Diana DeGette You Go ! In the Name of Shirley Chisolm!

Mitt Romney declared, "Planned Parenthood has got to go!" Afraid if it had been around when he was conceived he wouldn't be here today ...

Republicans have a clear agenda for women: Defund Planned Parenthood, deny women access to health care and birth control, and even prohibit women the right to participate in the debate about women’s health care.

Grassroots Democrats around the country have united against the Republican War on Women to launch a Women's Health Accountability Fund. Our goal is to expose the truth about Republicans' war on women with an aggressive rapid response operation including ads, on-the-ground organizing and more.

The Emanant Insolvency of San Diego Unified School District: A Harbinger of Things to Come for Moreno Valley USD??

Original story by andrew.donohue
voice of sandiego

The public proclamations that the San Diego Unified School District faces a state takeover dropped like bombshells this month, but district leaders have had serious discussions about insolvency both publicly and privately for years.

At one point more than two years ago, former Superintendent Terry Grier was so concerned that school board members didn't grasp insolvency's consequences that he scheduled a private briefing from perhaps the state's foremost expert on it, San Diego County Office of Education Superintendent Randy Ward.

"We'd just had numerous discussions with them about the possibility of insolvency. They just didn't believe the state elected officials could or would allow it to happen," Grier said. "There was even early discussion about how becoming insolvent might be the right thing to do."

Ward knows state takeovers well. The state appointed him to take over Oakland Unified School District after it went broke in 2003. He unilaterally ran the district, cleaning up its finances after the superintendent was fired and the elected school board became an advisory council.

When he met with them, Ward didn't tell the board members they were headed for insolvency. Rather, he explained what would happen and how the district would need to take drastic measures to avoid it. "He also rang that warning bell loud and hard," Grier said.

At least twice since that meeting, while the state continually cut funding to local schools, the school board has made high-stakes gambles that state finances would improve or that school spending would significantly increase. In light of California's continued economic problems and those serious ongoing discussions about insolvency, those gambles have begun to look misguided at best and reckless at worst.

District officials have cast the financial crisis as one wholly of the state's making, but talk of insolvency has always hung over the financial gambles the district's taken in order to keep class sizes small and teachers employed in the short-term. The long-term consequences of those decisions only compound the trouble handed down by the state.

Just a year after Ward's talk, the school board entered into a labor contract that, while providing short-term relief, saddled it with burdens it may well not be able to handle. The contract was, by the board president's own admission, a "gamble." Then, this summer, the board voted to rehire hundreds of teachers based on rosy state projections, despite advice to the contrary from their staff and consultant.

Now, with the state's projections looking unlikely to materialize, school board President Richard Barrera is calling for the state to levy taxes on the wealthy, oil extraction or alcoholic beverages to save school districts from insolvency.

Grier, who left the district in 2009 for Houston, said the district's dynamics changed when the teachers union's slate of school board members, John Lee Evans and Richard Barrera, were elected in 2008 and joined with Shelia Jackson to form a pro-labor voting block.

When Barrera and Evans joined the board, Jackson put together a plan to cancel teacher layoffs that had been issued before their election, a move the new board approved unanimously.

Grier said the move went against staff's advice and had little justification as the district's enrollment had been shrinking for the better part of a decade and the teachers simply weren't necessary.

At the time, then-board member Katherine Nakamura said schools were fully staffed and it would be hard to even find places to put the teachers. She warned of the bad timing, too, considering the state's plight. "You don't eat a jelly donut in the middle of a heart attack, no matter how sweet it might be."

Nakamura ended up voting for the plan, though, saying she wanted to move the board forward.

Barrera said his decisions have nothing to do with his relationship with, and support of, labor unions. He said his relationship with the teachers union has soured thanks largely to his vote in favor of layoffs earlier this year.

Make no doubt about it: The state Legislature has made severe changes to the way it funds K-12 education, offering districts 15 percent less money than it did just a few years ago. And it's not even giving the districts the smaller checks it promised, forcing them to borrow money every year and bank on IOUs. That's put districts around the state in serious trouble.

In response, San Diego Unified has made its own harsh changes. It's cut staffing by 15 percent since 2009 and this year it ultimately laid off more than 1,000 workers, including 500 teachers. The threat of insolvency, for example, popped up during the school board's public deliberations about whether to issue layoff warnings to teachers this March.

Today, district leaders say they've cut to the bone and are now evaluating closing some schools. Teachers agreed to shorten the school year by five days the last two years, taking five unpaid days off and saving the district about $20 million.

But, despite those major changes, the school board has been banking on the state Legislature upping education funding or a roaring economy to come to the rescue before the consequences of some of its long-term decisions come due. Every cut that wasn't made a year ago compounds now, and only deepens the budget pain when it eventually has to be made.

Barrera said every budget decision he's had to make has involved risk. "We either risk the education of kids or we risk the financial health of the district, that's the situation we've been in, over and over and over again," he said.

The issue to Barrera is one of drawing a line in the sand.

The board has already made cuts that have raised class sizes to an unacceptable level and impacted the welfare of children, he said, but there's a point the board simply can't cross. If refusing to make cuts entails gambling against the financial health of the district, then that's what he's got to do, he said.

Choose against the financial health of the district too often, though, and you eventually run out of money to even keep a school district functioning.

That's the situation the district faces today.

It's already staring at a $60 million deficit for next year after managing a roughly $80 million deficit this year. It has a rather vague list of solutions to fund that deficit, from closing schools, to selling off land, to asking the union to make concessions on teacher salaries and benefits. All that will have to be decided soon.

If the state's optimistic revenue forecast fails to materialize, next year's deficit could nearly double for and the district will have to find more ways to cut without laying off teachers. So far, the only solution that's been floated for that problem is shortening the school year by seven days, a proposal that, again, the district would have to negotiate with its unions.

If the state goes ahead with the threatened midyear cuts, Barrera and Superintendent Bill Kowba say the district will be on its way to insolvency. If the district goes insolvent, it will get taken over by the state and local control would be eviscerated.

Budget decisions would be made unilaterally by a state-appointed trustee. The superintendent would be fired. The school board would be advisory. The state would have some power over school finances for decades as the district paid back its bailout loan.

Kowba, a former rear admiral in the Navy, served as Grier's chief financial officer. Grier said Kowba had continually raised red flags for the school board.

However, he said, often staff's warnings to the board went unheeded.

"We knew the cuts were going to be painful. We also knew from everyone we talked to that this was not going to get better. We kept sharing that with the board. They were in a hard position, I don't envy them," Grier said. "But they kept going in the opposite direction that staff recommended."

You can reach us at andrew.donohue@voiceofsandiego.org orwill.carless@voiceofsandiego.org. Follow us on Twitter:

What is a board of education? Or at least what is it supposed to be?

School board members make up the largest body of elected officials in the United States. We entrust them to set the policies of our most treasured institutions: our public elementary, middle and high schools. Every district has a board of education, and boards generally meet once or twice every month in meetings that are open to the public. Sort of.

These gatherings range from tame rubber-stamping sessions to intense, provocative discussions with the community where controversial issues are debated and landmark decisions are made.

School boards are nonpartisan at least on paper. In most districts, members serve four-year terms, and terms are staggered so seats don't become open all at once. In general, to run for school board, you have to be at least 18 years old, a citizen of the state, a resident of the district, a registered voter and eligible under the state constitution to be elected to public office. In makes ethical practical sense if members have had previous experience in the education field.

In most cases, a school district employee can't be a board member in that district. This means no teacher, principal, librarian, custodian or anyone else that works in a school in the district can serve on the school board, unless they resign from the employed position.

School districts are complex corporations; they' re often the largest employers in a community and the decisions they make reach far, affecting jobs, resources and most importantly, the education of all children.

What do they do?

Somewhere in between the agendas, public comment sessions and resolutions, school boards make a number of important decisions. School boards establish a vision for the community's schools. They have to set up and maintain an effective, efficient organizational structure for the district that lets the superintendent and administrators manage the schools, teachers teach and students learn.

They are responsible for hiring and evaluating a superintendent, evaluating and adopting policies that affect all schools in the district, serving as a judicial and appeals body when conflicts go unresolved, monitoring and adjusting district finances, and managing the collective bargaining process in the district.

A school board has a symbolic role as well. The behavior it shows off in the meeting room, the rapport among school board members and the relationships that members have with teachers and administrators in the district all add up to the climate of public education in a community. Whether healthy or dysfunctional, a school board has a heavy influence on the spirit that characterizes a community's impression of its school system.

How can I tell if my school board is doing a good job?

By attending a few school board meetings, you'll learn firsthand what school boards do. Call your district office to find out where and when meetings are held. Once you've observed your school board in action, you'll be prepared to ask the following questions:

·   How does the school board make decisions?  Do the members function as predictable, single-issue advocates, or do they approach each decision with an open mind? Do they seem to make strategic choices for the well-being of the district? Strong decision-making requires analysis, the balancing of needs and concerns, and the ability to see the long-term implications of an action.

·    How's the team spirit?  Does the board exhibit a healthy group dynamic, or is it a parade of egos marching single-file? Do members show respect and trust for each other, and for the operating rules of the board?

·    Is the board's authority well defined?  The classic challenges of management don't skip over your board of education. There's a delicate balance between the board's act of choosing a strong chief executive (the superintendent) and letting him or her lead the way and the board's tendency to get involved with many levels of decision-making.

·        


     Does the board understand the community?  One of the most difficult parts of school governance is creating a strong relationship with the public. An effective board knows and respects its community, and encourages the community's trust in its school system.

What should I look for in a school board candidate?

First of all, you should think about the issues that are important to you in your school district. Are you concerned about student transportation, textbook adoption, funding for extracurricular activities, new curriculum standards and/or construction of new school facilities? What's your hot button? You'll want to find out where the candidates stand on issues that are important to you.

You might also look for the following qualities:

·   The ability to work well with a team and support group decisions, along with an understanding that the board sets a climate for the entire district

   
    A desire to work toward a stronger relationship between the district and the public it serves

·       
    A keen eye toward serving the needs of all students, regardless of their     abilities and backgrounds

·       
    A professional, poised demeanor and respectful, respectable behavior    Respect for diverse points of view

    Commitment to the time and energy required each week for meetings, phone calls, conversations, visits to schools, and professional development seminars and workshops

    Knowledge about district policies, guidelines, needs, challenges and strengths. Experience working as an educator should be essential.


    At the heart of it all, members of a district's board of education must believe, unequivocally, in the value of public education. They must be dedicated to serving and teaching all children. They must believe in the democratic process and understand that their role is to act strategically, in line with the interests of the entire school community

It is Easy to Fire an Educator!

It is Easy to Fire an Educator!

The board minutes simply state“resigned for personal reasons.”

Moreno Valley, CA. Its a shame and ethically undefendable that Assistant Superintendent of HR, Henry Voros does not afford the same standard of proof with a dozen or more employees (all of whom are at the top of the salary scale and suspended without pay and without cause or due process) as Dr. White endeavors toward Board Trustee Mike Rios in her statement. (see Below.) I could not agree more though I don't care for Rios as a person. "Due Process" as Board Trustee Harold "Rick" Sayre mentioned.


Then again, is his sad little way, Voros is as much driven by personality dysfunction as is Rios. Harold “Rick” Sayres is also driving this back door effort to break the employees contract and their collective will to dessent or question administration. Via the conceit of these two self serving individuals they reduce payroll.

Who said it’s hard to fire a teacher? Its easy: conjure up any reason, refuse to follow state education department regulations for disciplining educators, Ignore Education Code and State Labor law, and Government Code, then suspend without pay. Done! Effectively fired at the date of suspension!

Voros has seen the actuarial table that shows the number of educators that will just leave (or quit) far out ways the number who will fight. There by producing an immediate half-million dollar savings to the district's publically inflatted bottom line. Those educators who are willing to fight, sometimes to the appellate level usually win, which costs the district hugely in the short run. However, the district doesn't have to disclose documentation to the press or public regarding these cases because they 
can claim confidentiality of the former employee.

The board minutes simply “resigned for personal reasons.”

CTA seems powerless or unwilling to effectively put a stop this trend. Last year was the implementation year for MVUSD. SO FAR, this tactic appears to be working without substantial resistance. 

And the Press Enterprise Headline Read:

 "MORENO VALLEY: Six students arrested after ruckus at high school"

"ruckus.."

"ruckus.."

"ruckus.."

"Ruckus - A noisy disturbance and/or commotion."

PLEASE! How about some truth? Even if it might endanger an advertising dollar or two?  

After several weeks of gang and race related fights, an administrator was hit by a student as the administrator tried in vein to break up the fight. The police came as the ruckus turned to near RACE RIOT. A police officer while attempting to restore order had to cuff a defiant student who refused to follow his/her request to return to class. At that point at least five students attacked the officer from behind. The condition of the officer is not known. 

The campus was under strict lockdown half the day. It's a good thing no students were seriously hurt but what about that Deputy? Its a lucky thing no one was shot at that silly "RUCKUS."

School reform won’t help all (Most) struggling students. Though some will succeed, others will continue to fail.

Demonizing teachers for the failures of these students is both easy though misguided and counterproductive in that it misses the target for students with no support from home...
It appears that a  philosophical backlash is gaining momentum, as important empirical evidence and some insightful truths have begun to emerge on the national educational frontline. One of these truths, as AFT President Randi Weingarten noted in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, is that the evidence shows that the market-based reforms, which are so much in vogue today, have not delivered. While self-described education reformers may suggest that we double down on these reforms—such as creating more charter schools, implementing voucher programs, using student test scores to evaluate and compensate teachers, and relying more and more on corporate executives and business practices to run school districts—Weingarten suggests a different path, a path taken by the world’s most successful education systems:

These countries focus on developing great teachers and giving them the autonomy to hone their craft. There is an ethos of working together to continuously improve. They de-emphasize excessive standardized tests and test prep, and each has a well-rounded curriculum that engages students in gaining knowledge by developing critical thinking and problem-solving skills—not by rote memorization. These countries provide a more equitable education for all students, and they offset the effects of poverty through on-site wraparound services such as medical and dental care and counseling.

Another truth is that demonizing teachers is not a good starting point for a school improvement plan. As Dave Eggers and Nínive Clements Calegari write in the New York Times, “No one contemplates blaming the men and women fighting every day in the trenches for little pay and scant recognition. And yet in education we do just that.” The disrespect for teachers extends to salaries, which have declined in real terms over the past 30 years. Today, 62 percent of teachers work a second job, and 46 percent quit before their fifth year. The high turnover rates cost school systems more than $7 billion annually. As Eggers and Calegari write, “There is no silver bullet that will fix every last school in America, but until we solve the problem of teacher turnover, we don’t have a chance.”

All the best evidence shows that leading countries like Finland, Singapore and South Korea respect and revere their teachers. They support and mentor them, and give them the tools and conditions they need to do their jobs. While we are celebrating Teacher Appreciation Week, we should pay close attention to how these nations develop, support and respect their teachers.

It’s also true that teachers’ experience and class size matter. That’s the case in an Orlando, Fla., school highlighted by the New York Times’ Michael Winerip, who focuses on three sisters who live at a homeless shelter and get a terrific education at Fern Creek Elementary School. The school, where 20 percent of the students are homeless, has received an A on the state report card for each of the past five years. The principal credits experienced teachers, small class sizes and strong discipline.

Finally, a piece by Joe Nocera in the New York Times, titled “The Limits of School Reform,” points out some important truths. Nocera revisits a New York Times Magazine article about M.S. 223, a school in the South Bronx whose principal and teachers struggle valiantly to educate homeless children. Sometimes successful, sometimes not, the school offers a lesson for would-be school reformers, Nocera believes:

What needs to be acknowledged, however, is that school reform won’t fix everything. Though some poor students will succeed, others will fail. Demonizing teachers for the failures of poor students, and pretending that reforming the schools is all that is needed, as the reformers tend to do, is both misguided and counterproductive. Over the long term, fixing our schools is going to involve a lot more than, well, just fixing our schools.

The bottom line: Evidence does matter. It should guide us as we seek to transform schools and improve student learning—and it shouldn’t be ignored. 

The Cost of Courage

Global Capitalism Is Destroying the Middle Class

Friday, May 6, 2011

James P. Hoffa

General President, International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Some of the most trusted institutions in the world are finally awakening to the dangers of unrestrained global capitalism.

Unions, of course, have for decades warned about the emerging global order. The reason for integrating regional economies into global networks has always been to shift power away from workers. The imbalance, we warned, was dangerous to all of our futures.

It gives me no satisfaction to say we were right. The world's economy is now dominated by multinationals roaming the globe to sniff out tax havens and cheap labor; out-of-control banks extorting governments for bailouts again and again; and politicians catering only to greed. All the while, America's middle class grew poorer, and smaller. Workers lost their jobs, their savings and their houses. Now their Social Security and Medicare are attacked.

The new organization of the world economy, dreamed up by the bankers and the multinationals, has failed. Don't take my word for it: This is what the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Council on Foreign Relations are reporting.

The Council on Foreign Relations, for example, just published a paper that explicitly rejects the fantasy that everyone is better off when the free market prevails. The paper, written by economist Michael Spence, says that America will soon face a jobs crisis. He makes the striking argument (for the CFR) that so-called free-market solutions won't work. "That seems clearly incorrect and is supported by neither theory nor experience," he writes.

"Assuming that the markets will fix these problems by themselves is not a good idea... In truth, all countries, including successful emerging economies, have addressed issues of inclusiveness, distribution, and equity as part of the core of their growth and development strategies," he concludes.

You might think Spence was influenced by a union representative on the Council's board, but there are none. Its board consists of retired generals, bank presidents, Cabinet officers, prominent academics, and even one of the world's biggest union-busters, FedEx chairman Fred Smith.

Like the Council on Foreign Relations, the World Bank has long sided with powerful special interests in developed nations, often to the detriment of the lower and middle classes. So it was surprising to hear the World Bank call for justice and jobs earlier this month.

The Bank issued a report saying unemployment "was overwhelmingly the most important factor cited for recruitment into gangs and rebel movements." World Bank President Robert Zoellick said, "If we are to break the cycles of violence and lessen the stresses that drive them, countries must develop more legitimate, accountable and capable national institutions that provide for citizen security, justice and jobs."

This was a stunning statement coming from Zoellick, a former managing director at Goldman Sachs and President George W. Bush's trade representative. As a member of America's political and financial leadership, you would expect Zoellick to be blind to the need for justice and jobs, both as a moral duty and as a matter of self-interest.

The World Bank's sister institution, the International Monetary Fund, has typically taken a hard line against working people. For decades the IMF made emergency loans to troubled governments only after forcing them to cut spending on social programs. The IMF has even demanded worker's rights be weakened as a condition of granting a loan.

And so the IMF was perhaps the last institution you'd expect to argue that workers need more bargaining power. Yet the IMF came out with a paper last year that said exactly that.

The paper, titled "Inequality, Leverage and Crisis" presented evidence that extreme inequality between workers and the rich was a reason for the current Great Recession.

The paper said there will be "disastrous consequences" for the world economy if workers do not regain their bargaining power. It suggests radical changes to the tax system and debt relief for workers.

I am heartened that these respected institutions are sounding the alarm over the policies that are destroying the working classes around the world. Perhaps our combined voices will make some difference.

Make no mistake, however; the message cannot be denied, no matter who delivers it: Our economy rewards wealth, not work. It has impoverished the middle class and taken a savage toll on the growing ranks of the poor.

We need our leaders to hear this message clearly from all of us and to seek out a new economic course for our country. I've been waiting a long time for political leaders to show they understand this. I hope that I -- along with the IMF, the World Bank and the Council on Foreign Relations -- will not be waiting for much longer

.