presents
Voter’s Edge California
Get the facts before you vote.
Voter’s Edge California
Go to top
Brought to you by
MapLight
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
KALW 2016 Election Guide@kalw
November 8, 2016 — California General Election
Invest in unbiased information

With your support, we can reach and inform more voters.

Donate now to spread the word.

Member, Trustee Area 3Fresno County Board of Education Trustee Area 3November 8, 2016California General Election

School
November 8, 2016California General Election

Fresno County Board of Education Trustee Area 3Member, Trustee Area 3

Election Results

  • 100% of precincts reporting (92/92).
  • 31,666 ballots counted.

About this office

Access additional information about this contest in the tabs in this section. For most screenreaders, you can hit Return or Enter to enter a tab and read the content within.

Who’s Running?

You can vote for 1 candidate of 2 total candidates.
Candidates are sorted in order of election results.
Educator/Economist
20,096 votes (63.46%)Winning
Use tab to activate the candidate button. Use "return" to select this candidate. You can access your list by navigating to 'My List'.
For more in-depth information on this candidate, follow the links for each tab in this section. For most screenreaders, you can hit Return or Enter to enter a tab and read the content within.
Candidate has provided information.
Thank candidate for sharing their information on Voter’s Edge.
  • Ensure that the most disadvantaged students of Fresno County do not continue to slip through the cracks in district and county budgets (Low-income, Special Ed., Foster youth, English Learners, etc.)
  • Ensure students are prepared to succeed in the 21st economy by supporting Career Technical Education and College readiness.
  • Supporting early childhood education programs as a long-term investment for our students and the Central Valley region.
Profession:Economics Professor
Economics Professor, Fresno City College (2015current)
UCLA Master's Degree, Public Policy (not availa)
UC Riverside Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), Economics (not availa)
  • The Official Candidate of the Democratic Party
  • Henry R. Perea, Fresno County Supervisor
  • Sal Quintero, Fresno County Supervisor-Elect/Fresno City Councilmember
  • Paul Caprioglio, Fresno City Council President
  • Oliver Baines, Fresno City Councilmember
  • Chris De La Cerda, Fresno Unified School Board Trustee
  • Dan Ronquillo, Former Fresno City Councilmember
  • Miguel Arias, State Center Community College District Trustee
  • John Leal, State Center Community College District Trustee
  • Luis Chavez, Fresno Unified School Board President
  • Cal Johnson, Fresno Unified School Board Trustee
  • Fresno County Democratic Party
  • FMTK Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO
  • Central Valley Progressive PAC
  • Fresno County Young Democrats
  • Evolve California
  • California Progress Fund
  • San Joaquin Valley Latino Leaders PAC
  • Dolores Huerta, Civil Rights Activist
Incumbent
11,445 votes (36.14%)
Use tab to activate the candidate button. Use "return" to select this candidate. You can access your list by navigating to 'My List'.
For more in-depth information on this candidate, follow the links for each tab in this section. For most screenreaders, you can hit Return or Enter to enter a tab and read the content within.
Candidate has provided information.
Thank candidate for sharing their information on Voter’s Edge.
  • Maximize funding and personnel resources for public education
  • Support programs such as Career and Technical Education and Cradle to Career
  • Close the achievement gap and ensure equal opportunities for ALL children and youth
Profession:Educator and Incumbent Board member
Trustee, Area 3, Fresno County Board of Education — Elected position (2000current)
Consultant, Fiscal and Crisis Management Assistance Team (19992008)
Director of Special Education and Special Education Local Plan (SELPA), Fresno County Office of Education (19851999)
Coordinator Special Education and School Psychology, Sanger Unified School District (19721985)
Adjunt Professor in School Psychology, California State University, Fresno (19791985)
California State University, Fresno Master of Arts, Psychology (1977)
Member, Tree Fresno (1999current)
Founder, Coalition for Adequate Funding for Special Education (1987current)
Member, National Women's Political Caucus (1997current)
Member , League of Women Voters (2009current)
Delegate, California School Boards Association (2005current)
  • California Teachers Association (CTA) of Fresno County Office of Education (FCOE)
  • California School Employees Association (CSEA), Chapter 573, Fresno County Office of Education
  • Larry Powell, former Fresno County Superintendent of Schools
  • Esmeralda Soria, member of the Fresno City Council
  • Fresno Stonewall Democrats
  • Black Women Organized for Political Action (BWOPA) San Joaquin Chapter
  • San Joaquin Valley Democratic Club
  • Central Valley Progressive Political Action Committee (CVPPAC)
  • Central Valley Hmong Democrats of Fresno County
  • National Womens Political Caucus
  • Efrain Guizar, Board member Kerman Unified
  • Susan Markarian, California School Boards Association, Region 10 Director
  • Mike Robinson, Board member, Fresno County
  • Brandon Vang
  • Paul Dictos, County Assessor
  • Darryl Du' Chene
  • Carol Laval (and others)
  • Delbert Cederquist, Board Member, Fresno County
  • Pam Whalen
  • Cynthia Berube, Board member, Central Unified
  • James Karle, Board member, Sanger Unified
  • Dr. Allen Clyde, Board member, Fresno County
  • Howard Watkins
  • Ellis Vance
  • Cynthia Sterling
  • Eric Cederquist
  • Scott Miller
  • Natalie Clark
  • Jami Hamel
  • Matthew Navo
  • Sally Fowler
  • Sally Fowler
  • Tara Loll,
  • Norman Saude, Board member, Sierra Unified
  • Dr. Oscar Sablan, Board member, Firebaugh-Las Deltas Unified
  • Bill Johnson, Board member, Clay Joint Elementary,
  • Kathy Spate, Board member, Caruthers Unified
  • Betsy Sandoval, Board member, Clovis Unified
  • Susan B Anderson, Attorney, former Fresno County Supervisor
  • Dr. Jackie Ryle, former Fresno City Clerk
  • Dolores Heurta, Labor Activist
1.
Funding to Schools

A recent law made major changes in the way that the state allocates funding to schools.  What will you do to ensure that the public understands your local control formula for school spending and your plan to measure outcomes?

Answer from Barbara Thomas:

First it is important to understand that the Local Control Funding Formula (Lcff) had a different impact on different Local Education Agencies.  The LCFF was not new funding statewide. It was a repayment of dollars due the to public schools but were redistributed to increase funding for targeted populations i.e., high poverty, English Learners.  In the redistribution of funding, the Fresno County Office of Education lost dollars. The lost funding is permanent.  We  will be flat funded (no growth or Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA).  In order to deliver funding to the targeted populations, it was necessary to decrease other programs to create a base amount to ensure the targeted populations were covered.

It has been difficult to explain to teachers and classified staff that not only is there no new funding for salary increases, unless some programs are pared down but this will continue until LCFF is fully funded and new moneys are allocated to public schools statewide. 

The base that was established to serve the targeted population, was used primarily for one on one computers for our Court and Community Schools.  The funding will be continued at the base amount and will be used to ensure all students receive quality instruction in the use of technology.  Local and statewide assessments will be used to measure outcomes.  This information is shared with the parents at parent meetings and is reported at Board meetings.

Our Board has informed state legislators of the impact of the LCFF on County programs.   

      

Public School Funding in California

Summary

The paper provides data to show how inadequately public Schools are funded in California

 

SCHOOLS’ FUNDING

 

 

 

Thank you for your recent article regarding the need for additional funding for schools.   However, the article’s ending left some doubt as to the actual need.

 

It is a fact that school funding for the current year is 95% of the funding received in 2007-2008. The goal is to reach 100% of that bench mark by next year.

 

 The California School Boards Association recently released its study regarding why the 2007-2008 criteria is woefully inadequate. Following are a few observations from this study:

 

          In a state that ranks 10th nationally in per capita income and 24th in state and

 

          local government spending, California’s national rank of 44th in spending on K-12  

 

          education reflects a failure to prioritize public education.

 

One consequence of this failure is low staffing levels.  California schools rank 49th nationally in pupils per teacher and in overall staffing levels.

 

          “The failure to commit adequate resources , when combined with the needs of 

 

          California’s student population, has created an achievement gap that , without

 

          additional resources, is unlikely to be closed.”

 

Notably, California has the highest poverty rate and percentage of English learners of any other state.               

 

 

 

Barbara Thomas,

 

Fresno County Board of Education

 

Member of the CSBA Adequate Funding Task Force

 

The state of public school funding in California

Summary

This paper will show how important it is to pass Proposition 55 to provide students in Fresno County adequate funding.

 

The State of Funding for California

 

Public Schools

 

California cannot expect to compete in the future economy when it is failing so miserably in providing educational resources for our children and youth.  Since 2010 and before the California School Boards Association (CSBA) has been engaged in activities to change the funding dynamic.  For example, it filed a lawsuit, Robles vs. Wong, against the state of California for failure to adequately fund the public schools.  The suit has been unsuccessful at two levels of the court system and is now headed to the California Supreme Court.

 

The evidence of California’s failure is documented in “California’s Challenge, Adequately Funding Education in the 21st Century” which was released in January, 2016 by CSBA. Some of the data found in the Adequacy document are as follows:

 

California’s income per capita ranks 10th nationally but 44th on its spending  on K-12 education.  The average number of pupils to teacher ratio ranks 49th in the country.  Put in perspective, Texas has 42,000 more teachers than California yet California serves 1.4 million more students.

 

Consider the fact that students are not equally needy. California has the highest percentage of  English learners. Here  22.8% are English learners whereas  the national average is 9.2% English learners.   California also has more low income students than any other state.  There are 56% of students eligible for a free or reduced lunch, 5% higher than the national average.

 

To address the greater needs of our student population, in 2013 California implemented a new funding formula. The new model is known as the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) initiated by Gov. Brown.  The intent was to address the educational issues for our most needy students and to give local school districts control over their budgets by reducing the number of categorical programs.  The LCFF also called for accountability through submission of a Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP).

 

Under the previous formula, districts received funding based on their average daily attendance (ADA). The new formula was designed to provide the most needy students with the most revenue.  A district’s population is weighted by the number of socio-economically disadvantaged, English learners, and foster youth students.

 

Sounds great! Right? - a simplified formula prioritizing the most needy students, and allowing local districts to determine how to best use the funds for their community.  What more could schools ask for than a formula providing revenue in the right direction? The problem is that it lacks adequate funding.

 

The new formula gives the impression that public schools are now where they need to be financially.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Actually it leaves many schools strapped for funding and promises to get worse.  To be specific:

 

The implementation of LCFF is based on providing the same amount of funding as the 2007-08 school year without consideration of growth or cost of living.  This is woefully low as a base amount. The total of the 2007-08 was to be 100% available by the 2016-17 school year.  Due to a state budget short -fall the full amount will not be allocated at this time.

 

The method used to prioritize funding was achieved by redistribution of the funds already in the system (not using new money).  Thus funding was taken from some districts to give to others.

 

To jumpstart the LCFF, the governor proposed an initiative, Proposition 30 for a temporary source of income.  The Proposition 30 tax sunsets and may no longer be available,

 

Adding insult to injury, the state has made local districts responsible to cover retirement costs for its employees.  Districts used to contribute 8+%, the employees, 8+% , and the state paid the rest. By 2020-21 districts will be responsible for 20.4% for teachers and 19.1% for classified employees’ retirements.

 

The loss of revenue from this additional expense plus the loss of Proposition 30 dollars amount to approximately 17% of a district’s total budget.  More specifically, Fresno Unified School District will lose approximately $40 M from retirement coats and $77 M from Proposition 30 funding, a total of $117 M, within the next four years.  Clovis Unified School District loses $25 M in retirement costs and $45 M from Proposition 30 for a total of $65 M.

 

With California’s unacceptable ranking of being 49th  in the nation in provision of educational personnel, this is a plea to vote yes on Proposition 55, the extension of the Prop 30 funds for schools.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The State of Funding for California

 

Public Schools

 

California cannot expect to compete in the future economy when it is failing so miserably in providing educational resources for our children and youth.  Since 2010 and before the California School Boards Association (CSBA) has been engaged in activities to change the funding dynamic.  For example, it filed a lawsuit, Robles vs. Wong, against the state of California for failure to adequately fund the public schools.  The suit has been unsuccessful at two levels of the court system and is now headed to the California Supreme Court.

 

The evidence of California’s failure is documented in “California’s Challenge, Adequately Funding Education in the 21st Century” which was released in January, 2016 by CSBA. Some of the data found in the Adequacy document are as follows:

 

California’s income per capita ranks 10th nationally but 44th on its spending  on K-12 education.  The average number of pupils to teacher ratio ranks 49th in the country.  Put in perspective, Texas has 42,000 more teachers than California yet California serves 1.4 million more students.

 

Consider the fact that students are not equally needy. California has the highest percentage of  English learners. Here  22.8% are English learners whereas  the national average is 9.2% English learners.   California also has more low income students than any other state.  There are 56% of students eligible for a free or reduced lunch, 5% higher than the national average.

 

To address the greater needs of our student population, in 2013 California implemented a new funding formula. The new model is known as the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) initiated by Gov. Brown.  The intent was to address the educational issues for our most needy students and to give local school districts control over their budgets by reducing the number of categorical programs.  The LCFF also called for accountability through submission of a Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP).

 

Under the previous formula, districts received funding based on their average daily attendance (ADA). The new formula was designed to provide the most needy students with the most revenue.  A district’s population is weighted by the number of socio-economically disadvantaged, English learners, and foster youth students.

 

Sounds great! Right? - a simplified formula prioritizing the most needy students, and allowing local districts to determine how to best use the funds for their community.  What more could schools ask for than a formula providing revenue in the right direction? The problem is that it lacks adequate funding.

 

The new formula gives the impression that public schools are now where they need to be financially.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Actually it leaves many schools strapped for funding and promises to get worse.  To be specific:

 

The implementation of LCFF is based on providing the same amount of funding as the 2007-08 school year without consideration of growth or cost of living.  This is woefully low as a base amount. The total of the 2007-08 was to be 100% available by the 2016-17 school year.  Due to a state budget short -fall the full amount will not be allocated at this time.

 

The method used to prioritize funding was achieved by redistribution of the funds already in the system (not using new money).  Thus funding was taken from some districts to give to others.

 

To jumpstart the LCFF, the governor proposed an initiative, Proposition 30 for a temporary source of income.  The Proposition 30 tax sunsets and may no longer be available,

 

Adding insult to injury, the state has made local districts responsible to cover retirement costs for its employees.  Districts used to contribute 8+%, the employees, 8+% , and the state paid the rest. By 2020-21 districts will be responsible for 20.4% for teachers and 19.1% for classified employees’ retirements.

 

The loss of revenue from this additional expense plus the loss of Proposition 30 dollars amount to approximately 17% of a district’s total budget.  More specifically, Fresno Unified School District will lose approximately $40 M from retirement coats and $77 M from Proposition 30 funding, a total of $117 M, within the next four years.  Clovis Unified School District loses $25 M in retirement costs and $45 M from Proposition 30 for a total of $65 M.

 

With California’s unacceptable ranking of being 49th  in the nation in provision of educational personnel, this is a plea to vote yes on Proposition 55, the extension of the Prop 30 funds for schools.  

 

 

 

Please share this site to help others research their voting choices.

PUBLISHING:PRODUCTION SERVER:PRODUCTION