Layoff Notices Going to 113 La Mesa-Spring Valley Teachers

Preparing for a “worst-case scenario” in the state budget, the La Mesa-Spring Valley school board Tuesday night voted to issue preliminary layoff notices to 113 teachers.

That’s 70 percent more than first suggested by the board’s budget vote Feb. 15, when officials said they would eliminate 65 positions in the 21-school K-8 district.

The bulk of the possible layoffs—62—would come in the elementary schools, including early admission kindergarten, according to district documents (see attached). 

Six counselors would be let go, along with at least 30 middle school teachers—the result of sixth-graders staying with their elementary schools instead of moving up to one of four middle schools in the 12,300-student district.

At 8:31 p.m.—with little discussion but having heard Spring Valley parent Emperor Abawag plead with members to spare special-education teachers like the one helping his autistic son—the board voted 5-0 to approve the pink slips, with board member Emma Turner saying, “Aye, with regret.”

Claudia Bender, assistant superintendent of personnel, said the state Education Code would determine which teachers would be tapped for layoffs, mainly based on seniority.

“This is what we call the worst-case scenario,” Bender told the board and an audience of a dozen meeting at district offices on Date Avenue. But she said a possibility exists that “it could remain at 113 or go down to 50 [layoffs],” depending on signals from the state on how much money local schools would get.

Under state law, schools have to issue preliminary layoff notices by March 15 and final layoff notices by mid-May. But since the state budget might not be known until June—after a possible state ballot on extending taxes—school districts are left to guess on how many to let go.

In February, the school board also signaled layoffs could hit 15 classified employees—such as office staffers.

Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposal to extend certain taxes via a statewide ballot arose Tuesday when former school board candidate Jay Steiger urged the board to add an item to the board agenda without the usual public notice.

Steiger, reading from the Ralph M. Brown Act and citing its “emergency” clause, asked the board to consider a resolution urging state lawmakers to call for a vote—which would provide extra money to local schools.

Despite Brown’s efforts, Steiger said, “There has been no action in Sacramento yet. … It requires a bipartisan vote. Unfortunately ... the Republican caucus has been unwilling to negotiate on this.”

Agreeing that an emergency might exist to allow the item to be placed on that night’s agenda without the mandatory 72-hour notice, schools Superintendent Brian Marshall said: “You can make an argument there’s a need for a [board] resolution.”

But board member Penny Halgren said she doubted that such a resolution—in favor of holding a statewide tax-extension vote—“would have enough influence to swing the [lawmaker] vote.”

Concerned about violating the Brown Act, board member Bill Baber said it would be hard to justify this action as being an emergency, since the lack of movement in Sacramento has been known for some time.

Still, Turner requested a vote on whether to add the agenda item. But the board voted 4-1 (with Turner dissenting) not to allow discussion of the resolution Tuesday night.

The issue could return at the March 15 board meeting, however, or possibly earlier if a special meeting is called. But district officials noted that March 15 would be too late to consider such a resolution if the state Legislature hasn’t met Secretary of State Debra Bowen’s deadline for a decision in time for a June 7 primary election vote.

Another state requirement loomed large Tuesday—La Mesa-Spring Valley’s status as a program-improvement district in its third year of state Board of Education scrutiny.

Under provisions of the federal No Child Left Behind Act, school districts with persistent low test scores in math and language arts can be sanctioned—even taken over by the state or dissolved altogether—if they don’t achieve certain standards for three years.

But in a long PowerPoint presentation by Karen Walker, assistant superintendent for instruction, the board learned there was little chance the worst would befall La Mesa-Spring Valley at the state board’s March 9 meeting, when it’s expected to take action.

“Does that mean they’ll fire me, the principals or teachers?” Walker said. Not really, she suggested.

The state board will take “corrective action,” however—probably asking La Mesa-Spring Valley to adopt recommendations it’s already being put into place involving teacher training and other initiatives. (See attached status report.)

In fact, hundreds of school districts in the state are in the same boat as La Mesa-Spring Valley—failing to meet standards for three years, and “the state couldn’t possibly [operate] 235 districts,” Baber said. Later, a website search found 359 districts with “program-improvement” status.

Baber noted what he called a 5 percent improvement in the share of La Mesa-Spring Valley students meeting state academic goals and recalled a meeting he and Walker had with Rep. Duncan D. Hunter in which the problem with federal law was described.

“It’s unfair for us to improve by 5 percent and call it a failure,” Baber said. “I don’t think our congressman knew that’s the way we were being measured. … I don’t think he grasped that we would be getting better and called a failure.”