Jaka corrects another Guffanti email

Vistaschools blog spot editor note: I found the post below in my inbox. I felt it needed to be shared with more people so I am posting it on the blog today. It contained both a Guffanti disingenuous and self serving email along with corrections by Elizabeth Jaka, one of our courageous PRO-public education candidates. As before what Guffanti wrote is in brown. The correct information written by Elizabeth Jaka is in blue.


Still working backwards on these. This one's almost two weeks old and, depending on how busy I am for these next couple of days, may be the last "old" g-mail I get around to correcting.

I'm actually surprised that there hasn't been anything new in the past couple of days. I HAVE heard that his supporters passed out fliers with candy for Halloween. I still feel like I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop, but it's getting a little late for them to pull anything.

;-D EJ
From: Stephen Guffanti [mailto:sguffanti@cox.net] Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 To: sguffanti@cox.netSubject: FW: Please Read and Forward

Hi,
I was asked to respond to a young man's video on youtube about the school board race.

[Here's the link to the video. It's the one that made the rounds not long ago, and was the first of the two videos created by a VUSD student. http://webmail.west.cox.net/do/redirect?url=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.youtube.com%252Fwatch%253Fv%253DoWVKleR22LY]

The child has three reasons why you should not vote for me. His logic seems to be if you are not going to vote for me you must then vote for Lilly, Jaka and Chunka. Perhaps, he forgot about Hernandez and Anderson.

[At the forums, Fernandez and Anderson-Johnson just parroted statements found in DocG's e-mails. If you're not going to vote for DocG, then you won't want to vote for Fernandez or Anderson-Johnson either, since it appears they think exactly the same as he does.]

His reasons are:
1. Lmb cost 9 million for only 3% of the children. For some reason even though Lilly, whom he is promoting, has voted for LmB I am the only one accountable. Not logical, but attached is the documentation. Bottom line LmB is for 17% of the students and the cost was about $2.1 million per year or 1% of the budget. (75% of the $2.1 million goes to teacher training not students at all.)

[The district spent $3.5M the first year, and $3.4M last year on LmB.The numbers were shared with the Budget Advisory Committee. I don't have a breakdown handy for two years ago, but I'm attaching a copy of the Budget Committee handout for last year's figures. The committee was also told that the district had planned to spend $3.6M on LmB this year, but because of budget cuts they cut back by 6.9%, to $3.4M.

LmB Intensive is only used for about 3% of the students. The numbers go back and forth, and sometimes the figures include the same kids twice. There is a push to use some facets of LmB more widely, but while some of the tools may in some cases, it's of little benefit to students who already read at or above grade level, or to students who speak little or no English.
The district's budgeted General Fund for 08-09 is $211.0M. Of that amount, $161.8M (82%) goes to salaries and benefits. That leaves about $49M for books, supplies, operating costs, capital expenses, etc. AND the state required 3% reserve. The district has actually budgeted $34M of that for those things, which means the $3.4M budgeted for LmB represents about 10% of that part of the budget. However, (and to be fair) even that's an oversimplification of the entire budgeting issue. For one thing, LmB is partially paid for from Title 1 funds, which aren't part of the general fund. So, LmB's place in the budget is far too complex to just state that it only represents "1% of the budget." And even if 75% is for teacher training, it's STILL part of the cost of the program.]

2. He seems to think that a 16% test score gain is insignificant because we had an 18% test score gain before Bails. Actually, he is talking about API which is a state rating system somewhat correlated with test scores, but not test scores. See attached scores. Students reading at proficient or Advanced are considered at or above grade level. You will notice that the percentage of students reading at or above grade level are consistently moving up. It is literacy, not API that our children really need. This turnaround started with the teachers and the superintendent has worked with the teachers to help them sustain it, which is why 75% of LmB goes to teacher training.

[The young man never says that a "16% test score gain is insignificant." He simply points out that DocG has been claiming that the district's scores did not increase for 8 years before Dr. BaLEs came to VUSD, when in fact we had an 18 POINT (not percent) increase the year before she came to the district. And yes, that is API. He never attached the scores, but the fact is that the API goes up because we have better test scores, and a big part of that is literacy. Our scores had the biggest jump when the district moved away from the bilingual program they were using, to Structured (or Sheltered) English Immersion (SEI). The turnaround not only started with the teachers, they have perpetuated it.]

3. Honor students don't use Lmb why are the other 97% of the students being ignored?
Well the other 97% aren't ignored they just use other programs like Gate for the gifted, etc. our district gets $42 million set aside for special issues like staff development, gifted and talented, special ed, poor performing students and low income students. It is illegal to use these funds on the general population. Why would an honor student need a remedial reading program?

[This is all fine, except that money for other programs is being pulled and reallocated. In most cases it's not going directly to LmB (it can't), but it's being applied to areas that previously used other funding. THAT funding is then freed up for LmB. That's actually the nature of education funding: Fund X can't be used to pay for Item A, but it can be used for Item B. Since Fund Y has more flexibility, we'll use it for Item A instead. The issue is whether or not the funds are being allocated in a way that allows the district to get the greatest possible benefit.
He uses "honor student" interchangeably with GATE student, but GATE students aren't always honor students, and there are many honor students who are not GATE. However, to answer his question, an honor student probably wouldn't need remedial reading, but they often need support in other areas, and they need to be challenged.]

Here is the kicker. Lilly, Chunka and Jaka know these things already. Lilly saw this video and states as far as he knows it has nothing to do with his campaign. Chunka and Jaka have actively promoted this misunderstanding. At the same time they are asking for better communication.

[He's right, we do know those things. And while we all heard about the video - and even shared it with people on our e-mail lists - not one of us had anything to do with its production. Speaking for myself, I'm honored to have the young man's support.
Yes, we're still asking for better communication - something more accurate than the déjà moo (same old bull) that DocG puts out, and more informative than anything the district puts out.

I hope you will look at this documentation and ask me any follow-up questions that you wish.

Your servant on the board, Your eyes and ears at the board,
Stephen Guffanti, MD Elizabeth Jaka, parent and observer