The State take-over was $30-$40 million and not $8 million. However, there is rightly a concern of history repeating. That indeed would be a bigger fish to fry.

Jim Mordecai

And, frankly, most of this is trivia. Let’s suppose that the District had been correct, and it truly was “structural deficit-free for the first time in at least a decade.” WHO CARES? How would that have affected the education of a single student? I would think that we have bigger fish to fry.

http://www.educationnews.org/commentaries/opinions_on_education/54478.html?print

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/04/09/BUDF1O0U4E.DTL

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012/04/10/california-teacher-pension-shortfall-rises-to-65-billion/

http://calpensions.com/2012/04/23/calstrs-on-the-road-to-ruin-or-recovery/

California is in trouble, and Jerry knows it, he just wants to delay the inevitable(for a short while).

How can cronyism not be a part of this $8 million error? Cronyism–because it puts political connections over merit–is a cancer on organizations. Cronyism disables the exchange of authentic feedback in an organization, which is essential to its success. Cronyism hinders healthy communication and engenders a hostile work environment.

OUSD has brilliant teachers and administrators working for it. The district also has employees who are not good at their jobs but who are connected to the right people. Sshh, don’t openly criticize management or your colleagues for incompetence – they might be connected. Fear! $8 million mistakes!

@LK – unionism and cronyism are similar. Both are narrow interests that benefit a few at the cost of many.

That would staff 15 small elementary schools or 2 big high schools.

Just saying: That’s a lot of money.

Some details and substantiation would be refreshing and welcome.

If no speaks up in the fashion you are rightly doing, then the already weak support for PEC will become much weaker.

It is just not right to think of special education as special in the sense of not one of us. It is even worse to see the other as an economic liability, a threat to the general population of students.

This District saw the Adult Education program as the other and reduced their program from $11 million to $1 million. Other districts reduced their programs across the board and didn’t let one program take the brunt of the economic cuts..

Will all the District’s departments equally share in backfilling the error? Will the Superintendent that brought an end to the District’s structural deficit, Superintendent that took District money to pay a consultant for the single sex 100 Black Men Charter School to get started, Superintendent that is supporting a budget with half-a-million for extending the school year for teachers without students, in three high schools, put aside ego investment in his program initiatives cut any of his signature programs to close the hole in the budget? Will the 12-13 year allocation of $12 million to sites he has promised continue?
$10 million is received by the District from former Adult Education funding the School Board cut. Meanwhile the state for the time being continues to send the District adult education funding that the School Board flexes and spends on funding school sites. $10 million of the $12 million it promises school sites can be thought of coming out of the State revenue that was originally for an Adult Education program that has been cut down to $1 million in funding. And, although there is no longer an Adult Education program the State continues to forwards $11 million flexed dollars that can be spent on any priority the Board decides. And, the District could decide to use $8 million of the $12 million to close the Special Education budget gap.

I fear for the PEC department in the current circumstance. I read Los Angeles is an example of a Special Education program that is under court review because they reportedly short-changed their special education program and didn’t follow the law in providing the services required for identified children. Los Angeles had brought in a consultant that made changes that short-changed students and lead to a court date. Meanwhile, children didn’t get the services they needed when they needed them.

Without a very strong parent voice the PEC department will be reduced and the Los Angles story repeated.

Jim Mordecai

What’s saddest in watching the video of this meeting is to hear Vernon Hal continue to speak about “encroachment” as if Special Education is separate from the system that he is charged with supporting. He constantly speaks of “they”, dismissing his role as a support for all departments, PEC included. The suggestions that were made—quarterly budgeting meetings of the PEC financial manager with the rest of OUSD’s financial staff, regular meetings with other managers, etc.–should have been happening a long time. That they are a “new” suggestion speaks to the isolation of PEC from the rest of OUSD. PEC is a “department” not a separate mini-district that you throw rocks at when money comes up missing or when money in the entire district gets especially tight. Collaborate; don’t segregate then pass on the blame. Vernon Hal; you are responsible for attending to the entire system. That includes PEC. Help to staff it appropriately and provide it with the leadership that you provide to the rest of OUSD.

If this error accomplishes that kind of meaningful integration, then it happened for the better. If it impacts the already weak supports provided to children, the whole district will be weaker as a result.