Wary of Propositions 74, 76

By and large, local education leaders say they are opposed to the two propositions.On the special election ballot Tuesday are two propositions that could significantly alter the course of education in Newport-Mesa and across California.

Here, educators have given both measures an overwhelming response: keep things the way they are.

While the Measure F school bond, which would use $282 million of taxpayers’ money to modernize schools, is the dominant issue for Newport-Mesa in the special election, voters will also rule on Propositions 74 and 76 -- the former a proposal to change the rules of teacher tenure, the latter an attempt to give the governor more unilateral control of spending.

By and large, local education leaders are opposed to the two measures, with only a few voicing support. Their opinions reflect those of the larger education community. State Supt. of Public Education Jack O’Connell, the California Teachers Assn. and others have decried the propositions in recent weeks.

“If this is the governor’s answer to reforming education, he never came and talked to teachers about what needed to be done,” said Jim Rogers, president of the Newport-Mesa Federation of Teachers, about Proposition 74. “His point of view is to blame the teachers. It really does nothing to improve education whatsoever.”

Under Proposition 74, the probationary period for newly hired teachers -- the period before they can become tenured employees -- would be extended from two to five years, thus making it more difficult to attain permanent status. Supporters of the measure argue that it could save districts money, since they could easily replace higher-salaried teachers at the end of their probation period with lower-salaried ones at the beginning.

In addition, the measure would amend the process of getting rid of tenured instructors. Currently, a district can dismiss a teacher after an unsatisfactory evaluation, but must provide the teacher with a 90-day period to improve his or her performance. Under Proposition 74, the district could dismiss a teacher after two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations, without the 90-day period.

Most educators in Newport-Mesa declared opposition to the measure, saying that it would increase job insecurity among employees.

“You know after two years if you have a good teacher or you don’t,” said school board member David Brooks. “It’s up to the district to do their homework there.”

Some former Newport-Mesa instructors who were let go at the end of probation agreed that five years was too long a trial period.

“I think we need to get teachers in, and we need to let them teach,” said Rich Salamone, who was let go from TeWinkle Middle School earlier this year. “The system’s been working for a long time where teachers learn from teachers.”

Others, however, favored the change. Debbie Davis, the principal of Back Bay and Monte Vista High School, said she believed extending probation would allow districts to better evaluate teachers.

“I don’t think two years is enough time,” she remarked. “I think it’s a reasonable amount, but five is better. Teachers really hit their stride around the third year, so I think 74 will be helpful.”

Davis disliked the second part of the proposition, however, saying that two unsatisfactory evaluations in a row were not sufficient grounds to dismiss a veteran instructor.

“There can be family issues,” she said. “There can be principal issues. You can work with someone who doesn’t connect with you. It can go sideways from one year to the next. I don’t think you have a right to let go of someone based on two unsatisfactory evaluations.”

Proposition 76, which would give the governor more power over education and other funds, has more solid opposition throughout the state. A Los Angeles Times poll Nov. 2 found 60% of respondents against the measure, as opposed to only 47% against Proposition 74.

If Proposition 76 passes, the governor would be able to reduce spending unilaterally during a budget crisis if the legislature could not agree on a solution within 45 days. Among the expenses that could be cut are funds for Proposition 98, a minimum education funding guarantee that California voters approved 17 years ago.

Under present law, if the government reduces Proposition 98 funding in a given year, it must restore the spending level in subsequent years. The measure on the special election ballot would eliminate this rule, while making repayment of the current debt of $3.8 billion a one-time obligation.

Most Newport-Mesa administrators spurned Proposition 76, which would impact community colleges as well as public schools. Last month, the Coast Community College District board of trustees voted to take a position against the measure.

Walt Howald, the president of the college board, said the proposition “would potentially decrease funds available to community colleges and, as a consequence, reduce access for our students.”

Newport-Mesa school board member Martha Fluor voiced a similar concern.

“It changes the funding formulas and allows the governor to make midyear cuts, and that’s constitutionally guaranteed,” she said. “He’s changing the funding formula and basically destroying public education.”

For one Newport-Mesa teacher, at least, the content of the propositions is beside the point. Joe Robinson, who has taught history at Newport Harbor High since 1969, said he voted against all propositions because he felt they were a cop-out for the government.

“We elect the legislature to do this,” Robinson said. “We don’t know all the details. We need professionals to be looking at all the details and making decisions.”

* MICHAEL MILLER covers education and may be reached at (714) 966-4617 or by e-mail at [email protected].