California's Children

Public schools: fewer librarians, nurses; more counselors, social workers

May 17, 2012: A report released by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing finds that California issued 11% fewer service credentials to school nurses, librarians, administrators, speech-language pathologists, and pupil personnel (counselors, psychologists, social workers) in the five years between 2006-2011; during the same period, schools employed 9% fewer credentialed service people. 

Joanna Lin, reporting for California Watch:

School nurse credentials saw the biggest drop, with just 209 issued in 2010-11 – a 26% decline from 2006-07. At the same time, the number of school nurses employed in public schools fell by 13% to 2,474.

The number of credentials issued also fell by 19% for administrative services and school social workers, and 10% for school psychologists. Except for school social workers, whose ranks rose 20%, schools employed fewer service staff in all these areas than they did five years ago.

...Just 895 teacher librarians were employed in 2010-11 -– 339 fewer than 5 years earlier.

California awarded 504 language, speech and hearing credentials in 2010-11 – a 40% increase over 5 years. At the same time, however, the number of speech-language pathology waivers remains high [when there are not enough credentialed individuals to fill positions], with 439 waivers issued in 2010-11.

Only school counselors saw an increase in both the number of credentials issued and employment. The 1,166 school counseling credentials issued in 2010-11 represented a 15% jump over 2006-07.

The commission said the growing numbers of school counselors and school social workers, whose ranks climbed 20% to 417 in 2010-11, could be attributed in part to the Quality Education Investment Act of 2006 (provides funding for the state's lowest-performing schools).

For this report, staff was able to merge for the first time Commission data on services credential candidates with employment data collected through the Professional Assignment Information Form (PAIF), which is part of the California Basic Education Data System (CBEDS).

Written for California's Children by Elizabeth J Carlyle.

 

Brown's new budget cuts detailed by Bee

Capitol Alert in the Sacramento  Bee released this afternoon Brown's revised  budget for mid-year trigger cuts based on the state Department of Finance's recommendations due to revenue shortfalls [emphases ours]:

Effective Jan. 1, 2012:
-- Reduce vertical prosecution grants, which allow county prosecutors and investigators to remain involved as cases work through the judicial system. Savings: $14.6 million
-- Extend Medi-Cal cuts and copays to managed care plans. Savings: $8.6 million
-- Undefined cut to Department of Developmental Services. Savings: $100 million
-- Reduce In-Home Supportive Services hours by 20 percent, eliminate local anti-fraud funding. (A federal judge has temporarily blocked the service hours cut.) Assumed savings: $101.5 million
-- Undefined cut to Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Savings: $20 million
-- Reduction in state-subsidized child care. Savings: $23 million
-- Elimination of school bus service funding. (K-12 districts say this will likely result in cuts elsewhere so federally mandated bus services can continue.) Savings: $248 million
-- Eliminate state grants to local libraries. Savings: $15.9 million
-- Undefined cut to University of California. Savings: $100 million
-- Undefined cut to California State University. Savings: $100 million
-- Reduction to California Community Colleges. (Will result in $10/unit fee hike starting in the summer 2012 term.) Savings: $102 million
-- Charge counties $125,000 for housing juvenile offenders. Savings $67.7 million

Effective Feb. 1, 2012:
-- Cut general funding to K-12 schools. Savings: $79.6 million

Triggers: we'll know the bad news by Thursday

At left, Camille Maben, director of the state Dept. of Education, Child Development Div., and Patty Siegel, retiring executive director of the California Child Care Resource and Referral Network. Both women seen here in happier days for the world of  child care/early ed.

The state Department of Finance is expected to announce no later than Thursday what level of triggers will be pulled on public expenses, per the budget agreement last June (if certain revenue expectations were not reached, two tiers of cuts would ensue, respectively).

The midyear cuts could total as much as $2.5 billion, depending on the calculations of the Finance Dept.

As Kevin Yamamura reminds us in today's Sacramento Bee:

..."Child care providers are concerned," said Patty Siegel, executive director of the California Child Care Resource and Referral Network, who is hoping to avoid a $23 million cut to child care after facing a $412 million reduction this summer. "Those already on the cusp of closing are wondering, is this the piece that will put them over the edge?"

The budget divided cuts into two tiers. The first goes into effect if fiscal officials determine the state will be at least $1 billion shy by June, and most people at risk already assume they will lose funding. Finance Director Ana Matosantos said last month that "some level of trigger cuts will likely occur."

The first tier is the broadest; it includes $600 million in reductions to higher education, In-Home Supportive Services, subsidized child care and developmental services, among other programs.

It would require counties to pay $125,000 for each juvenile offender they sent to a state facility, which local officials said would result in more youths being tried as adults and less rehabilitation.

The first-tier cuts would begin in January.

The second tier includes cuts to community colleges and K-12 schools. They would go into effect if it is determined the state has fallen off track by at least $2 billion....

 

Finger tightens on budget trigger as CA revenues fail to thrive

Reminding us that the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) will be making recommendations regarding further budget cuts to the state Legislature in November and the Finance Office will chime in in December (before holiday sales are calculated), John Fensterwald in today's Educated Guess writes [emphases ours]:

In the latest Field Poll, two-thirds of voters said it was a bad idea for the Legislature to impose automatic midyear cuts in K-12 and higher education if revenues come up short. Based on the latest economic data, a lot of Californians could be angry come January.

The state’s cash receipts in August, combined with the latest ominous UCLA Anderson Forecast, make it increasingly unlikely that the state will take in enough revenue to avoid as much as $4 billion in layered,  automatic cuts. And that should make districts, which are facing a possible midyear 4 percent cut or as many as seven fewer school days, increasingly nervous.

After the first two months of the fiscal year, the state is running about 5 percent, or $596 million, behind the revenue forecast of $12.1 billion at this point. Sales and corporate taxes were in the red after two months, and the personal income tax – the biggest source of revenue – was slightly ahead. In total, July was a disaster, and August was only 1 percent off....

Addressing the issues behind some of the cuts that could be triggered by the low revenues, Fensterwald writes:

If state revenues are projected to come in between $1 billion and $2 billion below budget, then the state will lop off $600 million to the university systems, child care, and health programs. If revenues fall short between $2 billion and $4 billion, then as much as $1.9 billion for K-12 schools, including $248 million in home-to-school bus transportation funding, will be cut. The latter is particularly alarming rural school districts, where transportation is a proportionately larger portion of their budget. They fear that without transportation, attendance will fall, followed by cuts in state funding tied to student attendance – a dangerous spiral. But in terms of dollars, more than half of the transportation cuts will affect urban districts with low-income children. Stephen Rhoads, a lobbyist with Strategic Education Services in Sacramento,  estimates the loss at $49 per student in districts where low-income children comprise greater than 75 percent of the district.

This morning's controversy: A diet book for primary school girls?

Maggie is a fictional character, a 14-year-old girl who is, according to CBS News, overweight and insecure. She decides to trim up through "diet, hard work and exercise." Problem is -- in case you've missed the kerfuffle, Maggie's story is told in a book aimed at children 4-8 years old -- and, it's written by a man, Paul Kramer.

Kramer defended ["Maggie Goes on A Diet"] to ABC News."My intentions were just to write a story to entice and to have children feel better about themselves, discover a new way of eating, learn to do exercise, try to emulate Maggie and learn from Maggie's experience," he told Good Morning America. "Children are pretty smart ... they will make a good choice if you give them that opportunity."

What do childhood obesity experts have to say?

Dr. Andrea Vazzana, at left, clinical assistant professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at NYU Langone Medical Center, told CBS News that she thought the book had one positive in that it brought attention to how young kids are teased over their weight - but added she was "startled" to learn the book was aimed at young children.

"I think that's just too young," she said. "Even if a child at that age is overweight, a 4-to 8-year-old can't do much about it without the parent's help."

How do parents feel about the "Maggie Goes On A Diet"? Here's Jennie Narraway's opinion piece in The Momfiles (Fairlawn-Bath [Ohio] Patch):

...How about “Maggie Gets Healthy!”

Or, a book directed at both females and males: “Maggie and Mark Join The Track Team!”

Even better: “Maggie Teaches Paul Kramer How A Girl Can Develop A Healthy Body—And It’s Not By Dieting!”

My apprehension only grew worse when I saw the cover: an illustration of a chubby young girl holding a pink dress and looking in a mirror. The mirror reflects a thin version of herself....

These are dangerous messages to send to any child, let alone young females who are already barraged with images of what they should look like. Sometimes, this pressure leads to eating disorders other than overeating. An acquaintance ... commented “With the much anticipated sequel—'Maggie The Bulimic'!”

A friend who is a health educator faults the book for its mixed messages.

Perhaps even more appalling than the title is the cover illustration," said Melissa Smith, an assistant lecturer of sport science and wellness education at the University of Akron. "It portrays a girl holding a dress that is clearly too small, looking into a reflection of a much slimmer version of herself. We in the wellness industry would label that as 'body image distortion' and would see it as a giant red flag for an eating disorder, especially if the images were reversed (someone seeing herself as larger than she actually is)."