Director of Instructional Technology and Learning

What does it mean that a new position, never seen before in DJUSD, can be “revenue neutral”?

It means it will cost no more to fund the new technology organizational structure for DJUSD than the old structure.  The new full-time Director of Instructional Technology and Learning position was created to address increasing instructional complexity and growing needs of DJUSD students.  Resources for it were gathered primarily from the currently vacant “Network Administrator” position, one that has outlived its technical/organizational viability.  Salaries have been adjusted in the updated organizational plan such that expenses of the following elements of this equation are equal on both sides:

[Old org chart $$] Network Admin + Dir. of Tech  =  [New org chart $$] Dir. of IT & Learning + Dir. of Tech

So does DJUSD really need another administrative position, one focused on Instructional Technology?  

The answer to this question will vary, depending on one’s perspective.

Perspective A:  This perspective is comfortable with what we’ve been doing for generations of students.

Perspective B:  This individual is aware that students are changing rapidly, and that learning doesn’t happen like it used to.  This person is uneasy with last year’s lesson plans.  He/she sympathizes with families who are facing modern life challenges brought about by increased mobility, variable family dynamics, circumstances addressed by networked living in which children are nurtured by extended family and community resources.  This person recognizes that learning is something their students do every waking moment, and that opportunities to learn abound outside the school boundaries.  This person also recognizes this condition of constant learning is made possible by the tools made possible by pervasive computer technology, and that students swim in an ocean of connectivity.  This person also swims in that same ocean.

So, depending on which perspective one embraces, the answer to the posed question above will be quite different.  Educators from both perspectives are hurting, but for very different reasons.  Students also are hurting, and evidence for this arrives regularly on our doorstep in the form of our increasing achievement gap.  Over recent years, educator leaders in DJUSD from both the teaching and administrative ranks have identified our deficits in instructional technology as being central to that which is needed for DJUSD to rise to the level of excellence as demonstrated by districts like ourselves, districts who are closing the achievement gap through implementation of structures which include professional growth for all, student-focused learning strategies, and modern resource allocation strategies.  Not only has our investment in “switches & boxes” lagged, we have not invested the attention required to see that any investment in technology produces dividends in student learning.

We are not alone

One CA educator, not in our district, is Tom Torlakson, the CA State Superintendent of Education, and he is directing considerable resources to closing the gap between the structure of most CA public schools and the children of the State of California.  Why California is only now waking up to smell the tech-coffee is no mystery.  When every education dollar spent goes to keeping food on educators’ tables while the rest of the developed world is trying to figure out the role of the Internet in learning, a particular kind of deficit-worldview has become institutionalized.  Forty years following the passage of Prop. 13, California discovers itself at the very bottom of the heap in some measures, in the bottom five in all others.

When one looks at school districts across CA, performance is widely variable, particularly in the way we educate those less able to educate themselves.  The “achievement gap” is the result of the system’s apparent inability to provide equal access and opportunity for learning.   As Torlakson looks across the state, he sees very similar districts with wildly variable success in solving the very same problems.

It has become extremely apparent that much of the variability among districts has to do with the way they have gone about organizing their resources around the 21st century teaching/learning task.  Districts that have managed to move away from silo-oriented instruction toward true community/professional collaborative models using technology-supported PLCs and instructional tools have seen the greatest gains in student achievement.  It has also become apparent that directing resources toward “more of the same” instruction we’ve done for the past 100 years is not the answer

So what’s a State Superintendent to do?  Why, you commission a task force to get information for putting the train back on its track.  Here’s what came out of Torlakson’s instructional Technology Task Force:  State of CA Technology Task Force Recommendations 081612.  If you’ve bothered to read this far, you’d be smart to read the first few pages of this report to appreciate the full breadth and depth of the need in DJUSD.

Where are we going?

A quick look at the bulleted recommendations in the first three pages reveals the scope of considerations districts need to be making.  Especially in the context of economic recession, it is clear that the needs of school districts to address issues of learning and instruction in the modern era are light years beyond the wires and pliers technology departments of yesteryear.

DJUSD has found a way to not increase the cost of administration while redirecting limited resources today’s problems.  The reorganization of instructional technology under certificated leadership brings to bear educators with the talents and tools required to address student learning needs and teacher professional growth beyond the piecemeal efforts of the past.  It is an effort well worth supporting.

Looking forward through foggy relief

We go public with this blog the day after California voters have approved Prop. 30, and Davis voters have approved Measure E, both measures being an affirmation of the value citizens place on public education.  Measure E is, in particular, an expression of support from the citizens of Davis who have long acknowledged the unique neglect public education has suffered in California.  That they continue to support their public schools with such commitment and sacrifice in the midst of the Great Recession is humbling, and we are grateful to them for their faith in us.

The passage of these measures also removes the specter of imminent labor conflict between DJUSD and the Davis Teachers Association.  As has been detailed in previous posts on this blog – please read below – this conflict has been ill-conceived and entirely unnecessary, bringing this system so highly treasured by Davis citizens to the edge of labor warfare because the State of California cannot see fit to put its schools on a decent financial foundation.  Inflammatory rhetoric, half-truths and divisive communication has characterized the communication style of past DTA leadership, establishing a path of certain conflict which would have led to a strike next spring had Prop. 30 and Measure E not been approved.  It also put in place an extremely unhealthy foundation for negotiations over contract renewal in Spring of 2013.

Considering the toxic state of affairs existing between DJUSD and DTA leadership, we strongly request the DTA Executive Board and Negotiators respect the dramatically demonstrated trust placed in Davis teachers by their community and return to communicating with the board of trustees they have elected, and negotiate in good faith and good will.

Specifically, we request DTA Executive Board and Negotiators adopt the following measures:

• Return to genuine “interest-based bargaining” as formally defined, acknowledging that the interests of the City of Davis including parents and students, the Davis Board of Education, DJUSD administrative staff, and members of the DTA bargaining unit are, while at times divergent, are inextricably bound and worthy of civil discussion and intelligent problem-solving.
• Immediately schedule regular and recurring meetings with the district Chief Business Officer in order to establish a common and ongoing understanding of the state of DJUSD finances.  The fiscal impact of Prop. 30 will undoubtedly bring much new information and complexity into this realm over coming months, and a shared understanding of district finances will be to the benefit of all.
• To the degree DTA leadership continues to advocate “reasonable program cuts” as a means to a negotiated end, engage with DTA membership, district staff, and members of the board to make specific recommendations to that effect, acknowledging that “program cuts” equate to layoffs of DTA membership.
• Respond to the questions and concerns of the entire DTA membership to render this blog unnecessary.  When contract terms are considered or proposed which impact some subgroup of the membership inequitably (such as refusing to negotiate around budget cuts resulting in P.K.S. layoffs and workload increases for a minority), communicate the terms of negotiations and likely outcomes to the entire membership, laying out the options available within the frame of negotiation.
• Create structures within DTA that guarantee its representatives (Rep Council, Executive Board and the negotiating team) are truly representing the majority.  Design and implement regular, transparent surveys to take the measure of what your members think and feel, and make sure policies pursued reflect the majority position, not a vocal minority or the personal position of leadership.
• Reflect on all future public communications and actions that impact the image of Davis teachers and their relationship to the Davis community before communicating and taking any action, acknowledging our actual dependence on their good will and ongoing financial support.  Members of the community must not feel their trust has been abused solely for the purpose of teacher benefit.

It’s only about Us…

… because right now, “Them” is 37,000,000 citizens of California.

To our Davis Teacher Colleagues,

For many months, the Davis teacher-creators of this blog space have been frustrated in our attempts to understand the current troubled communications that exist between DJUSD and the Davis Teachers Association of which we are a part.  We have pleaded privately with DTA leadership for greater transparency and civility in their public rhetoric, and when that failed we pleaded publicly in the Davis Enterprise.

So, The Daylight is a voice which is different from DTA leadership which we feel has failed to represent us well, and we invite you to support or disagree with us here.  Please refer to the Community Comment Norms if you have any questions about this invitation.

Grudges and numbers

Since last year, the district has faced the possibility of a roughly $8,000,000 deficit should Proposition 30 and Measure E both fail.   In preparation, the district began talks with CSEA early this year, and has negotiated a 6-day furlough with them, contingent on the failure of Prop. 30 which would reduce education funding mid-2012-13. CSEA already took two days last year to avoid layoffs of their members. The district has also imposed additional mandatory furloughs on admin and confidential staff, if it doesn’t pass.  Only DTA has held out, insisting that the district does not need the ten days it has requested, but only five.  To our minds, and in our analysis of the district’s budget, as well as from conversations with the DJUSD Chief Business Officer, we are truly baffled at what monies DTA leadership believes is in the budget that could be allocated for those extra five days ($.9 million).

DTA leadership has shared what they believe to be ‘off’ in the budget, and their guesswork around such a fundamental issue is disturbing.  When it was pointed out to them following a presentation to DHS staff that they were counting monies twice in what they were stating the district had available to put toward salaries, they seemed unconcerned.  This casual regard for the numbers is shocking, especially considering the ease with which they tossed around the possibility of the current condition of impasse eventually leading to strike.  They justify their use of rubber numbers by referring to past offense they have taken during past negotiations, turning the welfare of Davis schools into a grudge match.

At the center of this righteous offense is the district’s request for a 5.5% ongoing pay cut from teachers last year.  This was the level of pay which would allow the district to continue programs as currently offered in the district.  DTA disrupted meetings, and then proclaimed victory when the district agreed to no pay cut, but there was no magic money falling from the sky as a result.  Like the effect of a “short sheet,” to cover the cost of teacher salaries with finite money, program was cut (people were laid off), and the only remaining option was to increase class sizes extremely.  In our neighboring districts, this shortfall was negotiated more deftly, resulting in a creatively-wrought combination of furlough days and modest program cuts with much less disruption to lives and educational program.

Dodging the details

Further evidence that the grudge weighs more heavily than an accurate read of the budget, we know that the DTA President has never met with the CBO since becoming president, nor have any district cabinet members been invited to a DTA rep council meeting so that current details of district finances could be shared in all its complexity.  DTA has said it ‘looked over the numbers’ and concluded the money was there. We are skeptical that DTA leadership understands the budget to any depth, and do not believe they have uncovered any rational source of funding to offset the five days of furlough on which the current impasse is based.

Now that the issue between DJUSD and DTA has escalated to a declared impasse, overseen by CA Public Employee Relations board (PERB), it is no longer a negotiation, but a judicial process overseen by the courts.  As such, filed court documents pertaining to the impasse are public record.  To try to understand the details of the argument, we requested the filings from the DTA President, and he declined to provide either the district or DTA filings as provided to PERB.  We then followed with a public records request from DJUSD, and we were provided with the DJUSD_final_MOU proposal 2012, detailing the contingency language offered by DJUSD negotiators.

We encourage you to examine the terms of the offer, and to communicate with colleagues and district officials as you see fit to satisfy yourself as to the fairness of this offer.

More DTA demands

According to our DTA President, negotiators have offered to consider additional furlough days in exchange for promises of future reimbursement over three years when times are better.  While this may make sense to some on the surface, consider that the state is not offering any such future reimbursement for this current funding shortfall.  That means that in exchange for permitting the district to operate within the funding given it by the state, DTA is willing to encumber future budgets.  That may be attractive to 2012-13 employees, but what about 2013-14 through 2015-16 employees?  The funding provided to fund those teachers will be depressed consequent to such promises made during a budget shortfall years prior.  This is fundamentally unfair to teachers, and will prevent any possible increases to salary and benefits for years to come.

To further justify their line in the sand, DTA leadership also mentions other potential sources of income to the district, namely the selling of real estate and other unspecified program cuts that could be made.  By state law, monies derived from the sale of district real estate can only be directed to the General Fund under the condition that the district has no capital needs, that our buildings and infrastructure are in perfect condition with no deferred maintenance. While some folks may not object to our facilities crumbling around us, state law prevents the use of proceeds from real estate sales for the General Fund while any such condition exists.

While leadership does not ever wish to specify which programs they see as expendable, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that behind every program is a teacher or group of teachers, that every program cut means teacher layoffs.  They are fond of decrying the growth of program in the district, but we have yet to hear DTA communicate to its membership, asking teachers to stop proposing new courses.   Instead, leadership wants the support of the district so they may do as they please professionally, and then blame the district when the money provided by the state fails to pay for it.  DTA leadership believes there is program that should be cut so that furloughs can be avoided.  Which program?  Which people?  Do you represent all DTA members or not?

Measure E in Davis

Measure E is an opportunity for a two-thirds majority of voters in Davis to continue to protect its educational system from the pathology that afflicts California’s funding priorities.  Davis voters have so far seen fit to spare students and teachers from the ravages of Prop. 13 and the recent recession.   Davis teachers have barely noticed the recession, that is, unless you are a K-3 teacher this school year.  That support has been at least a solid two-thirds, but it hasn’t been much more than two-thirds.  Support for district schools hangs on the good graces of Davis taxpayers who believe they are doing the right thing for the right reasons.

Given the sacrifices being seen state-wide and particularly in the public sector, we are deeply concerned about the impending vote on Measure E and the impact the public rejection of the district’s request by the teachers union may have on the election.  Going forward, we are concerned about union leadership which refuses to study budget documents and claims wisdom in areas in which it is ignorant.  We also fear that hard negotiating lines and refusal to consider the big picture of both local and statewide politics constitutes a failure to thoughtfully represent the broader membership.  Recent negotiated settlements have unfairly impacted early primary and core instructional teaching staff, while leaving others relatively untouched.

A survey that was done at the beginning of the year asked only what members would be willing to contribute (between 1 and 10 days), without providing the context for those days. It is our belief that true representation should be democratic:  open, transparent, carefully finding out each and everyone’s stance without having a preconceived agenda.  We are concerned that DTA has had an ongoing bitter and deep resentment of district leadership, and an irrational skepticism regarding the district’s claim on budget issues.  These approaches are leading them to miss the larger issues that reflect teacher’s interests.  We are making a call for change.

A voice for civility and thoughtful discourse

The following text was originally written as an Op-Ed for the Davis Enterprise, entitled Respectful talks can honor all needs, from May 16, 2012.

As members of the Davis Teachers Association we have been following the controversy around budget concerns and the publicized negotiations closely. We are very concerned that civility is being sacrificed for the sake of strength at the bargaining table, and we are particularly distressed that teachers’ ability to continue working with district staff and the Board after the negotiation period has passed is being put at risk and could be irreparably harmed.

Having just received the governor’s May revise of the state budget, the possibility that the state will face ‘trigger cuts’ if the Governor’s Tax Initiative does not pass in November should give us all pause.  If that happens, we will face an even greater crisis than we do now, and will require a deep well of good will on both sides of the negotiating table to come to reasonable agreements to best weather the storm.  If we are fortunate enough to recover some of the funding we have lost, we would like to see all stakeholders at the table prioritizing where it goes. We are concerned that by sowing mistrust and institutionalizing ill-will in the course of current negotiations, teachers will be undermining future opportunities for thoughtful collaboration with the board and district staff.

It is clear that California has chosen not to fund its system of public education to the degree necessary to prevent the current crisis.  The reality of our fiscal condition is not news, and it is certainly not anything different than what has been occurring across the state and nation for some time.  Schools in Davis have been spared much of the fallout of the recession due to the way in which  funds have been managed by district staff and the board, but it is clear that the days of being able to adapt to this fiscal contraction are behind us.  The recent news of an increasing budget deficit in the state only confirms what we know to be true.

Arguments regarding the fiscal state of the district have swirled around the question of exactly what is “real” and who can be seen to be telling the “truth” in district fiscal matters.  District financial books are open, and our experience is that so is the door to Associate Superintendent for Business Services Bruce Colby’s office to anyone in need of a clear explanation regarding district fiscal matters and the intense gamesmanship of the California State budgeting process.  We perceive that district staff is acting with openness and integrity, and nothing they have said in and out of contract negotiations can reasonably be characterized as untruthful or manipulative.

In past years district staff has utilized resources on a one-time basis to avoid the dire consequences of the recession.  These sources have included generous funds from the Davis Schools Foundations, savings due to retirement that added to attrition of the workforce, concessions made in the form of furlough days by both of our employee unions, and funds from the federal stimulus bills.  Each year, for anyone who was listening, staff also said “This isn’t going to last,” referring to our ability to continue bridging the deficit with one-time funds.  For the past two years, at least, presentations and budget documents from Mr. Colby have included projections for future years with the caution that while we avoided a fiscal collision in the current year, the funds we’re using now will not be available to us in 2012-2013.  Any positive projection was based solely on the state increasing ADA funding or repaying deferred payments to districts.  This year, there are no other one-time monies and deferments remain deferred.  Hard decisions are all that remain.  Yes, the Board could have made severe cuts several years ago, alleviating the need for one-time monies, but we don’t believe it was irresponsible that they did not.  We think they did what any of us would do….keep things running the way they are as long as possible.

But now, difficult decisions are at hand.  Solutions are few, and each one is painful because there is simply no money to sustain the current level of district expenditure.  It is vital that teachers and their representatives, rather than declaring that various district entities are failing to do their jobs, do sober and honest fact-finding and engage in calm discussions that lead to understanding of fiscal and programmatic realities.  We believe entering into negotiations declaring that both cuts and increasing class size are unacceptable, or that teachers and teachers alone have Davis students’ best interests at heart, is not a starting point for either respectful or productive dialogue.

Clearly, events have dictated a menu of rather stark choices.  The money available to serve the menu will not change, despite well-meaning but misguided declarations to the contrary.  On the menu are salary cuts, program cuts (layoffs) with the corollary effect of increased class sizes, instructional day cuts (furloughs), with the option of a la carte or serving up the least noxious combination plate.  District staff is responsible for presenting the option that minimizes the educational impact to the students, namely finding the savings in salary reduction.  DTA is responsible for representing teachers who themselves are paying increasing bills on stagnant salaries, sending their children to college, and recovering from decades of wildly escalating medical costs.  Given the realities we all face, it is our abiding hope that parties can communicate in the best spirit of the contract DTA signed with DJUSD three years ago.  Good people can talk to each other with respect and still honor the needs of all stakeholders. Even if our current response as a bargaining unit is to say ‘no’ to salary decreases, let’s do so politely and respectfully, and leave the door open for further conversation down the road, as well as set the tone for professional and positive interactions with our students and our community.