It seems as if it was only yesterday that the California Legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger reached agreement on a budget for the current year.  Before the ink on the budget documents had dried, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office released a report indicating that California faced a shortfall to the tune of $6.1 billion, for the current year.  That prompted the Governor to declare a state of fiscal emergency, and to convene a special session of the Legislature, which is set to begin December 6.  That's the same day members of the new Legislature will take the oath of office.  Welcome aboard, ladies and gentlemen!

If you think our legislators are under pressure, consider the plight of Governor-Elect Jerry Brown.  Article IV, Section 12 of the California Constitution contains the following requirement:  "Within the first 10 days of each calendar year, the Governor shall submit to the Legislature, with an explanatory message, a budget for the ensuing fiscal year containing itemized statements for recommended state expenditures and estimated state revenues.  If recommended expenditures exceed estimated revenues, the Governor shall recommend the sources from which the additional revenues should be provided."  Mr. Brown will be inaugurated on January 3, 2011.  As one might imagine, he has already immersed himself in the task of framing a budget.  As this recent Los Angeles Times article details, the going will not be easy.
 
While the budget to be presented by Governor Brown in January will provide an important indication of his thinking regarding sources of revenue, and candidates for cutbacks, it will retain the status of a work in progress, subject to dynamic revenue projections, political advocacy, and pushback from state agencies and myriad interest groups.  Consider the fact that in his last budget message (issued in January, 2010), Governor Schwarzenegger declared: "My budget calls for even greater reductions in nearly every aspect of state government than were necessary in 2009."  Yet, nine months later, Mr. Schwarzenegger affixed his signature to the largest budget in California's history.

Once the governor has presented a preliminary budget, the process generally proceeds as follows:  Budget bills are introduced in both houses of the state legislature.  In February, the Legislative Analyst produces an "Analysis of the Budget Bill."  With this information in hand, the Assembly Budget Committee and the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee direct a number of sub-committees, organized by major subject areas (including education) to conduct hearings.  Representatives of the Legislative Analyst's office, the state Department of Finance, state agencies, and interested members of the public typically testify before these subcommittees.  Prior to April 1, the Department of Finance is required to provide legislators with proposed adjustments to the budget in all areas save for capital outlay adjustments, which are due by May 1.
 
In May, the governor submits a revised budget (known fittingly enough as the "Governor's May Revision").  By this time, the legislative subcommittees have generally concluded their hearings, and the budget bills are deliberated by their respective standing committees before proceeding to the floors of the Assembly and Senate.  In previous years, the budget bills required two-thirds approval of the respective chambers, but with the recent passage of Proposition 25, a simple majority will now suffice.  Once the bills have been passed by their respective houses, a conference committee in convened to reconcile differences.  The conference version is then sent back to each house for approval.  Once approved, the bill is delivered to the governor for signature, or veto.

Readers wishing to follow this year's budget process, may find several resources to be helpful.  A flowchart providing a visual depiction of the budgeting process can be found, here.  (Note: this document continues to contain the 2/3 vote requirements that were reduced to a simple majority by Proposition 25.)  The Department of Finance provides information on the proposed, revised, and enacted (current) budget, here.  Budget-related information from the state Legislative Analyst's Office can be found, here.  EdSource provides a series of articles explaining California's system of financing public education, here.
 
Finally, to better understand the obstacles facing our incoming lawmakers regarding the funding of public education, readers may wish to download a free copy of an EdSource publication titled, "School Finance 2009-10: Budget Cataclysm and its Aftermath."

If necessity is, indeed, the mother of invention, public schools around the country are likely to embark upon a period of widespread innovation.  With national unemployment still flirting with double digit territory, state budgets facing mounting deficits, and a Republican-controlled House of Representatives that is unlikely to countenance further stimulus spending, school districts in California and elsewhere will be induced to explore novel options.
 
With education "stimulus money" drying up, and one-time, federal "edujobs" money already obligated, teacher layoffs and terminations portend higher class sizes.  An article appearing in the current edition of Education Week examines the development, and outlines several novel responses.  The author notes that while class sizes, nationally, have dropped from 17.6 to 15.8, on average, over the period extending from 1980 to 2008, the figures are misleading because they include special education teachers who typically work with significantly fewer students.  For this reason, the U.S. Department of Education estimates the average ("regular") class size to be closer to 25 students, nationally.
 
Research on the effects of class size on student achievement remain inconclusive.  It is difficult to parse out confounding effects associated with teachers, students, and other variables.  In California, for example, legislation passed in 1996 mandated a state-wide maximum of 20 students per classroom in grades K-3, inclusive.  Because the law made no allowance for a phase-in period, its implementation produced an immediate shortage of credentialed teachers.  At the same time, existing collective bargaining agreements made it possible for more veteran teachers in harder-to-staff, inner-city schools (generally enrolling the most challenging students) to fill newly created slots in suburban campuses.  As a consequence, those schools enrolling students in need of the most capable teachers found themselves staffed by a high proportion of novice instructors holding emergency teaching permits.  The RAND Corporation noted such unanticipated outcomes in a 2002 study.

Social Networking and Education

Here's a new online resource hub for those of you interested in exploring, and utilizing a variety of social networking and Web 2.0 tools as instructional adjuncts.  The resource is organized into the following sections:

• Articles for Understanding the Importance of Social Media in Education
• Some Basics (includes a social media reading list and a Twitter guide for teachers)
• Videos Explaining the Social Media "Revolution"
• Frameworks
• Tools
• Blogs to Follow
• Wikis
• Tips for Building Your Network and Connecting With Teachers
• Social Networks for Teachers
• Further Linking
• On Twitter - tech savvy educators to connect with

(OK...so maybe their syntax is a bit off, but a number of the links lead to material that appears to be interesting and useful.)

A Pension Reform Proposal in San Diego

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders has called for a ballot proposition that would provide all newly hired city employees, with the exception of police and firefighters, with 401K retirement plans in lieu of current government pensions.  In a November 19, 2010 press release, the mayor said: "Eliminating pensions is a radical idea in municipal government, but we must acknowledge that we cannot sustain the current defined-benefit system, which was designed in another era for completely different circumstances."  To that he added, "Public employees are now paid salaries comparable to those in the private sector, and there's simply no reason they should enjoy a far richer retirement benefit than anyone else."  The mayor's prosal represents a shift away from current "defined benefit" pensions to a "defined contribution" arrangement.  The exemption of police and firefighters is seen as making the proposal more politically viable.  More on this, and related pension reform developments can be found, here.

Today marks the international DVD release date of film maker Bob Bowdon's award winning documentary, "The Cartel."  The film examines corruption in New Jersey's public education system while pointing to the promise of school choice.  Garden State Governor Chris Christie provides a brief video endorsement of "The Cartel," here.  Bob Bowdon's Huffington Post blog can be viewed, here, exceprts from the film can be viewed, here, and copies of "The Cartel" DVD can be ordered from the film's website, here.

The conventional wisdom has it that Minnesota Republican Congressman John Kline is all but certain to succeed California Democratic Representative George Miller as Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor.  In a recent Washington Times op-ed column, Mr. Kline appears to have offered the public a glimpse into the philosophical underpinnings that are likely to inform his approach to the crafting of education-related legislation.

In fine Socratic fashion, Mr. Kline launches his piece by framing a pair of questions (that are evocative of the synectics fad):  "What does a third grade classroom have in common with a construction site?" And, "how do school lunches relate to small businesses?"  He then proceeds to inform the reader that both education and the workforce: "are vital to America's continued economic success...require flexibility and adaptability...[and] rely on constant innovation to keep pace with rapid changes."  One senses that these observations are but prefatory to the following declaration: "And in both cases, excessive federal intervention does far more harm than good."  

He continues:  "When the new Congress is gaveled into session in January, our guiding principle must be for the federal government to do no harm in our schools or on our job sites.  And far too many teachers, principals, and state leaders feel constrained in their ability to improve the status quo because of layers of bureaucracy and onerous federal mandates."  

It is difficult to imagine a more transparent indication of intent to purge a reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act of the punitive accountability mandates found in No Child Left Behind.  And, in the very same stroke, Mr. Kline strongly hints that he is disposed to grant enhanced decision making authority and lattitude to states and local school districts.  "What makes us think," he asks, "bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. can manage our classrooms and prepare our children for success any more effectively than qualified teachers and engaged local school boards?"  (Note that the word "highly" is conspicuously absent prior to the words "qualified teachers.")

Mr. Kline then plunges into murkier waters by interjecting a somewhat puzzling set of questions: "Although most of the hard work will be done far outside of Washington, one early step we in Congress can take to improve our schools and workplaces is to thoroughly examine the costs, benefits, and consequences of current federal programs and interventions.  With myriad federal education programs already on the books, it is only reasonable to ask what specific and necessary function every individual program or initiative is serving.  Is each and every program delivering results?  How much time must school administrators spend filling out grant applications and writing reports for the federal government?  Would education improve if the policies coming out of Washington were simpler and more narrowly focused?"

These questions are puzzling because they emanate from the ranking Republican member of the congressional committee tasked with overseeing the very programs in question.  Most of these programs were enacted with significant bipartisan support.  And, because the presumptive chairman makes a point of referencing "every individual program or initiative," this doesn't appear to be code for: Now that we Republicans have gained control of the committee, we're going to revisit President Obama's pet programs, including the Race to the Top, and Investing in Innovation Funds.  In this writer's opinion, Mr. Kline's littany of questions is code for something else.  To wit: If we move in the direction of federalism, be prepared for accompanying reductions in federal education spending.
 
My read of the still settling tea leaves is that a Republican-majority House of Representatives is likely to significantly reduce, if not jettison funding for the Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation funds.  It must be recalled that these programs were bankrolled by "one-time" federal stimulus funds, and are not part of the federal government's regular fiscal year 2010 budget.  I look for the incoming, Republican-controlled House to trade off increased local discretionary control of federal education resources at the cost of level (regular budget) funding, in the best case, and, quite possibly, widespread (if not deep) reductions that spare only Title I and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 

Normally, I would expect a newly salient crop of Republican members of Congress to abandon their campaign rhetoric and succumb to the inflationary temptations of incumbency.  But the emergence of the Tea Party will, I think, constrain such largesse.  At least this time around.  Time will tell.

Ron Reynolds