This is Parent Involvement Week in Minnesota 
Bill Villarreal, No. 2 Pencil
Published Wednesday, September 17, 2008
With more and more Minnesota schools being labeled as not meeting Adequate Yearly Progress due the mandates on schools by the No Child Left Behind Act, there is an immediate need for all stakeholders to do their part to help close the achievement gaps of children. To do this, it is going to take a lot of money and effort to establish stronger early childhood development programs so that students enter kindergarten with fewer or no gaps. There is also going to have to be more programs to help children already in school that do not meet their grade level achievement goals that the state tests are based on.
Parental “engagement” is one of the best ways to close the achievement gap without spending a lot of money. Gov. Tim Pawlenty has declared Sept. 14-20 as Minnesota Parent Involvement Week, a time to celebrate the powerful role parents play in their children’s education with activities at schools statewide.
Why is parent involvement in education important?
- Research shows that students learn more, have higher grades, and have better school attendance when parents are involved.
- When families take an active interest in what children are learning, students display a more positive attitude toward school and behave better both in and out of school.
Student achievement increases when families and schools work together in true partnership.
At the last Minnesota School Board Association conference, parent “engagement” was the “buzz word.”
A keynote speaker at the conference was Steve Constantino. He stressed how engaging all families in the classroom will lead to a path of achievement by all. He spoke of becoming the principal of Stonewall Jackson High School in Manassas, Virginia in 1995. This school had the lowest test scores in the state, a 15 percent dropout rate and only 58.7 percent of the students attended regularly. By 2003, Stonewall Jackson High School had the second highest test scores, a dropout rate of 1.3 percent, and 98.8 percent of students attended school regularly. In 2001 TIME magazine named Stonewall Jackson as High School of the Year. Constantino attributed this turn around to having more parents engaged.
I checked with a few of our local educators and came up with the following list of how parents can be engaged in their child’s learning:
- Call or e-mail your child’s teacher periodically to check on progress.
- Find time to read to/with your child every day.
- Do homework with your child.
- Attend conferences with your child.
- Always know where your child is going and who they are with.
- Model a positive attitude about school around your child — even if school was difficult for you.
- Ask your child how school was today. Don’t accept the answer “fine” or “boring”. Get specific!
- Play board games with your child.
- Sit together at meal time and talk. Research shows that kids who eat meals with their parents without TV do better in school.
- Know your child’s reading levels so that you can use the public library
- Getting plenty of sleep is very essential
- Research will tell you that healthy eating and appropriate exercise improves learning
Parenting is teaching. Whether we want to be or not, we are all teachers. We need to be good role models because our children are watching us all the time. I have never met a parent that did not wish for a better life for their child and education is the first step in that direction.
Bill Villarreal is a member of the Albert Lea school board.
Return to Top of Page
Sacramento's budget brawl assures mutual destruction
The inability of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature to reach a deal on the 80-days overdue budget is helping no one.
George Skelton Capitol Journal
September 18, 2008
SACRAMENTO — In California's Capitol, they're verging on political nuclear war. The ultimate weapons are cranked and aimed.
The old Cold War acronym MAD comes to mind: mutually assured destruction.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's popularity continues to plummet. Only 38% of voters approve of his job performance and 52% disapprove, the nonpartisan Field Poll reported Tuesday.
But esteem for the Legislature is absolutely pathetic. It's at a record low, based on 25 years of Field polling: 15% approval; 73% disapproval.
The public is paying attention: 82% of voters think it's a "very serious problem" that the governor and Legislature are "taking so long to reach an agreement" on the budget. It's now 80 days late.
So you'd think the last thing these politicians would want is to keep budget-brawling -- showcasing ineptitude and stiffing private suppliers, community colleges, nursing homes and healthcare centers for the poor, many of them struggling to keep their doors open. The state can't pay them until a budget is signed.
The Legislature wised up a week ago, recognizing reality:
* Schwarzenegger arguably is the weakest California governor since at least the ancient era before World War II. His relationship with fellow Republicans in the Legislature is abysmal. He couldn't generate any GOP support for his last budget proposal, which relied on a one-cent sales tax increase for three years.
* This Legislature is the most polarized -- the most budget-gridlocked -- since, well, probably ever. Republicans flat out won't raise taxes, at least easily identifiable taxes such as income and sales. Democrats have cut as deeply as they're going to into education and social services.
Given that intractable situation, as I recently wrote, the most responsible move was to act irresponsibly because they were incapable of passing an honestly balanced budget.
So early Tuesday morning legislators passed a bipartisan "get-out-of-town," $106-billion general fund budget with accounting gimmicks, assorted borrowing and camouflaged tax hikes that Assembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) admitted was "ugly."
And a few hours later the governor declared war on the Legislature, announcing he would veto the budget because it "punishes taxpayers, pushes the problem into next year and includes fake budget reform."
That wouldn't be merely unprecedented -- apparently no California governor ever has vetoed an entire budget -- it would be a sign of desperation and failure.
Looked at more positively, it also could be a sign of new backbone, although the governor is showing it very late in the battle. Schwarzenegger waited months before publicly advocating a tax increase that he was touting privately.
The Legislature almost certainly would override a veto with the same two-thirds majority vote it used to pass the sorry budget. Lawmakers are sick of the fight and feel no loyalty toward the governor. Both Republican leaders -- Sen. Dave Cogdill of Modesto and Assemblyman Michael Villines of Clovis -- have publicly announced that they'll vote for the override.
Overrides of any bills are humiliating and extremely rare -- the last one was 29 years ago when Jerry Brown was governor -- and generally are regarded as symptoms of gubernatorial weakness.
Schwarzenegger has vowed to retaliate by vetoing "hundreds of bills" passed by the Legislature in the closing days of its session, measures close to many lawmakers' hearts.
At that point, the Capitol would be heading into nuclear winter.
In January, the governor could get the silent treatment at his annual State of the State address in the Assembly chamber, if he's invited at all. His appointments could be denied confirmation by the Senate. Forget about progress on water works, healthcare or education. The verbal venom alone would be poisonous to poll ratings.
Of course, maybe the legislators would take it all in stride. Return in January in a jolly, forgiving mood. They got the governor's message. He won't be pushed around. And now they can all work together again. Maybe. Not likely.
And what's this all about? Besides the governor trying to escape any blame for a bad budget and position himself standing up to an unpopular Legislature?
Officially, it's not about much. It's about a "rainy day" fund created to capture surplus tax revenue in boom times and hold it until needed when the economy goes bust.
The state already has a rainy day fund. The Legislature agreed to increase it significantly and to transfer into the pot unexpected "April surprise" revenue exceeding 5%. The dispute is over when and how the money can be extracted from the fund. At least, that was the dispute.
Democrats agreed Wednesday to Schwarzenegger's demand that the fund be tapped only when the state is collecting insufficient money to pay for current services, according to one source familiar with the negotiations. But then Schwarzenegger -- seemingly itching for a fight -- asked for more.
The source said the governor now also insists on scrubbing the Legislature's proposed 10% increase in income tax withholding, an item penciled in by budget-writers for $1.6 billion. Fine, but where does he expect to find that extra $1.6 billion needed to close a $15-billion deficit?
The governor and legislative leaders plan to meet today for further truce talks.
Stop the madness. There's nothing currently at stake that's worth a mushroom cloud over the Capitol -- and a fallout that kills small businesses and care centers being stiffed by the state.
george.skelton@latimes.com
Steinberg Vows to Take California Budget Process to the Voters--Says He “Won’t Go Through This Again”--Asks Republican Senators to Guarantee Services They Say They Want to Protect Won’t Be Cut in Proposal Expected at the End of Week
[Editor’s note: At the end of a sometimes tense debate yesterday, Darrell Steinberg in deliberate and reserved tones, spoke on the Senate floor, and made it clear that he will not go through the same dysfunctional budget process again without taking matters to the people--through an initiative or ballot measure placed there by the legislature. He also asked Republicans who are pressing for a continuous funding bill if they would guarantee that the programs they say they want to cut will not be on the list of cuts they are proposing. If you want to watch and listen to Steinberg's speech, go to the archives of the California Channel and fast forward to about 39 minutes into the session.]
“First of all, though it doesn’t help much this year, I think this process and the frustration many of us are expressing reveals what must be done next year.
We need to not only think about but begin planning for taking significant questions about state and public finance back to the people of California. And next year as your leader I intend to do that. I’m not going through this anymore. I’m tired of it. It’s unproductive. It does nothing for the way people view us.
You’re right Senator Aanestad, under the current state of the Constitution; it is a two-thirds requirement to pass a state budget. And I know that question has been taken to the people in one form or another. But maybe it has not been take to the people in the right form, at the right time. And so, be prepared next year. Whether it is through the legislature or by the initiative process, we’re not going to go through this anymore.
Let me ask a question of Senator Denham and/or Senator Cogdill [the republican leadership] , and it’s a follow-up to Senator Kuehl’s I think very eloquent comments of a moment ago. But I want to ask it in question form. Because I heard Senator Cogdill say, excuse me if I misstate a little bit, I hope I don’t, that before we could even think about taxes, you need to go through the budget line by line and review the expenditures. We know that by the end of the week that you are prepared to present an actual budget.
So here’s Senator Kuehl’s comment in the form of a question—and I think it’s a fair and a reasonable question. Those services which you seek to fund through a continuous resolution—Can you guarantee us that those services will not be part of your cut list when you present a budget by the end of the week? Like to know. I’d like to know.
I heard dialysis, I heard health and human services, I heard child care. I’d like to know—can we guarantee please, that if we go through the machinations of temporarily funding state government to save the services you talk about, can you take them off your cut list? Guarantee us that now. Yes or no?”
Senator Cogdill: “Just to respond to Senator Steinberg’s question, what we’ve tried to do in the suggested spending reductions that we have made and again I would point out, as I’m sure you are aware, that the majority of those were on the Governor’s list—the May Revise—but what we’ve tried to do as we have looked beyond that to try to find respoinsible ways to reduce our spending in these tough times is to prioritize that spending. And when there are programs listed that are to start that have not begun yet, and can wait another year, those are the kinds of things that we’ve had on our list.
The specific things that you have mentioned, I know that we did add, I believe, back another $100 million above and beyond what either the Governor or the Democrats had suggested relating to Medi-Cal cuts. So, I know there again are specifics on that list and we will I am sure talking about those when we bring the bill forward later this week. But again it’s from the standpoint of the criteria that we tried to put in place as we looked to make these reductions, we tried to make those, that again, made the most sense and did the least amount of harm.”
You’ll have to judge for yourself whether Steinberg got an answer to his question. There is a 16 page document, not to my knowledge available on the internet, that lists the cuts the Republican Senators are drafting into budget language. Approximately $1.5 billion of the cuts beyond the Governor’s May Revision cuts that are in this document from Senate Republicans are in health and human services--areas such as Alzheimer’s care, senior companions, emergency shelter programs for the homeless, delaying implementation of the discount prescription drug program, reducing funding to counties for children’s services case management, reducing various medical benefits to the federal minimum, reducing aids education and prevention, reduction of community treatment facilities rates for the mentally ill, and healthy families programs.
It should be an interesting debate the end of the week when the Republicans are finished wielding their ax. No wonder Governor Schwarzenegger told the San Jose Mercury News that Republicans fear disclosing these cuts because they are “shocking.”
Posted on September 02, 2008
The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.
Return to Top of Page
In Grading Levels, The Playing Field Is Seldom Even
By Jay Mathews
Monday, September 15, 2008; B02
If I were the Fairfax County schools superintendent, wondering what to do about a growing parent revolt against the county's tough grading system, I would surrender immediately.
Just look at the rebels' Web site, http://Fairgrade.org. Their data and arguments are first rate. The leaders of the group, Fair Grades for Fairfax County Students, are professionals, with a passionate following. Giving in to Fairgrade, as it's known, will mean more grade inflation. But so what? Everybody's doing it.
Unfortunately for Superintendent Jack D. Dale and his research team studying the issue, that is not really true. If it were, they could succumb to the inevitable with a clear conscience. The truth is that in this region and the country, nothing about grading is universal or consistent, including the rate of inflation.
The Fairgrade parents have a simple, persuasive request. Junk the Fairfax standard of at least a 94 percent score for an A and switch to the 90 percent benchmark used in the Maryland suburbs, the District, Arlington County, Falls Church and much of the rest of the nation. They also want Fairfax students to get an extra grade point for taking Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses and an extra half-point for honors classes, closer to the system in archrival Montgomery County. Fairfax kids will then no longer be at a disadvantage, Fairgrade says, when competing for scholarships and selective college admissions.
Fairgrade pounds school headquarters with powerful facts. Here are two sentences from its Web site guaranteed to furrow the brow of every McLean parent: "In 2007, only 5 percent of graduating seniors at Langley High School had a weighted [grade-point average] of 4.0 or higher. At Montgomery County's Churchill High, 36 percent of graduating seniors had a weighted GPA of 4.0 or higher." The schools are demographic and academic twins, with some of the wealthiest parents and highest test scores anywhere. Yet Montgomery's decision to give a bonus grade point for all honors, AP and IB courses, rather than Fairfax's half-grade point for AP and IB and no bonus for honors, makes Langley look like Churchill's dumb cousin.
The solution seems simple: Change the Fairfax rules, and all will be well. But that overlooks the wider significance of these wildly varying numbers. What happens, for instance, if Howard and Loudoun counties -- jealous of their big Montgomery and Fairfax neighbors -- decide to give their students 1 1/2 points extra for each AP grade?
The pedagogical arms race has been going on for some time. Bruce Poch, admissions dean at Pomona College, revealed in a Kaplan-Newsweek college guide (published by a unit of The Washington Post Co.) that the national mean grade-point average for students taking the SAT in 2006 to 2007 was 3.33. That means "a B-plus is now 'average,' " he wrote.
This drives students, parents and college counselors crazy. College admissions officers sometimes say they don't like it either, but guess what: Their hands are not clean. Their bosses want to improve their colleges' market positions, said Andrew Flagel, admissions dean at George Mason University. "Parents and students believe that a school with higher GPAs and scores for entering students is 'better,' " he said, "so the school gets higher ranks, more applicants" and other goodies if applicants with inflated grades enroll.
Fairfax parents may feel better if Fairgrade gets its way, but this is a big country with many other grade-distorting factors. States have different grading cultures. One study revealed that 49 percent of SAT takers in Texas, but only 29 percent in Connecticut, reported A averages. The rates for Maryland (38 percent) and Virginia (37 percent) were in the middle of the national scale, but the D.C. rate was only 30 percent. Grading also varies by subject. Researchers at Harvard University and the University of Virginia have recommended that high school science courses add half a grade point for honors and a full point for AP to be consistent with other courses. And everyone knows that teachers in adjoining classrooms often have very different ideas about how many students should get an A.
There are ways to give all students and parents, not just those in Fairfax, more confidence that they are not being shortchanged. Some districts have adopted universal final exams in some subjects. AP, IB and Cambridge tests are graded by outside experts who use common scoring guides.
As hard as it might be to believe, high school grades still predict college success as well as or better than standardized tests, particularly for minority students. Ken O'Connor, author of a recent Educational Testing Service book on grading, wonders if this means that "college grading is as bad or worse."
With the experts so perplexed, what should the Fairfax grading researchers do? Give up, I say. Grant Fairgrade parents their wishes. Join the rest of the region in its inflated state and hope the whole thing does not some day blow up in our faces.
Mile High Parents Campaign Launches in Denver Schools
New Program Encourages Parents to Spend 5,280 Minutes Per School Year or 30 Minutes a School Day Supporting their Children's Education
Last update: 12:27 p.m. EDT Sept. 16, 2008
DENVER, Sep 16, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Denver Public Schools Parent Empowerment Council, supported by Denver Public Schools Superintendent Michael Bennet and Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper, in association with a host of community partners, today announced the official launch of the Mile High Parents Campaign. The program is designed to increase parent engagement and to celebrate the hundreds of things parents already do to further their kids' academic success.
Structured as a multi-year initiative, the 2008-2009 school year marks the official kick off of Mile High Parents. By enrolling in the program, parents agree to proactively engage with their children and invest 5,280 minutes, or 30 minutes a day, per school year. Parents then track their time through forms provided by participating schools and eventually through an online system.
Mile High Parents will be the driving force of encouragement and support for parents and participating schools throughout the process. Suggested activities include reading with a child, attending cultural activities like the zoo, helping with homework, or discussing current events like politics and the importance of elections.
Parent engagement is paramount to the success of children when it comes to overall academic achievement. Studies suggest that simple, intentional actions taken by parents each day can result in higher grades, higher test scores, higher graduation rates and increased self esteem for school-aged children. And, studies also indicate that parents need not have large amounts of free time to benefit their children. Any level of parent involvement has a significant impact and engagement transcends boundaries related to household income, education level, and culture.
"Parents aren't aware that they already do dozens of things each day to support their children," said Marlene DeLa Rosa, chair of the Parent Empowerment Council. "Our role is to be their cheerleaders, support their current engagement and provide them with the tools necessary to increase their investment."
The campaign will be implemented district-wide and 35 schools have already elected to participate for the 2008-2009 school year. The program can be customized by each principal to meet the needs of individual school communities. Mile High Parents will provide each school with an arsenal of tools to support engagement efforts including parent ambassadors and toolkits. The toolkits include information for teachers and parents, tracking forms, and suggested ways to engage with children.
Participating parents have an opportunity to earn incentive gifts and win a variety of prizes including tickets to the ballet, college savings accounts, and more. Participating schools can also receive additional support including parent education events, coaching and support for staff.
The program launches on Wednesday, September 17th at Whittier Elementary, located at 2480 Downing Street. Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper and Denver Public Schools Superintendent Michael Bennet will be the first parents to officially pledge their support. At the event, the Mayor and Superintendent will sign up for Mile High Parents and agree to spend 30 minutes per school day engaging in their children's school success. Remarks will begin at 9:15 a.m.
Parents can sign up by visiting milehighparents.org and schools can enroll by calling 720-980-5252.
About Mile High Parents
Mile High Parents is a parent engagement program designed to promote, support, celebrate and increase sustained parent engagement in Denver Public Schools. The program is presented by the Denver Public Schools Parent Empowerment Council and is managed and supported by Assets for Colorado Youth, a nonprofit positive youth development organization. More information for parents and schools is available at milehighparents.org
SOURCE: Mile High Parents
for Mile High Parents Keely Spencer, 303-302-2138 keely@traction-communications.com
Complete Picture of California State Budget Passed by the Legislature is Still Coming into Focus
A typical scene from yesterday on the Assembly Floor as the budget emerged: Long periods of waiting for the final, final language of the many budget related bills
By Frank D. Russo
At 2:30 a.m., the California State Assembly gaveled down after passing the last of about a score (that’s 20) budget related bills and the budget bill itself. The Senate finished its work around 1 a.m., passing all bills that had been agreed upon by the leadership of both houses and adjourned, leaving the Assembly to give final passage of what mostly is not yet available to the public online but is in paper—stacks of which landed on legislators’ desks. Many of these bills passed with the bare two-thirds majority needed although the actual budget bill passed by a wider margin.
Like hurricanes and other disasters, as the new day is dawning—a record 78 days after the beginning of California’s budget year and a full three months after the state’s constitution says that a budget should be passed—it is going to take a while to fully understand and analyze what exactly has been passed as part of the budget and bills that are at least temporally related to it.
So let’s begin that process with apologies from your correspondent who is a little bleary-eyed himself—now back at home in his pajamas and a little sleep deprived. The legislature’s product is now about to be in the hands of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and eyes are turning to him and whether he will sign the budget after blue penciling any of its line items—as California’s Constitution gives him the authority to eliminate or reduce to zero the dollar amounts passed by the legislature—or whether he will veto it altogether—an unthinkable thought as this would move us back to square one in what has been an exceedingly, some would say excruciatingly, difficult effort to herd a two-thirds majority in each house to vote for the budget and those of the bills passed last night that are needed to make the budget legal.
An armada of television cameras, radio folks with microphones, and journalists with or without laptops but with those trusty stenographer’s pads to take notes, arrived at the Capitol earlier in the day. The budget details were kept as a tightly guarded secret—still shifting around as rumors accurately foretold that the Governor was not completely on board and that there were wavering legislators which threatened the two-thirds needed for passage. So, at 2:45 in the afternoon, there was a press briefing, after which at least some of us felt confused. No paper yet—those usually trusted summaries of what was in the bill, not even an outline.
We left the room and spotted Assemblymember John Laird, the Budget Committee Chair in the hallway. He is one of those rare individuals who somehow can paint the picture from his mind’s eye without the need for notes of what is in not only the latest iteration of the budget with the ink still drying, but who when questioned, and with his mind clicking to the point you can almost hear it whirring, can relate this to the initial budget proposed by the Governor in January, the May Revision proposal by the Governor, different Democratic and Republican proposals, and the unprecedented “August Revision” proposed by the Governor this year. Armed with the ubiquitous tiny tape recorders, we gleaned new information from him.
Within the hour, what may be the best description of the budget emerged on our blackberries and computers—the 8 page Final Compromise Floor Report prepared by Laird and the Assembly Budget Committee. The first 6 pages of this are available online here and as soon as the last two pages--of charts that are in the original PDF file—have a link I will include that here. [Update: You can see the entire 8 pager by clicking here.]
While there was an attempt in the Senate to bring up the bill to circumvent California’s environmental and global warming laws in approving a power plant—the subject of a major story we ran yesterday —that effort failed and the full Senate voted not to override the normal committee process and declined to take the bill up after midnight.
The legislature did give final passage to another bill, AB 2026 (Villines) allowing the sale, exchange, or lease of state property declared to be surplus without considering the environmental impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), but until the bill’s provisions are read and analyzed, it is not known how broad this bill’s reach will be.
A bill eliminating or diminishing overtime for highly paid computer tech workers—AB 10-- opposed and fought vigorously by the California Labor Federation--was passed without a vote to spare after midnight.
There are many other bills we will feature in the hours and days to come. These include ballot measures on the lottery and on budget reform (SCA 3) that passed the legislature.
If I had to pick one overarching theme for the last twenty-four hours, it is that the Democrats in the legislature protected this year’s education, health, and human service programs—the largest parts of the budget and ones relied upon by the most vulnerable of Californians from the most drastic cuts that were put on the table by legislative Republicans. But this was done at a cost—that will be reconciled probably as early as next spring when there will be mid-year budget cuts—and at a major cost to future years because of corporate tax cuts and the diversion of scarce budget dollars to reserves and rainy day funds when many of the one year accelerations of revenues and other pots of money will not be available. We have eaten our seed corn to stay alive this year, to get some additional revenues this year, and to get Republican votes to do so.
We will have many more articles about the budget. I will leave you with a warning circulated around the Capitol by Lenny Goldberg, the head of the California Tax Reform Association, which gives a preview of some of the story on taxes that will become clearer as time goes on:
“Death of the Corporation Tax” is part of the Budget Deal
“In exchange for a small amount of temporary short-term revenues, the Legislature is poised to open two vast new loopholes in the corporation tax, loopholes which will continue indefinitely. The impact will be to greatly diminish the corporation tax at future costs to education, health care, and public safety. This is a huge giveaway to multinational corporations.
Those loopholes are:
Net Operating Loss Carrybacks. In exchange for suspending the ability of corporations to take losses going forward for two years, the budget deal would permit loss carrybacks—the ability to get refunds against prior taxes based on a year’s losses.
This is nothing but a tax shelter which destabilizes the general fund. It gives a refund for taxes already paid, with such refunds coming most likely when the economy is in recession. As a result, when we’re making cuts, the state will be cutting refund checks to large corporations. The ability to take losses into the future has been part of tax policy for 20 years, but the legislature has rejected carry-backs for 20 years, because it is nothing but tax manipulation.
Cost: at least ½ billion per year, but likely more because of the second loophole.
Exchanging credits among affiliated corporations. For state tax credits, the state has always insisted that the credits be taken by the corporation that engaged in the activity which is eligible for a credit. In exchange for limiting corporation tax credits for two years to get short-term revenue, the budget deal opens up the ability of affiliated corporations or subsidiaries to transfer their credits among other corporations—forever!
There are many billions in unused credits from companies that have not earned sufficient profit to use them. This proposal will open the ability of companies to effectively sell these credits—e.g. by allowing ownership by another company—so that the billions in unused credits can now be used by profitable corporations.
Cost: this could be billions per year and will total many billions over the years. In combination with loss carry-backs it will open the corporation tax to endless manipulation.
For many years, the corporation tax in California has been one of the most effective in the country, despite the existence of tax credits, because the law and the Franchise Tax Board limited the ability of corporations to manipulate the law to their advantage.
These new loopholes will effectively mean the death of the corporation tax as an effective revenue-raiser. This deal compromises future generations, and does not even receive any real revenues in return. Borrowing from the future is bad enough. Giving away the future to multinational corporations is unconscionable.” [Emphases in the original]
The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.
In Rush to White House, 'No Child' Is Left Behind
Obama, McCain Reveal Little on Updates for Plan
By Maria Glod Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 15, 2008; A04
For the next president, one of the first domestic challenges will be to reshape the No Child Left Behind law, hailed six years ago as a bipartisan solution to America's education troubles.
But in their race for the White House, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) are distancing themselves from what has become a tainted brand.
Education experts say the candidates have offered, at best, a fuzzy vision for the future of the No Child Left Behind law. Obama pledges to "fix the failures" of the law, while McCain seeks to avoid mention of it.
"This is the 10,000-pound gorilla, and yet nobody wants to talk about it. At both conventions, you hardly heard anyone say the words 'No Child Left Behind,' " said Michael J. Petrilli, vice president for national programs and policy at the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, a nonprofit organization that seeks to raise education standards. "I think that says a lot about how unpopular the law is, or at least the brand. Politicians, not wanting to take unnecessary risks, are keeping quiet."
A national poll released last month by Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup found that 67 percent of Americans think the law should be significantly changed or scrapped. A quarter of those polled said it's helping schools; 22 percent said it's hurting.
Education has been largely a back-burner issue in a campaign dominated by rising oil prices, a slumping economy and the Iraq war, but McCain and Obama have given clues on key school issues. Obama wants $18 billion in new federal spending, a major increase; McCain favors maintaining current funding. McCain has made school choice central to his education agenda, vowing to use public funding to help students attend private schools. Obama opposes vouchers.
McCain is squarely for teacher merit pay based on test scores; Obama supports pay for performance but only in cooperation with unions. Obama supports a significant expansion of early childhood programs. McCain supports the creation of more online schools and classes.
In recent days, as millions of parents sent their children back to school, the campaigns kicked up the rhetoric on education, each accusing the other of lacking a reform record. A McCain television advertisement says Obama's "one accomplishment" on education has been to support "comprehensive sex education" for kindergartners. Recently in Norfolk, Obama said McCain "has not done one thing to improve the quality of public education in our country, not one real law or proposal or initiative. Nothing. It has not been a priority for him."
The next iteration of the No Child Left Behind law, now overdue in Congress, could have major effects for millions of students and teachers. The law marked an unprecedented federal foray into public schools, requiring a dramatic expansion of testing. It aims to boost the achievement of students from poor families who have long trailed those who come from the middle and upper classes.
Both candidates say they support the law's lofty goal of leading every student to proficiency in reading and math. McCain voted for the legislation in 2001, as did many prominent Democrats who now support Obama. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), whose endorsement boosted Obama in the Democratic primary, was among the law's architects. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) also voted for it.
Obama has criticized the law's emphasis on standardized tests, calling No Child Left Behind "one of the emptiest slogans in the history of politics" and saying it needs more funding. One of his advisers, Jon Schnur, who was an education adviser in the Clinton White House, said the senator "doesn't want the country to retreat from the notion of high standards, accountability and a focus on assessments done right."
McCain, on his campaign Web site, says he will "build on the lessons of No Child Left Behind." But in major speeches, he hasn't mentioned the law. His advisers, including former Arizona school superintendent Lisa Graham Keegan, say McCain wants to give children in schools with poor test performance quicker access to private tutoring, which is mandated under the law. McCain also supports a program that provides scholarships to low-income D.C. students for private school.
At the GOP convention, McCain said that when public schools fail to perform, "parents deserve a choice in the education of their children. And I intend to give it to them. Some may choose a better public school. Some may choose a private one. Many will choose a charter school."
Obama, who has offered a more detailed education platform, wants to significantly expand early childhood programs. His plan would provide public schools more money to add hours or days to the school year, or expand after-school programs. He also has pledged to "recruit an army of new teachers" with higher salaries and more support.
At Granby High in Norfolk, Obama said he supports higher pay for teachers and more spending on charter schools. "Let's finally help our teachers and principals develop a curriculum and assessments that teach our kids to become more than just good test-takers."
But neither candidate has offered detailed plans for No Child Left Behind. Michael A. Rebell, a professor at Teachers College at Columbia University, said the candidates are tiptoeing around the law because the debate has changed. In 2000, it was about values and promising to ensure that all kids learn. Now it's about the nitty-gritty -- whether to delay the law's 2014 target for universal proficiency; whether to use other yardsticks besides state tests to rate schools; and whether to ease sanctions on lagging schools.
"Both candidates have been walking very gingerly around the NCLB landmines and don't want to take a strong stand," Rebell said. "It alienates a lot of constituencies no matter what they do."
On the Democratic side, teachers unions are critical of the law. In a July speech, Randi Weingarten, president of the 1.4 million-member American Federation of Teachers, called it a well-intentioned effort that has "become a blunt instrument for attacking, not assisting, our public schools." Many teachers, she said, consider it a "four-letter word."
But civil rights groups, including the NAACP and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, have been vocal supporters of a law they see as a way to ensure minority children aren't ignored.
Many Republicans say Washington is meddling too much in the operation of schools, traditionally the purview of state and local governments. Even the staunchest supporters want changes. Making everyone happy is impossible.
" 'No Child Left Behind' -- those four words really have become this hot-button issue," said Marc S. Lampkin, executive director of Strong American Schools Ed in '08, an effort funded through philanthropists Bill Gates and Eli Broad to raise education issues' profile in the election. "If you're a right-winger conservative, you don't like the federal intrusion. If you're a left-wing, pro-union person, you don't like the fact that the accountability system with its penalties focuses on teachers."
Been There, Done that!
Great Depression and Herbert Hoover, 1929-33
In 1929, 60% of all families had annual incomes of $2,000 or less; 42% had annual incomes of less than $1,500. More efficient machines had made it possible for the productivity of industrial workers to increase by 32% during the 1920s, but their wages had increased only 10%. Profits from the industrial corporations grew 62% and went largely to the wealthiest 5%.
| Year | Richest 5% | Richest 1% |
| 1923 | 22.9 | 12.3 |
| 1929 | 26.1 | 14.5 |
Until 1925, increases in installment buying by the expanding number of white-collar workers made it possible to consume the goods pouring off the assembly lines. The use of automobiles went from 9,000,000 to 20,000,000 between 1920 and 1925, (122%)but only to 27,000,000 by 1930 (35%). By 1929, automobiles absorbed 20% of the steel, 75% of the glass, and 80% of the rubber produced in the US. The oil industry and the many gasoline filling stations, repair garages, auto dealers, roadside restaurants, and places to spend the night depended upon the auto. The auto was so important that the national government adopted a highway marking system to facilitate driving and national, state, and local governments began road building programs. Much of the country's cement production went to highway building.
The slump in automobile sales was paralleled by the decline in the construction of new housing, causing unemployment in the building trades. Fewer suburban houses meant fewer markets for appliances, wall coverings, and other activities related to home building.
The economy was in trouble but people, dazzled by a surging stock market, ignored it. Agriculture was in a depression as farmers sold in a competitive market while having to buy in a protective market because US business subverted free enterprise by having the government tax foreign manufactured goods high enough to guarantee sales to US producers. Improvements in farm technology, which allowed farmers to produce more, only made the situation worse for demand was inelastic. The consumer economy was slowing as incomes skewed to the rich. In 1929, the richest 10% of families received 39% of disposal personal income while the bottom 10% only got 2%.
People seemed to be forgetting that capitalism needs to expand, that demand for housing, clothes, automobiles, stoves, and many other consumer goods generates demand in other sectors of the economy. But mass production necessitates mass consumption. Mass consumption necessitates an income distribution that allows consumers to buy. Without the appropriate income distribution, warehouses will burst at their seams and production lines will clog. Ethnic discrimination usually meant lower pay for the affected groups. The coal industry was in economic trouble as US consumers and businesses switched more and more to petroleum or hydroelectric sources of power. The introduction of synthetic fibers, such as nylon, dealt body blows to the cotton and wool textile industries. The wealthy bought luxuries but could not buy enough to sustain the consumer economy.
Many of the wealthy, as well as others, joined the speculative stock market sending stock prices to greater and greater without regard to company performance; In October, 1929, the bubble burst. The crash meant the tremendous loss of capital as prices declined $74 billion from 1929 to 1932 and the repatriation of much of US investment abroad. The Germany economy collapsed followed by the British and french economies. Germany could not pay the reparations it owed to the victors of WWI or make debt payments to US lenders, setting off a chain reaction. The world entered an economic depression.
President Herbert Hoover did not know how to meet this crisis. His government began buying farm surpluses in order to prop up prices but it did not buy enough to make a difference. The Farm Board loaned money to farmers to establish cooperatives (a socialist measure) but the millions of farmers scattered across millions of miles had difficulty in cooperating. Farm income went from $8 billion in 1929 to $3 billion in 1993, a decline of 62.5%.
Republican wisdom said that high tariffs were good for the economy and, besides, in a time of world crisis countries tend to become very nationalistic, so the Congress passed, with Hoover's acquiescence, the very high Hawley-Smoot Tariff in 1930. Raising the tariff made things worse because it meant that foreigners could sell less in the US and thus earn fewer US dollars with which to buy US goods or make payments on debts owed to US citizens. Exports fell 50%.
As historians Peter N. Carroll and David W. Noble note, Hoover feared that the collapse of the large corporations would bring down the entire US capitalist system. After all, one percent of the banks held 50% of banking assets. Three corporations—Ford, Chrysler, General Motors—manufactured 85% of the automobiles sold in the US. Chain stores dominated retail sales and their difficulties had national repercussions.
Business and industry met the crisis as they had always done—they cut production, lowered wages, reduced working hours, and fired workers. Unemployment rose from 1.5 million in 1929 to 13 million in 1933, a figure which represented 25% of the labor force.
Even such a high percentage hid the dimensions of the problem because it did not what percentage had been forced the part-time work. Industrial wages fell from $42.50 a week to $17 a week, a decline of 32%. By 1932, sawmill workers were only earning five to ten cents an hour; Tennessee female mill workers earned $2.39 for 50 hours work; and Connecticut women got between 60 cents to a dollar for a 55 hour week. To help the situation, the Hoover administration sept close to a billion dollars in public works programs but he would not go further. Nor would he argue for direct relief to the unemployed and starving because he feared that doing so would corrupt them. Although he had administered relief progress in Europe after the First World War, he saw that as only an emergency measure caused by war. He believed that doing a similar thing in the the US would become a permanent practice. To many, he was callous. As people lost their homes and created shanty towns, they derisively called the "Hoovervilles." Hoover argued that private charities and state and local governments should be the institutions to provide relief. But they were suffering as well and could not deal with a problem of this magnitude.
Hoover and the Republicans saw aid to corporations as being different. Whereas they believed that helping the individual citizen weather the Depression would corrupt him or her, aiding corporations and other business was different. To many, it appeared that the Republicans were only interested in the rich. The newly-created Reconstruction Finance Corporation aided only the large corporations.
Hoover broke precedent because the national government assumed some responsibility for what happens during an economic depression but he was not willing to go far enough. He believed that the depression was part of the normal business cycle and had been caused by international factors and not US ones. to him, "prosperity was just around the corner." The best thing for the country to do would be to wait the crisis out.
California Budget 101: A guide to what's gone wrong in Sacramento
YOUR QUICK GUIDE TO THE CONTINUING CAPITOL MESS
By Mike Zapler
Mercury News Sacramento Bureau Article Launched: 09/13/2008 07:30:23 PM PDT
SACRAMENTO — You know something's awry in Sacramento. Something that involves ungodly sums of money and bickering politicians. But you're not really sure how the never-ending battle over the state budget affects you, let alone why we even need a budget.
Well, consider this a quick guide to what's gone wrong at the Capitol and why no one's been able to fix it — State Budget 101, if you will. We answer 13 burning questions about the showdown that's lasted 76 days and counting, helping you understand why the lawmakers you elect can't seem to get the job done.
Q Why does California even need a budget?
AWithout one, there would be no plan for spending all that tax money we send to Sacramento. Besides, without a budget the state can't legally make billions in payments to nursing homes, foster care homes, community colleges and construction contractors, to name just a few.
Q Every other state seems to be able to pass a budget. Why can't California?
A There are a lot of reasons, but the big kahuna is a rule that budgets in California have to pass each house of the Legislature by a two-thirds vote. We're one of only three states with that type of hurdle. While Democrats control the Legislature, they don't have enough votes to clear that threshold. Hence the gridlock.
Q Are things as messed up in the other states that require "supermajorities'' to approve their budgets?
A Nope. Democrats hold huge majorities in Arkansas and Rhode Island, so clearing the budget bar isn't nearly as much of a problem. Also, while Arkansas has a three-fourths vote requirement for making appropriations, it carves out some major exceptions. Votes on education and highways, for example, take only a majority vote.
Q Where did that two-thirds rule come from anyway?
A Ironically, the idea came from Democrats in the 1930s, according to Joe Mathews, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. After a long period in the minority, Democrats came into power and wanted some protections in case they didn't remain there. Voters passed a constitutional amendment with a number of budget reforms, including the two-thirds rule for any budget that grew by 5 percent or more. Three decades later, California voters approved a follow-up measure saying that all budgets need to be passed by two-thirds of legislators before heading to the governor's desk.
Q Do lawmakers get paid for the extra time they spend bickering over the budget?
A During the impasse they don't get paid at all. But once it's over, they'll get back pay, plus $170 per diem for the days they're in Sacramento working on the budget. With 120 legislators, that works out to more than $100,000 a week in taxpayer money, assuming both houses are in session each weekday.
Q When does the budget morass really start to affect my everyday life, like my kid's education or new roads to ease traffic congestion?
A This is tough to gauge because the effects vary. But they are real and will become more and more severe the longer the impasse lasts. If a budget isn't in place by later this week, for instance, more than $3 billion pegged for schools and community colleges will stay in Sacramento for the time being. Transportation advocates say ongoing road construction projects could shut down midstream, as billions of dollars in payments to contractors are halted.
Q This seems nuts. How long could this last?
A That's the $64,000 question. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he's willing to wait it out through the fall and into next year if that's what it takes to get the budget he wants. But the pressure to act could become overwhelming before then. Legislators did seem to make some progress toward a deal last week, but it was unclear where that will end up.
Q Aren't legislators worried voters will boot them from office in the next election?
A Not really. Because district lines have been drawn to favor incumbents, they rarely face a serious challenge. That's one big reason the governor is pushing for reforming the ways legislative districts are drawn.
Q Didn't Schwarzenegger promise to fix this budget stuff during the recall five years ago? What's the deal?
A Taming the budget has proved harder than anyone, especially the governor, imagined. He's taken his case to voters, cajoled legislators, hoped a thriving economy would take care of it, all to no avail. What's more, Schwarzenegger rescinded the unpopular car tax in his first act as governor. That blew a $6 billion hole in the budget that the state is grappling with to this day.
Q Why do we seem to go through the same drama every five or six years? Can't they just figure this out once and for all?
A Again, not so easy. The state's tax system is extremely volatile. About half of the general fund comes from personal income taxes, and the more money you make the higher percentage you pay in taxes. That means when the wealthy are doing well (in, say, the stock market), the state is flush. But a downturn like the one we're now experiencing sends state finances into the tank. Politicians have talked for years about changing the tax structure to rely on more stable sources of revenue, but that's a tricky thing to pull off, especially because low property taxes are sacrosanct in California.
Q Is it really that hard to balance the budget with cuts?
A Depends on whom you ask. But no one claims it's easy. Even the Republicans rely on billions of dollars in borrowing and accounting maneuvers to balance their budget. When Schwarzenegger proposed 10 percent across-the-board cuts to most programs, legislators and interest groups of all stripes were up in arms.
Q So I guess it's inevitable that we'll end up with higher taxes. Aren't taxes high enough already?
A Schwarzenegger is proposing a one-cent sales tax increase (although after three years it would go away and be cut an extra quarter-cent). Democrats pitched about $10 billion in taxes, mostly on the wealthy. But so far Republicans aren't budging. There are lots of ways to measure California's tax burden, but the independent Legislative Analyst's Office said last year that it was about average compared with other states.
Q Isn't there some way to make the Legislature do its job?
A Good luck. So far, lawmakers have calculated that the benefits of holding out for what they want outweigh the costs of not cutting a deal. And no one really knows when the scales will tip.
Contact Mike Zapler at mzapler@mercurynews.com or (916) 441-4603.
Published Online: September 12, 2008
California Schools Squeezed in Fiscal Vise
Fallback Plans Readied Amid Budget Stalemate
The failure of California lawmakers to enact a budget more than two months after it was due has schools operating in what one official called a “very bizarre, unknown place” and contemplating drastic steps to cope with the fiscal crisis.
Without a state budget, districts will have to do without more than $3 billion for programs such as special education, remedial and gifted instructional programs, professional development, and school transportation.
In anticipation of a funding cutoff, some districts already are canceling bus routes, increasing class sizes, raising school lunch fees, and dipping into reserve accounts to operate schools.
Payments for certain targeted programs—including child-care centers—have been put on hold because of the stalemate between Democrats and Republicans in the legislature over how to make up a $15.2 billion deficit in the $101 billion state budget.
If a budget is not enacted soon, schools, hospitals, and other human-service agencies will have lost a total of more than $12 billion since the new fiscal year began on July 1, state Controller John Chiang has announced. Although the agencies may get some of that back once a new budget is passed, the amount would depend on what shape the final fiscal 2009 package takes.
The situation is likely to create cash-flow problems for some districts and force others to consider borrowing money to cover their expenses.
“People are planning for the worst and hoping for the best,” said Scott Plotkin, the executive director of the California School Boards Association.
“On our advice and others’, they are spending very conservatively because we don’t know what the final numbers will be.”
The crisis has consumed the attention of state and local officials for months, and even generated a threat by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association last week to seek the recall of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Education officials, including state Superintendent Jack O’ Connell, initially supported a conference committee bill in July that restored much of the $3.9 billion in cuts to education that the governor proposed in May for fiscal 2009. But that bill stalled in both houses of the legislature, failing to receive the two-thirds vote in each house required by law.
The Republican governor, in August, then recommended a compromise plan that includes a temporary 1-cent increase in the state sales tax, bringing it to 8.25 cents on the dollar. His compromise proposal included an additional $2 billion in statewide spending cuts on top of the $10 billion recommended by the conference committee.
Gov. Schwarzenegger’s August plan also called for a permanent quarter-of-a-cent reduction in the sales tax after three years.
Senate Democrats then tried, but failed, to pass their own version of a budget plan that included the tax increase, but did not include the later rollback. As a result, Republicans in the Senate rejected it.
The Senate plan also included a large “rainy day” fund that could grow to as much as 12.5 percent of the state’s general fund and give greater authority to the governor to make midyear spending cuts if revenue decreases in the future.
Meanwhile, the Senate last week defeated a Republican budget proposal—opposed by the Republican governor—that relied more heavily on cuts and borrowing to close the deficit.
State affiliates of the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association also criticized the plan.
David A. Sanchez, the president of the California Teachers Association, a National Education Association affiliate, said in an Aug. 30 statement that the plan was “filled with smoke, mirrors, and risky borrowing schemes,” and “would be a disaster for students, public schools, and colleges.”
District-Level Impact
Gov. Schwarzenegger says he remains hopeful that his plan will get consideration.
“What I have proposed is truly a compromise budget, because it includes elements that both parties want but also requires that everyone come out of their partisan corners and give something up—myself included,” he said in a Sept. 8 statement.
Districts, meanwhile, have to pass their own budgets without knowing how much they will receive from the state for the fiscal year. The uncertainty has led to a number of pre-emptive budget decisions.
While most of the more than 14,000 California teachers who received pink slips in March were ultimately not laid off, Mr. Plotkin said it’s likely that many are working on “temporary contracts.”
While state law provides districts with another deadline by which they can cut positions before the beginning of the school year, that would have required the state budget to be adopted by Aug. 15.
In addition to public schools, state-financed preschool classrooms and other child-development programs operated by child-care centers are not receiving payments as long as the budget impasse continues.
“There are 792 child-care agencies across California, and these centers provide a range of services to about 500,000 children, but without a budget in place, we do not have the authority to pay these agencies for services rendered,” Mr. O’Connell said in a press conference in July.
He added that while such agencies are encourage to have reserves, “it is difficult for agencies to manage the fiscal burden of operating a program over an extended period of time with no income to cover costs.”
Credit Crunch
Many child-care and preschool providers are used to having to get short-term “bridge” loans when budgets are delayed, but restrictions from banks on borrowing have increased because of the recent credit crunch, said Sandra Giarde, the executive director of the California Association for the Education of Young Children.
Some agencies she knows of were able to secure funding for July and August but expected a state budget to be in place by September. The delay has her and other advocates worried.
“Many of these centers who were already on the financial brink of disaster are going to go over the side,” said Dennis Vicars, the president of the Sacramento-based Child Development Policy Institute, an advocacy organization. “We’re not going to get a lot of those schools back. Those centers are going to be closed.”
Mr. Plotkin, of the state school boards’ group, predicted that most districts won’t run out of money this school year, but that they will have “depleted their reserves.” If the economy doesn’t improve, “it’s next year that people are worrying about,” he said.
While the late budget has overshadowed most other policy matters this year, the state was able to take a step toward continuing to improve its student-data system, a move that researchers and other experts have repeatedly warned is necessary if the state is going to accurately target students’ instructional needs.
McCain's 'Education' Spot Is Dishonest, Deceptive
Thursday, September 11, 2008; A04
A new John McCain ad caricatures Barack Obama's education record by claiming that his only achievement is to pass legislation ensuring "comprehensive sex education" for kindergartners. It implies that its critique of the Democratic presidential nominee has been endorsed by the nonpartisan journal Education Week, when in fact it is a hodgepodge of quotes from a variety of sources stitched together to form a highly partisan political attack.
THE FACTS
Education Week bills itself as the "journal of record" for education professionals. In March last year, it ran a generally positive article about Obama, describing him as one of several Democratic candidates with a demonstrated interest in education policy. The article noted that Obama had gained considerable "grassroots experience" in education problems in Chicago as the member of a board of a school reform initiative known as the Annenberg Challenge. It went on to say that he had not made "a significant mark on education policy" in either the Illinois Senate or the U.S. Senate, but that he had pushed for the expansion of early-childhood education.
The McCain ad includes captions attributing the quotes on accountability and Obama's alleged support for "the existing public school monopoly" to a Washington Post editorial and an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune. (Needless to say, the ad omitted The Post's criticism of McCain for failing to come up with a detailed education plan.) But a casual viewer or listener could easily get the impression that all the quotes came from Education Week.
The McCain ad is wrong when it claims -- in a voice dripping with sarcasm -- that Obama's "one accomplishment" in the education field was a sex education bill for kindergartners. While it is true that Obama supported the bill, he was not one of the sponsors. As far as kindergartners were concerned, the principal purpose of the bill was to make them aware of the risk of inappropriate touching and sexual predators. Other states, including California and Massachusetts, have passed similar legislation.
Obama was more closely identified with other education legislation in the Illinois Senate, including a 2003 bill he co-sponsored to double the number of Chicago charter schools from 15 to 30. On substance, Obama has attempted to tread a fine line between his opposition to vouchers and his support for greater choice for parents, including support for charter schools. In a speech in Dayton, Ohio, earlier this week, he proposed doubling the funding for "responsible charter schools."
THE PINOCCHIO TEST
Nobody expects television ads to be fair and objective analyses of public policy. Almost by definition, the ads are partisan sales pitches, designed to promote one political brand while running down the rival brand. But they should not misrepresent the record of the other side and should clearly distinguish quotes from nonpartisan news sources from standard political rhetoric. The McCain "Education" ad fails this test.
THREE PINOCCHIOS: Significant factual errors
Education Department names two Sac City sites national Blue Ribbon schools
Two Sacramento City Unified School District campuses were named 2008 No Child Left Behind-Blue Ribbon Schools, U.S. Department of Education Margaret Spellings announced earlier today.
West Campus High School and Golden Empire Elementary School are the only schools in Sacramento County to win the award and two of 32 in the state. A total of 320 schools nationwide received the designation this year.
“This is a credit to the hard work at the schools and that includes the administration, teachers, support staff, and, of course, the students and their parents,” Interim Superintendent Susan E. Miller said. “We’re very proud of this prestigious accomplishment. Now, we’ll take time to have collegial discussions so that we can replicate their extraordinary work at our other sites.”
The No Child Left Behind-Blue Ribbon Schools Program honors schools that are either academically superior or demonstrate dramatic gains in student achievement to high levels. The schools are selected based on one of two criteria:
• schools with at least 40 percent of their students from disadvantaged backgrounds that dramatically improve student performance to high levels on state tests; and
• schools whose students, regardless of background, achieve in the top 10 percent of their state on state tests or in the case of private schools in the top 10 percent of the nation on nationally-normed tests.
Under No Child Left Behind, schools must make Adequate Yearly Progress, or AYP, in reading (language arts) and mathematics. Each state—not the federal government—sets its own academic standards and benchmark goals. 
Irene Eister, the principal at Golden Empire, said that her community has supported the intense effort to ensure each child succeeds at her school site. “This means our constant hard work has been validated,” Eister said. It is all of us working hand in hand to get the best possible education for all of our students. All of us work together. We cannot do it by ourselves.”
Evelyn Baffico, the second-year principal at West Campus said the award was not only a reflection of the work being done on her campus, but of the entire district. “West Campus did not do this alone,” Baffico said. “It started at home and continued into preschool and kindergarten. We have to share this with every school that impacted these students. I want to thank every parent, preschool, elementary school and middle school who helped these students achieve.”
A total of 413 schools nationwide can be nominated. This number is determined based on the number of K-12 students and the number of schools in each state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The Chief State School Officer (CSSO) nominates public schools, and the Council for American Private Education (CAPE) submits private schools' nominations. The schools are invited by Secretary Spellings to submit an application for possible recognition as a No Child Left Behind-Blue Ribbon School. This year's winners will be honored at an awards ceremony in Washington, D.C. on October 20-21.
2 Sacramento Schools Receive National Honor
320 Schools Nationwide Receive Award
UPDATED: 4:51 pm PDT September 9, 2008
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Two Sacramento City schools were named 2008 No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon Schools, district officials said Tuesday.
West Campus High School and Golden Empire Elementary School were the only schools in Sacramento County to receive the award.
A total of 320 schools nationwide were named Blue Ribbon Schools.
“This is a credit to the hard work at the schools and that includes the administration, teachers, support staff, and, of course, the students and their parents,” Interim Superintendent Susan E. Miller said.
The award honors schools that are either academically superior or have a dramatic increase in academic achievement, officials said.
Region has four schools on federal blue ribbon list
Published 12:00 am PDT Wednesday, September 10, 2008
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell released a list Tuesday of 27 public schools and five private schools identified by the federal Department of Education as No Child Left Behind blue ribbon schools.
Four were in the Sacramento region: Oak Ridge High School in El Dorado Union High School District; Granite Oaks Middle School in Rocklin Unified; and Golden Empire Elementary and West Campus High School, both in Sacramento City Unified.
The schools are selected based on one of two criteria:
• Schools with at least 40 percent of their students from disadvantaged backgrounds that dramatically improve student performance to high levels on state tests.
• Schools whose students, regardless of background, achieve in the top 10 percent on state tests, or in the case of private schools, in the top 10 percent of the nation on nationally normed tests.
– Bee Metro Staff