Policy-making or PR? Action or reaction?

C-80: Race to the Top
Vice President Artie Leichner expressed that he was more pleased with the new RTTT application than the old one since the Superintendent chaired the committee, but that he is concerned about the RTTT grant money running out in four years, particularly with a legislature and governor who are not keen on accepting federal money.  We therefore need to plan for the future so that when the money runs out we have a system in place to fund education.

Board member Raquel Regalado brought up the fact that an SB6-like bill is already being discussed in legislature.  Her concern with RTTT is that Tallahassee not create overreaching or conflicting guidelines.  She said it would be useful to go to Tallahassee with an existing system agreed to by every district in the state of Florida; it would be superior to what Tallahassee forces on us and could mitigate damage caused by such an SB6-type bill.

Superintendent Alberto Carvalho agreed "wholeheartedly" with Regalado's statement.  He further commented that he does not want any legislation in Tallahassee to exceed what was agreed to in the existing RTTT Memorandum of Understanding.  The current MOU, which had teacher and union input, allows for no more than 30% of a teacher's evaluation to be based on student performance, and also allows for professional service contracts and insists that no limitations to collective bargaining arise as a consequence of the grant.  The RTTT MOU, which, despite its improvements over the original, has still been maligned by some--with some reason--could in fact end up a saving grace, effectively preventing an uberconservative legislature and governor from pushing their plan all the way to its logical conclusion.  We must hope for that, but be prepared to fight any overreach, as they are almost sure to try.

As of yesterday we have received unconditional approval of the RTTT grant; the money is now available to the district.

H-6 Marketing campaign

Dr. Feldman promotes  the "marketing" of the public schools through yearbook giveaways, some kind of advertising, etc.; "anything that puts our schools out in the community in public relations." 

New board member Carlos Curbelo asked for a brief summary of what we do today as far as public relations go.  John Schuster, Public Information Officer, says that we have a public relations department, which helps with getting stories in the newspaper and on the radio, and that a feasibility study could show what effect, if any, those public relations have had so far in attracting students back to district schools or in retaining them. 

It seems that we are spending an inordinate amount of time and money right now trying to "market" our "product" (Schuster referred to "consumers of our product"...hmmm), i.e., trying to draw students back from charter schools.  When we are being made to "compete" on a field where we do not play by the same rules as private schools and charter schools, we are forced to spend our already sorely stretched and limited funds to promote what is an essential public service.  Is this waste of money in fact part of what so-called "reformers" were planning on as part of "forcing competition into education"? It does not seem like a stretch to imagine so... 

Board member Dr. Martin Karp said he would like to see a comparison of the funds that we spend on "marketing" with that of charter schools, and see if any increase in enrollment due to our "marketing" campaign would offset the expense of said campaign.  He said he would like to highlight our teachers with an emphasis on their experience and credentials if it is found that there is no cost involved or if the benefits would offset the cost.

Regalado said we should consider that all of them already have a lot of media access, a website, a newsletter, etc.; she said she thought they should have a more unified front in the message they are sending. Knowing that the mantra coming from Tallahassee is about choice, that is the mantra they should embrace.  "If anyone can be the example of choice, it's us."  She said that this could undercut the impact of the choice mantra coming from Tallahassee.

Dr. Marta Perez said that the idea of "no cost" is ridiculous because the feasibility study has already had a cost since some of our highest-paid employees work on this study.  She said we haven't taken a position on charter schools but that even some of our own "choice" schools (i.e., magnet schools) have created a "brain drain" in our community schools.  She said that choice programs are all elitist in some way because not all students can get in; that she has heard that sometimes children whose parents have certain connections get in.  "We are not PR agents; I do not mind PR, but we are policy makers.  I cannot imagine the students that are outperforming our students in Europe or Asia, I cannot imagine a body that represents students coming together in Asia or China saying we have to do more PR rather than spending the money in the classroom.  Every penny should be spent on the classroom...When we see something that is clearly wrong, then we should speak up about it.  Our employees are forbidden from speaking to the media without having permission from administration.  The administration does not allow principals to speak to anyone about anything, and if they can go to the radio, may they also say the things that are wrong, without repercussion to their job."  She said policy prevents employees from speaking to the media without permission and unless it's positive.  "We have a long way to go before we should have any money being spent on PR.  We already have a column in El Nuevo, we have all the board members who are active in the media.  Even our Superintendent has a column in one of the smaller newspapers that, in my opinion, is something that is questionable in the sense that it is also a vendor.  Our best PR is to do a good job for our students."

Regalado countered that she doesn't think anyone is condoning any type of censorship.  "Since we're already promoting the district, we should focus on one aspect.  The issue with our employees going on the radio and going to different media outlets and speaking about their schools--it was mentioned in the sense of promoting the schools that have done well.  We are legally bound by the statements that employees make.  Every single word that is uttered by our employees, whether in the media or in private, we are responsible for it.  I don't want anyone viewing or listening to this thinking that we are in any way censoring our employees.  It is a legal liability.  We are all open and accessible to our employees' concerns.  The policy exists for the protection of our district and of those very employees who at the end of the day would have to bear the cost of the litigation...PR is a very loose term.  This agenda item asks for a feasibility study.  My concern is with the PR campaign that is being levied against us, and that is a reality.  It is not only concerning but it is also naive to believe that there is not a PR campaign being levied against us.  It is naive of us to think that doing a good job is sufficient to receive the funding we are entitled to.  Historically that is not the case.  We have done a better and better job and have received less and less funding.  The supermajority of the legislature and the governor have already said they do not want to accept stimulus funding.  To ignore this reality would be detrimental, not only to our teachers but to our students.  We can't just pretend like this doesn't exist.  That's why this is important.  That's why we need to talk about choice.  Our district is very different from other districts in the state of Florida, but we're all being lumped together.  We are in a minority.  We must rally and stand up for our rights.  I don't care if you call it a PR campaign or marketing or common sense, but if someone is attacking us and is going to provide us with less funding, I believe it is in our obligation as public officials to strike back.  I would like to do it in a positive way if that is possible, but I am open to do it in any way I can."

Board member Renier Diaz de la Portilla said he doesn't think we need a public relations campaign to get information about how well our schools are doing out to the public.  He said we don't need a board item for this.  "Let's say that some of us support some of the reforms coming out of Tallahassee...I don't think this is a wise course to take with this item."  He says he does favor a more streamlined approach to getting our information out there.  "I see this item enhancing or increasing our PR efforts and I'm not in favor of that, given the economics of the school district, and I'm concerned about the perception of this, that we are politicking."

Wait--say that again, Mr. De La Portilla?  "Let's say that some of us support some of the reforms coming out of Tallahassee?"  Repeat?  Shall I guess which of you support those reforms?  And which reforms, exactly, do you support?  Elimination of professional service contracts?  Teachers' salary--and certification--based on the results of reliably unreliable standardized tests that speak more to children's socioeconomic status than to the quality of their teachers?  Expansion of charter schools, which studies show do not typically outperform public schools and, in fact, and specifically in Florida, often do worse?  Or perhaps he supports our new governor's plan to make vouchers available to all children and allow parents to send tax money to any school of their choice--including religious schools and for-profit schools?  We should grill Mr. De La Portilla a little more about the reforms he supports; if he supports the privatization of public education, then it is perhaps a conflict of interest for him to sit on the School Board, where he is expected to advocate for public education.

Dr. Tee Holloway: "If we are doing such a fantastic job at what we are doing and we are reaching, why are we still losing students?"

Dr. Karp specified that nothing in the item said that we should be spending more on PR; it only asks for a review of our current efforts and to see what our policies are.  Anything that we consider in this district, we should think about whether it's cost-beneficial to the district.  "I don't favor anything that is going to take money away from somewhere else, but maybe this will bring in money.  There is nothing in here that says we are going to spend money.  We don't have to approve recommendations or support them if we don't feel they are beneficial to this district."

Curbelo said that he is opposed to a corporate-style marketing campaign but that he does advocate that success stories get out to the community.  He asked if they could amend the item from saying "marketing" to "information" and the word "awareness" would substitute the word "relations."  Dr. Feldman agreed to the amendment.

Dr. Perez voted "no" to the amendment because she said that changing the word would not change the intent of the item.  She insisted that the intent of the item implied that we could spend money on marketing, and that nobody who might want to provide grants to us would be impressed by the fact that we spent some of our very limited resources on marketing.

Carvalho said he sees no problem with talking about the good things our public schools do, getting the word out there.  He said an awareness campaign is not "putting a new paint of coat on a beat-up Volkswagen...I for one am incredibly proud of our students who are achieving and those who are struggling because we love them, we hug them, we teach them." 

Diaz de la Portilla and Perez voted "no" on item H-6.

H-8:  Notice of Non-Compliance with Class Size Amendment
Vice President Artie Leichner said that, knowing beforehand what might be the consequences, the Board should have taken some preventive measures back in March or April; now they're having to chase it.  When they talk about school choice, are they going to maintain the adequacy of public schools?  "Public education is the paramont responsibility of the state...You have a responsibility in our constitution to have collective bargaining.  All studies need to be done proactively, not retrospectively.  If you know there is going to be something coming up in the legislature that impedes your ability to negotiate with your unions, you have to know what your options are so that you are not having to chase your tail."

Dr. Karp asked if there were any penalties mentioned in the notice of non-compliance.

The School Board's attorney said that the notice did not state what the penalties would be, but based on the statute they could guess.  "[I]t does trigger certain requirements and issues we need to explore from a legal standpoint...To the extent that the statute is specific to what the legal penalties would be, there are a lot of issues to explore there...there are a number of remedies that could be pursued, and not all of them involve filing a lawsuit."

Curbelo, who is serving on the incoming governor's education transition team, said that he is working with the legislature to see if we can eliminate these penalties.  "I certainly have expressed my frustration with the lack of funding from the state."  He said that he is concerned that some legislators may view this as an aggressive action on our part and may hurt our efforts to get these issues resolved without a lawsuit, but merely through legislative action.

Regalado said that the item is just requesting a legal opinion; it would still have to come before the board before taking legal action.  "As an attorney my concerns have to do with timeliness...this is just the first step moving into what those remedies will be...We should look into all options; I'm concerned with the possibilities of a set-off if they do not waive the fees.  This is just one of the many conversations that we will be having with our legislators and it provides us with information as we move forward with our decisions so that we will not merely be victimized by Tallahassee."

Carvalho said, "There is an extensive appeals process where counties can explain why they were unable to meet or decided not to meet the class size amendment.  In our case, we chose not to meet it because of its collateral impact on educational programs."

Curbelo said that the timing of the item is unfortunate.  "Perhaps in January or February we will have a better idea what the legislature is going to do."

Dr. Perez said, "I agree with Ms. Regalado that this is not an aggressive item but an assertive item." 

Carvalho said, "As soon as the state takes the step of trying to collect one penny from a district, you have an aggrieved party, and at that moment action can be taken."

De la Portilla said he is "concerned about how this could be viewed as a hostile action by the hand that feeds us."  Really?  The hand that feeds us?  Apparently, De la Portilla doesn't have much of a problem with us begging for scraps at the table like so many dogs.

He says that we could accomplish what they want to do and still stay out of the line of fire of the legislature because it could be viewed negatively by those creating public policy in Tallahassee.  He essentially said that those who voted against Amendment 8 created this issue, because if they had approved the relaxation of the class size amendment we would not be facing this problem of fines.  He said that the legislature has already given us waivers after waivers in the past. 

Once again, De la Portilla seems to have taken the side of the legislature over the side of those of us who educate children and therefore, ultimately, the children.

De la Portilla, Mindingall, Curbelo, Karp and Hantman voted against the item.

H-9 Agenda Procedure

De la Portilla wants to change the rulemaking proceedings so that items are received in a timely fashion so that all members have a chance to read and review them before voting on them; otherwise "votes could be manipulated."  Hmmm...I wonder what he knows about votes being manipulated?

The Board will take up the matter at an upcoming Board Retreat.

Superintendent recognized schools for results of school grades, calling them historic.  For the first time ever 1/3 of senior high schools earned an A grade.  Statewide, only 30% statewide earned an A and Miami Dade had 34%.  Nearly 60% of high schools got an A or a B.    Carvalho congratulated Edison and Central Senior High for moving from an F to a C.  He called it "tremendous news for Miami-Dade County."

On Friday Miami Herald education reporter Kathleen McGrory reported on the record number of high schools whose grades had increased dramatically, despite slight or nonexistent gains on the FCAT, due to the new high school accountability system which kicked in this year and gives points not just for FCAT scores, but also for participation and performance in Advanced Placement, dual enrollment and International Baccalaureat programs.  She suggested that schools, the district or possibly the state were manipulating statistics with this new system in order to give the appearance that schools are making more progress than they actually are.

State senator Dan Gelber, unsuccessful in his candidacy for state Attorney General, published a blog on December 7 pointing out that, while the state boasts of huge gains in progress in high schools, that according to all national measures we still rank among the bottom 10 states in every category, including graduation rates, composite ACT scores and SAT scores, school funding per capita, and only 37th of 50 states in teacher pay.  Is this sudden spike in school grades just a ploy to show that underfunding public school is actually a formula for success?

We must pay close attention to how the district, the state, and politicians play this card in the months and years to come.

Robbing your pensions to pay for the classroom?...

The first School Board meeting with the newly installed members, Dr. Dorothy Bendross-Mindingall (district 2), Carlos Curbelo (district 7) and Raquel Regalado (district 4), dealt with issues including the rejection of a $400,000 breakfast program grant from NEA, the controversial sale of a district-owned property, and the state and federal legislative agenda.

Item C-30: Approval of New Charter School Applications
C-30 Nine new charter schools were approved through item C-30.

Two of the new charter schools approved today are to be managed by Charter School Associates, which, according to their website, was founded by Michael Strader, the founder of the Center for American Free Enterprise at Jacksonville University and the Center for Education Entrepreneurs at the James Madison Institute--a Foundation for Florida's Future.  (For those of you who didn't know or forgot, the latter is the pet project of ex-governor Jeb Bush, a key player in pushing Senate Bill 6 this past session.)  Isn't the idea of "education entrepreneurs" a bit of an oxymoron?...Is his charter school management company for profit?  By Florida law charter schools must be non-profit in order for their charters to be approved...yet charter management companies are quite adept at finding back routes to profiting off tax dollars slated for public schools, whether directly through "management services" or through shady real estate deals.

DCSMEC Contract
DCSMEC (Dade County Public Schools Maintenance Employee Committee) settled their contract with no increase in health insurance cost but no raises.  District 9 Board Member Larry Feldman commended the agreement, which indicates that he may be a hard sell on our contracts as we continue with the collective bargaining process.

This just serves as an example of how, despite trying economic times when every penny counts, we need to not only retain our membership but add to it.  

E-36: Wellness and Nutrition in schools, and the denial of the application for NEA Grant
President Karen Aronowitz addressed the School Board on the topic of the Wellness Program.  As president of an NEA local Aronowitz brought forward a $400,000 grant for a breakfast initiative which the District rejected.  Referring to First Lady Michelle Obama's visit to Riverside Elementary Aronowitz pointed out that many children get their primary source of nutrition through the schools.

Dr. Marcos Moran from School Operations countered that the district already provides free breakfast for all students, not just those receiving free or reduced lunch.  He said that the way the grant was proposed created an accountability problem.  He said that the third problem involved cleanliness of the classroom and that the grant would have created a problem cleaning up the classrooms after children ate breakfast.

The grant would have in fact create an in-classroom breakfast program, with the aim of increasing the number of children who actually participate in the program from the current 21%.

Raquel Regalado brought up the requirement for the federal reimbursable program that districts try to feed children with fresh produce from local sources to the extent possible.  She pointed out that often school meals are the best meals children eat and that we need to ensure that there is no difference between what food children on free and reduced lunch eat and what other children eat. 

The chair of the Wellness Committee, Susan Karelia, ensured Regalado that there is no difference between what children on free and reduced lunch eat and what other children eat, to which Regalado said that she would like to ensure better quality for all children.

Superintendent Alberto Carvalho took the microphone and said that they should take a strong advocacy position before the federal government.  He pointed out that the program is underfunded and has been for years.  The reimbursement rate is fixed and therefore when gas prices spike, the cost of food increases.  He commended Regalado for her position, saying that more is needed to ensure the quality of food for all of our children.

District 1 Board Member Tee Holloway requested to see something in writing regarding the denial of the grant.

New Board Member for District 2, Dr. Dorothy Bendross-Mindingall, pointed out that the summer is a time when poor children are hungry and are fed foods that are not nutritious, and voiced her concern that the grant could have been used to help feed those children.

This grant could have helped supplement and improve the existing free breakfast program.  At a time of such dire economic realities--as certain board members never cease to remind us--it seems preposterous that our district should have turned down $400,000.  I cannot speak for other schools, but I know that in my own school, I rarely see anything resembling fresh, local produce served on a tray.  I think that most people would agree any opportunity to improve the quality of the food we offer our children--especially when it comes to us for free--should be seized.

F-63: The School Board approved the sale of unused property for $3.1 million.
F63 awards bid sale of school board property to Omni Redevelopment District Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA).

Carvalho said that the decision to bring F63 forward follows careful consideration and that they determined that the property was of no value to the district for educational purposes but that it could  be useful to other entities.  He claimed that they did not place any restrictions on the purposes or uses of the property; that it was simply a business transaction, that it was advertised, and that only one entity submitted an offer.  The offer came in at slightly over the assessed value and that based on that they were inclined to accept the offer.  He added that there is an additional $1 per square foot added to the offer because of FDOT's interest in "a sliver" of the property that could be used for future expansion of I-395.

There was considerable debate over the use of the property, and whether more money could have been obtained from its sale, but finally members determined that bidding procedures had been followed and that the School Board has a commitment to follow through with the sale.

All members voted in favor of the item.

E-76: Adoption of the Federal and State Legislative Agenda.
President Aronowitz took the microphone to remind board members that it is the legislature's responsibility to fund the class size amendment in addition to regular funding for M-DCPS schools.  She said that we needed to be able to fund smaller classes as well as providing teachers with appropriate compensation.  "We are taking a stand on behalf of children to ensure that their schools are able to provide everything they need for a high-quality education. For a high-quality outcome, teachers and students must have the resources they need."  She pointed out the legislature was boasting of a "veto-proof legislature," and condemned the use of that power to punish those who disagreed with them and held them to account. 

UTD Vice-President Artie Leichner cited the legislature's audacity in fining a district for not being able to comply with a constitutional mandate the legislature had the responsibility to fund.  He reiterated that it is the School Board's obligation to push for funding so that students and teachers have the resources they need.

New Board Member for District 7, Carlos Curbelo, said that the district was being reasonable in requesting "level funding," but that we cannot allow those in Tallahassee to interpret it as contentment with what we are receiving in the way of funding.  He said that the funding system was "replete with inequities" and that there was a huge abyss between what Miami-Dade County puts in and what we get back.

Regalado said that we had to understand that we were going to have a difficult time in Tallahassee this year, given the composition of the legislature, and that we needed to have an agenda we could actually get something accomplished with.  She does not support a study of the poverty index because it would serve as an excuse to push this back one more year.  She said we should move on to something that is viable for our students this year rather than being told once again "maybe next year."  She said that she supports legal action for the amounts that we are owed, despite the difficulty of taking such a position, because otherwise we are sending the message that the legislature can do whatever they want.  It is refreshing to see a school board member taking a strong stand for funding and for recovering what we are owed in terms of what we contribute.

Mindingall reiterated that we are a donor county and that we have to send the message to the legislature that they are not to fund education, but to FULLY fund education.  "Our Dade delegation must understand that we come as friends...we have to implore them to make certain that they do not forget that our children are their children."  She said that there is a discrepancy as relates to poverty, and that we must make sure that everyone knows we will not back away when it comes to our children.  "We must work in partnership and across the aisles, to make sure that all of our children get the best education possible."

Richard Hinds (Associate Superintendent and Chief Financial Officer) said that the current poverty index did not give us sufficient money but that because of "tough economic times" it was unlikely that we could get any more.

District 5 Board Member Renier Diaz de la Portilla said that we should do more with what we have and cut inefficiencies on our own end since the state also had hospitals to fund, prisons to build and other priorities. 

Regalado brought the conversation back to the unfunded mandates we receive year after year from Tallahassee, and that people who do not know the history of the DCD (District Cost Differential) do not realize that other districts are enjoying surpluses while our district suffers, and that this is the reason we are discussing poverty index and other funding formulas.  We have sued in the past, but at this point the district has done a good job in streamlining and she does not want Tallahassee to point a finger back at us to find funding whether by cutting budgets or raising taxes.  She said that the funding situation in Miami-Dade has gone from unacceptable to intolerable; knowing that the governor has said that he will not accept more stimulus money--the only thing that has kept our district afloat--we have to face the reality that we will have to go up against the legislature and against other school districts.  "Other districts have done very well at the mercy of Miami-Dade County Schools," said Ms. Regalado.  She disputed the idea that we would be able to find the funding internally and that the people of the community would not tolerate an increase in property taxes, so we have to take a strong stand against the legislature.

Diaz de la Portilla rebutted that he supported the agenda; we need to focus on results.  "There is never enough money, especially in this economy."  He said that public education has been the #1 priority in Tallahassee.  He said that the DCD is "demagogued" constantly but that we are getting better results than districts that spend more per pupil than we do. 

Regalado said that any district, given our size, will have waste and that we will have to deal with that when we get to the budget.  From a legal point of view, the state has a legal obligation to fund public education.  The fact that we have been able to do better than other districts does not eliminate the injustice that has been done to Miami-Dade and we cannot continue to accept that injustice.  We cannot change anything that was done in the past with the DCD, but the reality is that we are doing a job and there is always room to do a better job, but there are legal obligations to fund public education and we have no choice but to hold their feet to the fire and make them fund public education.  From a legal point of view we cannot allow the state of Florida to continue to  underfund us.  "As a board, we need to demand what is legally our right."

Curbelo said that finding inefficiencies in our system and seeking better funding are not inconsistent.  He said he will never agree that our children deserve less than children in Jacksonville or in other parts of the state.  It is a matter of equity and fairness.

Feldman said that we have done the job; we sliced up to 52% of our central office.  We lost $500 million in funding; put people back in the classroom; maintained the workforce of our teachers; provided free health care for our employees.  It is not supposed to be on the backs of teachers, custodians, bus drivers, administrators or those who are unemployed to fund education.  "I am so proud of what our teachers have done with barely nothing."  We did not have opportunities to store dollars throughout the past years, so the ratio for the class size amendment was unfair to us from the get-go.  "The bottom line is that this school district did not fold, was not taken over; this school district did not have $40 million hidden in a vault."  He pointed out that the budget had just been made to a zero; that there were no extra dollars, no money hiding anywhere.  He said we would need to take some other action if the legislature continued to refuse to fund us properly, whether legal action or otherwise.

Carvalho said that he has fought for Miami-Dade in Tallahassee and Washington, D.C., for years.  M-DCPS, the largest school district in the Florida, gets less funding than seven other counties in Florida: including Duval, Palm Beach, Pinellas, Hillsborough, Broward, Orange and Polk.  Miami-Dade receives $6721 per pupil as opposed to $6996 in Duval County.  He said that even eliminating waste he finds no moral explanation for the funding discrepancy.  He said we could have gotten over $50 million additional this year if we got what Hillsborough County picked up. He said it should not be on us or the local taxpayers to fill the gap; it should be addressed by those who hold the purse strings for education in our state.  "I challenge the state: not only fund education in an equitable way but find a way to reward districts for performance."  Graduation rates increased twice as much as the rest of the state.  Miami-Dade County led other counties in Florida as well as across the nation in outputs.  We need an equalization of local millage.  Fair funding of class size reduction.

Hinds said that we have been out-manipulated by upstate.

Diaz de la Portilla said that we need to redirect funds from the retirement system to the classroom.  Hinds said there are ways to require that employees contribute to the program; these ways are controversial because they require involvement from the employees.  He said that FRS costs our district about 10% of our salary costs.  He said he would be "amazed" if the legislature does not take up the retirement system this session.  Diaz de la Portilla persisted in asking if any savings from retirement funds could be redirected to the classroom. 

Carvalho said that those of us who entered the teaching profession did not do so with the expectation of becoming rich, but rather out of a dedication to the greater good, with the understanding that the state will provide you with a retirement that allows you to "live out the rest of your life."  He said he would be willing to fight to protect what our employees currently have, particularly teachers.  The potential implications of devaluing what teachers receive as a means of balancing the budget is not acceptable and that we should be doing more for them.  He stipulated that this opinion went just for teachers, not necessarily for all state employees.

Diaz de la Portilla qualified his remark that his considerations were not just teachers but also employees retiring with $100,000 salaries.  He said that those savings from retirement would be "our DCD."

Regalado said that if we learned anything from the lottery it is that if there were to be some surplus there is nothing to say that it would go to the classroom, but that it would rather go into a general fund or some other "abyss" in the state of Florida.  Pension reform could benefit the state of Florida as a whole but is not a solution to funding problems in Miami-Dade County.

The debate started by Diaz de la Portilla regarding "savings" that could be made from the retirement system (going so far as to call it "our DCD") really bring into focus the question of who he works for.  Rather than demanding that the state adequately fund our county and make up for the inequity between what our county receives per pupil and what other counties in the state receive per pupil, he would rather simply take the money out of the retirement funds of employees who have dedicated their careers to helping and supporting children in our county.  He did appear to be the only member of the School Board advocating this position, and was vocally opposed on the point by the Superintendent, by member Raquel Regalado and by CFO Hinds.

What do you think?  If you would like to share your thoughts on this subject with Diaz de la Portilla, you could contact him at rdiazdelaportilla@dadeschools.net. 

Tom Cerra took the microphone to discuss the consortium among 11 counties in the state, whose purpose is to develop a legislative plan that will be a consensus plan that must be adopted unanimously by the School Board and cannot be changed.  Nine counties have already adopted the plan without changes.  Cerra said that the proposal can be adopted or denied, but cannot be modified.  The plan opposes the expansion of the Corporate Tax Scholarship program.  The board voted four to one in favor of the legislative plan; Renier Diaz de la Portilla opposed.

President Aronowitz addressed the board on the question of multiculturalism in our schools.  "We have to have heart, even in these times, when people will go against things that benefit children," she remarked.  She expressed her support for the infusion of African-American history across the curriculum throughout the school year.

Conclusions and perspectives
The topic addressed at this meeting which I think will be of most interest to teachers across Dade County is definitely the legislative agenda for the year, especially as it regards securing funding for education.  Each board member who spoke (as well as the superintendent), with the exception of Renier Diaz de la Portilla, seemed to want to make the point that he or she would be a strong advocate for public education and for securing adequate funding to maintain our schools, keep teachers and school staff employed and provide us with decent salaries.  Diaz de la Portilla seemed more ready to attack retirement funds (as a politically expedient solution, undoubtedly) rather than fight an ultraconservative legislature for the funding that we, as a donor county, are owed.  But even from the others, who emphasized over and over that they were going to demand equal funding, we must not be satisfied with strong words alone.  Actions speak louder than words, and how effective they will be at ensuring the viability of our school system, the largest in Florida and the fourth-largest in the nation, remains to be seen.  Past years have yielded nothing but harder and harder times; with a brand-new governor who declares himself ready to refuse further stimulus money, and who, along with the legislature, seems more eager to push privatization of schools through charter schools and expanding the voucher program, it will be no easy task.

But may our school board members, new and old alike, be aware that we, the teachers, are watching them.  And as a voting bloc, along with the parents who are intensely affected by our work and our needs, which are their own, we ARE a force to be reckoned with.  Miami-Dade County Public Schools is the largest employer in Dade County.  And they need to know that, especially at a time when we are being attacked from all sides, we will be counting on them to support us and our needs as we do what is arguably the most important job in the world.


We will be watching their every move...not just listening to their careful words.