Friday, July 22, 2011

M-DCPS becomes charter management company?

July's School Board meeting was flavored by indignation over the just-announced intentions of the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) to close Miami Edison Senior High School and Miami Central Senior High School or convert them to charter schools. A press conference was held at 5:00 outside the School Board meeting, where UTD President Karen Aronowitz stood with students, parents, teachers, school staff, community leaders and elected officials to firmly advocate for keeping those schools open and public.

While this critical issue justifiably had emotions running high, it overshadowed a major issue that, unlike the Edison/Central controversy, is completely under the control of the Miami-Dade County School Board. M-DCPS plans to convert at least one of the closed ETS schools into a charter school, to be called the Franklin Academy, and to convert itself into the charter management company for that school. This issue, although discussed at great length during the meeting, did not get the public attention it deserved, and it is critical that we as public school faculty and staff know about this situation and keep close watch on it as it develops. To that ends, it is the first topic I will cover in this blog.

C-30: M-DCPS = charter management company?


Item C-30 was a request for School Board approval of six charter school contractual agreements and one amendment to the charter school contractual agreement. The major feature of this item was that one of the charter schools would be managed by M-DCPS.


Before debate among School Board members began, UTD Vice-President Artie Leichner spoke to the issue: "You know, I think back to when I was in the classroom, and a businessman from Miami, a guy named Jeb Bush or something like that, and Tee--not Tee Holloway, but T. Willard Fair--put together a charter school in Liberty City, and it failed. OK, well, that's just one failure, but it failed. I just thought that statistics are a very interesting part of all of our lives, you know, everything is detailed out to the littlest bit of data, so in the state of Florida, where 15 charter schools received an F, while 17 public schools received an F, only 15 charters out of 270, only 17 public schools out of 2280 public schools. Think about those numbers. 740% more likely to get an F if you're in a charter school. Our governor goes to a charter school to sign a bill along with his adviser, the former chancellor of the school system rated 51st in the nation, to advise the new governor of the school system rated fifth. He goes in and well, dang it, it turns out to be another one of those F schools! So I'm a little confused here about the priorities of a state that want to give all this money to create more schools with a significantly higher propensity to failure, and take away schools' money from the school systems that do one hell of a lot better job. Maybe it's just me, but it makes no sense."


Attorney for UTD Patricia Ireland took the microphone next, to bring up some vital questions to be considered before proceeding with the plan: "I'm here for United Teachers of Dade. Item C-30 includes a proposal for a district-managed charter school, which is listed now as Franklin Academy. The school district would provide administration, operations, food, transportation and perhaps other services for this charter school. That is what distinguishes this from all over charter applications that have ever come before you before. The district would be well-advised to do all due diligence before voting, and we submit to you that there has not been sufficient analysis of this proposal for you to vote on it today. First you need answers to many questions raised by this experimental structure with an untested entity, and here are just some of them. The law prohibits the board from charging for its approval of a charter school, but also from basing its approval on receipt of future payments. But this charter package is based on the district's receipt of 10% of the funds the charter school receives from the Florida Education Finance Program. Do you have counsel's opinion on whether this violates the law? Two, School Board rules prohibit charter contracts from being negotiated unless a facility has already been secured for the term of the contract. This charter contract was negotiated without facilities being tied down. You are only today being asked to negotiate terms of a lease for three district properties. Three, under state law, right now the district cannot be financially liable for personal injury, property damage, death or property claims for agents of a charter school, for their actions. By becoming management of this school, you would become its agent. Have you got counsel's opinion on whether you would lose your statutory exemption from liability?"


Upon her questioning, the conversation among the School Board members began in earnest. Somewhat disturbingly, board member Dr. Marta Perez seemed to be the only member with genuine reservations. "I have great concerns about this item and the way it was brought to us. I think this is a policy matter first of all; this is one of my concerns. The policy should be made by the board members, and this has been presented to us by administration, all cooked. I don't know how long it's been in the works, I don't know who thought of it, there are many questions, not only the ones raised by Ms. Ireland about the legalities but also about the assets of this school, how will that be run? I have also concerns that the board of directors is going to be former administrators who are friends of the administration and friends of ours. Friends of mine and friends of yours and how is that going to work? Do we have an ethical opinion about that? I'm delighted though that people that are retiring are going to do volunteer work; I think that's wonderful. I hear there are other retirees that are also doing this for free, and I only hope that if this is true, that it is for free, that this trend does continue. One of my major concerns is the possible conflicts of interest, because we provide oversight for charter schools, and now we're going to be the management company, so we're providing oversight for ourselves in charter schools run by very good friends of ours. If we want to be very transparent, I think first we should at least run this by the ethics committee to see and make sure that all of this is very well explained. I, on the other hand, realize that the Superintendent and the staff is very earnest in trying to find solutions for our schools. If this is done, it's another 'think outside the box, let's see what we can do,' and I believe in my heart that it's all being done with the interest of children. There's no question in my mind as to the intent. My concerns are the policy, the conflicts that may arise, and that we really have not had sufficient legal input about some of these  problems. I understand that the Superintendent has again in his earnest postponed again today for one year to do this, but if that can be done this can be postponed a year--not a year, a month maybe--that way we can have all the discussions, all the legalities cleared, send it to the ethics committee, and make sure that we're on solid grounds, because there are issues that should concern us, and it is the board's ultimate decision, and we don't want in the future for someone to say, well, didn't you consider this?"


The school would be allowed to open now or before the opening of the school year; they would have up to a year to open. Something similar has apparently been done in Glades and Osceola Counties.

Dr. Perez brought up some very valid points. Many of the problems in this country, whether we look at the financial sector or environmental regulations, have arisen precisely because the ones making the rules and providing the oversight are the exact same ones running the businesses and profiting.


Board member Raquel Regalado brought up a separate but equally valid concern: hypocrisy. "I am not as concerned with the conflict of interest as with the possibility of the hypocrisy of some of this, and I'll explain. I've said this before. When we discuss charter schools, and the limited laws that have been drafted the same, the issue is always explaining to parents our lack of control over charter schools. The issue is explaining to parents why regular public schools and charter schools do not play by the same rules if we're all public schools. And the issue is every legislative session trying to see if Tallahassee will create a level playing field. So this approach of 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em' I think is in response to our inability in the past to get the legislation on charters to be more in accord with what is occurring in our regular public schools. The fact that we are approving our own application and would be managing an entity that is quasi-related, I don't think it is that big of a legal issue because as a school board, all we can do is shut down a charter if something egregious is occurring. We have very little control over charters to begin with. And that's something that should be clear. I don't want people to think this is one of those situations where the fox is in charge of the hen house. We have little to no control over charters, and I think I can say that all of us sitting up here have explained that to our constituents who don't understand why it is that their children are expelled from charters, why it is that certain children are not admitted to charters, why it is that merit pay is not going to apply to charters, why it is that class size does not apply to charters, on and on and on when we talk about the policies we approve as a board and the fact that charters get to pick and choose. However, I think that as a board we should continue to legislatively demand that there be a level playing field. I think this provides an opportunity to show that charters can comply with what we are saying they should legislatively comply with. If we decide to do this as a board, can we say that the charter schools that we take over, that we are a provider for, will adhere to some of the rules that regular public schools adhere to, because we believe that charters should adhere to those rules, thereby setting an example in the world of charters, so that when we go to Tallahassee, it's no longer some amorphous demand that we're making as a public school system, but that we can physically say, these are the charter schools in Miami-Dade County which have voluntarily decided to comply with these rules. They're still profitable, they're still good, they're more like their public school sisters than anyone else, and everyone else should do it."

We can only hope that Ms. Regalado, whose School Board candidacy UTD endorsed, will insist in any forthcoming contractual agreement that employees at that charter school enjoy the same salary, benefits and contractual rights as all other public schools employees. Further, as the schools would be run by the district, should its employees not have the right to be members of UTD?


Dr. Helen Blanch, the Assistant Superintendent for School Choice, brought up the issue of underenrollment of students with special needs: "One of the areas that causes us probably the most heartburn is the fact that where we look at the number of children with special disabilities or handicaps, where we look at the students that are not the highest performing students, we don't see equal numbers being transferred into charter schools. We will absolutely ensure that in any management agreement we bring back before the board that things that are important to us morally, in the best interest of every child, is hard coded into that management agreement, because after all it will be our name attached to it."


Board member Dr. Dorothy Bendross-Mindingall asked the School Board Attorney, Walter Harvey, if the issues brought up by Patricia Ireland had been carefully examined from a legal standpoint. He responded: "The letter that we received regarding certain concerns, we reviewed that letter in detail and we saw no conflict of interest that was raised, at least on the face of the letter. We are very familiar with the ethics code, which is obviously created by the state legislature; we reviewed that very carefully; it contains at least 18 subparts; we did not see any potential violations that were stated there. With regard to former employees, former employees can contract with the district; there is a six-month limitation on that that we would observe, and that was fine; if any other individual involved in this transaction feels there is an issue they can always request an opinion directly from the state commission on ethics in Tallahassee, but I think that's been reviewed and we're fairly comfortable that there's no conflict of interest, at least on the face of the item, at least as we reviewed it. We're comfortable with it."

Ms. Regalado brought up the question of profit within the school: "Since we mentioned the management agreement and negotiation of that, one thing I want to clarify is that even though we're talking about nonprofits, there is clearly a profit in charter schools, and I want to know, Mrs. Blanch, if we've considered what's going to occur with the profit for this foundation? Because I want to prove, number one, that there is a profit; obviously we're not going to be charging the exorbitant fees that charters charge themselves for leasing land, gimmick number one; to prove there's a profit and what we're going to do with this profit."


The leasing gimmick that Ms. Regalado refers to is a very common one used by supposed nonprofit charters to reap a profit: a subsidiary of the charter management company leases the building to the charter at absurd rates, pocketing a hefty profit while the charter school itself can say that it is nonprofit. I discuss this issue at some length on my personal education policy page.


Dr. Blanch answered: "We're not anticipating that there's going to be a profit per se; whatever money is raised, it will be reinvested in these same schools. We would not be allowed to enter into any kind of agreement where we are making money that is then used for other purposes in the district. So any money that is raised through the lease that goes beyond paying the utilities, that will be reinvested. It can be reinvested in the school being able to purchase more computers, it can be reinvested in the school being able to purchase white boards, paint, so on and so forth. Every penny gets reinvested back into this same K-8."


Superintendent Alberto Carvalho, the architect of the M-DCPS-as-charter-management-company plan, insisted that the school would merely be a pilot program. "We would be foolish to move in any direction without studying the impact. How successful was it? Did students perform well? Did we serve communities well through this approach? And based on this clear analysis, and research, you the board would make decisions about where to go from here. It all hinges on the success of the students; nothing else makes a difference. What's being done here, what's being proposed here, is to provide one more viable option that elevates the performance of students. If we succeed, you're in the position of being able to make decisions about where we go from there. Expansion, creating additional opportunities, and if it doesn't, then in the free spirit of competition make that decision as well."


Dr. Tee Holloway agreed with the Superintendent that this could be a creative way of taking back the upper hand: "As the policy makers for the school district, if we're going to continually be victims, to sit here and watch the erosion of public education without having another option, another viable alternative, at least try it, then we would be ineffective in our roles."

Dr. Feldman addressed the letter the chair had received from UTD President Karen Aronowitz, in which she reminded them that as a public institution they were required to provide free and equal access to all children. The ensuing discussion among the board members and the School Board attorney affirmed that the district-managed charter would accept students with special needs students and English language learners.


Board member Renier Diaz de la Portilla, never losing a chance to show his support for privatization along his brothers' party lines, added: "I have heard comments I do not agree with regarding charter schools, that they are the erosion of public education; we have seen $224 million allocated that could be going to our kids. Well, last I checked, charter schools were public schools. Many of them are doing extremely well. How is that the erosion of public education? I don't agree that charter schools present any kind of depletion of resources from the school system; I believe they are part of the school system, and I believe that they enhance our public school system, and for that reason I have decided to support this item. Because I believe in innovation, and charter schools have been given the freedom to innovate, and because I believe our school system should not have its hands shackled, and should be able to innovate and enter into some kind of agreement whether it be a management agreement or the direct operation of charter schools, I'm in favor of that. Parity issues have been raised; I think that many charter school operators will raise parity issues of their own. They'll say that they don't have parity. Parity is in our favor, not in their favor. We talked about PECO funding. If you looked at item E-14 today, we have a discretionary capital outlay taxing authority that allows us to levy taxes for capital expenditures; charter schools don't. They get it in the state budget through PECO but it's a lot less per school than what we are able to raise through our taxing authority for public schools. So I'm not sure that--it depends what perspective you see it from as to whether there's parity or not. But at the end of the day I think we need to err on the side of innovation, and this is a proposal that I think will work given time. There could be some pitfalls down the line but the Superintendent has stated that there is the possibility that if we do encounter some obstacles this project could be delayed; I believe him and take him at his word. So I will be supporting this item based on the fact that it is an innovative idea."

Charter schools have been allotted a significant amount of PECO (Public Education Capital Outlay) money in this year's state budget, where as public schools have none.

Mr. Diaz de la Portilla's comments are ingenuous at best, as Dr. Perez immediately countered. Not only does he ignore the very high rate of failure among charters (though they are legally able to "cherry-pick" their students), but they are still receiving state money for maintenance of their facilities, while the School Board would be forced to raise property taxes to provide maintenance funding for traditional public schools. In a time of economic crisis, no School Board member would propose such a move.


While other board members such as Carlos Curbelo and Raquel Regalado insisted that it would be a pilot program rather than a runaway train, and that there would be time to iron out the details in the contractual agreement, Marta Perez once again urged caution: "Remember, Ronald Reagan said trust, but verify. This is policy. If this comes from us, we are ultimately responsible, and I share the chair's frustration to hear this was approved a month ago by the charter review committee. My concern again is that if that happened a month ago, once we approve this, the train is out of the station. This is going to probably happen. So, because it's policy, and because I do want to support this, I would request the Board that we postpone this till next month's meeting. By that time, we will have had the policy discussion. I think the board rule should be the cart before the horse. We should have the board rule and then we can have the--whatever--become the management company, if that is the way the board as policy wants to proceed. I move that we postpone this item till next month."


The motion was not seconded so they moved to vote on the item. Everyone voted in favor of item C-30 except Dr. Marta Perez.

There are many concerns in this for public school employees. One of the biggest concerns is whether this will be come a trend. Will schools closed or threatened with closure, such as Miami Edison or Miami Central, be turned into charters managed by the district? Charters have been used and can be used as a union-busting tool; this could be a dangerous precedent for the district to set. Converting public schools to charters, while maintaining their control over these schools from downtown, would weaken UTD's base and bargaining power. It could, in effect, down the road, mean the district gets to pursue the goals and programs they want without having to honor employees' collective bargaining rights.

While this is just a first step, and there will be many more to go before we can know exactly what kind of precedent this will set and whether the experiment will continue or expand, all employees need to be very aware of what is going on and ready to keep an eye on it. I will keep you informed.

H-16 Regarding the threat of closure of Miami Central and Miami Edison

This very heated issue was not to pass under silence during the School Board meeting. Dr. Feldman presented a good-cause item, H-16, to voice unwavering support for Miami Central and Miami Edison High School in staying open and public.

 Dr. Feldman introduced his item: "It's very appropriate that we started our day with a monologue from Roots and then followed with the song 'Don't Rain on My Parade.' This is what's happened with two of our schools, possibly three, but definitely two of our schools. I want to take a moment to publicly and fervently affirm not only my support but all of our support for three local schools that have made amazing strides, that had the backing, support and interest not only of this school board but also of their own communities, for whom all of them is at stake now. Three schools who continue to make strides to meet an ever higher bar, an ever farther finish line, an ever more-distant goal, one that changes while adding additional barriers each year. These schools, where we have seen steady improvement resulting in accountability grades of C, are now facing the possibility of D grades as a result of recent mandates of our state. While I'm not opposed of setting a high bar for all our students because they are capable of rising to it, I do feel that schools like Edison, Central, Holmes and some others who face documented and unique challenges as far as student language and economic barriers, and who have proven to be steady increasing and improving education for all of their students, deserve our respect, our support, for doing what others have not done for them. Now it appears they face the danger of state sanctions, and I cannot stand by just as you can't and watch these students and communities who are rightly and justifiably proud of their achievements in essence be told they are not good enough and have not done well enough. Well I say that's not true. Not only is it not true, but that negates all the work our teachers and students have done. For instance, at Miami Edison, the graduation rate is projected to increase to 72%, which is a 23% increase over the last two years. The reading proficiency of their students has improved ten points from 5 to 15%. Math has improved twenty-eight points to 41% and science proficiency to 22%. That the percentage of students increasing in accelerated courses has increased by 26 percentage points to 45% of students who are now college-ready in reading and have increased their points by 70 percent. This is not done by magic and it's not a miracle, it's hard work by parents, by community, by students and teachers. As if that wasn't good enough, we look at Central. Since 2008, reading proficiency has improved, since 2003 math has gone up to 47% proficiency, there are more students at Central that are succeeding at higher rates. The college readiness in reading for them is projected to be 77%. In 2008-2009, 11% of students were enrolled in accelerated courses and passed them, while in 2011 almost 70% of students enrolled in them are expected to pass. I support the district's intent to appeal the state's sanctions against these schools, and will support any effort by this board to voice their support for these schools. We heard this morning a very passionate plea by not just the community and the school but also by one of our board members, the board member of that particular area, Dr. Bendross-Mindingall. We've heard from everyone. We will not have those doors closed. I would ask our board to approve resolution 11-092 of the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, authorizing the chair to submit a letter of support and the accompanying resolution on behalf of our school board to the state board of education, requesting that an approval of the appeal be granted that the district be enabled to continue implementing its improvement process without closure of these schools or interruption of services to these communities."

Ms. Regalado reiterated that a closure would come from the state and not the district: "One thing that is important to mention is that most people don't understand how our educational system works and the impact that the state board has, and sort of where we end and they begin. And of course one of the concerns is that the community is going to feel that we haven't done everything in our power, which is actually quite the opposite, so I really hope that everyone takes the opportunity to voice their concerns about what's happening at Edison and Central."

Board members Carlos Curbelo and  Dr. Dorothy Bendross-Mindingall equally voiced their support for these schools and vowed to do everything in their power to make sure they stayed open. The principals of Miami Central High School (Renina Turner) and Miami Edison High School (Pablo Ortiz) spoke about their commitments to their schools and in continuing the progress.

Superintendent Carvalho announced: "I'll say once again the commitment I've made to the community at this point: that the crown of Spain has a better chance of reclaiming Florida than of us in any way, shape or form shutting down Central and Edison."

The motion carried unanimously.

Due in large part to the outcry among parents, students, community leaders and elected officials, the state Board of Education has granted the two schools a one-year reprieve to make more progress before making a decision to close. However, none of us should feel confident that that is the end of the problem or the last we will hear about closing those schools. As UTD President Karen Aronowitz brought up during the public hearing, for-profit charter school management companies with many friends in high places are all too eager to get their hands on those schools now that they have been turned into state-of-the-art, high-tech facilities at enormous expense to taxpayers. We must not fall victim to their ploys and must remain vigilant that these schools remain public and open to their communities.

During the public hearing, Mrs. Aronowitz said on this matter: "Today I flew in early from Washington, D.C., when I learned of the possible closures of Edison and Central Senior High School. United Teachers of Dade recognizes the progress that students of Edison and Central have made, due in large part to the efforts of our teachers and school support professionals who work with students every day. For the Florida Department of Education and the Florida legislature, it is never enough. July 19, the Florida Board of Education will meet in Tampa to decide the fate of these two schools. I agree with the Superintendent. I too will fight to keep Central and Edison open as public schools. Public schools that are producing successful students every day, public schools that are working to provide the resources that our struggling students need. I spoke with U.S. Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan yesterday, and was touting the success of Miami Central and his recent visit there. I told him that the very school he was praising is being threatened with closure. Now that Miami Central has it's long sought-after state-of-the-art facility, state officials want to swoop in and hand it over to their friends and cronies. Our tax dollars paid for that facility; the same is true for Miami Edison Senior. After finally upgrading and refurbishing that facility, they want to take that school too. This is not about kids and progress. This is about taking public schools away from our communities. It is now up to us. It is not enough that we speak out in July. We must continue to stand together through July, August and September, as long as our public schools are threatened, to ensure that public schools remain just that: public schools who accept all children. I will be asking leaders of our community to join me in Tampa when the Florida School Board meets. They must see us there as they make their decision."

A-1 Superintendent's Announcements: State accountability school grades

The Superintendent began his announcements with: "It's paradoxical that at a time when we're celebrating the sustained increase of performance district-wide, at a time when we've celebrated the number of schools receiving school performance grades of A and B having increased, and the total number of F schools decreased, we're also having to contend with these issues regarding Edison and Central. But let's suspend that and just provide the community and you the board the opportunity to see the presentation of the school accountability grades. Ms. Gisella Fields."

Ms. Fields ran through a history of the school accountability grades: "This chart takes you back to 1999, which was then the inception of the school grades. The fact that the FCAT expanded to multiple grade levels later in 2001 eventually by 2005 including all students because they did not want the children with disabilities or language difficulties to be excluded, so all children were included as part of the school grade. In 2007 in an attempt to make sure no child was left behind they added the rule regarding the lowest 25, making sure those students were also making gains. Last year, as you know, was the first year our high schools received a new second 800 points which constituted enrollment in advanced academics, IB, participation in accelerated coursework, participation in college entrance exams, as well as the graduation rates. Forthcoming for next year will be the inclusion of the end-of-course exams that were administered this year as part of the baseline. To talk about the exam for this year, as we all know the 2011 FCAT was a new test, with the new generation Sunshine State Standards, in addition to that there were changes in the accountability model, that is the passing scores were raised, for example in writing the score was raised to a 4.0 as opposed to a 3.5, the FCAT reading and math measured in most grade levels, the new 2.0, our 9th graders as well as any child in middle school enrolled in algebra participated in the algebra end-of-course exam, and geometry and biology will be forthcoming in 2011-2012. Lastly, the inception of computer-based testing, which was part of this year's test grade graduation requirement and a component of math, so every child who took the 10th grade math test this year for graduation took it as a computer-based assessment, and that was actually part of the school grades. The percentage of schools that were classified as an F decreased from 3% to 1%, but mostly we went from having ten schools that were graded as a performance of F last year to only 5 schools, with Miami-Dade's contribution to those F schools only representing 1% of the entire population of the schools graded in Dade County, and that means 3 schools only in Miami-Dade received a final grade of F. On the other end, the percentage of schools that received a grade of A or B increased from 68% to 70%, and although that only indicates a 2% increase, that's f19 schools. Last year, Miami-Dade had 16 schools that received a grade of A or B, and this year we have 235, 70%, of our schools that received an A or a B. In addition to that, the majority of our high schools did not receive their school performance grade, but of those schools that received the points for the first 800, 80% of the high schools scored in the top tier of points. That is under the differentiated accountability formula and that is the highest-performing category, so we have high hopes that that will turn into more A's and B's in the fall when we receive the second 800 points. I think the culmination of these results is that despite the fact that we were imposed with a new test and new standards for which teachers had minimal time to adapt and change their curricular program, despite the fact that we had end-of-course tests in certain grade levels and kids were taking 3 or 4 tests during the FCAT component, and on the computer for some of our middle-schoolers, despite the fact that in high schools math grades only were incorporated for 10th grade because the 9th graders were participating in the end-of-course algebra, despite the fact that the FCAT writing bar was raised, we still had 82% of our schools that maintained or improved their grade. So the fact that 82% of our schools were able to hold their points, not reduce their grade, considering all the changes that occurred this year, is in fact a wonderful way for us to end the year...to celebrate."

Board vice-chair Dr. Larry Feldman questioned the process: "Honing in on one piece, that is the computer testing our kids took. My question would be: how did it go? In other words, did everyone have the computers necessary to be able to do this? Did it in fact work? Were there any glitches we need to be aware of? And part B, when our students use them for the end-of-year testing, did it cause a ripple effect where other kids in the school were not able to utilize these particular computers and for how long?"

Ms. Fields responded: "Overall, considering the problems we had last year as part of the pre-testing we did, the process itself went very very well. We had the computers, we had the infrastructure, the IT people were there to respond to any questions, we did not have any labs that went down or loss of testing time. The fact that the scores dropped a little bit in 10th grade, we are attributing that a little bit to the use of the computer, having to take the test on the computer; it was a new format for children, and although kids got to practice ahead of time on a system created by Pearson called Impact, we feel that next year they'll have more experience because they'll have more practice utilizing some of the tools that were on the computer-based testing. So overall I think that the testing went well both for 10th grade and for the end-of-course algebra. Did it affect some of the instructional time? I believe so, obviously because we had to shut down labs, particularly during the end-of-course because that was a longer period and it was untimed, kids could have the entire day to complete the testing. Because it was a baseline and because it will be used for setting the standards, we wanted to make sure all children had enough time, to make sure they went through the two 60-minute sessions, though we had kids who went through the two 80-minute sessions that took even longer. So yes, during the month of May, there was an impact, particularly at our high schools, where there were thousands of kids being tested where labs had to be sort of shut down and not used for some of our industry certification exams. That will improve because we have gotten better; the infrastructure was there; I believe we got a lot more rolling labs; we will have a little bit more of an extended period to test; and it won't be our first year, so the scheduling of the students and the time used, we've learned from now how to be a little bit better and a little more efficient in terms of the schedule."

This is not entirely true, however. I teach at Hialeah High School, and I happen to know that the system crashed in our school on one of the testing days. Fortunately, the scores and data were retrieved, but it caused a panic among students, faculty and administration, as well as a setback in the schedule, resulting in more instructional time lost. I would be interested to know if other schools experienced similar problems that the district is now denying.

Dr. Feldman continued his questions with one about curriculum as relating to testing: "I read recently an article from some other school districts outside of Florida, that they were reviewing their curriculum across the board and they noticed they still had a section in their instructional program that talked about handwriting and things of that nature, and they were replacing it with computer instruction beginning in third grade. Do we have any programs we specifically install in our elementaries and middle to get kids ready and knowledgeable and ready to do all the kids of cross-referencing they need to do for these tests when they get to high school?"

I am sure I am not the only teacher concerned that children are no longer being taught handwriting--specifically cursive, which many of my high school students do not know how to read, let alone write--in favor of learning to take multiple-choice tests on computers.

Ms. Fields answered that the students were being given test-taking practice through the Pearson system, but that so far there were no changes in instructional curriculum. We should never lose sight of who has profited so immensely from the accountability movement; the name Pearson always brings that to the forefront of my mind. Between writing the tests, selling the software systems to administer them, scoring the tests and providing the "practice software" for the tests, Pearson has cashed in big, at the expense of teacher and staff salaries and materials for classes. We have to question who else is benefiting from this? It certainly does not appear to be children.

Dr. Marta Perez brought up the cheating issue: "Congratulations; the achievements are amazing, given the cutbacks. My question is that there are two schools that were accused of cheating, I think...was it two?"

Ms. Fields responded: "There were four schools that had irregularities in terms of the anomalies regarding erasures. Those schools have been flagged as incomplete by the Florida Department of Education. There is one charter and three traditional schools. The idea is that the state hired a company called Caveon to do a statistical analysis on erasures, so if there is an analysis done that indicates that certain kids in a school or in a classroom have too many erasures from wrong to right or vice versa, that can generate a flag. Enough of those flags can cause a school to be reviewed. So those schools are incomplete; we are in the appeals process right now; we will complete the investigation and at that point the state will decide whether to release a grade or not."

Dr. Perez persisted: "The odds are staggering that these amounts of erasures, and I also have read that there was a major scandal in Atlanta regarding cheating, and what assurances do we have or what do we have in place to make sure that our process is pure?"

Ms. Fields insisted that there is no problem with our process: "We have a very detailed test security manual, and in addition to that we have a very detailed training that we do with our test givers. The anomalies that are being flagged this year are not any different from prior years. Yes, every year there has been a class, or a school, or a group of kids that are flagged for erasures, or patterns--sometimes you have students who have the patterns for the same responses and sometimes those responses are the same wrong answer, and that generates a flag that something happens. This is not new to Miami-Dade; for the past ten or fifteen years we've always had anomalies. This is bigger for the state because of the new company they hired, and because they are going broader, so more schools were flagged this year. You are correct: Philadelphia is under investigation, Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C. There was an article this week that spawned hundreds of schools passed many years with irregularities. In Florida we've been pretty adamant and vigilant about this and I've been doing it for many, many years."

Then, Dr. Perez expanded the question to virtual schools: "The other question is the concern about the virtual schools and virtual classes and the requirements...What is happening there?"

Dr. Sally Shay of Program Evaluation responded to the question: "The fact that the legislature has eased the requirements of class size in terms of which courses actually need to meet class size will reduce our need to utilize online instruction as we did last year to meet class size. We put in place a lot of procedures--there's a whole procedures manual that principals have received so that only students who select to be as a choice in a class online will be placed in them, so you will see a lot less frustration in terms of how our schools are utilizing the virtual classrooms this year."

Dr. Perez plunged further into the issue of cheating: "Have you heard anything about that a student will pay another student to go and take classes for them, the virtual classes, that kind of cheating and all--have you heard anything on that?"

Dr. Shay answered: "That's the first I heard: the way we used them in our school system, they were during the school day, and there was a teacher assigned to that class to monitor them." I laughed out loud upon hearing this. Students have access to their virtual classes at all hours, and I have heard too many stories to count from my students about cheating going on. We all know that cheating happens even when there is a teacher in the classroom, doing her best to monitor everything going on; what happens when that element is removed?

Ms. Regalado then redeemed herself for her charter school vote by linking the standardized test cheating scandals to the merit pay legislation that has passed: "Since the topic of cheating came up and we mentioned certain states--there is an entire chapter in Freakonomics about this, and it's something that happens at a national and state level, especially when you tie pay to test scores. This is an unintended consequence of something that was started many years ago, and for people who think that merit pay is the solution to all of our problems, they should look into what has occurred in other states with cheating, because it is an unintended consequence, and everything from the erasures to the last 20 questions, where if you get the last 20 right every single time the odds are that something is amiss. It's nothing new. In virtual schooling, when we do it in our school system, I think it's very easy to see what's going on: virtual schooling is a tool that has been created for home schooling, and we have no idea what's going on at home. The parents could be taking that class for all I know. And I understand that home schooling is something that's very important to a lot of people, but let's just be clear. Who's watching what? And our ability as a district to control certain test scores."

UTD Vice-President Artie Leichner spoke on this item concerning accountability: "It's the first day of Mr. Smith's kindergarten class, and all the little children are piling into the room, and he says, OK let me teach you the most important word that you're going to learn about for the next 12 or 13 years: it's called accountability. Everybody repeat it to me. A--what's an A? Oh, OK, anyway. So what they're learning is the most important thing is they have to be accountable for something, and they go to first grade and they're accountable and they go to second grade and they're accountable and their teachers are accountable and the person who takes them to school is accountable and everybody is accountable for everything, except the people who sit in Tallahassee and make the rules: they're accountable for--maybe occasionally they read the bills before they pass them, maybe they analyze and figure out whether or not there are unintended consequences or perhaps even intended consequences to their actions, to pass a bill in a committee to determine that students can only take two classes a year through Adult Ed to recapture their credits and destroy graduation rates throughout the district, when the kids need this stuff and they're accustomed to having it available, and de-fund it as part of their lack of accountability to the constitution that requires they provide an adequate funding to public schools? They're only accountable every couple of years when they come up for reelection, but by that time, nobody knows exactly what it was they were accountable for because it was never part of the message that gets out. All that ever gets out is all these horrible negative campaigns, that this one did this and that one did that. So accountability is only supposed to be for kids and for teachers and for what goes on in the classroom; nobody's accountable. If you've never been up to Tallahassee, you should do it, at least once, and talk to the newest legislators, or even the veteran legislators, and ask them to explain the bill they're voting on. Ask them if they've ever read the bill they voted on. Many times they'll say, 'Well, I'm not sure about that one, I'm looking at that one, because it's in my committee, but that one's not in my committee.' Well, how do you decide how you vote? 'This is a good thing for kids in a school, or this is a good thing for a county or a school system. Well, I'm accountable for somebody who's in leadership, and tells me what to do, who tells me how to vote and that's how I make my decision. I'm a robot and do what I'm told, because if I want to be in leadership two years from now, I have to do exactly what I'm told to do.' We need to start holding these people accountable, not for nasty comments or bizarro advertising but we need to hold them to accountability for what they voted for."

Public Hearing: 3% pay cut for public employees

Artie Leichner spoke again during public hearing, this time on the upcoming 3% pay cut for public employees, which many of us will not start feeling until our first paychecks in September. "Earlier, I talked about accountability and holding the legislature accountable. This is an ominous month for public employees. For the first time since 1974, public employees are being asked to contribute 3% of their salary toward their retirement. These moneys were never gifts. This was funding that was taken out of the bargaining pool, out of the money that was available to be used for current salaries, and diverted into preparing for people's futures and what happens when they no longer can work. The money was set aside. It was set aside in 1974 as a non-contributory plan. It remains a non-contributory plan because the exact language from that plan says that the rights of members of that retirement system established by this chapter are declared to be of a contractual nature, entered into between the member and the state, and such rights shall be legally enforceable as valid contract rights and shall not be abridged in any way. In other words, it is a contract, and a contract binding on both parties. I don't recall ever receiving a letter from the state of Florida saying, Artie Leichner, would you agree to give up your contractual non-contributory retirement plan, because we want to fill the budget--it has nothing to do with your retirement, but we want to fill a budget hole that you had no responsibility for creating. I didn't receive that letter, I didn't sign off on it, nor did any of the people I represent or any other public employees in the state. In other words, they have broken a contract with every single public employee in the state of Florida. The Florida Education  Association launched a major lawsuit and requested injunctive relief, that moneys be set aside so that in the event they win the lawsuit, which I have every belief they will, the moneys will be able to be taken out of that set-aside and returned to the employees plus interest. However a judge, accepting the argument from the state that basically said, We will pay them if we're found to be the losing party in this suit, said, without ruling on the merits of the case itself, the judge said, all right, we won't set aside the money. People, this is the reality. The reality is, you have a contract for this; it has to be honored. Whether or not the judge agreed to put aside the money, the state of Florida, every single day that you do not have that money back in your pocket, is creating an obligation that they owe you. Let's hold them accountable and expect them to give it back."

Indeed, the contractual language is there, and FEA has filed this lawsuit. I will keep you posted on any developments or outcomes in that as well.

We have many issues to stay vigilant to, and at least one more legislative session with the same legislators. This is no time for complacency, whether with our School Board, Superintendent, State Board of Education or legislators. It would be a wise use of summer time to contact any or all of those people and let them know you are watching their every move.

Monday, May 16, 2011

M-DCPS cuts administrative salaries, prepares for 8% budget cuts

After several hours of awards, proclamations and recognitions, the School Board got down to the dirty business of money: namely, budget cuts and other revenue shortfalls.

Tee Holloway pointed out that roughly $220 million is being drained by charter schools from our school district, a number confirmed by district CFO Richard Hinds,who did however say that projections for the coming year were inexact due to the 8% disbursement cut that would affect charter schools as well as public schools.

Renier Diaz de la Portilla insisted that these are projections, and that we have no way of knowing that even if charter schools did not exist, that the students would not have exited to go to private schools or to public schools outside our boundaries. Once again, he felt compelled to protect the privatization-of-the-public-sector from scrutiny.

D-24: Administrative salary cut
The Superintendent proposed to cut by 20% the maximum managerial salary . "As I've been advising you for a number of months, as the harshness of economic conditions begins to hit us, I've promised you that at the very top we'd set a compelling example for things to come. The moral imperative that we've been flying on for the past three years will continue. I do not believe in doing anything less than the absolute protection of critical programs, including world languages, arts and music programs to the best of our ability. To achieve that, we're going to have to engage in a degree of collective sacrifice. Our administrators are honorable people. You do not win wars by killing off the generals just to make the soldiers happy. I will not do that. The only reductions in force have taken place with the administrators. Not a single full-time teacher on contract has been laid off." (True, but in a backhanded kind of way: countless teachers have worked in 3100 positions for several years without being offered a contract, precisely so that the district can maintain that no-layoffs rhetoric.) "What I can promise is this: protecting the classroom to the best of our ability will continue to be our priority. This is not a savory item. It will be a cut of 20% to the maximum salary. All those making above that new maximum will see a 2% cut. This provides an opportunity for us to look at the supplements and credential payments of all employees not protected by union contracts." Once again, we are reminded how vitally important our union contracts are: they protect our supplements and credential payment.

Board member Raquel Regalado took the opportunity to speak out against the budget cuts: "I think this is a necessary item and I think it is completely in line with what we as a Board have said over and over is our ideology. As a Board we have said we do not believe in raising taxes and we do not want to cut the classroom, and this is completely in line with that. The $27 million that we saved the last meeting when we made reductions was not an easy decision. We reduced our IT department even as the state insisted we offer virtual classes and do FCAT testing on computers. Whenever we make these types of reductions there exists the possibility where great people will get to the point where they've had enough. The reason I wanted to speak on this item is that we've been so proactive, we've done such a great job in dealing with this budgetary crisis before the fact, but I do not want the public listening or Tallahassee for that matter to say that our actions as responsible boad members prove what they've been saying all along, that we just have to be more innovative, that we have to do more with less. We've been doing more with less since 2003. When we look at what we've paid our staff and the reductions we've been making, we're giving them less and less and less. The governor considers this session a success. I consider it an exercise in travesty. At the same token we're hearing the extreme right beating the drum about how the next session has to be more proactive and make further cuts to education. I do not want this to be used against us next session because they just punished the faithful."

Superintendent Carvalho continued: "This opens a door; I'm signaling to you that I'm going to engage in a deep analysis of salary to certain groups and bring those numbers back to you as part of the budget recommendation. This will probably affect about 400 people altogether...Before we start looking at art and foreign language programs, etc., we should start looking at add-ons, like credential payment for MEP, CEPs for supplements...there are some supplements for simply taking district classes for CEP that I do not think can be explained. The way we're going to manage to balance the budget this year is going to be through very surgically executed reductions that are not going to remove $30 million from one single pocket but that will be very precise. We have about an $80 plus million headache. We're going to get there by being very strategic, very deliberate, very careful and doing a line-by-line review of the budget. This brings half a million; the supplements will bring between half a million and a million dollars; this could bring back a million and a half dollars and should not be ignored."

The motion carried unanimously.

A-1: Discussion of budget cuts and programs changes from Tallahassee
School Board lobbyist Iraida Mendez-Cartaya explained the grim realities of 2011 legislative session:
"Education was reduced by 7.5%. The unweighted FTE was reduced by $542. The reduction is mainly due to 2 issues: the sunsetting of the federal stimulus monies, which they did not replace in our formula, and the reduction in tax revenues. The reductions to the school districts will be mitigated to some extent by pension reform. This was a priority for the governor, the speaker and the president of the senate. Public employees enrolled in the state pension plan will have to contribute 3% of their salary beginning July 1. For new hires effective July 1, retirement age will increase from 62 years of age to 65. The years of service required for full benefits increased as well from 30 years to 33 years of service. As relates to class size, the legislature did pass legislation providing school districts flexibility as it relates to the implementation of class size reduction. In grades pre-K to 3, the courses that have to meet class size include reading, math, language arts, social studies and science. In grades 4-8 subjects required for state tests and middle class promotion. Grades 9-12 courses tested by statewide assessments and required for graduation. The language was modified in the bill concerning co-enrollment so that it would be allowed for credit recovery for the coming year. SB 1312 which transfers the authority from the Dept of Education to the Dept of Agriculture passed, which is another issue the Board adopted last month as a matter of fact. The cornerstone of much of what was debated in Tallahassee was school choice. The legislature expanded school choice for parents and passed several bills. They passed legislation that would make a constitutional amendment removing prohibition of public money going to religious institutions, expanding charter schools, expanding the definition of what a failing school is, a major expansion to virtual instruction and also redefining what qualifies for a McKay Scholarship."

Dr. Hinds explained his qualms with using reserve money to fill some of the gaps: "Our shifting back of reserves back into capital will result in a reduction in revenue to the general fund of $213 million. One of the problems by using this reserve at this time, which is roughly $30 million, is that that is a non-recurring source of revenue, which will cause a potential problem going into 2013. This funding crisis is not a one-time affair; it will continue at least into '12-'13. Our total FTE is slightly up; however charter FTE is slated to increase by more than our total FTE. The New World School of the Arts appropriation, from the standpoint of the state, was decreased by nearly half. We now receive absolutely no PECO money from the state. Universities receive PECO money, charter schools receive PECO money, community colleges receive PECO money, but we now receive no PECO money. We will have a board budget briefing next Thursday from 10 AM to noon where we will go in great detail into revenue and pinpoint the amount of our reduction."

Once again, Diaz de la Portilla took the opportunity to praise his brother's (and party's) work in Tallahassee: "$59 million saved from pension reform. One way of looking at it is that revenue went down by $185 but we saved $59 million." (Translation:...It's a paycut for teachers already earning about $7,000 below the national average, but hey, who cares? It helps us out of the hole a little, so it can't be all bad...)

Hinds returned to the subject of the money that charter schools suck away from the public school system: "We expect a slight increase in our total enrollment, but our share in total enrollment will be down slightly if our projections regarding charter schools is accurate. Our programs in South Dade and our programs all over are a way of being more competitive with charters. Our enrollment in charter schools is equal to New York, but they have over a million FTE. Our base student allocation will be at the same level as a full decade ago, although our expenditures are much higher than at that time. Charter schools will have the same loss of 8% FTE. The problem to charters is that most charters do not participate in the FRS. We will incur a savings of over $100 million in expenditures that they won't. Large charters will probably be able to do it. Small charters won't."

Regalado returned to an issue that had come up earlier in the discussion: the inability of the district to provide proper maintenance for its older buildings, especially now that we will be losing the PECO money. "For many of our parents, the only face they see of the Miami-Dade County School Board is the one they encounter on a daily basis at their particular school. The decay of that particular school resonates with them and they see that as our responsibility to maintain those schools. As School Board members we get e-mails dealing with everything from lack of toilet paper to leaky roofs to why does one building have central AC and another has AC units in the windows. I think it's admirable that we're going to look at alternative funding to resolve these issues. However I have to say that the expenses that we incurred in our construction was because of the unfunded mandate for class size, and that is still out there. It was the responsibility of the state to provide funding and because of the state's failure to properly fund education we cannot maintain the buildings. Everyone comes home from Tallahassee against crime and for education and kissing babies, and that's not the way it happened in Tallahassee, and I'm sick of it."

Board member Dr. Martin Karp pointed out that new laws were allowing high-performing charter schools less oversight fees, and if Carvalho had any idea of what we could do about that.

Carvalho spoke rather forcefully: "At some point in our state, they're going to make a determination. Are charter schools public schools or not? If they are, we have to play by the same rules all the time, not part of the time. Either we're all public or we're not. If we're all public schools, we should all be treated the same."

Dr. Karp then tackled the issue of expanded virtual schools: "There is now a sytem in place--am I right that any kindergartener could participate in a virtual program or is this limited to kindergarteners who are homebound? I have a kindergartener and I cannot imagine putting a five-year-old in front of a computer."

Mendez-Cartaya responded, "Yes, it is expanded to K-12."

Diaz de la Portilla touched on the "money-saving" feature of another piece of legislation tearing down at the working conditions of teachers: "I have some questions about some policy initiatives that passed. I'd like to bring in some of our contract lobbyists to opine on those issues. The core subject class size legislation that reclassified or reclarified would be a better word, as it relates to class size, that obviously got us away from the penalty, which saved us whichever amount of dollars...does that save us money going forward?"

Hinds explained, "Last year, 80% of our classes were core. Due to the flexibility obtained by our lobbyists, now only 50% of our classes are core. We're absolutely considering some small increase, not in elementary school, but in middle schools and high schools to accommodate that decrease in core. Foreign languages are no longer core. Classes that offer college credit are no longer core. The broadening of electives in middle school and high school, we need to take advantage of that."

Yes, Mr. Diaz de la Portilla, indeed. Let us take advantage of teachers teaching those totally unimportant, non-academic courses that contribute nothing to a child's education, like Spanish or AP World History or AP Calculus. We all agree that the only classes that matter are tested by the FCAT.

He persisted: "The savings result when you increase the allocations to those classes and you reduce your number of teachers necessary to provide instructional services. You only have a savings in fact if you reduce those allocations."

Hinds: "This is not chump change; this is not inconsequential."

Diaz de la Portilla explained clearly: "My point is, we're under extraordinary circumstances, and yes we took a revenue hit, but we recovered it in other areas, through legislation, the class size issue, the employer contribution rate issue, the coenrollment issue, you can say we lost $200 million on one end but got back $200 million on the other end. It's practically a wash. I think that's the whole story. I don't think we can only show one side of the issue, and say that one party is good and the other is bad, that one loves education and the other hates education and goes home and kicks puppies at night..."

Of course, Mr. Diaz de la Portilla. Teachers have nothing to reproach your brother and his cronies in Tallahassee for further undermining public education and worsening working conditions for teachers and other employees around the county.

Regalado spoke up: "I understand your point...I know that we're facing extraordinary circumstances, but I refuse to say that what was done in Tallahassee is right. There were a lot of changes made in Tallahassee that have nothing to do with funding but which are ideological decisions. I spoke to Governor Scott and he expressed his disdain for public education. That is why I endorsed Alex Sink and why everyone got mad at me. I don't think we can whitewash this. I didn't accuse anyone of going home and kicking puppies. I said kissing babies. Everyone comes back and says they're pro-education. I'm glad you brought up the issue of virtual schools, Dr. Karp, because I have those issues and I took them up with Anitere. As a parent, I can say computers are not what my son needs. They need to sit down and learn to write, not play on a computer. I'm not against virtual schooling, but there is an age where it's appropriate. I think that for super-motivated children, virtual schooling is an option. But this is what my concern is. Virtual schooling is going to be used as a sword and shield against our less-performing students. This is being used as a means by which to resolve educational issues and not to deal with it. It's not going to work for a particular part of our population. We cannot pretend that a 10 or 20% of our super-motivated students should be whom our education system should be modeled on. They're a minority. They're a wonderful minority and we love them. But there's a full system of other children who need to be educated. As a basic legal premise, it is the responsibility of the state of Florida to educate its children. Every single one of its children. To not do so is improper. Two more things since it came up, I'm so glad the superintendent mentioned the issue of the legality of some of the things that occurred in session. Unlike our system of government where we have a School Board attorney we can discuss these issues with, Tallahassee does not. The issue is that they draft up bills and they send it to drafting, and drafting puts it in neat little paragraphs, and people assume that this makes it legal, and it does not. We are in a position to consider the legality of the issues taken up in Tallahassee. It's not being letigious, it's being responsible. On the Rivas-Logan issue I have to take issue...it's not what was done but the way it was done. The things that were said on the floor, I would have understood if they were said ten years ago, when you could say things in Tallahassee and no one would know. Now there's an audience listening to what you're saying. The misinformation that was expounded on the floor in order to garnish support for this bill was improper in so many ways. Thankfully it was resolved. I think that at the end of the day, Rivas-Logan has lost her credibility with the Dade delegation and with a lot of other people in Tallahassee for her misrepresentation. Who speaks for Dade County schools are the nine people sitting up here. It's what we've said before and we need to continue saying it. We were up there lobbying. They could have asked us. That was something that was very sad about this session because it was very disrespectful and it was very misleading."

Carvalho took a halfway position between Regalado and Diaz de la Portilla: "This was not an easy session. This was a heartbreaking session. It would have been much worse had it not been for some policy changes, coenrollment being one. We're still going to have to deal with an $80 million budget hole. It could have been worse, it could have been $50 million worse, and I give credit where credit is due for fixing some of those issues. More than 50% of the delegation took a position against this bill. The board has spoken about the misstatements and misinformation that took place. Unfortunately some of that misinformation flew in the face of the PTSA in this district and that has been corrected. The end of one session should be the beginning of the next. There is no summer break. Conversations have to start right now, not just on the budget but on every policy issue that may resurface next year."

UTD President Karen Aronowitz stood to speak out on A-1: "The onslaught against children is real. We cannot operate our schools on the money this state is allocating. We must turn to the courts and adequacy lawsuits--lawsuits won in other states by banding together and filing those suits and joining with the suits of others. What happened this session was not shared sacrifice, it was slaughter.  The same corporations that sullied our shores and then asked where is our government, the same people who feed at the trough of public funds and refused to pay their fair share are those who are destroying our schools. When the schools collapsed in China, those responsible committed suicide from the dishonor. Here, I imagine when it has been done they will turn away from the bodies and have another glass of champagne."

UTD Secretary/Treasurer Fedrick Ingram also spoke out on the issue: "As we've discussed, the recent legislative session ended with a 7.5% cut to Miami-Dade County. Many have tried to spin this as a smaller cut by saying that other changes offset it. This is only true if you accept that cuts to employee salaries and benefits don't affect the classroom. The citizens of the state of Florida have a constitutional right to a high-quality public school. The constitution does not guarantee us whatever system the legislature decides to fund. We teach our children to be good stewards of society and what we get in return are paycuts. This is a travesty and must be fixed."

D-45: The creation of John I. Smith K-8 Center
Carvalho spoke to the many parents who were there in support of the creation of a K-8 Center at John I. Smith Elementary: "If the Board approves my recommendation, it will respect students and what's best for them. It provides expanded choice by providing a K-8 solution model to John I. Smith students at two different campuses and we've done this before successfully at Coral Gables Elementary recently. It eliminates overcrowded conditions at Ronald Reagan. It eliminates the lawsuit, and yes, the lawsuit will go away whether the K-8 model will be implemented or not. It expands the funding base for Doral Middle. Why is that important? Because we know that the percentage of students leaving John I. Smith Elementary is not proportional to the number of students entering Doral Middle. It protects vocational programs. Unlike other models, the elective vocational programs will be protected. Last but not least, it opens true choice in Doral, not only for parents at John I. Smith but also to parents who may have children at other schools. This will be a true choice zone in Doral. It just makes good sense. The possibility of true choice expansion is a good thing. This will further guarantee the existence and viability of vocational programs. It is clear that the district is subsidizing those vocational programs because the school is underenrolled. Looking at the funding going into next year it would not be feasible to keep those vocational programs running. At the end of the day, if we implement the plan as modified, not following any one group's proposal or counterproposal, we will have elective vocational programs alive and viable in Doral and will offer a true free choice zone in Doral. This brings a viable solution. It does not cost any additional money; it will in fact protect the current Doral Middle School which is underenrolled. It makes the lawsuit go away which saves the district money."

Several speakers stood up to share their agreement with the proposal, and it passed unanimously.

Public hearing
At the public hearing, UTD President Karen Aronowitz compared teachers who remain trapped in a system that continuously punishes them to domestic violence victims: "Those of us who view the victims of domestic violence from our positions of safety often ask, “Why do they stay?  What fear holds them captive to abuse; what strange entanglement of devotion or love or belief that the last beating was the last, and that promises made by the abuser can be relied upon, no matter how many times before that promise was broken. We look at the victims, the ones who stay and the ones who manage to leave, often fleeing with nothing, and the ones who try to have the violence stopped with restraining orders and whose bodies are often found in their homes and their cars, in isolation or in public, killed by the failure of a piece of paper to restrain everyone. I stand here after the 2011 legislative session and I equate the treatment of our teachers to a state and national scandal of domestic violence against us.  It is still May, the month we celebrate teacher appreciation week. We have heard some praise regarding teachers, and we listened to some more of it today.  At the same time this board was silent as legislators passed Senate Bill 736, which is the same harmful bill as Senate Bill 6.  I begged you to take a position before session against this demoralizing, unfunded, demeaning bill based on psuedostatistics and revenge. When one of our former school board members tried to pass a bill aimed solely against the locally elected School Board of Miami-Dade County Public Schools, I took a position to speak out because I believe that in our county, we should determine the size of our own school board, and that the leadership of the board should be decided within the board itself. Senate Bill 736 strips us of basic due process rights and says that there will be no increase in our salaries unless we are willing to trade away those basic rights for a bogus, unfunded pay-for-performance scheme.  No matter how stellar our performance, experienced teachers are demeaned as incompetent.  Senate Bill 736 was passed over our protests the first week of session.  This session saw, in addition to this abomination, this violence against teachers, a state income tax on us that cut our salaries by 3%. A profession that is largely composed of women has been overrun by politicians who have stolen the little we have and cheapened the quality of the education this school district can offer by decreasing the funding public schools receive.  Teachers stay, because, like the victims of abuse, they see no place to go at this time.   Jobs are scarce and our skills so undervalued that politicians use fear and intimidation to keep us in our place. But sometimes, some woman musters up her courage, defends herself and her own children, and faces down her abuser.  He is the one forced to leave.  That day for teachers is close at hand."

Well said. If only we could believe someone were listening? It is crucial to mobilize a strong vote for public education in 2012...

Sunday, April 17, 2011

MDCPS School Board sues BP; lays off and gives salary cut to over 500 capital employees

Each month, it becomes increasingly clear that the School Board will pass on consent agenda any item likely to cause controversy or discontent among employees, and will spend the majority of the meeting discussing "fluff," giving out proclamations and making announcements.

One item conspicuously absent from the School Board's agenda this month: the vote on the layoff of 96 capital project managers, 71 administrative assistants, and some 280 Information Technology specialists, 200 of whom will be rehired on temporary, one-year contracts...much like SB 736 would do to us if we lost our contracts. Confronting the budget cuts ahead, will Miami-Dade go the route of Broward and lay off several hundred teachers, only to rehire them before school starts? Only now, thanks to SB 736, they would be hired on annual contracts at whatever the new annual contract salary schedule says they should be making.

This item passed on consent agenda through committee meetings prior to the general School Board meeting, undoubtedly to minimize protest and to save board members face in personally discussing the fates of the affected employees.

Will there be any transparency in the process, a public forum, when and if the administration asks the Board to lay off teachers?

H-25: Showdown with the Office of the Inspector General over raises
Board member Carlos Curbelo introduced "good cause" item H-25, asking the Office of the Inspector General to reduce charges and rates for services, after examining salary increases among OIG staff that he says are inconsistent with the current District administration's human resources compensation and procurement policies.  This led to a quite lengthy debate between the School Board and the Inspector General, Chris Mazzella, over whether or not the OIG should be considered a "vendor" and whether the salaries were out of line with the district's salary policies.

Dr. Feldman said that he could not come to UTD and tell us that he could not approve our raises if he had agreed to OIG raises.

"I don't think we lose anything by sitting down and talking.  We are partners in this venture, and anytime that one partner is upset it doesn't hurt to sit down and talk," said Curbelo.

The item passed 8 to 1, with Raquel Regalado voting against it after the failure of her amendment to push the conversation back sixty days to see who the new mayor would be and what the odds of renegotiation would be at that time.

It was reported afterward that Mr. Mazzella's salary is $234,000.  The county pays the salary; the district pays a reimbursement for fringes and additions to his salary. Including everything his salary and benefits come out to $317,000.

In item E-66, the School Board discussed the opening of a new medical clinic in Miami Jackson Senior High School, operated by Cigna Onsite Health, LLC, to provide basic medical services for students and employees who may not be getting adequate primary care.  Renier Diaz de la Portilla voted against it.

Board member Raquel Regalado introduced an item that accepted donations through Leadership Miami to build a new playground for Citrus Grove Elementary. The donations came through several private donors. As required by Leadership Miami, $606 of the donations went to the Miami Greater Chamber of Commerce as an "administrative fee" for handling the donations.

Apparently even charitable donations are not exempt from the long arm of the Chamber of Commerce, which has worked actively to support anti-union legislation, from SB 736 to SB 830.

H-19: Suing BP?
Raquel Regalado brought forth an item asking the School Board to join a lawsuit against BP for the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, should Florida file it, so that if Florida gets any money from it the schools can possibly recoup any losses they may have faced.  "It would be a zero cost for Miami-Dade County School Board to join this litigation, as the cost would be rolled into the contingency."

Renier Diaz de la Portilla asked the School Board Attorney if this case would be something that would have to be supervised, or if it would just be turned over to the law firm Morgan & Morgan.

"This item wavers from our educational mission.  We're now becoming plaintiffs in a lawsuit.  That's my first concern.  My second concern is that I fail to see the nexus between what happened in the Gulf Coast and how that has affected our district."

Regalado clarified her case: "I think it's imperative in these financial times for us to secure our position in every way possible.  This isn't the first time I've asked us to join a lawsuit. There is an issue about the time-sensitive nature of this.  So many of the issues we're dealing with from Tallahassee are from a decrease in sales tax revenue and tourism. Obviously once we enter into the lawsuit we'll be able to talk about the litigation strategy, but the way that our funding paradigm works, we've been very impacted by what occurred during that period. Specifically, what this lawsuit looks at is the loss in revenue in sales tax and also the long-term effects that it had. There is lots of evidence from the Miami Board of Tourism that people believed what was happening in the panhandle was also happening in South Florida. There was an impact on tourism. In the panhandle there was reemployment of a lot of people by BP who were unemployed due to the oil spill, but that didn't happen in South Florida. We're joining an existing lawsuit."

Diaz de la Portilla countered, "I don't see what our standing would be in this case. I see Florida joining it and putting that money in the general fund and redistributing it. I see this as unnecessary litigation. There is always a cost involved, through the School Board Attorney's office.  He doesn't have a very large staff; there's just enough to deal with the enormous caseload he already has. It's a very hard case to prove.  How do you prove that a drop in tourism was due to the oil spill and not a declining economy? How do we prove that this district was harmed by it? If we had some kind of statewide funding system that would directly benefit us, then maybe you could make this case. I see this as a specious argument as best."

Regalado responded: "There's been lots of discussion.  I understand the hesitation by different boards, but at the same time, a lot of the school boards I've spoken to are interested in joining. As the fourth largest school district in the country, because of our size, even a small drop in revenue represents a lot of money for us. I would ask you not to be so myopic about the evidence. Experts do what they do, there are lots of plaintiffs involved, there are lots of findings, there are lots of interests, we would be just one more plaintiff."

The deadline for joining the lawsuit is April 20.

The School Board Attorney said, "Our office has not performed an independent evalulation of the claims; the law firm of Morgan & Morgan has done an independent evaluation of these claims and they have that information, but I have not evaluated it."

Diaz de la Portilla went on: "I don't want to be in the role of ambulance chasing.  I think it's a specious argument. I don't think it's meritorious; I really don't. I can't support this item."

Regalado countered, "The court set a deadline of April 20 for parties to join; the trial is set for February 2012." Morgan & Morgan has already paid for the expert advice. 

Board member Dr. Marta Perez said, "It's my understanding that an expert economist said that school districts have a great opportunity. Why have only two school districts joined if that's true?"

Regalado responded, "I've only met with the districts in the tri-county area and they are interested."

Marta Perez asked how many plaintiffs were currently litigants.

Regalado replied, "Right now, there's a few more that joined today--we have Polk, Leon, Martin, Lee and Volusia--those are the school boards that have authorized it.  I think we're over 35.  That's Florida. There are also Louisiana plaintiffs."

Perez continued: "The only downside if we decide to join would be that our attorney has to supervise...how much is that going to cost the district in time, or are we going to have to hire a special outside person to monitor that...?"

The School Board Attorney, Mr. Harvey, answered: "We at least touch bases with them once a month, sometimes more often depending on the complexity of the case, and we usually have quarterly reports."

Perez concluded, "Given that times are such...It doesn't seem to me that it's a great burden on his office.  Given our economic situation, we probably won't recover a great--we probably won't get a lot, but if we could get something, we shouldn't leave it on the table.  I understand Mr. Diaz de la Portilla's point that we don't want to become ambulance chasers but it might not be a bad idea to see...it's unfortunate that there's a deadline because maybe we could have the opportunity to speak to the attorneys at Morgan & Morgan, but this is where we are I guess..."

The School Board Attorney specified, "As I indicated at committee, I think there are some pros and cons to joining the litigation but I think one of the pros that has been presented to me by the attorneys is that it is a pure contingency case.  As with all litigation, there are pros and cons.  The cost to us as a district would be very little. My recommendation is that we should strongly consider any revenue option that warrants it. Like I said, the Morgan & Morgan attorneys have performed an evaluation; our office has not performed that evaluation."

District CFO Dr. Richard Hinds, when asked for his evaluation of the lawsuit, replied, "I cannot determine any measurable impact to Miami-Dade County Public Schools.  I have sent that memo several times.  They solicited my opinion, I gave them my opinion.  I cannot determine any measurable impact to Miami-Dade County Public Schools as a result of the BP oil spill."

Regalado asked him, "Have you considered--because I think it's outside of what that memo requires--the loss of revenue from sales tax?"

Hinds responded, "The memo sought my opinion of whether there was measurable impact to the district.  I personally could not see any measurable impact, period."

H-19 passed 5-4, with Diaz de la Portilla, Karp, Curbelo and Perez voting no.

H-22: Challenging the findings of the US Census

Regalado then brought forth another lawsuit: challenging the results of the US Census. She says that the findings endanger Title I, II and III status.

Diaz de la Portilla again challenged the merits of the case. "I don't see where we have enough evidence that we have a case.  I'm willing to support this item if we get an evaluation from our attorney's office that says we have a case.  Are you actually talking about sending School Board employees out in the community to do a headcount, or are we talking about partnering with some other organization to offset the cost?"

Regalado clarified: "We wouldn't do a recanvassing. The census would look at everyone in the area that had similar concerns. If our School Board Attorney sees that other municipalities in Dade County had already put in their demands, we would just endorse those.  There are several cities that are actively working on their applications. I included the challenges in 2008 so you could see the impact that it had, the different municipalities that challenged it. It ended up being a 4% increase but it had a major impact on their funding. I said the School Board would not initiate litigation, we're just talking about the ministerial aspect of submitting the claim, seeing who else submits the claim, seeing if we can just ride along with an endorsement."

Diaz de la Portilla demanded, "Why is the school district well suited to do this? Isn't it the responsibility of the county?"

Regalado responded bluntly, "I have serious doubts about the leadership of Miami-Dade County. In a perfect world, I wish that every municipality that was part of Dade County would put in their claim. In these economic times it's indispensable to stake our claim."

Diaz de la Portilla shot back, "It's good to stake a valid claim; it's not good to be litigious. I don't want to spend another hour debating this item. If the county is not going to challenge this, I don't know why we should do this. I think we're ill-equipped to do this."

Regalado argued, "Regarding the leadership of the county, there's no way for us to control what the county does. I think that historically we've looked to the county for certain issues and it has not worked out. I think it's about time that, if it has an impact on our school district, which I think in this case it does, I think it's time we step in front of the issue. We can disagree ideologically on the role of the county and the school board, but what I don't see the benefit in not participating in the sense of, it's an administrative proceeding, if it is determined the count was correct, it ends. We're not going to litigate it further. If a determination is made that the count was incorrect, then we get the federal benefit of it. Given the impact it could have on our federal funding, I don't see why we wouldn't do it, just waiting for the county or every municipality to do it. I think that's something we've done historically and that's something that should change. I do believe in our leadership and in our ability to make a dramatic difference, even when other government entities can but don't."

Diaz de la Portilla said, "You don't need all 34 municipalities to do this. What are we doing here today? We're suing BP, now we're doing a census count...we're wavering way way way afield from our education mission. It just has nothing or very little to do with education and it has a cost, and we don't have the money. We're throwing things on our School Board Attorney's office; this isn't even within his expertise. There are demographic issues involved here. I think it's well-intended but this is not what we should be doing. We should be focused on education. We shouldn't be suing BP with a 0.001% chance of winning anything. We shouldn't be burdening our School Board Attorney's office with these issues. I was ready to amend your item in a way that would have been acceptable but I'm not able to support it at all anymore."

Regalado fought back. "We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I do want to respond to the nexus to education. I wish that Tallahassee saw the value of public education. I wish we got the funding we deserve. I wish we got the recognition for the job we are doing here but we're not. Earlier today we had to affect the lives of 598 employees and I don't take that lightly. I will always do what I think is necessary to make sure the district gets the money it needs. I think that there is a direct nexus to education. We are being forced by Tallahassee and by our circumstance to go a little beyond what we're accustomed to. It's not something we do lightly but I do think it is something that is necessary so that if we are in a position where we have to affect the classroom, we can do it knowing that we've done everything in our power to prevent it. And that's why I brought these items."

The room erupted in applause, but Ms. Hantman reminded the audience not to clap.

Board member Dr. Tee Holloway then spoke up. "I applaud Ms. Regalado for thinking outside of the box. This forum that we use now as we go through our agenda items certainly is where we should be, but this is not the court of law that we're having this kind of debate on particular items. Either we've got to set aside time for workshops like we used to do, to try to address these items, because it's difficult to focus and to spend the amount of time that we've spent on the podium today on one item, now two items, and we have two more to go, all relating to outside the box thinking. We've got to find ways to address these issues in a timely manner, and I don't think we are there today."

Hantman said, "We meet once a month; the meetings are shorter than they've been in a long, long time; I always like to treat my Board with the respect that as elected officials they deserve. Yes, it's lengthy, yes I get tired too, but I should allow them all to speak. I think it's the appropriate thing to do to allow our Board members to speak. I had a problem with receiving this item at 9:45 AM. I almost didn't accept this item but I decided to accept it, but I hope it never happens again.  Mr. Harvey, exactly how much do we stand to gain relative to the cost?"

Mr. Harvey said he did not know.

Board member Dr. Martin Karp then spoke up. "My concern with this item, as with the last item, is that we've been on the other end of things where we've been sued, and a lot of these things are out of our hands. What goes around comes around. I'm very cautious in engaging in matters where we're going through legal avenues, but with that said I'm going to listen to what the amendments are."

Hantman proposes an amendment that the school district would just endorse a challenge that the county or other municipalities are pursuing.

The amended item passed unanimously.

A-1: Superintendent's announcements

Dr.  Richard Hinds spoke to the budget: "The conference will not begin until after the holidays. The Board will recall the House and Senate positions are the same as before the Board briefing. In the Senate instead of a flat 3% employee contribution, there is a staggered contribution. We will be facing a $12 million increase in medical insurance costs.With no change to the program, no change in terms of cost-shifting, we're facing a solid 9% increase in self-insured insurance costs."

School Board lobbyist Iraida Mendez discussed different positions on funding issues. "The House's position for School Recognition is a lower dollar amount, meaning there would be more money to boost the per-student base allocation, so this is our preferred option. Under the Senate position, there is a requirement to use supplemental dollars for D and F schools to have an extended day. It is not included in the House version so we support that version. HB281/SB880, the Value Adjustment Board Bill, could mitigate the damage.  We're still pushing that, we've identified vehicles where we could be able to tag it onto a moving bill.
HB1255/SB1696 Accountability would change the threshold and require a minimum reading proficiency of 30% or else a school would automatically get an F."

More good news on the homefront...(sarcasm). Yet again the state sets public schools up for failure, through simultaneously raising the bar, moving the target and slashing the budget.

Term limits for School Board members?
 
Raquel Regalado introduced an item that would ask for an analysis of governance changes for the School Board, including creating term limits.

Diaz de la Portilla said that this was not a new thing, that this was something that had been "brung" up before (his words), that they would put it on the agenda. He had some biting words for Regalado.  "It is not responsible as an elected official to conduct business this way.  We have conducted our business in a responsible way. I can offer a friendly amendment to put this on our legislative agenda. On this board, we have seven members who have been here less than eight years. I think you're applying these broad brush strokes to everyone here. Your intentions appear to be good but if you keep doing these things over and over again, I have to question whether you are ready to work in a collegial environment."

Regalado responded, "I'm grateful for your advice though a little wary of the paternalistic nature of it. I'm very aware that term limits would require a constitutional amendment. The item requests an overall analysis of all governmance changes by our attorney and recommendations as to the implementation of those, which include term limits, which include countywide representation. It is a comprehensive look at governance changes so that they may report back to this board, as an entire board, so that we may discuss changes. Given what is occurring not only in Miami-Dade County but in our state, that this is a necessary exercise. I respectfully decline your amendment. I do not want Tallahassee to tell us how to govern ourselves. If as a board we decide that whether it's term limits or district representation, we seek to put it on our legislative agenda, if that's the best way to do it, but it may not be the best way to do it...I want to clarify, as the item states, I think it's important to discuss this now. The bill has support in the House. It has been put on the agenda for discussion for April 14 in the Senate; it's moving. It's not just about term limits. I'm asking for governance changes overall, which include district-wide representation, which include different issues. Term limits is just one--I'll strike that if it will make you feel better."

Perez said, "We've taken those votes before and I've been supportive of it. The problem is that there's something wrong with the Board--if you wanted to do something, maybe the governance structure in Tallahassee--what's wrong with them? I think that would be a good cause item, not this."

Regalado replied, "We have no control over the structure of governance in Tallahassee. This is just to give us an overall idea of the changes in governance structure. It lays the foundation for a conversation that we should have because we're the ones best positioned to have it. It really bothers me when in Tallahassee and in our community people are speaking to what's best for school board governance. We have already taken a position, despite the position we have taken as a Board, it is moving."

Curbelo responded: "When we talk about Tallahassee it's important to distinguish there are some people in Tallahassee who do try to do the right thing. I remain somewhat confident that it is not going to pass, based on conversations with leaders in both chambers, but we have discussed what we would do if it does pass, and we have looked at all options. On items where there are legal implications, I really think we need memoranda from our School Board Attorney; we need to put them through the process. I can see myself supporting this item, but after it's been vetted, after the different angles have been explained to us. If you bring good cause items that have legal implications that we have not had the chance to discuss extensively, it is going to be very difficult for me to support them. So a lot of these are good ideas, but until we develop a less chaotic process for considering items that are sometimes complicated, I am not going to feel comfortable supporting them."

Holloway came to Regalado's defense: "I feel compelled to give my legal opinion, because the item simply says to direct the attorney to explore the process to implement...that's all it begins by saying. It doesn't say we have term limits, we don't have term limits, we will have governance...it only says explore the process to implement. When he gives us that information, we should be able to have that discussion and strategies and implement whatever we think is necessary as a board. That's why I support the item. All the other ramifications, we haven't even gotten to that yet, but thank you so much for bringing this."

Karp agreed. "I support the item for the same reason as Dr. Holloway. I think the action proposed is very clear."

Feldman added: "A couple of comments. The first one would be, you are the chair of the board, you are elected by us because we had faith in you; if you decide to have a good cause item five minutes before the meeting starts, you have a good reason for that and I trust you enough to believe you do what you think is correct. You have my support on this; I wish it were even broader. I think it should be more than legal issues, it should be a best practices issue."

Diaz de la Portilla quickly asked: "Is there anything in HB307 or SB778 about term limits?"

Iraida Mendez replied that there were no term limits in the bill.

Diaz de la Portilla said, "As a courtesy to Regalado, I make a motion we debate it in committee, maybe there we can come up with the best way of proposing this, but this is not a properly placed good cause item on the agenda; this has nothing to do with the Senate bill, the House bill, they do not talk about term limits."

All members except Regalado voted in favor of the motion to defer the item to the next meeting.

The air got tense between Regalado and Diaz de la Portilla when she proposed a 5-year ban on lobbying by School Board members once they are out of office.  Diaz de la Portilla continued to say that Regalado was introducing items the wrong way.

The item failed 6 to 3.

Public hearing: SB 830 is designed to silence us.

At the public hearing, UTD president Karen Aronowitz spoke about SB 830, the "union gag bill": "We members of United Teachers of Dade are here to stop the actions of our legislature and  to remember those who are working to destroy public education and our unions by their unconstitutional actions, no matter the outcome of this legislative session. Our right to to free speech,  and our right to peaceably assemble are under attack  even as I speak today in this public forum.  SB 830 and it's House companion is an attempt to break public sector unions and silence our voices. Bills are proposed to disempower you, our locally elected school board members, who oversee our district and provide for the needs of students here at home. This is local government at it's most fundamental and significant operation and the most critical to our nation outside of defense. Public education secures the prosperity and competitiveness of America. The destruction of public education is underway through the transfer of  our tax dollars away from public schools and into the hands of self interested parties who do not care about the children of Miami-dade, of Florida or of America.  They use our tax money to pay themselves exorbitant management fees, rental fees for property they already own and cannot rent in the private sector, and other self- serving measures designed to steal scarce resources from public education. Now, our buildings will suffer neglect and the district will be blamed for the disrepair and dirt of under maintained buildings.  Our children will lose the adults who provide a safe, welcoming environment and maintain the technology that our students will use in their school and work lives.  Comprehensive education including vocational technical courses will be eliminated along with other programs that are essential to a child's development and future career options. It is the new segregation under the guise of choice.  But when scarce dollars are taken from our public schools, we will not be silent. Now, an income tax is moving through the legislature that makes public employees responsible for budget deficits.  We did not create these deficits.  The hedge fund managers and creators of worthless paper walk away with their billions in bonuses and skip out of their obligations of the tax bill.  The legislature helps them along. Public education is the sole repository of equal opportunity in this country. Florida legislators along with governors and legislators in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio and New Jersey are wrong.  Through their state actions, they are making America a third world nation.We will not be silent in the face of this national tragedy.  Our legislators can legislate harm, and we will vote them out.  We will elect in their place those legislators who defend our people, our nation and the constitution of the United States."

UTD Vice President Artie Leichner followed up with a reference to Poetry Month even as warning legislators working against public schools: "Everyone here is waiting for the tolling of the bell and the terrifying announcement that service is no longer needed. The security monitor, the clerical, the paraprofessional, the guidance counselors and the teachers, all waiting for the Tallahassee bus to roll over them. Tell your legislators that 2012 is coming, and it's their turn to listen for the bell."

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Discussing the governor's budget proposal: which way would you like to die?

February's School Board meeting was at its most intense toward the end, when Superintendent Alberto Carvalho and his team revealed what Governor Rick Scott's proposed budget would mean for Miami-Dade County: program cuts, school closures, pay cuts and layoffs.  For that reason, although this was discussed around 5:30 PM, I am including this section first, as it is the issue that undoubtedly affects the most people and was certainly the most sensitive issue touched on at the meeting.

A-1: Superintendent's Announcements (Highlight: Rick Scott's budget proposal)
The Superintendent spoke to the governor's newly unveiled budget: it includes $3.3 billion cuts to education, comprising 72% of the $4.2 billion in budget cuts.  Education is only responsible for 29% of the state budget.  Carvalho said, "The governor is effectively proposing to balance the budget on the backs of children.  Not since 1985 have we faced a situation like this; the FTE is now down to 2002-2003 levels. A $214 million budget reduction in one fiscal year is not sustainable without dramatic reductions in programs and an impact on the workforce.  There are not enough administrative positions to cut to plug that gap.  You could close down everything outside the classroom and you would still have to go into the schools and make cuts.  I am not advocating an unsustainable position going forward; we know there will be sacrifice.  There is a difference between sacrifice and defeat."

Chief Financial Officer Dr. Richard Hinds showed a graph that illustrated education's role in the current budget as 29%, including unversity, community college, etc., and enumerated, "The cuts [to education] represent 72% [of the governor's overall proposed budget cuts].  The value of property taxes are not in this analysis, nor are the cost savings of FRS in this analysis.  Community affairs and veterans affairs were very heavily hit also.  The total impact on M-DCPS would be $214.9 million.  We have a reduction in base student allocation to the lowest level since 2002-2003.  He moves general revenue in to partially plug hole but then passes to general revenue the savings from FRS when employees will be required to contribute 5% of their salary.  The state legislature created this fiscal stabilization; there is no filling.  $70 million of that reduction does not involve our programs; it is a passing on of the problem to our employees.  Our true cut from this governor's budget recommendation in isolation is not $214.9 million, but our employees are carrying $70 million of this cut passed along through FRS contributions.  If you consider other factors that are impinging us, such as potential increases in costs in medical insurance, charters, capital outlay, if you consider all that together, you put these combinations all together and it creates a very, very heavy burden on the school district."

Oreida Mendez-Cartaya, the School Board's lobbyist, detailed the policy issues behind these reductions:  "The reduction is a function of primarily 3 policy recommendations:  First, the governor did not replace the ARRA money and that is a reduction of $115 million.  Second, the governor is proposing a property tax reduction, meaning $83 million to M-DCPS.  This was a campaign promise he made.  The third issue is the governor is recommending that all state employees contribute 5% of their salary toward their retirement.  This is a cost shift from the state to the employees of Miami-Dade.  The budget has not been warmly received by the Florida legislature.  Over the next weeks and months these policy issues will be debated and discussed in Tallahassee in committees and hearings."

Carvalho went on: "We need to be realistic and prepare ourselves to deal with the new economic reality.  We realize there is going to be sacrifice, and this team will lead by example.  We've done it over the past two and a half years and we will do it again.  The first cuts will be taken at the very top.  But no matter how low we go at the top, we'll never reach those numbers.  Even a 50% reduction to [the cuts proposed by Rick Scott] would be impossible to cope [with] without hitting the schools.  As we are realistic, as we ready ourselves for sacrifice leading by example from the very top, we are going to stand tough, be truthful, be honest, bring to you over the next couple of months, a number of resolutions to try to address the problem at the earliest possible point...The capital cuts are separate, not related to legislation but to a change in the tax base.  We're going to be strategic in those reductions, we're going to move on those that we must move on aggressively before the end of the fiscal years.  We're going to communicate with the community.  We're going to engage people in joining our advocacy efforts.  We'll have to demonstrate the courage to do what is necessary.  There will be dramatic impacts in our school system.  We will bring those to you based on the prioritization of impact at the school sites.  What I cannot promise is what we have managed for the last two and a half years: no reduction in programs and no reduction in force.  This is as realistic a scenario as we can possibly conceive at this point."

Board member Renier Diaz de la Portilla claims that making employees pay 5% of their salaries into their retirement fund does not constitute a "pay cut" since they will get that money back when they retire.

Board member Renier Diaz de la Portilla countered the Superintendent: "I want to talk a little about the so-called $71 million exposure.  You called it a proposal that would be on the backs of the employees.  These aren't actual cuts to the budget; they're cuts that are passed down to what an employee would take home.  That's money that the employee will get back at retirement.  I have a problem with using those terms 'off the backs of the employees' because you're talking about a benefit that existed...it's a benefit that the state of Florida offered employees.  Times have changed.  Now that 10% has changed to 5%; they're still getting a benefit from the state of Florida.  In my opinion the legislature will increase that budget.  This is a worst-case scenario we're looking at right now.  We need to show the legislature before this budget is decided that we're doing everything we can here, by creating a system that will create reductions among the salaries who can afford and sustain these reductions.  If we have an employee that makes $90, 95, 100,000 a year, they can absorb a paycut.  We know that teachers and bus drivers cannot absorb a pay cut like that.  In order to save jobs, we're going to have to make some very tough decisions.  We're going to have to do things that are unpopular to get ahead of the curve and have a proactive approach to this budgeting process so that Tallahassee can't say we haven't done enough to cut.  It will be fair, with the ultimate goal of saving jobs but more importantly saving the system, to be able to do what we do without sacrificing that system...The superintendent has told me he would look at a sliding scale of paycuts where the highest-paid employees would sustain deeper pay cuts than lower-paid employees."

Once again, Diaz de la Portilla staggers the mind with his creative circumlocution.  Let me get this straight: We were hired, being told that this was the salary we would receive and that the state would pay 10% of that salary into a retirement fund for us through the FRS.  Now the state wants to pay only 5% and we will make up the remaining 5% of contributions to the fund.  We are not receiving any sort of raise to offset this unexpected 5% contribution; it would just start disappearing from our paychecks.  When we retire, we will not be receiving an extra 5% in our pension checks; it will be exactly the same as we were promised, only we've been putting in 5% ourselves all along.

Excuse me, Mr. Diaz de la Portilla...we're not getting paid any extra (and, in fact, are almost certainly not getting our step); we're losing 5% of our paycheck; and we're getting the same thing at retirement as expected before, when the state was contributing all of it.  How exactly is this not a pay cut?

Though I suppose I should feel grateful to his comment that indicates he believes teachers are not making exorbitant salaries, considering he feels we should be spared additional pay cuts...?

Board member Perla Tabares Hantman said, "I had never heard this until here and now, and I think that Portilla has valid points; I always say that we have to lead by example, and we should be the first ones to do that.  If we have to cut anybody's salaries, we should be the first ones to cut our own salaries.  I will be prepared to do what I did last year to contribute my part and I think that everybody will do that too."

Carvalho repeated his earlier refrain:  "In times like this you lead by example.  I think we've demonstrated that over the past two and a half years.  We cut administration by 52%, far more than any other district.  We have the lowest per-pupil administrative expenses of any district in the state.  Everything is on the table, unfortunately.  Including, obviously, reduction to salary expenditures.  And if we're going to engage in reductions to salary expenditures, we're going to start at the very top.  There is no way of filling that gap by doing this.  It's a necessary move, but it won't get us where we need to get.  You can't get there just by targeting the highest earning threshhold.  We'll bring to you respectfully a series of recommendations.  I cannot assure you that there will not be impact felt at lower levels.  The magnitude of what we're looking at is so dramatic.  We're looking at both the general fund as well as capital.  If there are functions in our school system that are underutilized based on need at this point, new school construction, engineering services, we need to curtail it and reduce it.  Whatever recommendations we bring to you will focus on the protection of what is important in the lives of kids and what touches kids at the closest possible level."

Perez spoke up:  "I agree with so much of what my colleague Diaz de la Portilla has said.  I even asked if this included the pensions, and it does...We do have a crisis in the United States and in Dade County, so we have to have discussions, we have to speak about these things and iron out these issues.  I think at this point it's not a good idea to use that language--cutting on the backs of employees.  Maybe it's time to take a look at that.  As far as the symbolic gestures, it's like killing a mosquito with a shotgun; what is that going to do?  There's such a big hole we have to fill."

Curbelo added, "This is a very delicate time in Tallahassee; it is so important for all of us in this community but specifically on this Board and in the leadership of the administration to speak with one voice and one message when we go to Tallahassee, when we call Tallahassee, when we address the media.  There are many people in Tallahassee that want to help us; there are many people there who understand that the budget proposed will be very difficult for us.  I'm confident that our legislators will do their best to mitigate this difficult fiscal situation the same way our superintendent has done here.  We have a playbook, which is the legislative agenda; let's stick to our playbook.  Secondly, I'd like to say that at the same time we need to be very honest with our community.  We might have to close schools.  We might have to consolidate schools.  It's unlikely that we can avoid layoffs.  It's a very delicate balance that we have to maintain, and I would just urge my colleagues to keep that in mind when they're advocating for our school, our system, the media; if we work as a team our chances of success are that much higher."

Karp said, "Hearing this and reading it is very difficult to deal with.  The governor is talking about cleaning up the attic.  I respectfully ask that the governor come and visit our attic, to see what is in our attic and to have the opportunity to learn about all the cleaning we've done to our attic in the last two and a half years.  When you talk about cleaning up, we're now talking about cleaning up art, music, programs for students with disabilities; this is a very scary budget at this point.  As it stands now, this will have a severe impact on everyone who lives in this community, everyone who lives in this state and there might be a negative impact felt not just today but for five or ten years."

Feldman said, "In order to get them out, someone needs to ring the bell.  I appreciate us ringing the bell.  Unless our employees know how hot it could get, they won't go out and buy a fire suit.  Here's my concern: the emotional level.  Right now we're asking our teachers every day to go into the classroom and prepare our kids, not to worry about the external factors, all the things the governor has said he might possibly do; don't worry about your pension, don't worry about DROP, don't worry about performance pay.  The issue is, it's about our kids, and that's all it's about right now.  Whatever you can do, whatever we as a Board can to do to ensure that our students in our care have employees who are the best prepared emotionally, we have to do.  My concern is that I want them focused; they're professional already, they're well-trained, but I want to make sure that we find ways to ameliorate their concerns."

Bendross-Mindingall spoke up: "Having spent a lot of time in Tallahassee, watching the process of the budget and how it flows, I still maintain that it is the urgency of now.  I don't think we should tell anyone that eventually this will happen or that will happen; people must eat now.  They must pay bills now.  When we talking about burning down the capitol and all of that, well, they'll just build another one.  They don't think we know what we're doing, but they took our money.  We're not responsible for where we are, but if we stay here, we are.  That's on us.  We've got to get to Tallahassee and we can start locally.  We've got to educate the people.  They don't really think we know what we're doing in Dade County.  We have to let them know we will not take this sitting down. Our teachers, cafeteria workers, bus drivers have a quality of life they deserve.  It's expensive to live down here.  We can't wait for that conference setting for the budget that we all go in...it's already done.  But we can make some changes, and we have to do that as a body, not for the purposes of a photo op, but for the purposes of our children, our teachers, our cafeteria workers, our custodians.  We've sworn to do what's right by our children and I don't think we've gotten there.  I think there are people who don't really understand what is happening.  They don't know what it's like to live off a $30,000 a year salary.  For some people it's less than that.  They don't know; they've never had to."

Board member Dorothy Bendross-Mindingall urges action.
What an understatement!  Our new governor, the architect of the most severe budget cuts Florida education has ever faced, is a billionaire who sank $70 million of his own money into his campaign for governor, narrowly beating Democrat Alex Sink, whose campaign was mostly financed by outside contributions, including teachers' unions. 


Dr. Bendross-Mindingall is correct: we must focus on the urgency of now.  It is incumbent upon each of us to get the word out to our friends, colleagues, families and neighbors, and to the parents of the children we work with every single day.  They should know what the governor, along with many of our representatives in the state legislature, have up their sleeves for us, and what it will mean to the programs they depend upon for their children to be well-cared for and to receive a well-rounded education.  We need to contact our School Board members and urge them to preserve the programs that are important to our schools and to children's education.  We also need to contact our state representatives and make sure they know that we will not lie down for these draconian cuts.


As UTD President Karen Aronowitz voiced at Thursday's education community forum, the rhetoric too often forgets, or willfully ignores, that teachers and school district employees are taxpayers.  We are not simply leeches bleeding the system.  They talk about cutting our salaries and pensions as if we did not produce anything.  We produce the future and protect the present.  When you talk about civil servants, you are talking about teachers, doctors, nurses, police, firefighters.  We educate children; keep the streets safe; save lives.  That the governor's cuts are targeted at public education, combined with his distinctly iterated preference for private schools, charter schools and "virtual schools," and his idea of "vouchers for all," demonstrate his disdain for public education and for the democratic (with a small "d") ideal of free and equitable education for all children.  The implementation of his education ideology would usher in a new age of further inequality, where rich children would receive top-notch educations, middle-class and poor children would catch-as-catch-can, some faring well and others faring very, very poorly, and where hucksters would surely get rich by opening charter schools and "virtual schools," taking taxpayers' money for profits and shortchanging their teachers and other employees, and ultimately children and their parents.


This is no time for complacency.  The very future of public education in the state of Florida hangs in the balance, and it is an issue that affects each and every one of us in the state, whether we are teachers or not, whether we work for a school district or not, whether we are parents or not.  If we live in Florida and pay taxes in Florida, we are deeply and intimately affected by these proposed cuts and the host of other legislation designed to undermine public education and destroy the unions that ensure fair working conditions and living wages for those who serve children in this state.

We cannot allow legislators to balance the budget on the backs of teachers and, in turn, children.


Unfortunately, though budget cuts took the lead role in this month's School Board meeting, there are plenty of other pressing issues on the table.  At the public hearing, UTD Secretary-Treasurer Fedrick Ingram took the microphone to ask the School Board to pass a resolution against SB736 (the reincarnation of SB6) as they did last year, as it is punishing to teachers, relies on increased testing which is unfunded, and provides no funding for the performance pay aspect of it.

E-1: Monthly Financial Report for the Period Ending December 2010

Board member Raquel Regalado addressed the Board saying that in Tallahassee, the question keeps coming up: what is Miami-Dade doing?  How are we being proactive and saving?  "We talk about it in committee, but I really want to make the point to our viewers, to our staff and to everyone listening what we're doing proactively to deal with our deficit."

Chief Financial Officer Dr. Richard Hinds replied, "The biggest test of how we're doing is the general fund, the largest of our five funds.  If you look at E-14, there is a drop in projected FTE; we built the budget such that we were able to offset the drop in revenue.  We're looking at two major situations regarding next year's budget.  The governor's budget recommendation; looking at any discretionary general funds, not full-time salary funds to see if there could be some savings realized there.  The year is rapidly drawing to a close so potential savings other than full-time salaries are minimal.  Most of our expenditures involve teacher salaries.  Nearly 85% of our expenditures are salary-oriented.  We will have a staff budget committee meeting tomorrow afternoon to start planning for various eventualities.  We don't want to panic our constituents, the public or our staff, but we don't want to be Pollyannas either.  We will go into detail in the presentation on A-1."

Regalado responded that the time frame had to be considered. "We know that session starts in March.  We saw many questions in committee.  There are a lot of concerns how exactly this is going to happen."  There is legislation sponsored by Sen. Gaetz that allows the state to privatize areas of school districts that are found insolvent. 

Hinds indicated that they don't want to "overprepare and set off an alarmist reaction...We will have a balanced budget for '11-'12.  We are moving forward."

Superintendent Alberto Carvalho clarified: "Our wish is to schedule a number of rapid-fire workshops with the Board, simultaneously with community town hall meetings, in terms of things we're doing this year.  With the types of potential liabilities going into next year, should the governor's budget be realized, or a part of it, what should be our response to that...We've been successful in past years because we have not waited for the bomb to go off for us to actually prepare for it.  There will be no outside hiring or internal movement of individuals that will cost additional money.  We have frozen a percentage of discretionary spending at the district level as well as school discretionary spending.  We are moving ahead with a necessary curtailment of capital expenditures.  These are a function of local tax collections since we do not get any funding from the state.  Expect as early as March or April for us to bring a massive resolution to rectify to current revenue receipts our capital program.  More than likely in certain areas of this district where people's salaries are paid by capital funds, those areas are going to be impacted over the next couple of months.  Next, we are engaging right now in program and leadership consolidation; we're not going to wait for next year.  We are deploying central office staff back into schools to fill positions as they come open."

Board member Larry Feldman spoke up:  "My concern is two-fold.  The first one is folks that might be impacted by this.  Are they going to be made aware in some form prior to that March strategic bomb that you're going to be bringing us?...I'd hate for some of our employees to find out after the fact.  There are some employees right now who are very nervous; whatever we could do to ease their pain would be very helpful."

Carvalho responded, "The unavoidable truth unfortunately is not whether a reduction is going to take place, but how much of a reduction, and our level or preparation at this point is a must, and we must take into consideration the fears of our workforce.  The very least we can do is treat people with respect and humanity for their contribution to this system, and we will do that."

Yes, he said it: there will be a massive reduction in force, not in instructional staff but among those whose salaries are paid for by capital funds, an area including construction, certain areas of maintenance, some clerical and some managerial exempt personnel. 

The March School Board meeting could therefore bring some bad news for some families dependent on Miami-Dade County Public Schools for their income.  I will be reporting that news as soon as it comes out, and hope that it is not accompanied by any other bad news concerning reduction in force or salary cuts; but as they said at the last meeting, everything is on the table, so the question appears to be not is bad news forthcoming, but how bad will it be.

E-17:  Special Revenue, Food Service Fund

Board member Raquel Regalado brought up that one of the things that came up in Tallahassee was the privatization of different aspects of our system.  "I agree with Dr. Hinds and the Superintendent; I don't want to scare anyone, but we need to educate people on what we do and how we do it, based on the lack of information.  I think we've done a wonderful job restructuring our food service system and it's not something that would benefit from privatization.  It's something I heard about in Tallahassee yesterday and it's something I would like to kill as soon as possible." 

Hinds responded with an explanation: "Two years ago, virtually every school district's food service program was losing money.  We beefed up the management program.  The program itself today is not making money but it's making a little bit of money and it's a big-time success."

Board member Dorothy Bendross-Mindingall asked if any staff were removed from food service at school sites to achieve these savings, to which Superintendent Carvalho responded with an emphatic no, that nobody was removed from food service staff.

Regalado added to that, "Not only did we not lose staff, but there was a retraining and change in philosophy in the staff.  When you visit the schools you can see the impact that it's had.  We talk about people who have been in the system for a very long time; there is a definite change in the theory of food service.  It's the same employees who were there before, but you've been able to change their mindset about what they're serving and how they're serving it."

Privatization does not necessarily equate to savings, and when it does it is often at the expense of the employees who are paid lower wages, are not entitled to state pensions and who lack a comprehensive contract.  That we can achieve cost savings and provide excellent service without laying off or shortchanging staff is definitely something that should be brought to Tallahassee's attention, though they often seem to see only what they want to see.

H-10: Rehires
This item proposed by Board member Dr. Marta Perez would demand that the superintendent initiate rulemaking procedures to implement a policy that retired administrators be paid the salary of a beginning teacher for the duration of their employment.

She explained: "The process has been that in some cases some of the most expensive employees take a DROP, retire, then six months later return to their former job.  It is a concern; the Miami Herald reported that DROP has been abused by double-dipping.  This administration has been mindful of the potential for abuse, but it is arguable that absuses have occurred in the past.  It is wise that we ask the Superintendent to devise an equitable plan and recommendations for us to avoid potential problems, and this is the intent of this item."

Daniel Diaz of the Dade Association of School Administrators took to the microphone to express his disagreement with the item, claiming that, as a result of the actions taken by the previous administrations, the district forced talented adminsitrators to retire early or resign, resulting in a loss of "brain power."  "It is of the utmost importance that the superintendent be given the flexibility and latitude to move this district forward by making sure that the right people are employed in important positions." 

Board member Renier Diaz de la Portilla stated his support: 'I support this; I supported it in committee; I don't think we need to rehash what was said.  I think it is important that this School Board and the superintendent examine this policy and see what has happened in the past.  The problem that the Superintendent may want to look at, primarily as far as it relates to the fiscal soundness of allowing an employee who has been in DROP to come back; that's where you have a fiscal impact."  (It may be noted that his brother is state senator Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, a Republican who is part of the team in Tallahassee actively pushing to dismantle the DROP program.)

Board member Carlos Curbelo said, "I'm very happy with the way the item was revised, and I certainly understand how this item could be demoralizing to those who have given so much to this district and have come back to save this district, frankly.  I also understand a lot of taxpayers are demoralized by reading that some employees have received their pensions and come back with six-figure salaries.  These are very unique benefits.  Benefits that are probably not sustainable in the long-term, given the fiscal situation of the country, the state and even our situation here.  We all know there have been instances of abuse in the past; we also know that thankfully  many bright individuals have come back because we really need them.  I think this item is about finding the right balance and I'm confident the superintendent and staff will bring us something in April we can work with."

Board member Dr. Martin Karp said, "I don't necessarily agree with all the wording in the item but I'm supporting the item; it's the action that drives the item and I appreciate the revision."

Board member Dorothy Bendross-Mindingall echoed,  "I too support the item; I just would like to add to this body the comments that I made in committee, and I maintain we do need a farm team.  I do know we need people on the bench who are ready set go when we move forward.  I hope the Superintendent will consider that we just don't have the people there to plug in when we have our retirees leave.  There are people who want to come into these positions and maybe for those of us who want to go to an island or something, we can then move on and let others take over."  There was a great deal of discussion during committee meetings that not enough has been done to "groom" people to take over these important positions, such as those held by Dr. Richard Hinds, Freddie Woodson and Edith Weisman, when they retire, and speculation on whether this was done on purpose so that their jobs would still be open for them to come back.

Board chairperson Perla Tabares Hantman said, "Teachers are to be rehired at step 12 of the salary schedule in recognition of the years of experience they bring to the table.  Administrators should be able to be brought back without hands being tied.  We all hear that school districts should be run like businesses.  I can't imagine that any business would tie its hands from bringing in the best individual for a job."

Perez reiterated: "The message is that the Board should be as responsible as possible in hiring practices, especially in times of such fiscal disaster as the state is currently facing."

All Board members voted in favor of H-10.

H-11 Request that Superintendent initiate rulemaking proceedings to prohibit items from being approved on consent when speakers have signed up for these items.

Currently, agenda items are allowed to be settled on consent before a School Board meeting in the sake of saving time.  Only the School Board knows what is on the consent agenda beforehand, and speakers sometimes wait for hours to speak on their item only to find out it was on the consent agenda.  It is supposed to be used only for harmless and non-controversial items.  Several speakers stood to express support for the item. 

The item was sponsored by Board member Dr. Marta Perez, who explained, "A great portion of our agenda concerns items that have to do with taxpayers' money.  This provision can be used so that items aren't put through without proper vetting.  I don't think this item will be a major problem for our school district."

Other Board members argued that nobody is prevented from speaking on any item, whether it passed during committees or not, at the public hearing.  During the public hearing, which is considered the same meeting, if a Board member considers it appropriate, the item can be moved to reconsideration by any Board member and the item can be heard at that time and reconsidered by the full Board.

Curbelo said, "The consent agenda is for items that are not controversial, and there is a mechanism in place to bring an item back for consideration if it does prove controversial.  At this time I do not see a need for this item."

Karp echoed: "Nobody is dependent on a Board member bringing up an item to speak to an item.  No one is denied an opportunity here to speak to any item on our agenda.  The public is invited to attend our committee meetings.  We do not curtail free speech; that is not what happens here."

Board member Raquel Regalado called the process counterintuitive.  "We vote on something on consent, therefore the speaker knows that it has the approval of the Board.  As a speaker, I think the reality is that it is disheartening to speak at the public hearing.  For it to go back to reconsideration, you need the support not just of one Board member, but of one to second it, and for a majority to go back and revisit it.  I think a solution is to make decisions earlier so that the consent agenda is accessible before the day of the actual meeting.  I would like to see the consent agenda posted on the Internet..."

Karp countered, "In terms of the disheartening part, I understand what you're saying; but in my experience here people who feel passionately about something aren't disheartened, and speak to it wherever they get the chance.  It would be possible for someone to sign up for every item, and that could happen today."

Perez called this argument disingenuous.  "That has never happened in four years.  People are discouraged, when they come to speak to something and they find it has already passed...What is the fear of allowing people to speak to us and maybe giving us information that we need to know?  And as far as people signing up; you can sign up for all the items, but you can only speak for ten minutes.  You cannot speak to all the items; it's impossible.  Even if we have to stay here until three in the morning, maybe we need to stay here to listen to what people are saying, as we did during the times when people were speaking to problems in the budgets.  A lot of us now speak in the past about those problems and those things, and I have to tell you that the reason that it was changed was to stop people from speaking, and that is not a good reason.  It was to not allow certain people to come before us to speak and that's just inappropriate."

Curbelo argued, "You have my commitment and the public has my commitment that if anyone comes here during the public hearing and has a compelling case, I will voluntarily bring an item back to be revisited.  I'd be happy to bring it back up for consideration."

Karp echoed, "Nobody here is not allowed to speak; people can contact their Board members and ask them to bring up an issue."

H-11 failed; only Dr. Perez voted in favor of her own item.