February 6, 2002
Members of the Joint Committee:
My name is Phillip Escamilla. I am here today representing CSBA—the
California School Boards Association. CSBA represents approximately 1,000
school districts from all over the state, from small, rural districts to
large, urban districts. I have three main points I would like to address
with you today with regard to the Governance Report: state
level governance, collective bargaining, and local control.
State Level Governance
The first issue I would like to address is state level governance. CSBA
would like to go on record with the vocal minority that has spoken today
in support of maintaining an independent, elected state Superintendent
of Public Instruction. This is important for purposes of clarifying the
mission of education in the state. Also, there needs to be a clear line
of accountability to the public in terms of who is responsible for what
at the state level. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the role of
the state Superintendent of Public Instruction in relation to the State
Board of Education needs to be clearly delineated.
Collective Bargaining
The second issue I would like to address is collective bargaining. CSBA
is in support of collective bargaining; however, it is important that the
scope of collective bargaining not be expanded beyond what it is now. Districts
are at a disadvantage in that there is no single entity representing individual
districts in the collective bargaining process. The report references the
fact that all sides are impacted by the amount of time absorbed by the
collective bargaining process. Therefore, CSBA is in favor of exploring
alternatives to the current collective bargaining system.
The report mentions that more research needs to be done on the collective
bargaining issue. As this research is conducted, CSBA would recommend the
following reforms, drawn from the CSBA 2001-2002 Policy Platform, for your
consideration:
-
Specific statutory prohibitions against strikes or any other form of unilateral
work reduction;
-
Flexibility for school districts and county offices of education in order
to determine salaries during times of financial crisis;
-
Elimination or modification of statutory layoff notices dates to ensure
that they are aligned with the adoption of the state budget (the language
of layoff notices should be modified to be non-adversarial); and
-
Alternatives to state mandated tenure.
Local Control
The third issue I would like to address is that of local control. CSBA
supports the recommendation of the report that consideration should be
given to amending the state constitution to permit local districts to create
ordinances in a manner similar to that permitted for charter cities and
counties. This is referenced as "home-rule" authority in the report.
The report references consolidating smaller districts and breaking up
larger districts, but offers no specific recommendations in this regard.
The report rightfully says that more research is needed on this issue,
as there is no reliable data currently available on the ideal size of school
districts. CSBA supports local rather than state determination of the size
of a school district or county office of education. Also, CSBA opposes
efforts to unilaterally eliminate county offices of education (as the report
indicates, such a change would require an amendment to the state constitution).
Finally, county offices should not serve in a hierarchical position
to school districts. County offices are partners with districts, and like
districts, have their own LEAs over which they have primary jurisdiction.
Other speakers today have listed the many functions and responsibilities
of the county offices. County offices do not have the capacity, nor were
they intended for an oversight role. Therefore, CSBA opposes giving county
offices of education more oversight responsibility over local school districts
than currently provided for in law.