Association of California School Administrators
SUPERINTENDENCY COUNCIL
Notes of meeting of Wednesday, 25 January 2012 in the Monterey Marriott, Monterey, CA.
Meeting held in conjunction with the annual ACSA Superintendents’ Symposium.
WELCOME/CALL TO ORDER/INTRODUCTIONS -- Phil Quon, President
The president called the council to order at 8:36 am. Council members and guests provided self
introductions. The president acknowledged with appreciation the sponsorship of this breakfast
by Modus Systems, Inc., of Scott’s Valley, CA, (ModusSystemsinc.com) providers of
gymnasiums and other school facilities using pre-approved building designs and renewable
materials for energy efficient and cost effective buildings. Greg Cox of Modus Systems shared
his passion for providing these facilities.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE MEETING – The Council…

Heard and interacted with Sue Burr, executive director of the State Board of Education,
regarding Governor Brown’s proposed state budget of 2012-13, the tax initiative
proposed for the November 2012 ballot, consideration of a waiver application to the U.
S. Department of Education on terms of NCLB, and ways that school districts can
prepare budgets with so many unknown factors.

Discussed with Richard Zeigler, Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, the
rationale for a waiver regarding NCLB, budget issues including deferrals and
categoricals, a task force on educational excellence, pressures from Washington and
use of a test for administrative services credential qualification.

Received and will review materials from George Manthey regarding the Superintendents’
Initiative 2012 relating to designing and implementing an educational system that fully
prepares students for competition in the 21st century global economy. Superintendents
will be examining action steps at the next council meeting.
ATTENDING -- Report of attendance has been reconstituted since sign-in sheet is unavailable.
Council President: Phil Quon, Region 8
Region Representatives
Region 1: Jim Cloney
Region 2: Scott Leaman
Region 3:
Region 4: Casey D’Angelo
Region 5: Emerita Orta-Camilleri
Region 6: Richard Rogers
Region 7: Louise Johnson
Region 8: John Porter
Region 9: Marcus Johnson
Region 10: Dorma Baker
Region 11: Carl Olsen
Region 12:
Region 13: Luis Villegas
Region 14: David Verdugo
Region 15:
Region 15: Dean Conklin
Region 16:
Region 17:
Region 18: Lou Obermeyer
Region 19: Elliott Duchon
Other Committee Members:
Tod Anton, Scribe
Donald Carter, High School Districts Association
Barry Groves, Mid-Sized School Districts
Laurie Kimbrel, Schools for Sound Finance
Gil Montano, Regional Occupational Centers/Programs
Ralph Porras, Superintendents’ Symposium
Bob Price, California League of Middle/High Schools
John Roach, California Association of Large Suburban School Districts
Mary Sakuma, Small School Districts Committee
Gary Smuts, Association of Low Wealth Schools
Sandy Thorstenson, California City School Superintendents
Bob Wells, ACSA Executive Director
Richard Zeiger, Chief Deputy State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Others Attending
Sue Burr, Executive Director, State Board of Education
Greg Cox, Modus Systems, Inc.
Marc Ecker, ACSA Vice-President, Legislation
Tom Guigni, ACSA Past President and Executive Director
David Gomez, ACSA President-Elect
Adonai Mack, ACSA Governmental Relations
George Manthey, ACSA Educational Services
Cary Rodda, ACSA Communications
Karen Stapf Walters, ACSA Assistant Executive Director, Governmental Relations
Julie White, Assistant Executive Director, Communications
,
SPECIAL GUEST -- Sue Burr, Executive Director, State Board of Education
Phil Quon thanked Sue Burr for the opportunity to provide input into the Governor’s budget
development. Sue thanked ACSA for its input. Sue noted that she would like to comment on
the governor’s budget, ESEA waiver status and the upcoming tax initiative.
.
2
Tax initiative: In addition to the governor’s initiative, there are two other initiatives on school
funding being considered. It is important to only have one issue on the ballot; the governor is
working with other initiative sponsors to get agreement on only one initiative. Multiple tax
initiatives for education on the ballot could doom the effort. The state’s long term finance
structural problem and the immediate needs of schools must both be considered. The
governor’s proposal’s language is set; it is ready for the signature gathering effort. The
governor is doing everything possible to convince others (Molly Munger and CFT) that his
proposal has the best chance for success. Validation signatures must be in by April 24 in order
to be on the November 2012 ballot. There is little or no ability now among the three proposals
to modify language. No one has ever qualified a ballot measure in 30 days. The governor’s
budget assumes that his initiative will pass.
Paying off Deferrals: The governor’s high priority is to pay off deferrals of about $10 billion,
about $2.5 billion per year over a four year period. Over the long term, paying off deferrals will
eventually result in an increase of about $2500/pupil by 2015-16. The initiative will have no real
relief for schools in the coming year, some the second year. Could the amount of the deferral
be reduced and have some funds go into program?
Initiative Failure: What happens if the initiative does not pass? Schools would have to cut about
$2.4 billion. Schools need a contingency plan. What legislation or other authorization is needed
to implement a contingency plan? The state could determine a reduced number of instructional
days. Input is being received. Most school districts really have no more people to lay off. Is
shortening the year the only option? This will have to done with collaboration with the unions.
Will there be enough state mediators? Should districts put in an emergency clause in
contracts? Negotiating a shorter year with the unions could cripple district relationships for
years to come. The state needs to call an emergency and direct a shorter year. Is this a nonstarter for the governor and legislature? The governor needs assistance from the entire
education coalition to rally support for the initiative. What will be the impact of initiative failure
on the state economy? Our programs for children and youth are already terribly compromised.
How can we do the educational job our children and youth need? A shorter school year would
be catastrophic to the quality of our future work force.
Class Size Reduction: The State Board is giving out waivers on class size reduction penalties
rather liberally; the SBE has approved all requests in last six months. Do unions have to
support waiver requests?
County Office Role: Should counties receive new guidance on how to assess district budgets in
a time of so many unknowns. Can county offices act as if the Governor’s budget will be passed
and funded?
Transportation: The governor’s budget allows flexibility is using transportation funds. SB 81 is
an emergency issue allowing a reduction in revenue limits. Transportation funding is part of the
Prop 98 pot. Are districts willing to make decisions on qualification for transportation? Many
districts having great transportation needs would be harmed. Transportation is life blood of rural
districts. Many districts serve low socio-economic populations that live great distances from
schools. There are projected huge disparities in how districts are affected. Flexibility is desired;
however, should some funds remain categorical? When categoricals remain, there is always
the probability of the legislature will be more prescriptive, directing how schools must operate.
New support plans would be phased in over a period of years.
Clarification Needed: It is hard to understand the budget proposal because cuts in
transportation, no COLA, and reducing pre-k about a billion dollars do not reflect a flat budget.
We need to understand how the budget would work. We need to reach clarity. County offices,
3
School Services, ACSA and others are analyzing the budget impact. The governor’s budget is
subject to change. The final budget will be different from the proposed January budget. When
we come to consensus, we can weigh in with legislators. What is important is that Governor
Brown has said, “Let’s talk.” We will be able to offer suggestions. Do we have to continue to
degrade California education for another year to hope for improvement later? How much do we
have to cut for 2012-13? What will education’s share of governor’s initiative be? Committing
funds to deferrals provides a switch to reverse if initiative fails. Where are the approximately
$700 million from transportation and $300 million from pre-k in the budget? Is there a better
way to build a budget? What needs to happen to enable us to go forth and campaign for
governor’s initiative? We generally believe in a weighted pupil formula. Start with a base of
about $6,000 and add in for ESL and economically deprived students. This could result in some
districts receiving less than others. Special education would still be separate. We need to see
numbers. Grade span formula amounts would be continued.
Kindergarten: Transitional kindergarten is part of local control issue. Kindergarten age has been
rolled back a month each year. You can get waiver to allow children to enroll earlier. Will there
be funds for all to be in a transitional kindergarten? Until the budget act is passed, current law
operates.
Waivers on NCLB: The NCLB waiver request trades one set of requirements for another. Can
we ask for a waiver on the supplemental services providers? Some of the teacher and principal
evaluation requirements seem onerous. Should the federal government tell the states how to
do it? Can’t the state offer guidelines on evaluation, not a directed system? Yet, all districts now
have evaluation procedures; can they be modified over a period of years? Some districts are
part of a coalition to see how a waiver application could be developed and applied. A waiver
could give us a three year period of freedom from negative labeling and progressive
implementation. ESEA should go through the reauthorization process. The state can go for a
targeted waiver.
Other Thoughts: Special education funding is inadequate and encroachment continues and
grows….There are professional advocates for special services….Pre-school children also come
with advocates demanding full services....The council applauded the presentation and
interaction with Sue Burr. There were comments about this being just about the best working
relationship with the governor’s office and the SBE for a long, long time.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION – Rich Zeiger
Debt Resolution: How does the credit card analogy (to deferrals) apply to the state and school
districts? Paying off a credit card does release your money for other uses. We must get the
state out of its financial hole. The initiative will be a difficult sale. The department will be asking
the governor for some changes, particularly in transportation. Categoricals existed for a
purpose. Not all school districts were perceived as doing the right thing with state funds. There
is wariness about getting rid of categoricals. The weighted formula may cause some districts to
oppose the initiative if they get less money while having to pay more taxes. There probably will
be modifications in the budget.
Pressure from Washington: The CDE is pressured by the federal Department of Education to
carry out the administration’s agenda. Some components, implementing the common core
curriculum for example, are goals of the CDE. Federal reporting requirements are extensive.
Requesting a waiver from NCLB must be considered with caution. The federal administration is
trying to get its agenda through without the support of congress. Our students are improving
each year, yet we are labeled a failure. Is this not morally wrong?
4
Waiver or No Waiver: Council members engaged in the discussion noting that California set one
of the highest content standards in the country. We cannot expect all students to high jump
over six feet. It is the SBE that will make the decision on applying for a waiver; the CDE can
offer an opinion. We have heard different views from those meeting with Michael Yudin. Some
say, “Let’s apply for what is best for kids, and let the chips fall where they may.” Other states,
most of them, are going through the waiver process. Let’s submit what is best for California; if
the feds turn us down, so be it. We have schools with great teachers and principals, making
huge gains on API, and yet labeled as failing. We already have an evaluation system,
standards, and accountability – let’s apply for a waiver and we will make progress. Now the
current system is stupid and is hurting kids. Couldn’t we do an application with individual
districts signing on? The CDE is good at preparing applications and can do the work for the
SBE. Can our application be shared with congress members and our senators, get their
support, and have them encourage the DOE approve our application?
State Board of Education President: Council members were advised that Michael Kirst,
president of the SBE and advisor to Governor Brown, will speak at the Symposium on Friday.
Kirst will be sharing the Governor’s education proposals including the weighted student formula
and “qualitative assessment.”
Test for Administrative Services Credential: A council member opined that continued use of the
testing out option for an administrative credential should be based on data from school district
experiences. Districts have some long serving teachers nearing career end who have
demonstrated potential for leadership. We can ask our members via the ACSA website about
avenues to a credential. Using a hybrid model may have some merit.
Student Data System: A council member commented that it is so strange that a state with
Silicon Valley does not have a student data system that would enable us to track students and
gather needed information.
Task Force on Educational Excellence: The CDE is considering launching a task force to
illuminate ways of achieving educational excellence. There would be a focus on teacher
training, professional development, quality practices, and recognition, among other topics.
Effective teachers would be brought together to interact and bring forth a report. There was
support for the concept; some questioned the timing. Many districts have laid off their newest
group of teachers; the coming fiscal year could result in even less funding. Funding for
substitute teachers is limited. However, it was noted that many teachers are retiring.
Enrollment in teacher preparation programs is down. There will be a shortage of teacher in a
few years. Perhaps the proposed task force might foster the recruitment of people into the
teaching profession.
COUNCIL ADVOCACY INITIATIVE 2012 -- George Manthey
Continuing the focus on moving from current practice to transformative practice, a 21 st century
education, George Manthey shared a document from the Connecticut Association of Public
School Superintendents. The report, “Recommendations for Transformation” addresses what
is needed in high standards, personalizing education, starting early, retooling assessments,
offering more options, enhancing leadership, developing quality professionals, involvement of
stakeholders, leveraging technology, and making improvements a continuous process.
George also presented a chart of typical current practices along examples of transformative
practice. The goal is to create a more student-centered approach characterized by a focus on
5
learning and driven by knowledge of the way students learn skills and competencies. Students
would advance after demonstrating their ability to apply skills and content to specific tasks. The
transformative practices include progress based groupings, many choices and pathways,
applied technology, progress measured by authentic learning, and instruction and learning
delivered anytime, anywhere. The school would be one of many venues for learning.
The council will be discussing actions required to create transformative practice. How do we get
from where we are to where we must be? How can superintendents guide their schools,
districts and state to provide a 21st century, world class, globally competitive education?
CALIFORNIA CITY SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS -- Sandra Thorstenson
Sandy distributed an announcement regarding the next meeting of the City Superintendents in
San Diego at the Westgate Hotel April 26-27, 2012. Speakers for the event include Kate
Kinsella, Sue Burr, Deborah Sigman, Jack Ehnes, and Sal Villaseñor. There will be a finance
panel with Bob Wells, Vernon Billy, Kevin Gordon and Ron Bennett.
CALIFORNIA INTERSCHOLASTIC FEDERATION -- Dennis Byas
Dennis Byas shared the October 31, 2011 minutes of the meeting of the Federated Council of
the CIF. The executive director, Marie Ishida, announced a deal with Time Warner Cable Media
for televising state and regional championships. It is a 15-year, 8-figure deal. Rights for section
and league events are being negotiated. The minutes also reported discussion on concussion
injuries, sites for football championship games, weight classes for wrestling, and transfer
eligibility along with reports from the sections.
NEXT MEETING DATE: Thursday, March 22, 2012, 8:30 a.m.-12:00 noon, ACSA Sacramento
Office, 1029 J Street, Suite 320, Sacramento, CA
ADJOURNMENT: The council president, Phil Quon, adjourned the meeting at 11:31 am to
enable council members to attend the noon meeting of the ACSA Superintendents’ Symposium.
NOTES PREPARED BY: Tod Anton, Professor of School Administration Emeritus, California
State University, Stanislaus.
NOTES REVIEWED BY: Phil Quon, Superintendent, Cupertino Union School District, and Bob
Wells, Executive Director, Association of California School Administrators.
6