Stop the Money Grab

May 2, 2014 by
Filed under: Finances 

Prior to 2013, California funded specific education programs via Categorical Programs. One of those categorical programs was called Beginning Teachers Support and Assessment (BTSA).  The program was designed to allow school districts to certify new teachers fulfilled the requirements to receive a clear credential. Given the complexity of this work, many school districts joined consortiums to effective administer the program. The East Bay BTSA Induction Consortium (EBBIC) consisted of five school districts: Alameda, Berkeley, Newark, San Leandro and San Lorenzo.

With the implementation of Local Control Funding Formula, categorical funding was eliminated and each school district LCFF base grant was established based on 2012/13 funding. However, because BTSA funds from Alameda, Berkeley, San Leandro and San Lorenzo went directly to Newark, Newark LCFF base grant is overstated. As a result, Alameda, Berkeley, San Leandro and San Lorenzo will not receive credit of prior year BTSA funds in their LCFF base grant.

For the 2013/14 Newark’s LCFF revenues are projected to be over $750,000 higher due to BTSA monies received from the four other school districts. Alameda will lose over $150,000 on an annual basis and ongoing basis. This will continue until LCFF is fully implemented. Newark will receive over $2 million while the other school districts in the consortium will receive $0.

Despite efforts to rectify this situation, Newark school district is resisting attempts to share funds with the four school districts. Pleasanton Unified, another fiscal agent for a BTSA consortium, will be receiving additional funding. However, unlike Newark, Pleasanton Unified is continuing to share funds with consortium members.

If you believe Newark school district should share the BTSA with the four other school districts, please sign this petition.



13 Comments on Stop the Money Grab

  1. paul on Mon, 5th May 2014 1:34 pm
  2. You have a typo in the petition.
    The last paragraph starts “Newark school district needs to the right thing and share former BTSA funds…” and should probably have the word “do” between “needs to” and “the right”.

    Petitions with spelling or grammatical errors have less credibility, IMO.

  3. beth on Mon, 5th May 2014 1:43 pm
  4. Would like to know why safeguards were not put in place to guard against this?

  5. MikeMcMahonAUSD on Mon, 5th May 2014 2:16 pm
  6. Paul: Thanks for catching the typo. Corrected.
    Beth: The Legislature had a big task in rewriting California’s funding of public education. They will be working on technical fixes for years to come.

  7. Beatrice on Mon, 5th May 2014 2:25 pm
  8. What has the Alameda school board done so far to address this problem? Has the Board, in conjunction with Berkeley, San Leandro and San Lorenzo, sent a demand letter to Newark USD for their share? Isn’t some public shaming warranted here?

  9. Kimberly on Mon, 5th May 2014 4:44 pm
  10. Thanks Mike for putting this together. We are all in this together (all schools/districts) and I hope that we can convince Newark that if the situation was reversed, that we too would do the right thing for all students/teachers (and not just our own).
    May we act with grace and persistence.

    Lastly, here’s a link to an article on this from last week that was shared with me.

  11. John on Mon, 5th May 2014 6:36 pm
  12. Would there be any value to attending Newark’s school board meeting and asking the board members themselves for their side of the story? And possibly to persuade them to share the money as intended.

  13. Mike McMahon on Mon, 5th May 2014 7:02 pm
  14. Beatrice/John: At the April 8th Alameda BOE meeting the board approved sending the Superintendent to a Newark school board meeting to ask them to reconsider their position. This action was based on the letter sent to four Superintendents and signed by the CBOs of the four school districts.
    Along with Superintendent, the Alameda Education Association president was present to represent Alameda teachers affected by this inaction on the Newark’s part.

  15. Margie Sherratt on Tue, 6th May 2014 6:21 am
  16. I also attended and spoke to the Newark Board of Education meeting, as did the other Board Presidents representing their districts. I believe we all sent a powerful statement to the Newark Board of Education, who have unfortunately so far have chosen to ignore our outrage. This petition will continue to let them know that we are not going to simply let this issue rest.

  17. Mike McMahon on Tue, 6th May 2014 6:46 am
  18. Margie: Sorry I did not mention the presence of Board Presidents at the Newark school board meeting.

  19. Jon Spangler on Thu, 5th Jun 2014 1:05 pm
  20. It has been a month since the last comment was posted here. Is there any news on this issue?

  21. Mike McMahon on Thu, 5th Jun 2014 1:30 pm
  22. The only development of note is the Newark Superintendent unexpectedly resigned recently. There is not movement from Newark Unified to change their minds on this issue.

    AUSD has gone ahead and made arrangements for Beginning Teacher Support and Assistance in a contract with West Contra Costa Unified at a cost of approximately $200,000 from the General Fund.

  23. Mike McMahon on Thu, 5th Jun 2014 1:57 pm
  24. Here is the newspaper article on the Superintendent’s resignation:

    It is not clear how the poor relations between the Board and the Superintendent played a role in the school board’s refusal to change their position on BTSA funding.

  25. Mike McMahon on Mon, 25th Aug 2014 11:22 am
  26. To close the loop on this matter. Assembly Member Bonta was able to get legislation passed that will provide Alameda Unified along the other school distircts with one additional year of funding.

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!