|
|
The Governor Attempts to 'Divide and Rule' – At the Wrong Time and Wrong Place The Governor’s recently released budget proposal promises to deliver several so-called “reforms” to public education. But, like much of the proposal, the Governor’s education reform proposals are grounded in faulty assumptions and unclear analysis. The Governor and his advisors appear to be relying on a centuries-old technique of “divide and rule” (harkening back to the Roman Empire) by proposing a potpourri of changes in the hopes of diverting attention away from reality. The reality being, contrary to the administration’s rhetoric, the 2010-11 proposal does not “protect the classroom.” In fact, the Governor proposes to whack Proposition 98 by another $1.6 billion – on top of the more than $17 billion in reductions and fund shifts public education has sustained over the past two years. The January budget proposal includes several revenue limit reductions masked as policy proposals. These proposals are an attempt to divide the education community and draw attention away from the real intent – breaking last year’s Proposition 98 agreement and permanently lowering K-adult education funding. The first of these “reforms” is a proposal to apply a ten (10) percent budget reduction to “central office administration.” The mechanism and methodology of this proposed reduction remains undefined and unknown. It appears that the administration has inadvertently included maintenance and operations in their definition of what “administration” means. The proposal has clearly been drafted in an effort to placate the unions (who by and large don’t trust the Governor). The proposal also relies on a misperception that the central offices are overstaffed, and the myth that all school-site staff dislike having central office management. This proposal demonstrates how out-of-touch the Governor has become from the realities of managing effective public schools. We’re not aware of any school district in California that has not already applied significant reductions to its central office staff in the past decade. Administrative staff have been reduced substantially, in some cases by as much as 60 percent over the last 10 years. The assumption that no reductions have been applied locally to the central office staff, and that districts can actually continue to operate effectively after an additional ten percent reduction is imposed, is both naïve and ignorant. On top of this, their math doesn’t make sense. If a 10 percent reduction in central office administration equates to a $1.2 billion revenue limit cut, then that would mean LEA’s (Local Educational Agencies) spend over $12 billion of Proposition 98 funds on administration. Total Proposition 98 funding is around $44 billion. We spend over 25 percent of Proposition 98 funds on administration? That is clearly not accurate. Data published by numerous independent sources indicates that on average school districts spend around seven percent of general fund expenditures on central office administration. The Governor’s budget makes yet another attempt to pit school administration against employee associations by proposing changes to transfer, layoff and re-employment provisions regarding teachers (proposals that will not go down well with the unions), and wrapping these changes into the budget process. The Governor is betting that administrators will want these provisions so badly that they will be willing to swallow all of the other bitterness that the proposed budget contains. Another dubious segment in the proposal is the “contracting out” provision – another element that’s been mixed in to entice school and district administrators to accept the other unpleasant and unfavorable provisions of the currently proposed budget. To link that discussion with the budget development process and justify its inclusion in the budget proposal, the proposed budget projects savings in operational expenses by using broad and unrealistic assumptions. Do we need to re-examine the current law when it comes to certificated seniority, layoff, and re-employment procedures? Sure we do. Is current law restricting management’s ability to contract out in a manner that reduces costs, thereby protecting student services, out of sync with our current fiscal reality? Of course it is. But could we be fooled into thinking that any of this will actually pass in a Democrat-controlled Legislature during an election year? With these polarizing elements, the Governor’s budget proposal resembles a crazy concoction that tries to include something for everyone. Like a famous advertisement proclaims, “It’s in there.” Yet when you take away the noble proclamations about “reform,” and see past the smoke and mirrors, the proposal is a direct attempt to divide the Education Coalition and accomplish a set of political goals the Governor has not been able to achieve either through the legislative process or at the ballot box. In other words, it is the old-fashioned “divide and rule” strategy. The problem facing the Governor and his team, however, is the fact that the intended target groups, including administrators, school boards and employee associations, are smarter than they are given credit for in this proposal. Very few people involved with public education have much faith remaining in the sincerity of the Governor’s statements regarding “reform” – certainly not after repeated rounds of budget cuts, and the disingenuous claims of protecting Proposition 98 funding, made as recently as January 6 of this year. Not only is the Governor thousands of days late and billions of dollars short in realizing (in the final year of his term) that education should be state’s first priority – he appears to be relying upon a colonial-style strategy of divide and rule in a post-colonial era . Falling back on an old political game plan will not work with present-day professionals who can see past the rhetoric. Editor's Note: Tahir Ahad is President of educational consulting firm Total School Solutions (TSS) and Brett McFadden is Management Services Executive at Association of California School Administrators (ACSA). |
|
