|
Education's Budget Crunch- The Good News and The Bad News KHSD's Shameful Shell Game So what's the problem? October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Education's Budget Crunch- The Good News and The Bad News
The only good news is that since KHSD is building 2 new schools there will be openings for many of those who would have otherwise been laid off. This means involuntary transfers for most of them (as well as a few months of holding their breath) but still better than waiting tables next year. Also, since some of our schools have high numbers of socio-economically disadvantaged students they recieve large sums of Federal money, which will remain relatively stable. Two of the bad things I haven't been reading much about: First, we teachers tend to be very sensitive to our job security. I mean, come on... we go to college for what amounts to a Master's Degree in most states and get paid less than the average 4 year grad. The relative job security is one of the big perks in this job. So having to notify valued members of the teaching staff that they are on the chopping block tends to make start writing resumes whether you eventually find a place for them next year or not. Not to mention the shot to morale. Second, our own Jean Fuller (of former BCSD fame) has proposed suspending QEIA funding at the state level. This illustrates the idiocy of the current state of affairs. QEIA is not a state budget line item, it's a court settlement that the state owes to our poorest schools. Imagine a private citizen losing a court case and informing the plaintiff "Sorry, the budget's a little tight this year. I'm not paying you what the court awarded you." Luckily, it's unlikely that the state will be able to suspend QEIA funds even if they vote to in the legislature. The judiciary still holds jurisdiction over the case. Unfortunately, it is affecting the way some districts budget for next year which could result in unnecessarily pink slipping (and scaring the witts out of) some teachers. 3 comments from 3 users
1
posted by
Googolplex
on Mar 13, 2008 at 08:23 PM
Wasteful spending in Education? Surely you jest! :) Thanks for the comment, Mr. McDougle. Being a classroom teacher I really don't have a complete understanding of Fuller's long-term plan for the QEIA funds. I do know the short-term ramifications of yanking millions of dollars from an already struggling school that has just begun to see progress... demoralization and disaster. I have always been appalled by the waste in the public sector. Before teaching I worked in the private sector for some time and education's politics and bureacracy are often laughable. If Fuller puts a plan forth to get those funds to us next year in a more efficient and equitable manner, great. Until then, I remain skeptical. But you have definitely given me some food for thought. I will do some checking to see if the Fuller camp is proposing a "better plan" or a "money grab". posted by
mcdougle
on Mar 12, 2008 at 09:22 PM
Googol. I often find myself on the opposite side of educational issues with Assemblywoman Fuller and I may be again on the issue of suspending Quality Education Investment Act funds, that is, unless she is proposing a better system of distributing the funds to help underachieving schools. As someone who is good with math (your blogname implies) you can understand why I think the QEIA "ain't gonna get the job done." First hurdle: Schools in deciles 1 and 2 must apply for the funds. You'd be surprised how a mountain of paper work can discourage application as well as eat up funding. Next, $3 Billion over seven years equals less than half a billion a year. Finally, and the point I disagree with, "Up to $2,000,000 will be allocated to county offices of education to annually monitor the implementation of this reform program in funded schools." That could amount to over $100 million a year. If the goal is to lower class size, hire new staff, and provide teacher training, why does that much money go to the county offices for monitoring? Shouldn't the greatest share of the money go to the schools that are struggling so that they can use it to implement programs to improve the academic achievement of the students? If that is what Jean Fuller has in mind, I may have to join her. posted by
NancyII
on Mar 12, 2008 at 08:53 PM
"First, we teachers tend to be very sensitive to our job security " Those of you who have been talking about this the last few days now have an inside explanation. No comments?
1
BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS: Loading Stories
Advertisement |