STATE SPANKS SUPERINTENDENT FOR ATTEMPTED THUGGERY

After yet another display of incompetence, the district was recently slapped in the face by the state for attempting to redirect Title 1 funds to schools that do not qualify for them. At first glance this may seem to be an altruistic gesture on the part of the district to share the wealth with schools that do not have sufficient low-income students to qualify for the categorical funding. The money would have been used to fund programs at Evergreen, for example, to aid students that fall into that category (low-income, underrepresented, low-performing).

However, the money would have been taken (stolen) from schools that need it most. In a series of episodes reminiscent of an Abbot and Costello skit, the state refused to allow the district to change the funding formula. If that was all there was to it, it wouldn’t be a story. The story is in those farcical episodes, demonstrating once again the superintendent’s lack of knowledge, communication, and tact.

The incident spans a three month long attempt on the part of the Sup to minimize local autonomy and wrest control away from site councils. School site councils, representing local stakeholders, are charged with, among other duties, distributing categorical funding to aid those students in low-income, underrepresented, and low performing categories. These funds are traditionally used to pay for recovery programs, professional development, counselors, and other opportunity programs that fit the requirements of the funding agency. Entitlement is based in part on the number of students qualifying for the free lunch program at the school.

The first attack on these funds came when a dispute erupted between the district and schools regarding the infamous 85/15 interpretation of the law. According to the guidelines for distribution of Title 1 federal funds, 85% must be spent on “direct” services to students; the remaining 15% may be used for administrative costs. Local site councils have traditionally interpreted this to apply to the District only. However, in January the Superintendent ordered a new interpretation to include local administrators, such as teachers on special assignment in an administrative role (academy managers, etc.). She unilaterally decided that each school must conform to the 85/15 rule, and eliminate any administrative position or “indirect service” which was paid for by Title 1 funds.

It was clear that a definitive ruling was needed. In the normal world one would assume that the question had been researched by the District prior to issuing such an edict, but it took an ironic coincidence to settle the matter once and for all. The County Office of Education was conducting training for representatives of the six schools qualifying for Title 1 funds. The training was to enable the schools to change their current restrictive status to one that would allow them greater freedom in allocating the funds. During the training, the 85/15 dispute was the topic of heated discussion among the participants, with one principal declaring that the District’s attempted manipulation of local affairs was “Bull----.”

Linda Aceves, the County representative in charge of the training finally put the question to rest by siding with the schools. The 85/15 restriction, she said, has always applied to the District only. In other words, the District may retain 15% of categorical funds for administrative purposes, while it is assumed that any funds spent at the local level are for “direct” student services (de facto).

Enter Esperanza Zendejas.

Zendejas was not present during the aforementioned discussion. When she arrived she roamed from group to group, observing the proceedings and chatting with the participants. As the day’s activities came to a close, to everyone’s surprise, she asked the same question of Aceves and was given the same answer.

It was as if she had been slapped in the face. She was visibly shaken. There was a long pregnant pause, after which she asked, “Who is ultimately responsible for control of how the funds are spent?” Aceves answered with a “buck stops here” response, which seemed to have been interpreted as vindication by Zendejas, who repeated, “In other words, the District is responsible for the distribution of the funds?” Aceves paused for a moment, then said, “Well, yes, ultimately.”

The surprise of the participants (principals, managers, teachers, and at least one parent, representing the various site councils) was not because Zendejas asked the question, but because she had not researched it before unilaterally putting her own interpretation into effect.

The “buck stops here” scenario is important because we, at Unruly, believe it led to the next episode in the Title 1 funding fiasco.

Thwarted in her efforts to manipulate Title 1 spending by using the 85/15 restriction, Zendejas came up with a new tactic — one that was even more Draconian (and bordering on illegal).

During the April principal’s meeting, Aurora Quevedo, at the direction of Zendejas, informed principals that they should cut back Title 1 budgets by an additional 10% at each qualifying site, the funds to be distributed among non-qualifying schools ostensibly to allow these schools to offer similar services to their low-income, underrepresented, low-performing students. Dr. Ana Lomas presented the “proposal” to Andrew Hill’s site council at their April 5th meeting, prompting a letter of complaint to the Superintendent by Julie Pratico and Chantal Chatman, AH site council officers.

Here is Zendejas’ reply:

Julie and Chantal,

I am in receipt of your letter date [sic] April 6, 2005 regarding the proposed formula for compensatory education funds. First, please accept my lack of knowledge regarding any proposed formula for distributing compensatory education funds for next year. The only discussion that has taken place is that of considering the possibility of requesting that the Board provide a formula for fund distribution for "under-performing" students at Oak Grove, Piedmont, Santa Teresa and Evergreen that qualify for compensatory monies. These schools currently do not receive any such funds.

I requested that Dr. Quevedo conduct further review of this information prior to any fund distribution changes or recommendations. I am aware that Dr. Lomas signed some documents indicating next year's budget regarding compensatory funds for Andrew Hill. If she has an objection to the allocations for next year, my recommendation is to have her withdraw her signature and state her opposition to the proposed allocation in writing.

In our most recent principal's meeting, there were no objections from your principal to consider spreading the funds to other students needing compensatory education services. Obviously, including more students to receive services would drive less dollars [sic] per current school site. Again, the request for more information to be brought back to the principal's meeting is pending.

Unless something else is not clear, your letter is premature as no decision has been recommended for any part of the organization regarding the distribution of compensatory funds for next year. Any such decision would have to be brought for Board approval before any implementation takes place.

Please feel free to contact me regarding any additional questions you may have.

Esperanza

The problem is Dr. Lomas refused to sign the “documents”, therefore cannot “withdraw her signature.”

The scene now returns to the County Title 1 training venue on April 6th. The new “proposal” had replaced the 85/15 controversy as the topic of heated discussion. Again, Linda Aceves was put in the role of mediator and interpreter, again siding with the schools. In fact, she seemed quite astonished that such a proposal would even be considered.

Enter Dr. Quevedo.

Aceves questioned Quevedo about the “proposal”. Quevedo lowered her head, like a child who’d been rebuked, and said that the state had refused to consider any change in the formula for Title 1 fund distribution.

Some key inconsistencies need to be exposed:

1. In her reply to the Pratico/Chatman letter, Zendejas claims to have a “lack of knowledge” of the redistribution plan, while contradicting herself by admitting such discussions took place.
2. Zendejas claims at least one principal (AH’s Lomas) signed “documents” in support of the “proposal”.
3. Her ignorance of the issue notwithstanding, Zendejas admits to directing Quevedo to review the “proposal”.
4. While claiming ignorance, Zendejas suggests that Lomas “state her objections to the proposed allocations in writing.” If it never happened, how can there be “proposed allocations”?

It is apparent that there is a disturbing lack of communication between the Superintendent and her minions. It is also obvious that the District shoots and asks questions later. The confusion and frustration these incidents have caused at the affected schools has contributed to expressions of distrust and anger, not to mention the confusion about how to manage a budget that is constantly subjected to thuggery by the District — a District that acts out of ignorance of the law, then claims “a lack of knowledge” or blames others.