Part of the Bay Area News Group

Oakland to get $7 million in “Edujobs” money

By Katy Murphy
Thursday, September 2nd, 2010 at 3:33 pm in budget.

Today, the California Department of Education released the amount of money each school district is likely to receive from the federal education jobs bill. It should come through soon after the governor signs a related state bill — state budget or no state budget, Tina Jung from the CDE told me.

Oakland will get $7.12 million, based on the preliminary figures from the CDE, much less than district staff had expected (At a recent board meeting, the superintendent predicted $15 million, I believe).

Below is a list of East Bay school districts and how much they might expect to get from the feds. They’re supposed to use the money to rehire laid off employees and/or to add days back to the school year. How should they spend it?

ALAMEDA COUNTY
Alameda $1.81 million
Albany $713,320
Berkeley $1.75 million
Castro Valley $1.67 million
Dublin $1.29 million
Emery $180,150
Fremont $6.04 million
Hayward $3.9 million
Livermore $2.43 million
Newark $1.32 million
New Haven $2.40 million
Oakland $7.12 million
Piedmont $478,830
Pleasanton $3.03 million
San Leandro $1.62 million
San Lorenzo $2.11 million

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Acalanes $1.22 million
Brentwood Union $1.49 million
Byron Union $307,620
Canyon $14,162
John Swett $322,250
Knightsen $96,840
Lafayette $573,660
Liberty Union $1.51 million
Martinez $740,260
Moraga $311,780
Mt. Diablo $6.45 million
Oakley $836,780
Orinda $440,680
Pittsburg $1.80 million
West Contra Costa $5.44 million
San Ramon $5.22 million
Walnut Creek $591,560

Source: California Department of Education

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

  • Turanga_teach

    How is a one-time handout going to re-secure the jobs of those laid off in the last round of cuts? It just seems like the same systemic issue we see in the “ECE Saved Until December” story: our state, perhaps our nation, doesn’t make education a sustainable priority. Instead, we get cut past the bone on an ongoing basis and then showered with Band-aids at unpredictable times.

  • Katy Murphy

    I’ve had the same questions about this type of funding. It seems to be predicated on the (arguably dreamy) notion that regular funding streams will pick right up after a little rough patch. Or maybe it’s supposed to benefit the economy in the short term. Any economists out there?

    And then there’s the more obvious problem: How are schools supposed to use this funding to hire teachers when the money won’t come through until mid-September at the earliest?

  • Wondering

    What formula could they possibly be using to give San Ramon and West Contra Costa nearly even amounts? Obviously not needs based –

  • Gordon Danning

    Since I teach Econ, i will take a shot:

    If states lay off teachers (or anyone) then those people will sharply reduce spending (eg: on restaurant meals), which will lead to more layoffs (eg: waiters and waitresses); those people will spend less, and the process will start over. Rehiring teachers prevents that. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_multiplier

    Re: Money arriving in Sept, it is hardly unusual for individual schools to lose or gain teachers in Sept, such as when fewer kids than expected show up at Tech and more at Skyline. Also, I am no expert on school finance, but I am sure that if Oakland knows it will get an extra $9 million in December, they can hire teachers now, pay them with money currently budgeted for April’s utilities payments, and then pay the utilities with the money that arrives in December

  • Katy Murphy

    That’s true. I wonder, though, about schools that drastically increased class size across the board — at the elementary school level, for example. To rehire teachers midway through the semester and restore smaller class sizes would mean a serious reshuffling of kids. Not that reshuffling doesn’t occur anyway — and maybe it’s worth the tradeoff — but I wonder if districts are less likely to use the money for that purpose because of the timing.

  • TheTruthHurts

    Mr. Danning is exactly right. What’s missing is that if you kick the can down the road with borrowed money, at some point you must PAY IT BACK and WITH INTEREST. The gamble is that all this FAKE DEMAND created by government spending will generate REAL DEMAND as Mr. Danning illustrates.

    However, because the American economy runs on borrowed money, that is not true unless folks are borrowing and banks are lending. Neither of these is happening and doesn’t appear to be on the horizon. Banks are tightening standards and regular folk are paying down debt where possible.

    These are both smart moves for the individual and the bank, but they collectively destroy any chance of a recovery based on REAL DEMAND.

    Instead, we kick the can down the road and pass the bill to our kids – hope springs eternal and realism is buried in the sand.

    Welcome to the new America.