging school board members, and/or incompetent administrators. Teachers, like judges, must make decisions that not everyone agrees with. It is not uncommon for a parent who is displeased with his or her child's grade to call for the teacher's dismissal. Some school board members cannot refrain from micromanagement. It is not uncommon for a board member to call for a teacher's dismissal. Not all administrators are competent in the task of properly evaluating teachers. It is not uncommon for a poor administrator to call for the dismissal of a teacher who is capable. Tenure protects teachers who speak up. Tenure protects teachers from age discrimination and other forms of prejudice. Tenure protects good teachers in these and other situations.

Negatives of tenure

Students suffer as a result of poor teachers and administrators. Tenure protects ineffective teachers. The process of removing a teacher is not simple or swift. However, effective districts and administrators can and do remove teachers who are not effective. In contrast, ineffective districts and administrators often cannot correctly determine and/or follow the process in order to dismiss an ineffective teacher. These administrators often complain the process is too complicated and expensive. Excuses do not solve problems. Most ineffective teachers were granted tenure by an ineffective administrator.

Problems with tenure

In California, a teacher normally begins working for a district in a "probationary" status and is granted tenure after two years or is fired. (Education uses the term "non-reelected" instead of "fired.") Previously, the decision was made after three years. Most teachers need more time to learn the craft, and administration needs more time to properly assess a teacher's skills and ability. Presently, a probationary teacher can be "non-reelected" without cause. This means the teacher is fired without being told why. The law only requires a "non-reelected" teacher to be informed of the dismissal by March 15 of the current school year. Fired teachers are expected to teach for the remaining three months of the school year. These changes were part of a "reform" package in the early 1980s. They were not wise.

Suggestions

Teacher training needs to be improved. Apprenticeship programs that require new teachers to work with a quality, experienced teacher should replace the inadequate student teacher system. Tenure should be attained after three or four years. Evaluations should not be conducted solely by one principal. Specially trained evaluators should also be involved in this important decision. All administrators should be properly trained in the lawful process of evaluating, assisting, and/or removing teachers who legitimately need to improve or leave. Administrators need adequate time to learn and perform these tasks. Proven assistance programs for teachers requiring support should be consistently maintained.

Federal and state politicians who simply seek to make points by commenting on "all those bad teachers" are not helpful. Reforms can and should be formulated. In order for this to occur, all of the stakeholders must work together for the common good, not political or monetary gain, with the best interest of children as the guiding light.

Stephen P. Blum is the president of the Ventura Unified Education Association and a member of the Ventura County Community College Board of Trustees. He served as a high school teacher for 25 years and as the cross-country and track coach at Buena High School for 22 years. He has a Juris Doctorate degree, a  Master's degree in education, and a Bachelor's degree in history. His wife has been a teacher for 30-plus years. Their daughter is a student at California State University at Channel Islands.

Rick Simpson

December 3, 2010 • 1:58 pm

To add a bit more context for the "not wise" reforms contained in SB 813 (Hart, 1983), the article fails to mention that the reduction in the probationary period from three years to two was only half of a major policy tradeoff.  Prior to SB 813 probationary teachers also had due process rights related to dismissal, though not as extensive as for tenured teachers.  The tradeoff was a reduced probationary period in exchange for complete management discretion over dismissal of probationary teachers - what the article correctly describes as non-reelection.  Labor and management both gave up something to get something in the 1983 deal.  I think that bit of history ought to be taken into account as one considers future policy changes.