17604. Wherever in this code the power to contract is invested in the governing board of the school district or any member thereof, the power may by a majority vote of the board be delegated to its district superintendent, or to any persons that he or she may designate, or if there be no district superintendent then to any other officer or employee of the district that the board may designate. The delegation of power may be limited as to time, money or subject matter or may be a blanket authorization in advance of its exercise, all as the governing board may direct. However, no contract made pursuant to the delegation and authorization shall be valid or constitute an enforceable obligation against the district unless and until the same shall have been approved or ratified by the governing board, the approval or ratification to be evidenced by a motion of the board duly passed and adopted.

Note that such a contract is not valid until ratified by the Board of Education. This was the reason for the full-court press by Dr. Whitney and Russ Frank at the Board Meeting this past Tuesday.

The arguments for and against were not necessarily financial.

It was all about control.

Is the District so cash-strapped that it would exchange a “bowl of porridge” for federal control, a national curriculum and a violation of teacher contracts? Not really. Although Budget Tsarina forecasted a $500,000 shortfall next year, it was predicated on some factors that could be adjusted. For instance, it was assumed that there would be a 3% cut in monies budgeted from the State. Rather, Governor Schwarzenegger left the educational budget alone this year. There are also a number of Teachers on Assignment (TOA’s) that act as academic “coaches” for neophyte instructors in their respective disciplines that could be taken out of the equation. Also, should the Governor really want to buttress education, he could eradicate the High School Exit Exam – which, by itself, has a budget of $500 million that could be issued every year, not just once.

The money that the Feds are offering is truly a “bowl of porridge” even though the grant offering to the state is $700 million. Of that, only 80% will actually reach the schools – 20% will be skimmed from the top for “administrative costs” from State to County to LEA. The amount supposedly assured to the schools is the amount equal to the sum of monies doled out by Title One and School Improvement funds. This would also only be one-time money with mandated changes that would have to be sustained for years to come with ever-shrinking General Funds.

The argument that we should go ahead and apply as the interventions prescribed are going to be enforced regardless was less than persuasive as the necessary legislation to enable this attempt at coercion has yet to be passed. Those interventions can be viewed by clicking HERE.

Although no individual school has yet to be officially designated persistently low-scoring by the State, Mr. Frank stated that we are already into the “Transformational Model” although he demurred as to whether the requirement of replacing the Principal needs to occur upon inception or in years previous. As a matter of fact, he said, “We have already completed 65% of the requirements of this model.”

The Race to the Top grant has also been vilified by the California Teacher’s Association as well. Tenure and Seniority go out the window in the event of a school closure. Should Felix J. Appleby be forced to close and the students sent to portables at Ruth Brown and Margaret White, the teachers do not necessarily follow. There is no “bumping” allowed for seniority. There is only mention of “mutual agreement between teacher and principal”. The same would occur in the Turnaround Model as the Principal – if he/she still has his/her job – cannot hire back more than 50% of the staff.

Evaluations will be changed. Normally, tenured teachers are evaluated every other year according to the PVTA contract. Under RTTT, all teachers will be evaluated every year although one can be of a formative format and the other summative. The next paradigm shift will occur when each of these evaluations will be “substantially based on student assessments.” A student should not be given a grade on just one test. Neither should a teacher.

Another approved activity is the District doling out bonuses for increased scores in the form of “financial incentives”. According to Dr. Guith, “If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it must be Merit Pay”. “Financial Incentives” are a permissive activity under RTTT based – again – on student achievement. Merit pay has never worked well as cronyism and local politics negated any hoped-for achievements – rather like Dr. Alan Jensen and prodigy. Special Education, Resource and ELL teachers would really benefit from this provision – not!

Charter School companies are happier than all get out, though. The “cap” has been lifted with this legislation and the sky is the limit as to the number of Charter Schools that can blossom in the State of California under the Restart Model. Palo Verde can close a school and lease it to a Charter Management Organization but these companies operate for a profit. They can offer lower salary and fewer benefits to teachers and can be very selective regarding the students allowed to register. A Charter School never has to suspend or expel a student. All they have to do is drop that student’s name from the registry.

So what was the upshot?

When Agenda Item #10 came for consideration by President Wellman, Clerk Carney moved for the ratification of the Memorandum of Understanding. It was seconded only so that debate could ensue. Trustee Ulmer made mention that the benchmarks would have constrained the teachers he remembered from his youth for their dynamism and improvisation. Dr. Guith decried the attempt as further control by the Feds into what should be State and Local concerns.

Dr. Guith asked of the audience, “Does anyone in this room truly believe that No Child Left Behind” was a good thing? In response, the Twin Towers were resuscitated as Director Russ Frank and fledgling Principal Jeff Blansett stood up in tandem.

The motion was then made to table the decision to ratify as further study was needed. Trustees Underwood, Carney and Wellman voted “Aye”. Guith and Ulmer saw no need and stated they were ready to vote “Nay” to the whole thing.

The birthright remains secure – for now.