<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=683253321-04062004>Contact: </SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>
Jay Nitschke [mailto:jay@jaystoys.com]<BR></FONT></DIV>Meeting notes from the
June 1 community forum on Funding Excellence in Public Schools: New
Possibilities. At the end is a brief summary of the new revenue measure being
considered by the School Board.<BR><BR>Trina Ostrander, Executive Director of
the Berkeley Public Education Foundation opened the June 1st community forum on
funding public education, reminding everyone of the grim reality of K-12
education funding in California: <BR>--48th in the nation in number of teachers
per student, <BR>--last in the nation in librarians per student,
<BR>--$22/student in textbook funding when the mandatory first grade math
workbook costs $25, and <BR>--no commitment from the governor to remedy the
situation in future years. <BR><BR>Schools Superintendent Michele Lawrence spoke
for a bit about her vision for Berkeley's education future, and then introduced
the featured speaker. After Professor Picus spoke, Lawrence expanded on her
earlier remarks. In order not to confuse you, we'll start with the large vision
as enunciated by Picus, and then follow with Lawrence's vision of how this fits
into the scheme of things in Berkeley.<BR><BR>First, Picus talked about the
scale of the education system. In the context of the state budget, which has a
significant structural deficit [meaning that even if the economy improves, the
budget will remain unbalanced unless taxes are raised or significant cuts made],
K-12 education is a very large amount of money, about 40% of General Fund
expenditures. Total K-12 spending on education in California is about $54
billion, which, if it were a single company, would rank 19th on the Fortune 500,
equivalent to Boeing. There are over 6.2 million public school students in
California. Berkeley Unified's budget is about $85 million [this does not
include the Adult School or various bond-funded building
improvements].<BR><BR>There is a growing national movement to define and
implement educational adequacy. Lawrence prefers to speak of adequacy as the
"essential ingredients of education." Picus defined adequacy this way: “Adequacy
requires the provision of sufficient fiscal resources to enable all schools to
deploy educational strategies that can educate nearly all their students to the
state's proficiency standards.”<BR><BR>Picus suggested that adequacy was a
4-part process.<BR>1. Define the standards. While one might argue about details,
this has already been done by state, though a community would be able to set its
own definition.<BR>2. Create a system to achieve the standards.<BR>3. Measure
the costs and expenditures.<BR>4. Implementation concerns: How to do it and how
to evaluate progress.<BR><BR>Various states have done adequacy studies, often
implemented by the a court order. Wyoming, Maryland, Oregon, Arkansas and New
York were discussed. All required significant revenue increases to implement,
but the legislatures were quite a bit more willing to do so after hearing the
study results.<BR><BR><B>There are four popular models for determining adequacy,
</B>according to Picus:<BR>1. Cost functions. These are mathematic formulas to
that determine adequate resources given various data about the students, schools
and district. Cons: hard to understand, often show urban districts need 2 to 3
times the resources of suburban districts, thus hard to implement
politically.<BR>2. Successful districts: Make models based on districts that
meet standards. Cons: Not many districts to choose from; often have few
low-income families. Districts can meet standards one year, fail the next. Some
districts spend as much as the model requires yet still fail [example:
Cleveland].<BR>3. Professional judgment: Educational experts decide what
resources are needed. Districts get money based on model, plus extras for
student population, district characteristics [rural districts have high
transportation costs], and geographic cost differences. Question: should the
money come with a model a district must implement, or just a block grant, or
something in-between?<BR>4. Evidence-based approach. Study the best research on
how children learn, and develop effective schools based on that research. As
this is Picus' field, the majority of the discussion focused on this model.
Tends to be lower cost that "professional judgment" model.<BR><BR>Implementation
Issues: A model for an effective school should
be:<BR>--Simple<BR>--Transparent<BR>--Easy to Understand<BR>The question
remains: How proscriptive should it be? Meaning, how closely should the model be
adhered to at the district or school level? Picus noted that Berkeley was a good
size to do an adequacy study: large enough to allow differences in
implementation between schools while small enough to allow the Superintendent
and staff to follow progress at each school [unlike LA where there are 674
schools].<BR><BR><B>One Model for Effective Education</B><BR>In Arkansas, the
model school for effective education was based on 500 students [multiply by 2
for a middle school like King, or 5.5 for Berkeley High]. It would be staffed as
follows:<BR>One principal. The class sizes were 15:1 in K-3, 25:1 in 4-12.
<BR>An addition 20% teachers were used for resource teachers.<BR>Additional
support teachers: 1.5 elementary, 2.5 middle schools, 3.5 high school.<BR>Lots
of teacher mentoring and staff development: 2.5 positions plus 5 additional days
for staff development.<BR>For every 100 students in the Free and Reduced Lunch
program [a measure of poverty] two addition positions were added, one of them a
certificated teacher. Also additional positions based on number of ELL
students.<BR>Additional money for expanded preschool.<BR>A PDF file of full text
of the report is available for download
at:<BR>http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/data/education/web.htm<BR><BR>Picus also
talked about the need for long-term revenue stability, which is not found in
California. He suggested that with revenue stability it would be easier for
districts to create ten-year plans, which he thought crucial to improving
instruction.<BR><BR>In response to a question, Picus noted that while most of
his work was with states, he was working with four districts on adequacy
studies, though because of court rulings he could not discuss those in detail
[and indeed offered none at all]. But that brings us to
Berkeley….<BR><BR><B>Taskforce for Berkeley</B><BR>Schools Superintendent
Michele Lawrence sees the coming year as an opportunity to get out of the spiral
of budget cuts followed by budget cuts while improving instruction at the same
time. She called the two-year tax measure expected to be put on the November
2004 ballot by the School Board a vehicle for the district to fund critical
programs that were lost in the last three years of budget cuts [lowering class
size, strengthening libraries and music instruction, etc] while allowing the
discussion of essentials to proceed and culminate before the expiration of both
the BSEP measure and the new measure [if it passes] in 2006. [See information on
new measure at end of this article.]<BR><BR>Lawrence indicated that she would
form a taskforce in the fall of educators, parents, unions, and community
members. The first step will be to define the "essential education you want for
your children," and then figure out how to provide all or as close to all of
that as possible. She defined Berkeley as "a community rich in resources, a
generosity of spirit, and volunteerism unparalleled in California." The
University, the city, the county, and various other agencies are all providing
resources for our children, she noted, and while there were pockets of
cooperation, there is a need to expand those relationships. One facet Lawrence
sees as essential is the philosophy of "one child, whole child"--that all the
needs of the child must be met: mind, body and spirit. <BR><BR>An attendee asked
the obvious question: How, in Berkeley, will the Superintendent get taskforce
members to work together productively, rather than on each individual's agenda?
Lawrence's answer was blunt: "That's what frightens me the most [about the
process]," but noted that there is no alternative to cooperation: "either we
find a way out of this [meaning ongoing state cuts to education] or we will be
right back where we are today [with inadequate resources to fully educate our
children]." Lawrence asked attendees to let her know if her plan had their
support, and promised not to let the taskforce be thwarted by “paralysis by
analysis.”<BR><BR><B>Closing Notes</B><BR>Ostrander noted that Professor Picus
had donated his time for the event, and the Education Foundation contributed the
remaining costs. The event was co-sponsored by a range of community groups and
elected officials: The Berkeley PTA Council, Berkeley Schools Now!, Berkeley
Alliance, The League of Women Voters of Berkeley, Albany and Emeryville,
Assemblymember Loni Hancock, Mayor Tom Bates, and the Bay Area Coalition for
Equitable Schools (BayCES).<BR><BR><B>A quick note on the potential new tax
measure.</B> <BR>A proposal is before the Board would to put a new measure on
the ballot that would expire in two years [at the same time as the current BSEP
measure] and raise about $8 million annually. It would be based on the square
footage of improved property [both homes and businesses] in the city, the same
as the current BSEP measure.<BR><BR>The proposal states:<BR>“Funds raised by
this special tax shall be deposited in restricted accounts, with the available
funds raised by this special tax to be allocated as follows:<BR>• Smaller class
sizes and expanded program offerings 68% (of funds raised)<BR>• School Libraries
16%<BR>• Music Programs 7%<BR>• Program evaluation and teacher training 7%<BR>•
Parent outreach and translation 2%”<BR>As above, the bulk of the money [about
two thirds] would go to lower class sizes:<BR>“The goals for class sizes to be
achieved with the use of these monies are: a district-wide average class size of
20:1 for grades K-3; 26:1 for grades 4-5; 28:1 for grades 6-12.”<BR><BR>There
are Board meetings scheduled every Wednesday in June. Public comment may be made
at any of them, but the June 9th meeting will be a chance for the Board to hear
from the public on the new measure.<BR><BR>Meeting notes by Jay Nitschke, a
Jefferson school parent. jay@jaystoys.com<BR><BR>
<P><FONT size=2>______________________________<BR>Janet Huseby and Kathryn Capps
are the facilitators of the etree; please direct any questions or concerns to
them at <bhs-owner@idiom.com><BR><BR>To subscribe to the etree, write
bhs-request@idiom.com with one word only in the subject line: subscribe.<BR>To
unsubscribe, write bhs-request@idiom.com with one word only in the subject line:
unsubscribe.<BR> </FONT> </P></BODY></HTML>