California has a proud history as being the most innovative state in the nation. Historically, we've provided top-notch services to our citizens, and our economy has grown stronger for it. Perhaps most importantly, California boasts the nation's best educated workforce. It should come as little surprise that 5 of our public universities made U.S. News and World Report's top 10 for best public universities this year (and UC Irvine came in 11th). Our education system, from kindergarten through graduate school, has always ensured that the nation's most entrepreneurial businesses will arise in California.
Unfortunately, the current economic climate and years of budget crises have endangered California's education system, and with it our way of life. To make matters worse, special interests pushed through a set of brand new tax loopholes during a budget deadlock in 2009. These giveaways are set to cost California $1.3 billion dollars a year, money that will be cut from education and the other vital programs that make California great.
Last month the Los Angeles Times decided to publish their own "ranking" of teacher "effectiveness" in the LA Unified School District, based entirely on test scores. The move was extremely controversial, and the Times was slammed by education experts for their flawed methodology.
Today, however, comes a story that proves just how flawed and misleading the LA Times teacher ratings really were. It's a story of a recently retired LAUSD teacher who was ranked as "the worst" by the LA Times - a ranking that came as a huge surprise to her former students:
Faye Ireland knows that she was a good teacher. She doesn't depend on test scores to tell her that. She has stacks of letters from former students, enduring relationships with their parents and a reputation for managing the most challenging kids on campus.
But it bothered Ireland plenty when she was publicly branded "least effective" last month in The Times' ratings of elementary school teachers. The ranking, in an online database with the "Grading the Teachers" project relies on students' progress on standardized exams to measure teacher effectiveness.
What happened? Is Ireland just making herself sound good to cover up a flawed teaching style?
Nope. What happened is that by actually giving her students - particularly her ESL students - the help and instruction they needed, instead of wasting time on a test, she made a huge and positive impact in the lives and in the educational futures of her students, but at the expense of her "ranking" in some bullshit test-driven metric:
Ireland knew that if they landed in ESL programs in middle school, they would have few chances to take challenging academic classes. "Their parents worked with me like crazy, and we got them through all the things they had to do."
By the end of each year, "every one of my students was fluent in English," she recalled. "That's what I set out to do."
Other teachers warned her that her test scores would take a hit...
But she was looking beyond the test, beyond the classroom, even. "I wanted to transition those kids into English. I wanted them to know they could accomplish this, that nothing was off limits to them."
In other words, she could have done what the state and the LA Times wanted - teach to the test - or she could have actually paid attention to her students, understood their actual educational needs, and made sure those needs were met so that they can thrive in their later years of schooling.
She did the latter, and that's what makes a truly great teacher. By any standard her work would be seen as a huge success, and she would be held up as a model educator.
That is, under any standard except the one the LA Times used to brand her as the "least effective" in the entire LAUSD.
Now it's possible that Ireland succeeded in some areas, was weaker in others (such as test scores). Only a full and comprehensive evaluation of teachers that includes an assessment of all their skills and accomplishments can truly tell whether a teacher is "good" or not.
That is precisely what the teachers' unions are calling for. And that is precisely what the LA Times rejected in their reckless and flawed ratings, based only on test scores - which as most teachers, parents, and students understand, should not be the only thing education is about.
Ireland's story shows what will happen if the attack on public schools, led by people such as US Education Secretary Arne Duncan and the LA Times, succeeds. Schools will become full of students who are taught to do well on a test, instead of having their other educational needs met.
If that's what the education privatizers want, then that's their choice. But for those of us who actually want good schools with good teachers in them, we would do well to continue to push back against the flawed LA Times teacher evaluations, and ensure that whatever LAUSD and California come up with next to assess teachers, that it is holistic and not focused on tests to the exclusion of actual educational needs.
Following up on Michael O'Hare's essay from yesterday, today we get the very real consequences of what we have become. We no longer pay to educate our students:
California's top fiscal officials Monday ordered the deferral of $2.5 billion in payments to the state's public schools next month to conserve cash and stave off the need to begin issuing IOUs.
The state's budget is 54 days late, and that delay has stretched the state's depleted treasury to the breaking point. Issuance of scrip could come within weeks.
The deferral announced Monday "was not taken lightly," state Controller John Chiang, Treasurer Bill Lockyer and Department of Finance Director Ana Matosantos wrote in a joint letter to the Legislature. (LAT)
Sure, the schools had notice that this was coming down the pike, and they will be able to get loans to cover them in the short term until the budget is passed. But that's not really the point is it?
Once again, we allow ourselves to be at the whim of the credit markets, and are paying interest where none should be paid. We spend a lesser share of our GDP on state funding today than we did 30 years ago, and we spend a lesser share of that smaller pie to educate our students.
And if the neo-liberal takeover wasn't well and truly complete, we have the fact that financial institutions are the ones that benefit from this little delay. Hardly the biggest moneymaker ever for them, but when this is all said and done, some very real money will come out of classrooms and land in the pockets of Wall Street.
The fight is worth fighting, we simply cannot continue to cede further ground every year. This isn't a matter of not being able to afford our services, it is a matter of not wanting to pay for our services.
At one point, there was an ideal for California as the place where people could go to dream big dreams, and climb up the ladder. The ladder is now just being pulled up faster than people can attempt to move up. If we are to move forward, we must fight just as hard in order to push the ladder back down and facilitate education, and development in the state.
That doesn't mean a slavish devotion to jobs at any cost. If we are giving Californians the option of a McJob or nothing, we are not really helping anybody, and we have failed. We need real jobs, with real pay that can support a middle class lifestyle. That is why Jerry Brown's plans are simply far more appealing than Whitman's plans for forced austerity, and the slashing of 40,000 jobs. It is neither possible nor positive.
And it is just one more reason that we have to ensure that we elect Democrats throughout the state this year. The alternative is just too horrifying.
I want to like Joe Matthews and "Prop Zero." I know a lot of smart, wonkish people have loved his book. But it seems these days that you can't keep a job in the media without picking an issue to punch some hippies on. Apparently, Matthews has decided to pick on teachers. Well, at least their unions. You see, teachers unions aren't allowed to advocate for teachers and do their jobs. They're supposed to be education policy officials for some reason. (This must have been a "new rule" at some point.) The new ethos in America is to stop anyone from doing well if you can't too, I guess.
Sigh.
Today's blog post is entitled, "Teachers Aren't Secret Agents." (No linky.) As if the only public scrutiny teachers face is a potential LA Times database. Have these people completely forgotten school boards? There is also data published all the time on the individual schools. It's also completely ignorant of what goes on in schools right about now: a lot of breaking down of last year's test score data to work on areas of improvement.
As a student who is currently enrolled in a California State University, I have witnessed the devastating effects that the higher education crisis is having on this state. My student fees have increased with the coming of each new semester. My professors have had to completely redesign their courses so that they can teach as many students as the fire code will allow in a classroom at a time. My fellow students and I are "crashing" any open classes left and right, trying to get enough units to reach full-time status so that we can qualify for financial aid and health insurance.
My fellow students and I are idealistic and optimistic. We believe in hope and change. And we want a candidate for governor who will make higher education reform the top priority in their campaign. As the situation stands Meg Whitman has not made higher education a priority in her plan to govern California and it is doubtful that she will ever see the direct correlation between the health of the state's higher educational system and the condition of our state's economy.
Jerry Brown, however, still has the time to make higher education reform the pinnacle of his gubernatorial platform. Brown should learn from San Francisco Mayor and Democratic candidate for Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom's campaigns for Governor and Lieutenant Governor. As a candidate for both offices, Mayor Newsom made higher education reform one of his top concerns. And as a result, Students for Gavin Newsom established chapters at 36 colleges and 35 high schools up and down the state, making it the arguably the largest grassroots student movement ever organized in the state of California.
Meg Whitman spent last week crisscrossing California with her Wall Street pal Mitt Romney, pumping up her already overflowing campaign coffers with even more corporate cash. Her campaign strategy is clear: write big checks and avoid a real conversation with voters about her background, her policies, and her plans for the state.
But California's workers aren't going to let Meg and her Wall Street agenda take the express jet to the Governor's office. While Meg and Mitt were rubbing elbows with the corporate elite, an army of nurses, educators, construction trades workers, and others who would be directly impacted by Meg's anti-worker agenda were putting the final touches on our campaign to expose her plans to do Wall Street's bidding and what her Governorship would mean for California's families.
Today, the California Labor Federation launched a massive grassroots campaign massive grassroots campaign that will deploy an army of volunteers to expose the truth about Meg Whitman's Wall Street agenda and her history on the board at Goldman Sachs. The campaign will counter Whitman's avalanche of TV ads and estimated $150 war chest with online tools as well as and person-to-person contact, which is proven to be the best way to reach voters.
There is a path to follow in this series regarding the mess here in South Orange County and the Capistrano Unified School Districts Board of Trustees. The big picture needed to be outlined in one diary, to show how this board was working against the teachers and the bargaining process. It was merely a snapshot, the picture is bigger and it has been going on for years.
The second piece of the puzzle has to do with Education Alliance, a Political Action Committee in Tustin, CA and a number of other political entities hell bent on dismantling public education (And opposing other important political issues such as health care reform and climate change legislation) so that they can privatize and funnel money into charter schools.
A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon our children won't have educations at all in California. This year, the Governor proposes a $2.7 billion dollar cut in education (about $400 per student, per CaliforniaBudgetBitesBlog.
In an effort to eke some lemonade out of a huge pile of budget-cut lemons, students at the San Carlos Charter Learning Center (SCCLC) are getting hands-on experience as activists and fundraisers through a Spend1Day campaign. They are handwriting invitations to state reps inviting them to spend one day in a local public school. Perhaps a spending a day in classrooms, hopefully with a focus on listening to teachers and students, will have a positive impact on our state's education budget.
On Thursday, I had an opportunity to visit with young students solving problems, sharing ideas and diligently working on a science project together with their teachers. The students were doing this during an after-school program, at Politi Elementary School, in the Pico Union neighborhood of Los Angeles. Politi Elementary is one of many elementary schools participating in LA's BEST, an after school education, enrichment and recreation program serving more than 28,000 children in economically challenged neighborhoods of Los Angeles. I was fortunate to see first hand the positive impact this type of program has on young students during a program tour, led by LA's BEST Executive Director Carla Sanger.
This tour highlighted the significance of engaging kids at an early age in academic, physical, and cultural activities that keep them off the streets and out of California's criminal justice system. The LA's BEST After School program at Politi Elementary School is a shining and innovative example of how young people can thrive in a constructive learning environment instead of turning to drugs, gang activity or other delinquent behaviors. To date, more than 212,000 children have gone through LA's BEST and many are now lawyers, police officers, educators, artists and small business owners.
Though they also haven't been spared from the state's budget cuts, after-school programs keep children occupied during the hours when violent juvenile crime is most likely to occur. Recent statewide and local evaluations of California's after-school programs found consistently positive results for students enrolled in these programs, including improved student achievement, increased school attendance and improved personal behavior. In fact, studies show that kids in LA's BEST are 30 % less likely to commit juvenile crime and 20% less likely to drop out of school. With public school funding being decimated statewide and many after-school programs being cut, I believe it is essential to preserve and expand programs like LA's BEST, in order to keep kids safe, engaged and off the streets.
As Attorney General, expanding educational and after-school programs for young people is a major component of my crime prevention plan. I will work to increase educational and economic opportunities for all Californians, reduce gang activity, strengthen effective rehabilitation programs, and improve community-police relations. By implementing these crime prevention initiatives, we can make California a safer and stronger place for our families and kids. When our children are actively engaged in school-through effective teachers, supportive administrations and afterschool programs-they do not turn to gangs and crime as a means to find a supportive community.
I will also work alongside educators and organizations like LA's BEST to help young people create a path to success. I will work to improve educational opportunities and expand after-school programs that result in greater productivity and reduced crime in our communities. I will also work to prevent crime through smart, effective policies that address the roots of criminal activity and help keep our communities safe. As the next Attorney General, I will bring an innovative and results-oriented approach to fighting crime and protecting the citizens of California.
For more information about my campaign, please visit www.kelly2010.com.
John Fensterwald has a great story in the Educated Guess about what the parents in Cupertino are facing for their children. The district is K-8 only, and as the area is pretty wealthy, and fairly progressive, they've been able to pass a couple of parcel taxes for the district. In fact, last year they passed one for $4 million. But, that's not going to be enough:
But now this K-8 Silicon Valley district, home of Apple Computer and some of the highest performing schools in the state, is facing a $9 million deficit for next year. And that's putting in jeopardy many of the programs parents consider essential: small classes, summer school, the GATE program for gifted children, librarians.
*** *** ***
To that end, the Cupertino Educational Endowment Foundation is asking parents to help put an initiative on the November ballot that would lower the threshold for passing a parcel tax from two-thirds to 55 percent to make it easier to pass the next parcel tax. And organizers are asking every family to donate $375 toward a goal of $3 million to keep small classes in grades one to three while saving 105 teachers who've been told they'll otherwise lose their jobs.
Even in a place like Cupertino, where the district has always been able to find a way, there just aren't the answers that there used to be. Sacramento has cut them out at the knees, and they're trying to recover the best they can. Will Cupertino still have decent schools come next year? Probably, but if even the so-called "rich districts" are struggling to make ends meet, what does that say for the districts that are dependent upon the state?
If Meg Whitman wants to talk about too much state spending, how about she actually takes a look at our schools? You know, because hers went to private school, she's not so familiar. And with each cut, with each lost resource, times become harder.
I have a friend who teaches at a public school in San Leandro. It's a working class area these days, and the economy has hit the community pretty hard. Students are coming to school completely without supplies, and the districts simply don't have the money to pay for everything. But, the teachers aren't going to let the kids sit there with no pencil, and they end up footing the bill. While the Right wants to talk about how teachers are so spoiled, the fact is that they aren't exactly making Kingly ransoms. And honestly, I can't think of a profession that deserves every cent they earn more than teachers. But, even with that being said, teachers are being forced into spending hundreds of dollars each semester to provide simple school supplies for their classrooms.
In order to further the lively discussion of funding of the California College and University system I have posted the exact text of Senate Bill 969 which was INTRODUCED by California State Senator Dean Florez on February 5, 2010.
The bill is to be known as: The California College and University Fee Stabilization Act of 2010
Florez, a former UCLA Student Body President and Candidate for California Lt. Governor, by introduction of this bill, provides for the stabilization of fees and allows those paying for an eduction in the CA College and University system some reasonable idea of what the tuition/fees for a four year degree will cost--The Cost The First Year Remains The Same Through Ones Senior Year.
It should be pointed out to those reading the text of this bill, or any bill, proposed legislation goes through a process in which modifications are proposed and/or made to a bill, and in a prefect world, make the proposed law "better." Senator Florez, by introducing the bill has started the process in which interested/effected parties provide input to CA State Legislators to, as necessary, strengthen the bill and let them know of YOUR SUPPORT of the goal of the Legislation introduced. It is more common than not that a bill of any size or significance does not becomes law with the exact language and provisions that are present when a bill is introduced.
Another way of saying this is: Former UCLA Student Body President Florez has "opened the door for the public to provide input and support." Just getting a bill introduced is often the biggest hurdle to new laws! Senator Florez has "thrown the ball" and it is up to the public to "catch the ball and run with it." The introduction of the California College and University Fee Stabilization Act of 2010 is OUR TIME, OUR OPPORTUNITY. We have the opportunity to, to paraphrase President Obama: BE THE CHANGE WE ARE LOOKING FOR WHEN IT COMES TO HIGHER EDUCATION COSTS.
BILL NUMBER: SB 969 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT
INTRODUCED BY Senator Florez
(Principal coauthor: Senator Price)
FEBRUARY 5, 2010
An act to add Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 66150) to Part
40 of Division 5 of Title 3 of the Education Code, relating to public
postsecondary education.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 969, as introduced, Florez. Public postsecondary education:
California College and University Fee Stabilization Act of 2010.
Existing law, known as the Donahoe Higher Education Act, provides
for a public postsecondary education system in this state. The 3
segments of the public postsecondary education system are the
University of California, which is administered by the Regents of the
University of California, the California State University, which is
administered by the Trustees of the California State University, and
the California Community Colleges, which are administered by the
Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges and the
community college district governing boards. The provisions of the
Donahoe Higher Education Act apply to the University of California
only to the extent that the Regents of the University of California
act by resolution to make them applicable.
Existing law authorizes the Trustees of the California State
University to require that fees, among other charges, be paid by
students at that institution. Existing law requires the governing
board of each community college district to charge each student a fee
of $26 per unit per semester, effective with the fall term of the
2009-10 academic year. Existing provisions of the California
Constitution require the Regents of the University of California to
have all powers necessary or convenient for the effective
administration of the university.
This bill would enact the California College and University Fee
Stabilization Act of 2010, which would place limits on increases in
mandatory systemwide fees, as defined, charged to students enrolled
in the 3 segments of public postsecondary education. The bill would
limit mandatory systemwide fees that are charged to resident
undergraduate students enrolled in the University of California, the
California State University, or the California Community Colleges to
a specified amount, based on the average total cost of education, as
defined, at the respective segment. The bill would prohibit each of
the 3 segments from charging a resident undergraduate student who
commences enrollment in an undergraduate degree program at that
segment for the fall term of the 2011-12 academic year, or any
academic term thereafter, mandatory systemwide fees in an amount that
is greater than the amount of the fees in effect at the time the
student commenced enrollment in the undergraduate degree program. The
bill would prohibit mandatory systemwide fees charged to resident
undergraduate students enrolled in the University of California and
the California State University from being increased, in any academic
year, by an amount exceeding 5% of the fees charged for the
immediately preceding academic year. With respect to the per unit per
semester fees that community college districts are required to
charge to students enrolled in the California Community Colleges, the
bill would declare legislative intent that those fees not be
increased by an amount exceeding 5% of the fees charged for the
immediately preceding academic year. The bill would prohibit an
increase in mandatory systemwide fees charged to resident
undergraduate students enrolled in any of the 3 segments that is
adopted on or after January 1, 2011, from becoming effective before 6
months have elapsed after the date on which fee increase is adopted.
The bill would provide that the act does not apply to the
University of California, except to the extent that the Regents of
the University of California adopt a resolution making it applicable.
The bill would request the regents to adopt policies that are
consistent with the act.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
AB 656, authored by Assembly Majority Leader Alberto Torrico, would have established an oil and gas severance tax (California being the only oil and gas producing state in the union not having one) and earmarked the proceeds for puiblic higher education, giving our universities a financial base upon which to operate and easing the burden on the general fund.
On Thursday, the Assembly Appropriations Committee took action on it that essentially defeats the bill for this legislative cycle. The committee deleted the oil and gas severance tax portion of the bill and replaced it with a simple reporting requirement. The amendments require the state Board of Equalization to annually report to the legislature the amount of revenue that would be generated for public higher education if the oil and gas tax was implemented.
Maybe it can be resurrected as we get closer to trying to deal with this year's budget problems, especially since the Governor has placed a high priority on helping the CSU's and UC's recoup some of their cuts. This could be the way top offset the Governor's political shenanigans of trying to play off higher education unions against the prison unions.
One of the main differences between the Senate's "Race to the Top" plan and the Assembly's plan, both of which are better described as Race to the Bottom, is the subject of charter schools. Despite both plans probably doing more harm than good to our schools, the Assembly plan finally tries to rein back some of the faulty logic and excesses of the charter school movement.
Charter schools aren't inherently better or worse than the public schools, they just exist in very different worlds. Charter schools in California are required to hire certified teachers, unlike in many other states, but they needn't provide the same level of benefits and pay, clearly stated requirements and teacher protections. Quality varies wildly from charter school to charter school. Some do an excellent job of preparing children for their next step, others, well, don't.
Given the Right's love of "accountability" for public schools, measuring everything, testing everything, you'd figure they would love all those tests being inserted into the heart of all that is charter schools. You'd be wrong. You see, they want to measure public schools, but charter schools, those are market based, and the market will apparently sort that all out.
The Assembly legislation, passed out of Committee last week over Arnold's strong objections, puts new accountability standards on charter schools. It is a good first step towards figuring out what is actually going on in charter schools. Arnold's Senate bill, doesn't add any accountability standards, and does a pretty good job of sending love notes to the charter school business.
Supported by most public school educators, the Assembly legislation includes tighter auditing requirements on charter schools than current law, stronger tools for measuring academic progress, and prohibitions against renewing continually failing charter schools.
"We believe charters should be held to the same accountability standards as public schools since they're on the public dime," said Dean Vogel, vice president of the California Teachers Association. "If I believe my charter school is high-performing, I should have a measure to prove it. You've got to demonstrate that high achievement and they don't want to do that."
Schwarzenegger's own plan, SBX5-1, shepherded through the Senate last month by Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, seeks to streamline the authorizing or renewal of charter schools, bolster their ability to obtain state funding, and codify their own standards of auditing. (CoCo Times)
Apparently, in childhood education, what is good for the goose is not so good for the gander. However, we shouldn't let Arnold's campaign cash connections to charter schools dictate our education policy. If accountability is good for public schools, it should be good for the publicly-funded charter schools as well.
Those damnable, pesky public employee unions! If it weren't for them and their cushy, decadent benefits packages, California's sterling government would surely be nowhere near the level of crushing idiocy that currently pervades the hallowed halls of Sacramento. And now, now those ungrateful teachers and their annoying elitist union have the temerity to continue to take no shit from a district beset by its own rampant corrupt stupidity, and have chosen to express their collective feelings via three hundred middle fingers:
The Town Hall budget forum in San Diego High's Library drew over 100 concerned parents on Thursday Night. School Board interim Superintendent Bill Kowba and Board member Richard Barrera made a power point presentation that outlined the funding shortfalls faced by local educators with expected State contributions for the 2010 fiscal year.
The bottom line, as presented in this meeting, is that ALL of the cuts in programs that have been bandied about in the news media and various on-line discussions will not cover the expected deficit.
Why can a sixth grader lay out a message that's somehow more compelling than anything we hear from the talking heads on television.
Ethan Matsuda is a precocious young man, author of two books, The North Pole is Sinking about Clmate change and "The Easter Bunny Breaks His Leg (and has no health insurance)".
If anybody doubted that the tombstone on the Master Plan has been thoroughly and completely written, here's one more (unnecessary) piece of evidence:
A University of California Board of Regents committee today approved a series of controversial increases in student fees that, if passed by the full board, will raise UC undergraduate education costs by more than $2,500, or 32%, in two steps by fall 2010.
The finance committee vote is expected to be endorsed by the full Board of Regents on Thursday. The two-day meeting is being held at UCLA, where today's session has been marked by raucous protests with at least 14 arrests.
The first step of the fee hike, costing undergraduates an additional $585, will take effect in January. Next fall, students will see another $1,344 increase, bringing the UC education fees to $10,302, along with about $1,000 in campus-based charges. That does not include room, board and books, which can add another $16,000. (LAT 11/18/09)
Add this on top of the fact that CalGrants was substantially cut in the last round of budget negotiations and might be outright eliminated to solve the next budget crisis, and you have a system that is only accessible to all but the wealthiest students.
It is just one more sad day on our well-worn road to mediocrity.
Wow, this is a doozy. The LA Times got the scoop that LA Schools Superintendent is considering shortening the school year.
Los Angeles schools Supt. Ramon C. Cortines has asked his chief financial officer to study the possibility of shortening the school year to offset part of an expected shortfall of at least $500 million, The Times has learned.
The strategy, if adopted for the 2010-11 school year, would run counter both to the direction of national reform efforts and to the wishes of Cortines, who agrees with research touting the benefits of an extended academic calendar. (LA Now 10/29/09)
In an ideal world, we wouldn't even be discussing shortening. We would be talking about moving to year-round schooling. Instead of loading down our students with ridiculous amonunts of homework, we would increase the number of school days, scatter the vacation weeks, and do what is most effective, not what is cheapest.
But, we're settling. We're settling for a dimmer future where our children our lest educated and less prepared for the future.
Education, public safety, and the economy: three vastly complex issue areas that time and again are proven to be inextricably linked.
By doing what it takes to keep kids in school in every corner of our state, we can save literally billions of dollars in public resources and greatly improve public safety.
Most of us in law enforcement have known this for many years. As San Francisco's District Attorney, I see the direct impact of what happens when kids don't stay in school; young lives are lost to street violence or prison at an appalling rate, our state loses more resources and our communities are less safe.
You know how we keep cutting teachers from districts all over the state? Well, some folks are thinking that maybe you can't do that without consequence. You know, maybe people would want to avoid a job that carries big risk of layoffs without the big salaries you see in other risky professions.
As thousands of laid off California teachers sit out the school year, educators are worried about the long-term effect of losing so many teachers. Some instructors are considering leaving the state or even the profession, and if history is any indication, fewer young people will pursue careers in teaching.
"The pipeline issue is one of the most significant challenges that we're dealing with, with the layoff situation or the pink-slipping," said Margaret Gaston, executive director of the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning, a Santa Cruz-based nonprofit focused on strengthening California's teacher workforce. (LA Times 10/3/09)
At various times in the last few years, some California districts have had to hunt desperately to find teachers, and then only to lay them off a few years later. This constant state of flux is bad for the teachers, bad for the districts, and certainly bad for the students.
