The Scope of the 'Challenges' at Capistrano Unified

Capistrano Unified School District trustees tonight will consider seeking a waiver to avoid penalties for not meeting class-size reduction requirements.

Part of the submission outlines the problems CUSD -- and every other school district in the state, I imagine -- is facing:

"Capistrano Unified School District is facing a projected budget shortfall in 2011-12 of $12.6-$18.2 million. CUSD has made approximately $90 million in expenditure and program cuts since 2006-07.

"In order to maintain maximum flexibility in providing options to balance the budget in 2011-12, teh district requests a waiver to increase the districtwide average number of pupils per each full time equivalent (FTE) teacher from the current 29.9 (per Education Code 41376) to 33 in grades 4 through 8."

Ouch.

Comments

[Angry at CS increases]

THe union has the ability and the right to say NO! It is a negotiated item. They should NOT give the district permission to use that option. The union always says yes to that because they would rather not lose any of their pay (The teachers who have been teaching for many years) than take a pay cut to help save jobs. They dont want a few percent pay cut so they want 300 teachers to take 100% pay cut. That might sound crazy but a union rep has said to me "why whould I give some of my pay to save your job?"

[Jollygirl]

Why does that sound so crazy to you? It is much more than a few percent. The negotiating team in Irvine (which includes both teachers and district reps working together...not a lawyer in the bunch...what a concept) just sent an email to district employees with a worst case scenario of 23 furlough days next year.

And you expect teachers along to make up all of that revenue lost to districts? And apparently it is just teachers who "have been teaching for many years?"

[Jollygirl]

correct "along" to alone.

[Heather Paige]

I don't like class size increases, or cutting anyone's pay, or any of the choices that we are faced with in this economy. That said the district does need to take steps to maximize the flexibility they have to deal with the real problems that we collectively face. My hope is that they will work collaboratively with the teachers and parents to minimize the adverse impact these budget issues are bound to have on the classroom. By acting in good faith when they restored furlough days in accordance with the contract, hopefully the district has established a positive negotiating atmosphere. Something that was sadly lacking this time last year.

[Showmethedata]

It is certainly not true that "the union always yes" to class size increases. That silly distortion alone calls into question the other statements "Angry" makes. But the idea that teachers give or withhold "permission" during negotiations is the silliest distortion of all. Neither party should be in this position, but both teachers and the district will need to find a compromise that allows Capo schools to survive.

As a teacher who's been teaching "many years," I know I can absorb a few more students and still produce excellent results. it is not ideal, but my success will be a function of classroom management. And that's where experience off.

[Another Angle]

California is ranked last in the nation in school funding, yet we are compared to other schools in the USA and ranked against other countries. If we want a healthy economy, we need to educate our students so they can obtain jobs. Otherwise, we will become a third world country. Let's stop blaming teachers for any and all problems and focus on solving the underlying issue - broken governance at the state level.

[CUSD children 1st, hah!]

when was the last time CUEA rejected class size increases?

[Where were you when?]

How many years have the parents, and other organizations had to pay for class sizes to remain small? It wasn't really much of an issue for at least 1st-3rd grades, because they were 20:1 for years, thanks to the parents forking over money. Now you want me to absorb even more of a cut than I've already taken to save one or two students per class? The Board screamed at this last time it was discussed, saying that THEY wouldn't lay off teachers, hence the strike. However, look what happened? Until the economy improves, and Capo starts getting funded correctly (which it currently isn't) it's going to get uglier. All that said, I don't think it's MY job to save someone else's job just to make you happy. Years ago the class sizes were 35-36 and no one cared what the teachers were making, or how many kids there were. Now, suddenly, it's all about the kids. I don't buy it. I can do just as good a job teaching 35 kids than I can teaching 33....it will just mean MORE of my time during recesses, lunches, and on weekends....but I'll do it, just like I've been doing it for years.
Give it up "hah"

[Showmethedata]

NEA, CTA, and CUEA have always fought class size increases. But small classes are costly. Unions would like more members, but not at the expense of education. Traditionally, teachers have a long and documented history of fighting for the benefits of small classes.

Teachers rallied for districts to institute 20:1 when it was offered. They rallied to continue funding 20:1 when state funding started to dissipate. But when it gets down to teachers funding small classes on their own backs, support evaporates. That is telling Support for 20:1 came from an era when evaluation was subjective, not data-driven. it benefited some students at the expense of others. It was an emotionally satisfying policy.

In truth, districts gave up local control and flexibility for ((partial) state money without a thought about the future consequences. (Note that no one was heralding the "unsustainable pensions" while hiring huge numbers of teachers to institute CRS all of a sudden.) Large numbers of older students sacrificed to pay for small groups of younger students and no one ever evaluated the cost in the long run.

Clearly, a union wants more members. But today's teachers know that larger classes will save money when money is tight. Independent research exists and a cost/benefit analysis is called for. The data will show that larger classes will provide the savings we need without sacrificing educational quality.

[CUSD children 1st, hah!]

The argument that a few more students per class is tolerable has been floated for years - and the numbers just go up. The reality is that the board has voted to increase class sizes by more than 30% of what they were just a few years ago. Teachers who were phoning it in then can maintain their same (mediocre) standards now without difficulty. Why not? If they are tenured, there is no problem -- for them!

Given the choice between members and wages, the union has always chosen wages -- regardless of what benefits students.