Indexes
February 9th, 2010
February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Will terrorists be given Miranda warnings? (75)
- Lodi Unified School District president issues warning to speakers over cuts (64)
- President Obama's first year (45)
- Many reject the politics of 'no' (45)
- Islamic symbol in mosaic — what is all the fuss? (44)
- Writer comments on Neely column (42)
- The Home Depot hopes to join Costco at Reynolds Ranch (41)
- Time to shed the convenient sham of 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy (34)
- We need to conduct respectful conversations (30)
- Tasered suspect claims he is Yosemite Sam (25)
ADVERTISEMENT
Lodi Unified School District trustees approve layoff of 390 teachers
More cuts expected in April
By Jennifer Bonnett
News-Sentinel Staff Writer
News-Sentinel Staff Writer
Thursday, February 19, 2009 7:52 AM PST
Lodi Unified will issue 390 teacher layoff notices and cut seven additional positions from the administration office following a board decision made early Wednesday.
Trustees voted 6-1, with Harvey Bills dissenting.
"There's been a cry that we need to do more in the administration office," board president Richard Jones said. "In the public comments, they said we should do more, so we listened."
The vote wasn't taken until well after midnight and five hours after the meeting started.
"In the long run, it was better to hear everyone," Jones said.
The meeting took place in McNair High School's theater, which accommodates 720.
Trustees are expected to vote on cutting 110 other positions at a meeting in April to continue to close the $25 million budget gap for the 2009-10 school year. The district currently employs 3,100 and is one of the area's largest employers.
Cut positions at a glanceThe seven administration positions eliminated by the school board include:
assistant superintendent of secondary education.
director of education services.
director of elementary education.
vice principal of Lincoln Technical Academy.
director of certificated personnel.
administrative director of students services/SELPA.
vice principal of intervention programs.
Source: Lodi Unified School District
Source: Lodi Unified School District
"It's all devastating," Superintendent Cathy Nichols-Washer said of the cuts, which she blames on the state Legislature's inability to pass a budget. "It's destruction, it's hard to even express the words. It's heart breaking. It goes against everything we even believe in. It's hurting so many, so deep, but I'm not going to give up hope."
Sue Kenmotsu, president of the Lodi Education Association, said Wednesday she was happy to see that the board listened to the speakers who called for further cuts in administration. Trustees discussed eliminating other similar positions, including the principal of Elkhorn School, but it wasn't included in the final vote.
The actual action taken at the meeting was to eliminate services delivered by certificated staff.
"That means when a service is eliminated or reduced, it will reduce staff," Nichols-Washer said.
The board is legally required to notify employees of potential layoffs on March 15 with final notices issued May 15. After that, the board can rescind any layoff notices, including the 45 positions approved by the board last month.
Classified employees must be notified 45 days before being laid off, so that resolution will go before the board April 7, Nichols-Washer said.
The district is suffering from a drop in interest income and local developer fees, as well as a historic decline in enrollment.
Districts receive per-pupil funding, and as of last month, Lodi Unified had 810 fewer students than last school year and expects that number to increase heading into next school year. Most of those students are from elementary schools in north Stockton.
Meanwhile, Nichols-Washer said the district will continue pursuing suggestions from the public and her Budget Advisory Committee will continue to meet to formulate reduction recommendations to take before the school board. About 80 percent of the district's budget goes toward personnel.
Contact reporter Jennifer Bonnett at jenniferb@lodinews.com.
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
Jerry wrote on Feb 27, 2009 5:21 PM:
One of two things is certain here; either the Board doesn't know &%^* from apple butter OR good old Len knew 'where the bodies were buried.'
I am of the opinion that the Board and the administration have a secret pack to not ask difficult questions of each other.
I suspect we will find out someday very soon that both the Board and their cohorts have looked away when someone had their hand in our $260,000,000 cookie jar.
Further, I suspect that we will find out sooner rather than later that the Teachers' Union has been way too chummy with the L.U.S.D. kleptocrats.
1,500 of L.U.S.D. teachers have been paying $100 per month in union dues for years-and-years. That's $1,500,000 to CTA [each year] for what? What has your Union done for you lately?
The administrators, the Board and CTA are sharing the same bed or so it seems.
Your thoughts? "
Gator wrote on Feb 27, 2009 10:53 AM:
Parent95240 wrote on Feb 26, 2009 7:31 PM:
Parent95240 wrote on Feb 26, 2009 7:22 PM:
Ask teachers and principals to give you feeback on the following hidden administrative structure:
Since many teachers and principals are so close to it, they might not see the big picture. The line of authority for the certificated staff is supposed to go from the School Board (through Board rules) to the Superintendent and then down to the various Associate Sup's and Assistants Sup's to the individual school site administrators (Principals). From there directly to subordinate certificated staff (teachers). In practice, the Certificated Personnel Department short circuits this and directs or attempts to direct principals in many areas other than curriculum. The informal organizations within a group may not always follow chain line authority, but in this weirdness at the LUSD, many are bullied into decisions outside the normal chain of command. This erodes the office Of Superintendent and makes the "go to person" The personnel office. The Ed code requires them to be STAFF only with no direct line authority to the teachers. "
Jerry wrote on Feb 26, 2009 4:58 PM:
Right now, we have seven people with no "skin in the game." Davis has been on the Board for 17 years, why? Is he that civic minded? Is it healthy to have (what appears to be) professional Board members? "
shockedinlodi wrote on Feb 26, 2009 1:39 PM:
Jerry wrote on Feb 26, 2009 1:27 PM:
By any metric known to the world of education L.U.S.D. is profoundly flawed and has failed, is failing and will continue to fail under the current "leadership." Morale among teachers has hit an all time low. There is no sense of common purpose (teaching children) with these folks. Absent picking a big check every two weeks these out-of-towners do not care about children nor the teachers who deliver instruction. The Board and their administrators openly display an attitude of entitlement and unbridled arrogance in everything they do or say.
They are not parent friendly, student-centered nor are they the least bit interested that teaching and learning happens well. They just don't give a %&$*
I say its time to take back our schools, recall the Board (all of them) and fire the know nothing (do nothing) administrators. "
shockedinlodi wrote on Feb 26, 2009 1:25 PM:
shockedinlodi wrote on Feb 26, 2009 1:13 PM:
edumacation wrote on Feb 25, 2009 10:11 PM:
They will learn soon enough! "
edumacation wrote on Feb 25, 2009 10:03 PM:
http://www.cfac.org/AGOpinions/AG_Op_-_E-mail.html
Good stuff. It is very serious. Please study. We have a lot to work with here. "
Jerry wrote on Feb 25, 2009 7:48 PM:
In fact, go to LNS stories from last July through September and you will see it in black and white that they knew. Who are you going to believe the Board or your lying eyes?
As far as the recall it will probably start by March 15th...I will keep you posted. This isn't hot air...this is real. I assume a good number of those 370 teachers might want to help. The Board and their administrators must go!
Lastly, I like to hear from others how they feel about a recall of the entire Board. Do you think they are on the up-and-up or are they kleptocrats? Should anyone be spared the axe or should the new broom sweep clean?
Lastly, lastly do you think that firing some of these administrators is for real or is high theater? I'd put money on the notion that most of the kleptocrats will magically reappear (in another form with a new title). "
karensays wrote on Feb 25, 2009 5:59 PM:
karensays wrote on Feb 25, 2009 5:57 PM:
Vickster wrote on Feb 25, 2009 8:41 AM:
teach247365 wrote on Feb 25, 2009 6:27 AM:
I'd love to cut AVID, but it is one program the state is funding fully. Of course, we now know they are funding CSR as well, and I haven't heard the district say that anything about giving back those teachers. "
karensays wrote on Feb 25, 2009 6:09 AM:
shockedinlodi wrote on Feb 24, 2009 1:00 PM:
Jerry wrote on Feb 24, 2009 12:46 PM:
Has anyone asked [at this late date] what firing 390 teachers will do for the local economy? With no jobs there will be no "paid as agreed" mortgages; no dinners out on the town; no discretionary spending of any sort whatsoever.
If you fire a few administrators all you do is impact Galt, Sacramento or Stockton. Has anyone ever thought to ask why the educational leaders of Lodi don't actually live in Lodi? "
Jerry wrote on Feb 24, 2009 12:36 PM:
These are facts...look em' up!
The bigger issue is what do these educational superstars do to earn these noble wages. My bet, not enough.
They are (exclusively out of towners) they are insolated, isolated, arrogant, non-responsive to parent concerns and appear to have no interest in the welfare of our children.
That said, they are all in those positions doing what they're doing because the Board put them there. The Board needs to clean house or we need a new board, period.
There is no "real reason" to cut 390 teaching positions that may generate $19,000,000 when the budget is just north of $260,000,000. What? The Board can't find $20,000,000 elsewhere...Answer: Of course they can.
What I want to know is where in the hell is the teacher's union? Where is the outrage?
The Board MUST find the cuts outside the ranks of teachers ....or else. "
shockedinlodi wrote on Feb 24, 2009 12:03 PM:
shockedinlodi wrote on Feb 24, 2009 11:54 AM:
shockedinlodi wrote on Feb 24, 2009 11:47 AM:
teach247365 wrote on Feb 23, 2009 8:04 PM:
LodiJoe wrote on Feb 23, 2009 3:43 PM:
edumacation wrote on Feb 23, 2009 3:15 PM:
edumacation wrote on Feb 23, 2009 3:09 PM:
Dirt Claude wrote on Feb 23, 2009 1:29 PM:
edumacation wrote on Feb 23, 2009 9:18 AM:
settingtherecordstraight wrote on Feb 23, 2009 8:50 AM:
essayjay wrote on Feb 22, 2009 1:20 PM:
That would send a good message at least. And Dr. Douglas, you are sure keeping a low profile lately, aren't you with your bloated salary. Just what is the job description of an "Associate Superintendent"? Maybe in these lean years one Superintendent is enough, especially at the high rate that superintendents command salary-wise. "
commonsense wrote on Feb 22, 2009 9:21 AM:
edumacation wrote on Feb 21, 2009 9:51 PM:
The ONLY person I report to are my customers. I own my businesses.
Business is the best its been in years.
I think you are projecting your own experience. I have no unions to deal with. I have always owned my businesses.
I never accuse individuals of wrong doing, that for the justice system and news media.
I think it is a waste of resources to purposefully destroy an educational system that has proved it can work.
I think it is unfortunate that a few can ruin the education of many children.
My goal is to illuminate issues, ask questions, and carefully record the answers for the future.
Thats the American way.
To sit idly and watch the deceit by self serving managers is irresponsible.
Just Say NO! to inefficiency, stupidity and self-aggrandizement of some of our education-politicians. We can recall the lame or ineffective, and government can investigate the rest. Agree? "
RU4REAL wrote on Feb 21, 2009 6:32 PM:
First, learn to use your spell check. Maybe you don't think you need one, but think again. Second, you haven't made any points, only baseless accusations. I don't know who you truly are, but I've been in the pro-union position before, and you sound very much like I once sounded when I was told what to say. Since that time, many years ago, I've learned to think for myself, and to sort out truth from fiction. I'll be one of the first to question the necessity of the level of administrative oversight currently existing at JAESC, but that would be based on first hand research, and not hearsay. The majority of district administrators and staff have total commitment to the needs of the students. There are, unfortunately, others, who through no fault of their own, are filling positions that were considered to be necessary at the time they applied. The same can be said for teachers. Are there surplus positions within the district? Undeniably, but in all areas, admin, classified, and certificated. Don't condemn one out of selfishness, but out of fact. These are difficult times for all. "
edumacation wrote on Feb 21, 2009 4:25 PM:
Can you explain their unprofessional condescending behavior? I'm listening. I ahve an idea? Maybe they aren't so smart...or maybe there is another reason they dare not share?? "
RU4REAL wrote on Feb 21, 2009 3:11 PM:
Actually, it wasn't as funny as your examples have been, but it clearly showed a distinct parallel to the ludicrous nature of the majority of your accusations. Regarding my use of General Motors as an example, OK, pick your own choice of large corporations that deliver a product. The point, which you so publicly missed, is the same. In your world, administration isn't required. People will pay themselves, provide their own healthcare, buy their own furniture, haul their own materials, yada yada yada! Dumb? OK, I'll admit it....you can do dumb all by yourself! "
edumacation wrote on Feb 21, 2009 2:07 PM:
RU4REAL wrote on Feb 21, 2009 7:23 AM:
I've done some investigating, and found the misuse of public funds at the District Offices to be even worse than feared. There is evidence that someone there has actually been sweeping floors, and, worse yet, it appears that prep work is being done for some touchup painting in a restroom used by administrators !!! They even have toilet paper in this restroom ! It was, however, only single ply, so I was really disappointed I couldn't report the more luxurious and costly double ply was being used. But, I'll continue my investigation. I have a confidential informant who reports discussions have been overheard that would indicate the administrators may be contemplating installation of covered walkways directly to their individual parking spaces. I'm all over this! Film at 11. "
edumacation wrote on Feb 20, 2009 8:34 AM:
Many of the Vine street desk jockeys actually believe the stories they spin!! When you lie to others, you might get away with it. But when you lie to yourself you have failed. We must ask questions, questions and more questions. Their answers and non-answers, will point the direction of our inquiries. There is a dark cloud looming over public education in Lodi.
Many educrats think that we are all ignorant and will keep pulling the plow without asking why. Taxpayers have had enough of the doubletalk and edu-speak. "
takealook wrote on Feb 20, 2009 6:01 AM:
edumacation wrote on Feb 19, 2009 9:43 PM:
Unbelievable! What's amazing is that they actually serve this dish to their subordinates. We need to see some more EEO complaints or sexual harrassment claims which are the inevitable products of a vicious work environment. These typically arise from the "Master- slave" relationship so typical of the LUSD. SShhh, you can't say that because "blah blah" might not feel good about her non-job. I feel the sting whenever I communicate with those educrats. They literally KNOW IT ALL. If you doubt it, just ask any of them.
The secrecy, conniving, deception and sneakiness over at the Castle on Vine street has been going on too long. "
takealook wrote on Feb 19, 2009 8:41 PM:
edumacation wrote on Feb 19, 2009 7:06 PM:
edumacation wrote on Feb 19, 2009 7:01 PM:
edumacation wrote on Feb 19, 2009 6:59 PM:
commonsense1 wrote on Feb 19, 2009 6:57 PM:
Jerry wrote on Feb 19, 2009 5:54 PM:
The problem with L.U.S.D. is that it is just too damn big! Too many chiefs, associate chiefs and assistant chiefs who have become deliberate strangers to Lodi with no skin in the game. Not one Board member or fatcat administrator has a child in our district...they have become isolated, insolated and unaccountable to parents, students or taxpayers.
For the Board and many of the "highly paid" administrators "getting paid" is the objective not the delivery of a first class education. That's got to stop. These are our schools, our children and our money.
Okay, what's next? Well, in my view, what's next should be reverse the process of big and go small. I say we recall the Board and start a 10-year program size down the District to something that is managable (like zero). What if there were no Unified School District?
Any thoughts? "
Whoa Nellie! wrote on Feb 19, 2009 5:22 PM:
I'm in my late 40's and I had PE teachers starting at 7th grade.
It is proven that students do better in school when they participate in music. Today most music in grades 1-6 are synched with the themes in other classes.
Yes, I too survived classes of up to 32 kids, but don't you want the BEST for your grandkids (ok, maybe Great Grandkids?)?? Lower class sizes allows more 1-on-1 time with the K-3 kids. And you have no idea the number of of "special" or "problem" kids in those grades until you've spent a day in those classes. It is an EYE OPENER.
By your comments you want to give every kid a chalk board, throw'm in a one room school house, and tell them to bring in water from the well. It's 2009. How do you expect CA to survive? We are already ranked in the low high 40's (48th?) out of 50 in educating our children.
I've rambled, but.... "
commonsense1 wrote on Feb 19, 2009 4:44 PM:
blossom wrote on Feb 19, 2009 4:24 PM:
edumacation wrote on Feb 19, 2009 3:43 PM:
edumacation wrote on Feb 19, 2009 3:38 PM:
1) Try reading the Ed-Data reports. It is all there in black ink on white paper. Go to the link on Ed-Data and read the complete budget submission from the LUSD to the state CDE for last year. If you disagree with it, don't blame me, blame the Superintendent he signed off on it. These are abstracts of public documents open for inspection. All the doubletalk in the world won't change the numbers. Read them!
After you read them, try to explain them. These numbers can not be justified without a lot of fast talking from Educrats. Why?
2) There are a few secrets about definitions. There is a page of them that are undefined. Some districts define educational or instructional materials differently. We need an item by item list to find out what is really hiding in EACH control point!
3) Recommendation: The state law needs to change to provide accurate detailed definitions and descriptions and budgets signed under penalties of perjury. "
colormestormey wrote on Feb 19, 2009 2:42 PM:
edumacation wrote on Feb 19, 2009 11:35 AM:
Certificated teachers would like to know that the same data demonstrates that LUSD teachers receive 79% of the benefits compared to all state school districts (includes very small disctricts). The data shows $1273/year benefits compared with $1602/year average statewide. Teachers, ask your union why?
Vickster, its all in the data. Now try to find it. Asking for the data didn't work, but recalling board members might get their attention. "
edumacation wrote on Feb 19, 2009 11:27 AM:
http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/fsTwoPanel.asp?bottom=%2Fprofile%2Easp%3Flevel%3D06%26reportNumber%3D16 "
blossom wrote on Feb 19, 2009 11:04 AM:
edumacation wrote on Feb 19, 2009 9:48 AM:
Vickster wrote on Feb 19, 2009 9:31 AM:
Contrapasso wrote on Feb 19, 2009 9:23 AM:
Odie Douglas has done more to damage our educational system in Lodi than anyone else. "
wtf wrote on Feb 19, 2009 8:39 AM:
This sounds about right to me. Great posts! "
reading wrote on Feb 19, 2009 8:38 AM:
Two things I have learned...no more school bond "yes" votes and no more incumbents on the board. Jerry, keep us posted on the recall. "
edumacation wrote on Feb 19, 2009 8:27 AM:
This morning at the ESC, there were celebrations because the administrative edumacators were spared another round.
Is it true that some administrators are trying to get valet service for their cars? Apparently a few were miffed because they had to walk in the rain to get to their cars. These people need a reality check. We can send them a message by recalling the spineless school board which rubber stamps all the various machinations at the JAESC.
I wonder what Odie has planned for today? Maybe a few meetings with SEED? "
jerry wrote on Feb 19, 2009 7:31 AM:
You seem like a nice person, however, loosing 25% of the membership you represent (390 teachers) and getting a handful of administrators in the balance is not a victory.
The teachers have been had. Again, the only way this thing is going to get fixed is by throwing the Board out on their respective ear(s). They cannot be trusted and they are in gross violation of their Mission Statement, Vision Statement and all their stated values.
To my knowledge nobody on the Board has a child in the system and nobody in top administration could give you five students in the District they even know.
This is about big salaries and big perks, period. Ask the District to post budget and warrants of payments to third parties. If you think your mad now, just wait.
RECALL THE BOARD NOW! "
jerry wrote on Feb 19, 2009 7:16 AM:
First, same hog-washer different day: Nichols-Washer says "it's all devastating" yet, and still, retains her $230,000 per year salary as well as her $750 per month car allowance; the Board led by Mr. Jones says "he feels our pain" and will throw us a bone (a handful of administrative positions).
And, last but not least, the teacher's union is happy with all the above. I'd say something about the reporting but I am fearful that the paper would take offense (then retaliate)for telling them NOT to use the numbers the District gives them as factual. Honestly, go to the budget find out what the real numbers are (or are not) and report them accurately and correctly. Is it just me? Or, does this paper seem to be in bed with the District?
I will say again, these kleptocrats must go; they all need to be recalled and we need to start over with people we can actually trust. The Union (the one's the teachers pay for every month needs to get off their dead butts and aggressively represent their members. Heretofore, they have not. "
takealook wrote on Feb 19, 2009 6:51 AM:
BUT, please don't forget the next group of cuts, classified. Most of us don't make the salary the teachers make. I for one take home less than half of my monthly paycheck (health insurance, and other deductions). We need our job just as much as LEA need their jobs. We ask for your support. "
Giovanina wrote on Feb 19, 2009 6:35 AM:
al da long wrote on Feb 19, 2009 6:32 AM:
karensays wrote on Feb 19, 2009 6:06 AM:
Comments on this story are now closed.