Executive
SummaryExecutive
SummaryFebruary 5, 1999
Given that a new governor was to be sworn in January 1999, the 4Cs Executive Council invited representatives from the State Legislature, the Governor's Office and the California Department of Education to share some of their perspectives for the near future. Our presenters included Paul Warren, Legislative Analyst Office; Sue Burr, Undersecretary of Education; Scott Plotkin, Chief Consultant for the Senate Education Committee; and Nancy Sullivan, California Department of Education, Manager, Office of Educational Technology. Each presenter was given an hour and twenty minutes presentation time, including a Q & A session.
Presentation Highlights
Paul Warren, Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) http:// www.lao.ca.gov
From the Question and Answer session:
Q How can our organizations have input?
A Give us a call. we're always interested in feedback.
Q. Prop 13 has tied hands of local government and counties. More and more funding is being legislated. I hope that we won't do what we've done in business. We cannot de-regulate everything. School boards of education actually have very little accountability. I applaud your master plan but hopefully there will be a structure for more local control.
A: The report does come off a little simplistic. Local control will not answer all the problems. Let's keep what works well and throw out what doesn't.
Q. Are you aware of any legislation to enforce the master plan?
A. Not at this time. We do have connections
Q. Any timelines connected to frameworks?
A. Master plan is a philosophy not a timeline. This is a big "for instance." The plan does not get into detail about how we should structure the implementation of the goals. For example, we should work backwards from the exit exams. Master Plan should give us a framework to think through the problems.
Q. Consequences, in the past legislation often has not carried consequences. I do not mean punitive. We must have consequences. Is legislation not meant to carry consequences but master plans can?
A. It is easy to say but harder to do. It is astonishing how much state law is just ignored. In the accountability debate, is accountability for all schools or only the lowest performing and who should be responsible? Last year there was a bill that went down the road of only the lowest Some might say that the worst schools are serving the easiest kids to teach.
Q. I'd like to suggest a mechanism for review and revision? Frequently this is missing.
A. The process used to be the sunset process but it never worked out well.
Comment: About accountability, accountable for what and to whom? We must have a revision issue. accountability is being overused. We cannot simply depend on penalizing.
Response: Carrots usually work better than sticks. I'd like to foster a continual learning environment in education. You need feedback to know what to do.
Sue Burr, Undersecretary of Education
From the Question and Answer session:
Q. Why use the UC system and not the CSU system?
A. Subject matter project funds always go to UC projects (since 1983).
Q. Who will be trained through the Peer Assistance Program and for what?
A. Teachers, on lesson development, lesson delivery and observation.
Q. The Peer Assistance Program is not an evaluation program?
A. This is an assistance program not an evaluation program. Expert teachers will help struggling teachers. Assistance is the objective. This is not tied to staffing. Structure will be designed locally.
Q. This program is for permanent teachers only?
A. Yes. Beginning teachers would be in a BTSA program. This is not designed to fire teachers but to strengthen the teaching force. We want to strengthen teachers and keep them.
Peer assistance programs available in other states show good results. Some veteran teachers may counsel their peers out of education but that is not the purpose. This is relatively new for NEA/CTA but not for everyone. Poway has been doing this for over 20 years where both teachers associations are supportive.
Q. How does vocational education fit into the school accountability program?
A. Are Vocational Education students tested in STAR?
Q. What about English Language Learners? There is an oracy issue. How will we help our English Language Learners meet these goals?
A. In the budget there is $74M for English Language Learners; $14M for an English Language Development Test, $60M for English Language Development Programs.
Scott Plotkin, Chief Consultant for the Senate Education Committee
From the Question and Answer session:
Q. When I have 35 or 47 kids in a room built for 24 with 12 Special Education kids without an aide, how am I supposed to teach? A 200 day school year will not solve the problem. What will it take?
A. Realistically is that this will probably not change. We've put a lot of things on the back burner. Many things have been sacrificed to preserve and protect the core subjects. We thought we might be able to use Prop 98 to recoup. Instead Wilson used $2B for class size reduction instead of giving in back to the local districts. What goes on in the local district, is not real here. Politically CSR has made teachers and voters happy. In the meantime, local districts still deferred programs and courses. You need to educate your parents (voters) and make them your best friends.
Educators, your own professional organizations come to Sacramento to tie up money. You buy into it. You've got to let your legislators know that you want the local school board to make the decisions, not the legislature.
Q. Good research is out there but who will take the time to read it and find it? Who will provide the input? Too often decisions are made and then the problems are found. There must be a mechanism of review and compliance.
A. We have public policy by anecdote. The entire legislative process funneled down to 5 people in the governor's office: the Governor, the Speaker, the two Education Committee Chairs, and the Chief Consultant. It is up to you folks at home to figure out how to impact this process. Meet with your local legislators and the Sue Burrs of the world.
Nancy Sullivan, Manager, Educational Technology Office,
We administer several programs on a small budget.
From the Question and Answer session:
Q. Shouldn't this be K-12 not just 4-8?
A. We feel the Digital High School program meets the 9-12 need. There are concerns about using technology below grade 4. Perhaps the priority is to help the older kids first. It remains to be seen if this will filter down to K-3.
Q. What happens when the funding runs out for Digital High School? Will there be a Digital Middle School program?
A. We will have to write a budget change proposal--a 2 year process. We proposed a digital middle school last year but that proposal was not included in the governor's proposed budget.
Q. What about the maintenance of equipment?
A. We worry about this a whole lot. If a lesson depends on the technology but it fails, it won't work. Networks don't maintain themselves.
Q. Governor's issues on education has very little mention, if any, about technology, do we have friends there?
A. There is a Digital HS bill coming forward. Pacheco did sponsor a bill to review inventory issues.
Q. Will your department melt down on January 1?
A. No, we won't. Districts need to work with County Offices of Education for Y2K compliance. People in our office and at the County Offices of Education are working hard on this with the districts.