If your classroom still doesn’t have heat (or locking windows, enough textbooks, etc.), the Education Equity Project will submit a Williams Complaint on your behalf, pro bono:

http://www.lccr.com/EEP%20English%20Brochure.pdf

You don’t have to include your name if you’re worried about retaliation (although that’s clearly illegal), and the site has to resolve the problem within 30 days.

Make a list of every room at your site with a problem and submit the list as a group.

I disagree that fingers shouldn’t be pointed. My concern is that there are not enough fingers being pointed. And, when problems are pointed out, they are not addressed. This is a value situation. The current Smith Administration has yet to demonstrate it is responsive to finger pointing. And, there is little evidence that the School Board holds the Smith Administration accountable when fingers are pointed.

Perhaps the current administration will continue the practice of paying a fine for exceeding administrator ratio of 8 to 100. But, the Board must be held accountable for that policy. Unfortunately, the Board’s Aspen Group training inhibits public accountability. The Aspen Group trained the Board to have as a prime value avoiding micro-managing the District. Thus, if Superintendent Smith’s administration feels that test scores are raised by exceeding the 8 to 100 ratio the Board will remain silent on the policy because they are focused on giving the Smith Administration sovereignty over the small things and keeping track of the Superintendent’s negotiated bench marks that are mostly test score based.

I don’t buy that undemocratic approach and feel the Board must answer the question of why the District is exceeding the maximum ratio of administrators to teachers? The Board is democratically elected and should be responsive and accountable to the public’s concerns. The School Board is not a corporate board and should not act like one. When the electorate doesn’t like the Board members’ position on this issue (or many other issues), they should not re-elect them. The Aspen Group’s approach conflicts with the democratic ideal of elected representatives representing the public on its concerns. A democratic approach does not allow for filtering public issues into micro and macro. School Board members are to represent its district and raising test scores should not be an excuse for avoiding that responsibility.

While I agree that the 55% ratio does not mean that the other 45% is being spent on unworthy purposes, the point of the law is to provide a minimum allocation of resources to the classroom. And, most other District’s, it is my understanding, have no problem in meeting the minimum requirement of the law.

Jim Mordecai

Transparency is great, but isnt all the data available online? But my broader objection is the assumption here that, if heat isn’t working, the District MUST be incompetent, or someone MUST be stealing. For example, just because the District isnt spending 55% on classroom salaries does NOT mean that they are spending 45%+ on “nebulous administrative costs” — the 55% is solely meant for teacher and aide salaries and “health and welfare benefits.” See Cal.Ed Code secs 41372 and 41011. So, the remaining 45% includes books, school site administrative and classified staff, supplies, teacher training, computers, etc, etc, etc. So, we should all be open to the possibility that the district is making a good faith effort to spend money in a manner that most inures to the benefit of the students. Then we can focus THAT discussion, rather than on simply trying to point fingers.

I think you have a misunderstanding of the Ed Code regarding Form CEA. The 55% ratio of classroom cost (mostly teachers and instructional assistances) to the total budget (a few items excluded) has to be enforced by the County Superintendent. The County Superintendent may act in March 2010 for last school year (08-09). Even if money is withheld by the County, it will be available the next school year for teacher and instructional assistant raises. However, the County Superintendent has never enforced the 55% rule although records show clearly that the District has frequently not met the 55% ratio. But, again the law says “may” enforce.

One thought would be if the money were withheld in March, then the withheld money would be an incentive to settle union contracts in September 2010 and make the money available.

I have not read the law on CEA recently but that is my recollection.

There is another law enforced by the State that requires the District to have a maximum ratio of 100 to 8 teachers to administrators and there is a fine if the ratio is exceeded. The last state audit 06-07 fined the District about $1.3 million for not meeting that law’s ratio. I think the District is still appealing that fine. I don’t know if the District has paid this fine in years past, but that would be interesting to know. Of course the District was for six years under State Administration and the State didn’t have to collect a fine if it didn’t want to collect it.

Jim Mordecai

Also look at how they divide up payment for Si Swun math among four budget categories (2 district, 2 site) so it looks like a minimal expenditure but actually costs more than the average teacher salary PER SITE.

And then there’s the Williams Act, mandating safe classroom conditions and basic supplies. Some classrooms without heat have been that way for 5+ years. Space heaters have caused building fires, not to mention the huge energy and money suck they represent. Other classrooms are sweltering and letting heat and money out open windows, yet Tony Smith sent out a letter to all staff about how everyone had to take vacation during the 2-week student holiday to save electricity and help the budget.

The larger point is that money managed by OUSD adminstrators–whether from Measure E or other sources, whether directed toward retaining quality teachers or maintaining basic amenities in school buildings–is, at best, mismanaged, as proven by the millions of dollars of fines the school district has had to pay to the state over the past two years because the OUSD administration would rather violate the 45% administrative limit than avoid those fines, thus wasting a large percentage of the school budget just to buttress nebulous adminstrative costs that, in any case, go beyond the limit mandated by the state.

So it has everything to do with heating, as well as the other matters you foreground in Measure E’s description, all of which are sadly neglected.

I’m saying that there should be total transparency regarding this problem, and then you would be happily relieved from the complaints of Oakland parents like me (who, I’m sure, the OUSD also finds to be excessively suspicious and irritable). The OUSD needs to come forward and prove that they have been spending the money properly. This is the best means to stem rumors. Otherwise, there can be nothing but doubt about this process; thus I recommend–along with others in this thread–that Katy take some time to look into this systemic problem.

Come on — is there ANY evidence that OUSD adminstrators are stealing money? All I see here is: 1) complaints about heating at several schools; and 2) observations that Measure E was passed to help solve those problems. No one has bothered to look at how much Measure E money has been spent, how much is left, etc, etc, etc. In fact, I just looked at the Measure E description, which says that the money is “primarily to be used to attract and retain qualified teachers; maintain elective courses for students to qualify for college admission; purchase text books and materials; maintain libraries, music and arts programs; maintain reduced class sizes; and continue after school academic programs.” http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/03/02/ca/alm/meas/E/ So, what does heating have to do with any of that?