The Learning Curve: Grossmont Union’s Not Doing So Hot

It’s been a pretty brutal couple of months for the Grossmont Union High School District. Ever since the board voted in February to move forward with a plan to lay off 61 district staff, throngs of community members have continued to pack into board meetings to protest. On Thursday, the board gave a final OK to the proposal, clearing the way for the firings. 

The board members’ reasoning was simple. Because the district is facing a multi-million dollar deficit over the next couple of years, they argue, layoffs are needed to ensure the district is fiscally healthy long term. 

That didn’t convince many in the community, who felt the district should turn to its sizable reserves to plug the structural hole. They also argued that if layoffs were necessary, they didn’t need to be nearly as severe as the plan that’s been advanced. 

The bigger picture: Frustration about layoffs by itself doesn’t explain the rancor this decision inspired. For years, some community members have grown more and more angry with what they’ve viewed as a board that’s ignored community frustration in favor of conservative political posturing.  

That tension is a large part of why, even before the final vote on layoffs was cast, some community members launched a recall effort against the four board members who have backed the cuts. 

The new former chief of staff: Political ideology isn’t the only thing community members have been frustrated about. They’ve also had concerns about what they view as sketchy insider dealing.  

Last week, we published a story that related to some of those concerns. It was about a former district teacher named Jerry Hobbs, who in 2018 resigned after officials launched an investigation into allegations he’d engaged in misconduct.   

Years after his resignation, Hobbs went to work as a paralegal for a law firm called JW Howard Attorneys, which then began to do work for Grossmont. The firm’s main job was to conduct an investigation into Hobbs’ former boss. Hobbs himself worked on that investigation, which ultimately concluded two dozen district staff – including Hobbs – had been victims of retaliation. 

According to a leaked memo written by John Howard, the firm’s founder, the investigation convinced him that Hobbs had done nothing wrong and that he should be able to work at Grossmont again, should he so choose. (Hobbs was previously barred from being rehired.) Howard instructed Hobbs to draft a settlement that would allow for his rehiring. 

Ultimately, the board unanimously approved the settlement.  

One local lawyer with decades of experience of ethics litigation called the whole arrangement “unheard of.” 

After approving the settlement, district leaders wasted no time and hired Hobbs as an administrator the next month. The month after that leaders promoted him to chief of staff, all as they argued the district’s financial instability necessitated job cuts. 

The leaked memo from Howard laid out Hobbs’ unlikely road back into the district, but that wasn’t its primary purpose. It was actually written to lay out grounds to get him out of the district again.  

The memo raised concerns that Hobbs had surreptitiously inserted potentially illegal language into the settlement agreement. The inserted language granted Hobbs tenure rights the day he was rehired. Hobbs has denied the allegation he snuck the language in. 

Exactly what Hobbs had been investigated for when he was a teacher remained unclear. But on Tuesday, the Union-Tribune answered that question. 

“The investigation found he had used racial slurs including the N-word and made comments like ‘You are my favorite Black kid,’ ‘You are a woman, you should wash my dishes’ and ‘Now that Trump is president, I’m going to send you back to Africa,’” the article read. 

After Hobbs mounted a defense, however, California’s Commission on Teacher Credentialing chose not to take action, meaning he kept his teaching credential. 

The final vote: On Thursday, in closed session, Hobbs employment at Grossmont came to an end for a second time. Board members voted unanimously to approve a new settlement agreement with Hobbs. This new settlement gave Hobbs $186,500 – about a year of pay – in exchange for his resignation effective in June. Hobbs agreed to the terms, bringing a close to a brief, and incredibly odd, period of employment. 

The monthslong layoff saga also came to an end Thursday, with the board voting by an four-to-one margin to approve the layoffs. Those impacted include librarians, teachers and support staff. Some supporters are still holding on to a glimmer of hope that the layoffs will be rescinded before Thursday, the last day the district can legally do so. 

Mo’ Money … Less Pay? 

A new piece from The 74 Million dug into a strange educational trend: Since 2002, districts’ per-pupil spending has shot up, but teacher pay has stagnated. The piece contains a fascinating interactive table that allows you to look up the revenue and salary growth of districts across the country. Overall, 90 percent of districts did not increase teacher pay at the same rate as their revenue increases. 

The most striking example locally is the San Diego County Office of Education.  

In 2022, the County Office received an eye-popping $685,030 per student – a 322 percent increase from two decades ago. Meanwhile, staff pay has barely budged after accounting for inflation – increasing only three percent in the same time period. 

This example may not be entirely fair. After all, the county office administers all sorts of programs at districts across the county that don’t necessarily translate to more staff, but it’s still quite striking.  

After publication, Samantha Womack, spokesperson for the San Diego COunty Office of Education got in touch to say the data was misleading. While The 74 Million’s database characterized the agency’s funding as coming out to $685,00 per pupil, it actually only receives $25,000 per student, she wrote. That’s because the agency is far more than just a school district, it also provides services, training and oversight to the 42 other districts around the county. The database in which the county office was included also didn’t account for additional compensation like retirement or health benefits or adjust for inflation, she wrote. 

“Less than 3% of the total budget represents (average daily attendance) funding to provide direct services to students. More than 50% of our budget is un-spendable as either direct pass to districts, district funds, or excess tax,” Womack wrote.

The second biggest disparity locally was at National Elementary School District. That districts’ figures highlighted a confusing trend seen both locally and nationally – per-pupil spending increasing while teacher pay fell. At National, revenue grew by 85 percent, while teacher pay fell by 14 percent. 

While some districts got close, Valley Center-Pauma Unified was the only district in the county whose 23 percent revenue growth perfectly matched salary growth. Similarly, San Marcos was the only local district whose 7 percent increase in teacher pay outpaced the 5 percent revenue increase.  

Exactly where all that money is going depends on the district. The report concluded rising costs of benefits and the hiring of more support staff like instructional aides may be driving the imbalance.  

How did your kids’ district fare? Get in touch and let me know what you think. 

What We’re Writing 

In 2022, San Diego Unified launched an experiment: a middle school sports program. It’s been a huge hit and has grown rapidly. In its first year, the district offered only soccer. Still, 884 middle schoolers signed up. Last year, more than 5,700 students competed across seven different sports the district offered. The response has been so significant that even as district officials grapple with budget deficits and funding cuts, they aim to go in the opposite direction with middle school sports – expansion. 

Clarification: This post has been updated to clarify that officials at the San Diego County Office of Education say data from The 74 Million article is misleading.