Comments on: LAO proposes even shorter year, fewer special-purpose funds, changes to teacher layoff deadline

By: Gordon Danning

Gordon Danning — Tue, 08 May 2012 06:49:16 +0000

No one who cares at all about students would allow mid-year layoffs. It is obviously harmful to an elementary student to suddenly be thrown into a new teacher’s class in February, but it is possibly even worse for middle school or high school students: If Teacher X is laid off in February, all 30 of his, for example, 3rd period Economics students will have to be reassigned to new Econ classes. Since all 30 cannot be put in an existing classroom, most will have to switch to a Period 2 or 4 or 1, etc, class. So, they will need a new math class or whatever they had been taking Period 2. Realistically, most will need several changes. And if they are enrolled in a “singleton” class, like AP Chem or Yearbook, then they might have to drop that class in order to accommodate the new schedule.

All in all, this seems like a suggestion made by someone who is completely ignorant of how schools work.

By: Michael Kinsley

Michael Kinsley — Mon, 07 May 2012 05:40:14 +0000

Although I have long had a great deal of respect for the LAO, why don’t they just say that the State of California gives up. I would imagine that the opponents of public education might have put a few bottles of champagne on ice after reading the report. Pity none of our elected officials can find their spines.

By: Zinnia

Zinnia — Sun, 06 May 2012 22:27:05 +0000

Just checking…does this mean that we do not only have to worry about losing our jobs in May, but may be left without a job midyear? So much for providing a stable atmosphere for Oakland youth.

By: Lisa Capuano Oler

Lisa Capuano Oler — Sun, 06 May 2012 20:58:18 +0000

spent*

By: Lisa Capuano Oler

Lisa Capuano Oler — Sun, 06 May 2012 20:56:52 +0000

It is a scary thought that we allow the “district” more “leeway” in how they spend resources. When so much money is spent on outside contracts in OUSD and so little trickles down to the very people this district is meant to serve, how can we even think that is good? The wolf guarding the hen house.
Penalizing students and teachers is their first approach toward a solution. How about we limit the amount of money NOT spend going directly to serve our students? How about lowering the administrator student ratio?
5 less days for students …then blame teachers for lower test scores.
Raise student teacher ratios…then blame teachers for lower test scores.
Lift restrictions on outside contracts for services not related to teaching….less money for students…blame teachers for lower test scores.
Allow the school district and state more time to mess with teacher’s livelihood and job security, demoralize the very people who serve these students…and blame them for low morale….and lower test scores.

By: makeitgoaway

makeitgoaway — Sun, 06 May 2012 02:54:30 +0000

It will mean the crime rate will go up.

It will mean teachers make less.

it will mean more work for less pay.

it will mean lower scores in AP classes.

it will mean lower graduation rates.

It will mean even more foolish spending on consultants.

By: Catherine

Catherine — Sat, 05 May 2012 03:24:34 +0000

For advanced students in Oakland the shorter school year will probably mean higher learning in the summer through online coursework, individual learning and summer enrichment programs, particularly science, drama, music and art.

For students who are struggling those few days will make a big difference in their learning and consistency for the school year.

By: Charley Cowens

Charley Cowens — Fri, 04 May 2012 23:28:35 +0000

1-4 all involve giving local districts more leeway in how they use their resource. 5 involves getting away from our current unsatisfactory random revenue limit + categoricals system for funding schools. Sounds promising. I’ve always found the March/May credentialed layoff system in California particularly weird.