Council Reports‎ > ‎

Superintendency Council

Superintendents' Council Meeting - Dave Garcia, Region 7 Representative

posted Feb 25, 2018, 12:07 PM by ACSA Region 7

 My name is David Garcia.  In addition to being the Superintendent in the Empire Union School District, I serve as ACSA Region VII representative on the Superintendents Council.  Recently, I attended the recent 2017/2018 ACSA Superintendents Council meeting in Monterey.  The purpose of my attending the meetings is to report back information from every council meeting to ACSA Superintendents within Region VII, solicit input and return that input to the council. 

 Below is the minutes / notations for each agenda item from yesterday’s Council meeting.  Attachments for certain agenda items are attached above, and those attachments may be mass produced for you to use needed.  If you have any questions or if would like further clarification for something you’ve read, please send me an email.  Please remember, Superintendent’s from each ACSA region able to request placement of any topic onto a Superintendents Council agenda for discussion and/or clarification.  If there is a pressing educational issue within your district that you would like input and feedback from the council, please send it to me and I’ll present it to the council.


ACSA Superintendents’ Council 
January 24, 2018

Meeting was called to order at 8:30 a.m.

Mentor Program - ACSA will provide a mentor to any new administrator within first three years for any administrative position within an organization. The new admin will be paired with a veteran administrator to have a “talking/thinking partner”. There is on-line access to research and sign up for the program. This is a free program.

Strategic Plan - Scarlett Vanyi reported that ACSA is working on the development of the strategic plan. There is a draft framework and mission statement which will be reviewed in February. There is a survey to complete to get input.

Identification of Pressing Issues –
·Where are we working with STRS?
·Marijuana issues?

CTE funding - Since the inception of LCFF there has been discussion of what we should do about CTE. There has been a push from the field indicating that since LCFF CTE has been hurt by the funding model. The grant that was created to address issues died this year. The Gov.’s budget purposely has CTE dollars but they don’t go directly to school districts you have to be accessed through the community colleges.

The biggest question is how should we treat CTE? Should CTE be an exception to the local control efforts. ACSA is seeking input. There is legislation to extend the grant CTE funding for an additional three years. There are questions around who should be eligible for this funding? Should it only go to existing programs or open to others who would like to access the dollars? This legislation would not have to be accessed through the community colleges. The heart of the issue. . Should CTE funding be separate and/or additional to any other funding. There will be more to follow in future meetings.

 Legal Update –

 DACA case - we should know within weeks what the outcome will be for DACA.

There was a victory in the district court that ACSA was a participant. There is an attempt to go directly to the Supreme Court. If it goes directly there it will most likely be defeated. It would be more beneficial to go to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal instead of going to the Supreme Court.

In addition to DACA there is an urgency to increase the spending caps in order to keep non-defense spending funded and moving forward.

Sanctuary Jurisdiction case - ACSA is involved in that case since schools were included in the idea of having safe schools. A judge issued a nationwide injunction. It continues in the Ninth Circuit

Pension Cases - Three cases dealing with the changes that effect people who were already in the system. The changes were challenged. An appellate decision that pension rights could be taken away if a reasonable pension is in place. The California Rule says that you can’t take pension away without replacing it with something comparable. The court ruled that it could be changed.

 If the employee had a reasonable expectation of what was earned it can’t be taken away. 

The Governor does not have empathy for what school districts are experiencing with the STRS/PERS issues. 

 Literacy case filed in LA - Names schools in LA, Stockton, Inglewood. It was filed in early December. There have been some delays in the courts. The case has not yet moved. The case cites that in the three schools the academic achievement is so low. They deliberately included a charter school to engage some entities. There are accusations that the state knows where there are problems and the state isn’t doing anything about it.

 Janis Case is coming in late February which addresses agency fee. There are enough votes on the Supreme Court to get rid of agency fee. The opinion will probably come out in June. It probably won’t impact the November election because it takes a little time for implementation within each state.

  • ACSA announced that it will endorse Marshall Tuck. ACSA has developed talking points regarding the talking points.
  • The ACSA Board has decided to wait on an endorsement for Governor. 
  • State Budget - we need to work with a “task force” to develop a plan for future funding and we need to work on messaging. 
  • System of support - CCEE wants input to address the needs of Districts in support. 
  • SBAC - Over concerns regarding SBAC results there is information provided by CDE clarifying why the results showed what they did. 
Thank you,
David E. Garcia
Superintendent - Empire Union School District
ACSA Region VII – Superintendent Council Representative

Superintendents' Council Meeting - Dave Garcia, Region 7 Representative

posted Oct 29, 2017, 7:55 PM by ACSA Region 7   [ updated Feb 25, 2018, 11:59 AM ]

The ACSA Superintendent Council held its first meeting of 2017-2018 in Sacramento. This council consists of 50 members, of which 38 are current Superintendents. Each of ACSA’s 19 regions is represented by a Superintendent from that region, and each regional representative serves a three-year term. Therefore, our first order of business was to welcome new council members and outline the purposed and function of the Superintendent Council.

The purpose of the Superintendent Council was defined as follows:
• To identify and study issue related to the role and responsibilities of Superintendents and proactively advocate for solutions.
• To strengthen a network for communication among Superintendents.
• To be proactive in representing the viewpoint and vision of Superintendents on critical education issues with a view toward influencing policy and practice at the local, state, and national levels.
• To plan strategies and practices which will influence the quality of education for all California students.
• To voice the critical need for stable, sound finance for educating California’s children.
• To represent Superintendents in ACSA’s relations with the Governor’s office, Legislature, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction.
• To plan and coordinate professional development activities to enhance professional development of administrators and all school district positions.
• To encourage the active participation of Superintendents and all other management team members in ACSA.
• To maintain a liaison relationship with AASA and other organizations and agencies.

The Council President, Gregory Franklin Ed.D. – Tustin Unified School District, opened the floor to solicit and identify ‘pressing issues’. Much of that conversation was focused on the current construct of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). Some members felt as though the current LCFF format has create ‘winner districts’ and ‘loser districts’. The districts categorized as ‘winner districts’ were those receiving supplemental and concentration dollars. The districts categorized as ‘loser districts’ were those not receiving supplemental and concentration dollars. Superintendent representatives shared examples of ‘loser districts’ within their region that were facing lay-offs due to no increased funding in conjunction with increased expenditures such as Health Care contributions, STRS contributions and PERS contributions. Another example shared of hard-ship within ‘loser districts’ was that teachers were leaving ‘loser districts’ to work in ‘winner districts’ thereby creating hard to fill vacancies. As one might imagine, there were very strong feelings on both sides of this issue.

Following the LCFF discussion, the Superintendent Council was joined by Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) Candidate Tony Thurmond. Thurmond launched is Campaign for SPI in April 2017. He pledged to improve and defend public education. He said, “Improving public education is my top priority. That’s why I passed legislation to provide millions of dollars to school districts to keep kids in school and out of the criminal justice system.” He vowed to ‘fight the Trump Agenda to gut our public schools at every step’ and added ‘California needs to be ready to fight the crisis head on’. Thurmond is currently a member of the Assembly and he serves on the Education Committee where he has advanced legislation that reduces truancy, empowers teachers, addresses mental health and expands access to career and technical education. Should you want more information in regards to how much ACSA and Thurmond have been aligned regarding past legislation and educational issue, feel free to contact ACSA staff members Edgar Zazueta and/or Laura Preston. Another candidate for Superintendent of Public Instruction (SIP), Marshall Tuck, is scheduled to join the Superintendent Council meeting in November. After speaking with all SIP candidates, ACSA will be scheduling and hosting a question and answer forum for all the SIP candidates some time in 2018.

ACSA staff member Adonai Mack will have a new position within ACSA. He will be an ACSA representative / lobbyist at the Federal level in Washington D.C. Adonai will spend his time between California and Washington D.C. advocating for ACSA interests, public education and students within California.

Governor Brown began signing legislation into law on July 10, 2017 and will conclude signing legislation into law on October 15, 2017. ACSA will be creating and distributing to ACSA membership a legislative update for all ‘newly signed’ legislation sometime this fall.

The Council received an Ed Services Update. Members are encouraged download the ACSA app. Within that app, there is an Educational Services link which includes the following informational options:

• ACSAtv
• Advocacy
• Career Center
• Professional Learning
• Member Services
• Newsroom
• Publications
• Regions & Charters
• Strategic Plan

The next Superintendents Council will be on November 1, 2017 at the ACSA Leadership Summit in San Jose.

Superintendents' Council Meeting - Dave Garcia, Region 7 Representative

posted Jan 15, 2017, 4:58 PM by ACSA Region 7   [ updated Oct 29, 2017, 7:59 PM ]

ACSA Superintendent's Council - December 2, 2016 

Michael Fullan - Systems Leadership Collaborative

·     Fullan and his team visit 10 districts throughout state via regional cohorts.  Fullan works with districts to analyze systems within its programs and organization to help move them forward through the change process.  Districts interested in joining a new cohort can contact Barry to participate.  There is a cost of $10,000.  ACSA would like to create another cohort to begin in the 2017-2018 school year. There are districts within existing cohorts and Barry will send out a list of those districts.

·       Equity Leadership.   WestED and ACSA have partnered to facilitate an equity leadership program.  

·        ACSA will be creating trainings for site administrators to help them better understand the LCFF/LCAP evaluation rubrics.

 Superintendents Symposium

·       Indian Wells, California.  The symposium will be in February.  Superintendents are encouraged to register and attend.  

 ACSA Staff - Legislative Priorities

·       Budget season is upon us.  ACSA believes that districts should 'lower' their financial expectations from the state.  The one message ACSA wants to promote is to 'due to ESSA, a majority of responsibility has already been given to states.  Current changes in the elections / federal government would take a major effort to unravel the work of ESSA designers.'  LOA put out a five (5) year forecast in November.  LOA projects a $2.5 billion growth for 2017-18.  However, LOA projects a three (3) year recession beginning in 2018-19.  LOA projects an LCFF funding target of 99% next year.  If the recession hits in 2018-19, LCFF would not be fully funded until 2020-21.  Governor Brown will give budget proposal on January 10, 2017.

·       State Facility Bonds / Prop 51.  Rumor is that state treasurer may not sell bonds.  State department of finance does not want to issue bonds. They may gradually release bonds to off-set level three (3) developer fees.  ACSA will keep districts updated as more information becomes available.

·      One Voice:  After conferring with the ACSA Board, Superintendent's Council and other ACSA members, the One Voice initiative has narrowed its focus on the following five (5) areas:  Special Education; School Finance; Accountability; Educator Effectiveness (Teacher / Educator shortage); Student Wellness (School Climate / Social Emotional Issues).

Question to ACSA staff: What educational issues may Governor Brown address before leaving office?  Response: Revisit LCFF.

Patrick Murphy - Special Education Finance in California

·       PPIC (Public Policy Institute in California) researched and completed report. ( / report / related event) to get report.  A summary of the report’s findings are as follows:

·       Twenty years since AB 602; Largest remaining categorical grant; Evaluate current system relative to LCFF principles (transparency, local control, flexibility and equity); SPED task force (unified system)  

o   SPED includes more than 700,000 K-12 students (12%)

o   spending $12.5 billion annually (60% district; 31% state; 9% feds)

o   funds are distributed to SELPA

o   District's must have 20,000 students to be their own SELPA

o   SELPA funding rates are not equal

o   state funding has not kept up with increases in the number and type of disabilities

o   top fifth of SELPA's receive 40 percent more funding

o   Share of students with disabilities (Tuolumne 13.2% - 16.8%; San Joaquin 11.8% - 12.5%; Stanislaus 12.6% - 13.1%)

o   Funding and share of students with special needs have weak connection

o   As the percentage of students with special needs increases, per pupil spending stays flat at multi district SELPAS

o   SELPA structure in inconsistent with LCFF

o   SELPA major role is determining how funds are used.  Significant 'off the top' spending for regional services.  Per-pupil distribute to district.  Districts remain accountable for costs and outcomes.  Districts in multi-district SELPAS have influence.

·       SELPA fiscal practices raise significant issues

o   Directly funding regional programs force larger districts to subsidize smaller districts.  

o   Distributing funds based upon sped counts creates incentives to identify more students for sped.  Funding regional classes can encourage districts to serve students in separate programs.

o   No other state uses an intermediary to distribute funds to districts

·   PPIC recommends:

o   District can purchase services, pool risks as necessary

o   Allow time for a transition

o   Protect small district

o   Allocate sped services for low-income, EL, foster youth through LCFF planning and accountability plan

o   SPED $ would be a category within LCFF

o   Equalize district funding level as ($653/student)

o   Consolidate funds for mental health into AB602

o   Increase support for infants and preschoolers

o   Give money directly to Districts instead of SELPAs

Question:   ACSA:  Who/what group makes this type of decision?  

PPIC response:   Whether or not these types of changes appear within the Governor’s budget and the California State Legislature.

The U.S. Department of Education released two Notices of Final Regulations (NFRs) with regard to assessments administered under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).  These NFRs promote flexibility and innovation in the use of assessments consistent with the Testing Action Plan announced by President Obama in October 2015.

·     Final regulation for state assessment systems under Title I, Part A

o   Title I, Part A of ESSA was a focus of two negotiated rulemaking sessions required under the law and conducted by the Department early in 2016. Negotiators reached consensus on proposed regulations focused on ESSA’s requirements for states in the design and implementation of high-quality state assessment systems. These systems are required to use tests that measure higher-order thinking skills to assess all students against state-developed standards aligned with college- and career-ready expectations.

o   The proposed regulations were published on September 9, 2016, for comment. The final regulations include a small number of significant changes from the proposal, including with regard to the plan of action a state must put in place to meet the 1 percent cap on the administration of alternative assessments aligned with alternate academic achievement standards, and clarifications on the use of Native American language assessments.


·       Final regulations for the innovative assessment demonstration authority under Title I, Part B


o   Title I, Part B, specifically the new innovative assessment demonstration authority created under the law, was not subject to negotiated rulemaking. The Department published proposed regulations for this authority on September 9, 2016. The NFR establishes the parameters under which the Secretary may grant demonstration authority to states that seek to develop, pilot, and scale up alternative approaches to the large-scale summative assessments generally used now to meet the statewide assessment system requirements of ESSA. The NFR clarifies that an innovative assessment may be designed to include items above or below grade level so long as it measures student proficiency based on the challenging academic content standards for the grade in which the assessed student is enrolled.  It also provides additional information for states on how comparability of results may be demonstrated and clarified that districts and schools participating in any demonstration pilot will be required to provide comparable results to one another.


In conjunction with this release, the Department also issued non-regulatory guidance for states and school districts, in the form of a dear colleague letter to chief state school officers which draws attention to a number of areas of ESSA flexibility for using federal funds to support the President’s Testing Action Plan, such as for efforts to reduce testing time, eliminate redundant assessments, and provide more actionable information on assessments to students, families and educators.  Attached you will find a distillation of the recently released final rule on ESSA accountability, report cards, and state plans, in both Word and PDF formats, for your reference and use. This document has been prepared by our federal advocates, Foresight Law + Policy.  Given the expansive scope of the rule, this document is a little longer than what we usually strive to produce. However, it is organized by rule section to facilitate navigation.


posted Oct 4, 2016, 8:25 PM by Kristi Kirsch

Superintendency Council Minutes from 3-10-16

posted Mar 21, 2016, 1:01 PM by Kristi Kirsch

Association of California School Administrators – ACSA




Meeting Minutes from March 10, 2016





Brad Pacheco, Deputy Executive Officer of Communications & Stakeholder Relations


     CalPERS surveys resulted in a desire for more interactions between contracting employers and CalPERS leadership.  Their visit to the Supts. Council is designed to meet that goal.


Cheryl Eason, CFO


Feedback from the Annual Feedback surveys over the past two years was to create a single point of contact with CalPERS to address critical and timely needs (Engagement Opportunities).  CalPERS has created an Employer Response Team. This team can address this type of need with an 85% success rate.  Also, there was interest in creating a small forum titled the Employer Response Dialogue.  Other engagement opportunities available to employers include Stakeholder Engagement Briefing, Benefits Education Event, School Employee Advisory Committee and Educational Forums.  The attached CalPERS document identifies contact information for the aforementioned communication opportunities.  CalPERS has invested significant time and money to train staff to address the needs of members and employers in a more timely fashion.  Outreach and education will be an ongoing goal of CalPERS.


Alan Milligan, Chief Actuary


CalPERS board has adopted a risk mitigation plan designed to reduce risks associated with potential volatility.  CalPERS has membership that, depending upon their years of service, are operating within different retirement funding formulas.  Reduced volatility risks will result in a drop in expected returns from 7.5% to 6.5%.  Benefits for school employees are not a generous as employees from other public sectors.  Constitutional protections do not allow for changes in funding formulas for existing employees.  The 2015-2016 investment performance is not looking well.  Thereby the 2016-2017 investment rate will reflect prior year's investment performance.  A neutral performance would be 7.5%.  A poor performance would be a negative rate, 2015-2016 may be a negative rate.  Employee contributions are directly related to rate performance.  CalPERS will know the final number sometime in June 2016.  How would we as Superintendents respond to comments that the CalPERS system is unsustainable and over inflated?  CalPERS Rep:  "It is difficult to debunk.  CalPERS forecasts are based upon an expected return and not a fixed return rate.  In order to offset this perception, CalPERS is investing in lower risk / lower volatility stocks, bonds, etc.". What positive steps is CalPERS taking to offset public perception that the public pension system will bankrupt the state?  CalPERS rep.:  "Transparency, create an ambassador program to share the facts.  Only 2.8% of CalPERS retirees receive a $100,000 pension.  Public school employees receive an average of $30,000 per year pension.  Other public pension programs are in worse shape than us.  We are proactive in researching existing CalPERS employee salaries to determine the appropriateness of permissible compensation.  We are better positioned to audit employee salaries and step in when necessary." What is CalPERS plans to audit now and in the future?  CalPERS rep.:  "The CalPERS board is open to more audits.  We have 3,000 employers, yet only 100 audits per year.  An audit plan is being presented to the CalPERS board this summer.  Audits would be more 'risk based' and more focused on processes (i.e.: payroll).  The top five audit findings will be shared with employers in upcoming newsletters and communications to assist employers be compliant.  CalPERS school employers make up one pension group.  Cities and municipalities may be members of CalPERS, however do not belong to the school employers group."


Donna Lum, Deputy Executive Officer of Customer Service & Retirement - Present

Doug McKeever, Deputy Executive Officer of Benefits Policy & Planning - Present

Doug Hoffner, Deputy Executive Officer of Operations - Present

Rita Gallardo, Chief Stakeholder Relations - Present

David Teykaerts, Manager for Stakeholder Outreach - Present


Accountability - Wes Smith


There was a public hearing within the CDE to solicit input regarding accountability.  ACSA had several Superintendents speak to the CDE regarding accountability.  CDE is looking at multiple measures and school climate.  ACSA is promoting the need for a set of discreet indicators which parents can easily understand.  The system will reflect the measure of growth for each students and sub-groups of students.  The goal should be measuring continuous improvement and not punitive action.  The CDE will come back in May to present their accountability plan.  Question: What will be the role of the County?  Wes:  "Counties should provide services and support to districts.  There are examples of counties that provide assistance to district in need."  Will counties have oversight?  Response: "There isn't conversation within this process as to the oversight role in districts.  Some counties embrace the role of oversight and others not so much.  Counties are redesigning their programs and services and oversight responsibilities similar to district redesigning their programs and services.  Would districts want oversight from the county office or the CDE?"


Government Relations Update:


Today the CDE is hearing from Superintendents regarding LCFF and LCAP.  They want to hear from practitioners.  Regarding LCFF, there is perception out there that LCFF funds aren't being used in the manner for which they were intended.  Special interest groups are lobbying legislatures to further regulate LCFF funds to ensure what they believe is appropriate expenditures.  Regarding LCAP, the CDE also wants to hear from Superintendents as they begin to determine the methodology for reporting assessment data (i.e.: New formula to generate an API).


SB 178


     Not discussed – Suggested Read


SB 277


     Not discussed – Suggested Read


Morgan Hill Data Issue


This case has been going on for four years.  The claim is that the CDE is not overlooking district's in how they are serving students with disabilities.  FERPA is outdated and doesn't address today's updated data systems.  FERPA allows that certain data be made public.  The judge involved requested data be released as allowed through FERPA.  The judge has attempted to change the request to include only pertinent information.  The judge has appointed a 'master'.  This person would analyze the information requests and determine which data should be permissible in relation to the requested information and FERPA.  Some school attorneys state that by releasing information, the CDE could be further sued if it's found that student services weren't rendered currently or in the past.  This issue is ongoing and no definitive release of information has been determined.


Vaccination Issue


     Anti-vaccination group has tried to repeal the vaccination law and/or recall legislatures.  This group may be approaching you to get on your board agenda item regarding this issue.


State Budget


More prop. 98 funds.  Any new funds may be 'one-time'.  Governor's proposal for payment of mandated funds in January.  The LAO is recommending that district's could get $450 for the next three year, however district's would not be able to receive funding beyond the next 2-3 years.  LAO states that if the state continues to pay mandates under the current formula, it would cost the state over 150 billion dollars currently and in the future.





Qualified for November ballot.  Governor is opposed to bond.  Unions are trying to force a conversation that with prop. 30 and bond on ballot, they are sure to fail.  ACSA hasn't taken position on bond.  ACSA is trying to formulate a strategy to keep issues separate.  ACSA wants support 'pro-education initiatives.  Governor does not want to use 'general obligation' bonds for schools.  If passed, there would become issues of equity and equality of accessing the bond funds within all CA districts.


Prop. 30


There is an initiative to continue Prop. 30 funding.  Supporters (including CTA) are getting signatures to get this issue on the upcoming ballot.  The proposal does not change anything other than extending it twelve more years.  It is difficult for tax measures to pass when there there is a state bond on the same ballot.  ACSA feels as though it will take a local effort solicit support for this ballot measure and they will be providing district's with material for this purpose.


Early Childhood 


Block Grant proposal.  This would not go into affect in 16-17.  Legislators concerned with there only being two public hearings.  Goal is to add more pre-school spots.  ACSA will propose no changes to TK.  ACSA wants to stream line requirements that don't align to TK and Kindergarten.  ACSA has no consensus regarding teacher qualifications.  Superintendents were concerned that if there isn't funding for pre-school and all TK students, then district's would either have to pay for the programs or possibly charge tuition.


Teacher Shortage


No governor's proposal at this moment in time.  Several bills are out there which would require a one-time appropriation of funds for this purpose.  ACSA has yet to support any bill at this moment.  ?How would one time $ alleviate the short fall?  ACSA Rep.:  "I.e.: Support a three year grant for programs such as 'Cal-Teach'.  Most legislative proposals reflect it being 'easier' to become a teacher.  In general, new teachers do not come from the top 1/3 of college graduating class.  Statement, "If we were adequately funded, we could create programs to attract the top 1/3 into teaching."  ACSA should talk to legislators about 'natural pathways' into teaching.  We have many classified employees that would be good teachers, however, they don't have have a natural pathway into teaching through higher educations.  Whenever there is a teacher shortage it seems as though the CTC increases rigor of becoming a teacher, thereby the shortage of speech pathologists.


A couple of guest speakers (with doctorate degrees) spoke to the council about the teacher shortage.  Projected need of teachers in 14-15 was 22,000.  Systems were only producing 15,000 teachers.  There are many people out there with teaching credentials.  Many of these people with credentials, not currently teaching and/or once were teaching, do not want to return to the classroom for such little money.  One-third of the current teacher population is over 50 years old.  In the last 10 years there has been a 75% decline in enrollment in teacher credentialing programs.  Last year 30% of the credentials issued were issued to people that did not participate in a traditional credential program (PIPS, SIPS).  The teacher shortage is not a statewide issue, it is more of a community and/or regional issue.  District's surrounded by many secondary institutions are not experiencing the shortage as much as district's not surrounded by secondary institutions.  Many districts are designing their own credentialing programs as permissive through state agencies and regulations.  Many district are producing their own teachers.  In many areas the need to staff a classroom trumps the need to staff a classroom with a credentialed teacher.  Incoming teachers do not have skills in framework knowledge and preparedness to lead a classroom effectively.  CSU systems are working in partnership with other educational agencies, including districts, to diligently to address the issues of teacher shortages.  The negative narrative about the current state of teaching is not attracting young people to this work.  The classroom of today is not the classroom of the 50 year olds when they began teaching.  Young people think about their future differently, they can't imagine doing anything for 30 years.  They want to do something for five years and move on.  How can we brand our classroom and system to attract this your person?  ACSA and the educational community are engaging in dialogue about this dilemma openly and honestly.  


There are CSU programs which afford people the opportunity to complete a BA and credential within a four year period of time.   However, current salary schedules place these people lower because they don't have 30 units of post BA units.  Being at that lower salary level until graduate units are obtained is not an attractive feature for potential teachers.  


There are far reaching implications on how to prepare this new generation of young person to be an effective teacher within this era of common core.  Veteran teachers are swimming in common core and they are looking forward to pending retirement.  Regional educational leaders need to create a task force to address this issue.  Considering this teacher shortage issue is not a state wide issue there is not going to be a one-size fits all solution, however it is wise for ACSA Region leadership to research other ACSA Regions movement (task force creation) in this area.


The ongoing teacher shortage has garnered significant attention in the Legislature this year. Legislators have introduced bills on a spectrum of potential solutions including beginning teacher training, an assumption of loans program, as well as a range of other teacher recruitment and retention proposals. Additionally, a number of spot bills have been introduced in both houses and by legislators of both parties, signifying widespread legislative interest in addressing the issue. 

The following bills are among the substantive proposals on the issue so far: 

  • SB 62 (Pavley) – Brings back the Assumption Program of Loans for Education (APLE) in exchange for at least four years teaching at certain high needs schools
  • SB 915 (Liu) – Re-establishes the California Center on Teaching Careers (CalTeach) to, among other things, develop public relations campaign for teacher recruitment, conduct outreach activities, and create a referral database for public school teachers
  • SB 933 (Allen) – Establishes a California Teacher Corps teacher residency program, which provides grants for training and mentoring during participation in a teacher credentialing program
  • SB 1381 (Mendoza) – Implements a $5,000 tax credit for qualified full-time teachers beginning January 1, 2017
  • AB 1918 (O’Donnell) – Allows COEs to issue temporary credentials to certified employees of nonpublic nonsectarian schools whose credentials are being processed by Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC)
  • AB 2122 (McCarty) – Establishes a program to recruit classified school employees to enroll in teacher training programs
  • AB 2248 (Holden) – Requires the CTC to issue five-year preliminary credentialswithin 30 days of receiving all necessary documentation to teachers who were prepared out of state 
  • AB 2336 (Olsen) – Extends emergency substitute permits for general education for up to 60 days, and for special education up to 40 days
  • AB 2401 (O’Donnell) – Restores in fiscal year 2016-17 a yet to be determined amount of funding for Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) Induction programs
  • AB 2815 (O’Donnell) – Requires alternative teacher programs to address the special education teacher shortage

We will updated as these proposals move forward.

Exemption from CalSTRS 180-Day Rule - To help LEAs address the immediate teacher shortage, CalSTRS has issued new guidance outlining how to fill certain positions with recently retired educators. As you know, retired teachers are subject to a “separation-from-service” requirement, which imposes punitive penalties for retired CalSTRS members rehired within 180 days of retirement (a dollar-for-dollar reduction in their benefit or annuity).

We have been working closely with stakeholder groups and CalSTRS to ensure school districts and COEs can quickly obtain exemptions to CalSTRS’s 180-day separation-from-service rule. The result is the attached Employer Circular (located here), which offers a detailed step-by-step exemption process. 

LEAs can rehire individuals within 180-days of their retirement without impacting their retirement security. Here is an outline of how it works:

  1. Governing Board Resolution. The LEA governing board must adopt a resolution (and not by consent calendar) that names the individual(s) to return and states findings, such as the position’s critical need and that the vacant position was not created by retiree. The attached Circular includes a model resolution that will satisfy this requirement.
  2. CalSTRS Submission. CalSTRS must receive the above resolution and Request for Separation-from-Service Requirement Exemption (SR 1897) form before the individual begins performing services. This form is attached in this email and available on CalSTRS’ Secure Employer Website. 
  3. Thirty-Day Approval PeriodWithin 30 days, CalSTRS will notify the employer and retired member about whether the exemption is approved.

Capitol Advisors strongly advise allowing 45 to 60 days to complete the above process. This allows time to receive the approval of CalSTRS before the individual performs any work. This is critically important because a retiree is subject to a significant penalty without prior CalSTRS approval, especially those who retired under the Retirement Incentive Program. The exemption does not affect the annual post-retirement earnings limit ($42,732 in 2016–17). Keeping in mind the lead time needed for this process, please note that an LEA may start this process before or after the individual has retired.

Reserve Cap:


Not triggered unless state puts prop. 98 money in rainy day fund.  LAO indicates that the rainy day fund won't be triggered until 2018-2019.  This may give legislators an opportunity to adjust this program within that period of time.  ?At our last meeting, Wes said ACSA was not interested in the rainy day issue and CSBA was taking the lead, now we're hearing something new?  ACSA Rep.:  "We would all agree that the reserve cap is not good policy.  Would we appreciate having it repealed? Yes.  What is the political expense of repealing this issue?  We're on board with repeal, however, we're not actively pursuing the repeal because of potential political fall-out.  We're going to engage in the conversation and we want to be part of the conversation.  We have to prioritize our issues, and this issue may not be on the top of that list."




    LAO estimates the 25%-50% of new LCFF funds are being used to support increased CalPERS / CalSTRS contribution.  Legislators have no interest in setting aside additional funds for district's to off-set this increase outside of LCFF.


Funding Adequacy


    As much as we're grateful for LCFF funds, be reminded it is only a restoration of funds not received several years in the past.  Comparatively California is still below the national average of per pupil spending.  Other states have progressive property tax rates which are used to fund public schools and California's prop. 13 tax rate is different.   Legislators are interested in categorical funding for BTSA and after school programs.  There are many requests for categorizing one-time funds.  For example, The state PTA has a proposal to use one-time money (1 Billion) for parent training."


LCAP Collaborative


Collaborative consists of 14 districts from throughout CA.  Goal is to learn to shape the LCAP into a strategic and useable plan.  This is a systematic approach to leadership reflective of coherent and distributive leadership (leading from the middle).  Another goal is to utilize the 6 strands of leadership (I.e.: Communication, technology, etc.) which were shared on day 2 of the Supts. Symposium in Monterey to guide this collaborative.  Further information of guiding practices and professional development in those 6 areas will be forthcoming next year.


Superintendents Symposium Debrief


     Pros:  Student presentation, speakers, collegial conversations

     Cons: Some presenters for sessions seemed uniformed and disconnected, timing of symposium and scheduling of sessions  

                created conflicts with other responsibilities, timing of Superintendents Council meeting, workshops seemed like a  

                vendor session and not a learning opportunity, relevancy of technology offerings was not current


Superintendents Symposium 2016-2017


Monterey Portola will still be under construction next year.  They won't provide the outside tent.  Thereby, ACSA is looking at a new location for the Superintendents Symposium in 2017 (we're contracted with Monterey through 2018).  An RFP went out for the 2017 ACSA Superintendents Symposium.  Three places responded.


1.  Marriott - Palm Desert (Feb. 8-10) 2017  Rates $229

2.  Hyatt - Indian Wells. (Feb. 8-10) 2017  Rates $234

3.  La Quinta - Palm Desert (Feb. 14-16) 2017  Rates $269


More information will be forthcoming in the future.


David E. Garcia


Empire Union School District

116 N. McClure Road

Modesto, CA  95357

(209) 521-2800

209) 521-4010 Fax

ACSA Superintendents Council 12/4/15

posted Jan 18, 2016, 1:21 PM by Kristi Kirsch

ACSA Superintendents Council 12/4/15

Superintendency Council Update November 2015

posted Nov 13, 2015, 9:23 AM by ACSA Region 7

October 2015 Update

posted Oct 2, 2015, 1:49 PM by ACSA Region 7

One Voice for Students

posted Jul 3, 2015, 7:52 AM by ACSA Region 7   [ updated Jul 3, 2015, 8:23 AM ]

Dear Members of the ACSA Superintendency Council:


I am excited to share with each of your our One Voice for Students Communication Toolkit. We are planning to launch 2 Local One Voice Local Lobby Days (early summer and late summer). We encourage all superintendents to participate.  Details will follow with dates and guidance. You won’t need to leave your community, this will be a local “action” day.


You will also be receiving in the mail hardcopies of our OneVoice Pocket Guide which is a simple easy to carry guide on what we stand for under One Voice.


I encourage each of you to pay particular attention to the attached “One Voice – Delivering the Message” so you can get started today in getting the OneVoice message out to your region, community, and schools. We will provide you a detailed update during your May 7 meeting on where each of the One Voice policy issues are to date.  


Please find attached for your use:

1.       2015 One Voice Actionable Goals

2.       One Voice – Delivering the Message

3.       One Voice Pocket Guide (hard copies in the mail)

4.       One Voice Power Point to guide your advocacy work locally.


A big thanks to Roger Salazer our political consultant for developing materials for the ACSA Board and other ACSA leaders.

Thanks for all you do!


Sherry Skelly Griffith
Director, Governmental Relations
Association of California School Administrators
1029 J Street >> Suite 500 >> Sacramento, CA >> 95814
voice 916.955-1699>web

March 6 Meeting

posted Apr 19, 2015, 6:43 PM by Kristi Kirsch

Council Members:


Attached you will find a draft copy of the minutes from the March 5 meeting that was held in Sacramento.  There were also numerous handouts circulated at the meeting, and you can find them here:


Superintendency Council handouts


During the meeting, there was a discussion regarding a conflict with our April meeting date. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS DATE HAS BEEN CHANGED. The new meeting date is May  7,  2015.  The third floor conference room at the ACSA office is not available that day, so the council will be meeting at the Citizen Hotel (about a block away from the ACSA Sacramento office). More detail to follow.


Please let me know if you have any questions, or need anything further.




Suzanne Caffrey
Executive Associate
Association of California School Administrators
1029 J Street >> Suite 500 >> Sacramento, CA >> 95814
voice 916.329.3804 >>facsimile 916.290.0449 >>web

1-10 of 27