“NEA IS Not Happy When You Publicly Disagree With THEM” 

Don't I Know...

Originally posted by Mike Antonucci March 25th, 2012,

There was a big stink over the weekend in Connecticut when Hartford Courant columnist Rick Green published an internal e-mail from Connecticut Education Association executive director Mary Loftus Levine. It read:


NEVER send anything to anyone until you send to Phil and me first. We spoke last night and we are not happy when you publicly disagree with us. AFT is playing you off against us, to get a deal. NO deal is always better than a bad one. From here on, I will be the spokesperson. If you want a caucus call one. While we appreciate all you do, you do not set policy, but rather advocate for our CEA positions. Now, if we disagree with what you sent we will let YOU know and you can send our changes as CEA’s. I will review later. Thank you. Also, if anyone attempts to contact you, please let me know immediately and refer them to me. Thanks again.

My first taste of NEA Democracy(?)

Two weeks previous to this statement, Randi Weingarten

pres for the AFT proclaimed, " a union must always be a democracy."

The “deal” referred to regards the ongoing negotiations between the teachers’ unions and Gov. Dannel Malloy over his teacher evaluation legislation. Once again the AFT in Connecticut is reported to be more willing to cooperate than is CEA.The first problem occurred because Green originally thought the memo had been sent to CEA members. Instead, it was an e-mail to a single CEA employee – apparently the union’s legislative coordinator – and inadvertently cc’ed to an entire listserv. I was unable to find any public statement that triggered the e-mail response.While Loftus Levine is justified to correct an employee whose opinions contradict company policy, (Bullshit! Randi Weingarten AFT said a union must be a democracy!) I’m amused at her substitution of ”our changes as CEA’s” (hers and those of CEA president Phil Apruzzese). I was under the impression – pounded into me by numerous union officers – that the members set policy through their representative bodies. (Not with CTA the California Equivelent to the CEA.) It is the job of the president to carry out those policies as spokesman for the organization. The executive director oversees the staff and has no policy-making function. That's just not the way it works in reality. It is also ironic that the executive director of a teachers’ union would address an employee as if he were a misbehaving child. What could be more undermining of a lobbyist’s status than to constantly get mommy’s permission?We all know real life isn’t like civics class, but the tolerate-no-dissent tone of CEA’s memo might help explain why teachers’ unions enjoy the PR image they do today. Sorry but I have to republish a memento from my personal CTA experience.

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:

 “Teachers are telling us, they have the lowest level of job satisfaction in more than two decades and that a growing number are planning to leave the profession."

Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers.

WASHINGTON— Student Success Is Jeopardized when Teachers, Schools Are Denied Tools and Resources Critical to Teaching and Learning. Further, public opinion has a lasting negative effect on those of us who have chosen the Avocation of Education. According to “The MetLife Survey of the American Teacher: 'Teachers, Parents and the Economy.” “... budget cuts to public schools and the demonization of teachers have taken a toll on teachers’ job satisfaction and that jeopardizes student success."

More often than ever we hear educators as the root of all evil in public education. But this survey tells us what teachers themselves are thinking, and it’s very sobering. “Teachers are telling us they have the lowest level of job satisfaction in more than two decades and that a growing number are planning to leave the profession, according to Weingarten.

“It’s not surprising that the most satisfied teachers are those who have support; they are treated as professionals, are given opportunities for professional growth, teach in communities where parents and educators collaborate to improve teaching and learning, and have job security. Sadly, at a time when we need to recruit and retain talented teachers and prepare kids for the knowledge economy, the teaching profession is becoming less attractive and more difficult.

“We need to pay attention when the teachers most likely to be dissatisfied are those with at-risk students—students who have the most needs but the fewest resources, at school and at home, because of the economic crisis. Teachers consistently say they need the tools, resources and time to improve teaching and learning—the same things that teachers in top-performing countries receive virtually without fail. U.S. teachers are frustrated with unrelenting cuts in budgets, elimination of arts and after-school programs, larger class sizes, and accountability systems that over-rely on student test scores. This should call into question the obsession with cutting funding for public education and health and family services children and parents rely on.

“The report’s silver lining is that there’s more engagement among parents, teachers and community groups to help students succeed.

“This report provides a commonsense road map for what we need to do to build successful schools: respect teachers, engage parents and the community, and, even in tough times, provide the programs and resources necessary to ensure high-quality public schools." 

Some key findings from “The MetLife Survey of the American Teacher: Teachers, Parents and the Economy”:

• Teacher satisfaction has decreased by 15 points since “The MetLife Survey of the American Teacher” measured job satisfaction two years ago, now reaching the lowest level of job satisfaction seen in the survey series in more than two decades.
• This decline in teacher satisfaction is coupled with large increases in the number of teachers who indicate they are likely to leave teaching for another occupation, and in the number who do not feel their jobs are secure.
• Teachers with high job satisfaction are more likely to feel their jobs are secure and say they are treated as professionals by the community. They are also more likely to have adequate opportunities for professional development, time to collaborate with other teachers, more preparation and supports to engage parents effectively, and greater involvement of parents and their schools in coming together to improve the learning and success of students.
• More than three-quarters of teachers have faced budget cuts in their schools in the last year.
• Two-thirds of teachers report that their schools have had layoffs of teachers, parent/community liaisons or other staff in the last year.
• Nearly three in 10 teachers indicate that there have been reductions or eliminations of health or social services in their schools.
• Six in 10 teachers report that the average class size in their schools has increased.
• One-third of teachers also indicate that educational technology and materials have not been kept up to date to meet student needs.
• Students report greater parent engagement in their education compared with students 25 years ago. Two-thirds of today’s students report that they talk about things that happen at school with their parents every day, compared with four in 10 in 1988.
• There also has been a threefold increase in the number of students who report their parents visit their schools at least once a month, up from 16 percent in 1988 to 46 percent today.

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. 

THOSE WHO VICTIMIZE CHILDREN ARE USUALLY NOT STRANGERS

By Ernie Allen, President and CEO

National Center for Missing & Exploited Children

The recent events at Penn State University and Syracuse University serve as reminders that the sexual abuse and exploitation of children is an all-too-present fact of modern life.  Yet, millions of Americans do not believe that this problem exists at all.  Why?

Overwhelmingly, the child victims do not tell.  Leading scholars and researchers tell us that at least 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys will be sexually victimized in some way before they reach the age of 18, and just 1 in 3 will tell anybody about it.  These are America’s hidden victims.  We have made progress as a nation in attacking this problem but even today, two out of three child victims suffer in silence.  They don’t tell Mom, they don’t tell Dad, they don’t tell anybody.

Millions doubt the existence of these heinous crimes for another reason.  The offenders do not match society’s stereotype.  Most Americans want to believe that someone who would prey upon a child sexually is evil-looking, a menacing, frightening stranger.

Yet, we have learned that most often those who victimize children are not strangers to the child, they are known to the child.  They seek out legitimate access to the child.  We should never be shocked when someone who abuses a child is a volunteer or employee of a youth-serving organization, or a school, or a daycare center, or many other settings that provide easy, low-risk access to children.  That is why the leading child-serving organizations have taken bold steps to do background screening of their staff and volunteers, and then monitor and supervise the interactions between adults and children.

In monitoring sex offender treatment groups and programs, one hears a chilling word, “grooming.”  Most often, these offenders who prey upon children do not snatch their victims randomly from the streets, they groom their victims, win their confidence and trust through friendship, kindness, and then they violate it.  In so many of these cases, the child is made to feel responsible, like it is his or her fault.  And the child is often intimidated or threatened by this person of trust and authority.

Even if they decide to tell, will anyone listen to them?  Will anyone understand?  These children feel that no one will believe them even if they do speak out, and too many adults simply do not listen to or understand what children try to tell us.

The offenders are not dirty, menacing strangers, they are respectable citizens – doctors, lawyers, businessmen, teachers, police officers.  Often they are people who outwardly show deep and enduring commitment to helping children in need.

What can you do?  What can every citizen do?  First, communicate with your children and empower them.  Make sure that they understand that you love them, trust them, believe them and that if anyone ever touches them in a way that makes them feel uncomfortable, they should tell you or a trusted adult.

Second, the first line of defense is a vigilant public.  If you see it, know about it or suspect it, report it.  Call your local police and then call 1 (800) THE LOST or report it to www.cybertipline.com, at the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

The sexual exploitation of children is not a problem that only happens somewhere else.  It is happening in big cities and small towns across America.  Thousands of children fall victim to sexual exploitation every year.  We need to do more.  Because every child deserves a safe childhood. 

This commentary first appeared in the Opinion Section on FoxNews.com on 12/09/2011

Freedom of Information Act | Restore Erased Email

Freedom of Information Act : Restore Erased Email

Electronic Records Had Been Discarded Under Interpretation of Retention Policy

Why Allow Deletion If Government Must Later Restore Records?

A county's formal policy on e-mail destruction failed to save it from the cost of recovering deleted e-mails in a lawsuit under Ohio's Public Records Act. Like FOIA laws in other states, Ohio's Records Act requires state government agencies like counties to disclose records to citizens upon request.

The case in question is a decision by the Ohio Supreme Court, State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Seneca County Board of Commissioners, 2008 WL 5157733 (Ohio Dec. 9, 2008).  Plaintiff sought e-mails of county commissioners concerning demolition of an old courthouse.  The county turned over some e-mails, but plaintiff managed to show that some relevant e-mails were missing because they had been deleted. It made this showing by analyzing the e-mails that were turned over and proving some logical gaps appeared within them.  Also, some commissioners admitted they had deleted some of their relevant e-mails.

The county's written policy allowed each user to delete e-mail that the user deemed to be of "no significant value." (Some people call such e-mails "non-records".)  Such a policy is a version of the make-a-decision style of e-mail (text and instant message) records management, where users are expected to decide the destruction/retention fate of each message.  

After the court determined that some relevant e-mails must have been deleted, it observed that through the use of forensics measures some e-mails might be recoverable from commissioner hard drives. The county argued it should not be required to restore deleted e-mails because they had been deleted in accordance with the county's record retention policy, which the county had adopted in good faith. Further, the county argued that forensics measures are excessively expensive.

The court disagreed with the county. The court ordered the county to undertake costly forensics steps to search for and restore deleted e-mail records that met certain criteria – all at the county's expense.

Gadzooks! If a government agency is required under a FOIA to incur great expense to recover deleted e-mails after officials had determined -- under a formally-adopted policy -- that the e-mails were of "no significant value," then it makes no sense to let officials delete e-mails in the first place.  Such a make-a-decision style of policy is unworkable because it will cause the government regularly to employ expensive forensics to recover deleted records.  As a policy matter, the government is wiser just to archive copious records and take decision-making out of the hands of individual users.

I have long questioned e-mail retention policies (the make-a-decision policies) that emphasize a user examining each particular message and then deciding whether to destroy it or to keep it.  But some learned people disagree with me.  An argument they sometimes make in favor of the make-a-decision style policy is that it mimics how paper was handled. With paper, they argue, lots of documents came across the desk of each official. The official would decide whether to throw the paper in the trash can, or to place it in folder A, or folder B or folder C.

Yet this Toledo Blade case demonstrates that e-mail is different from paper. Even after e-mail is deleted, it can still be recovered forensically.  The cost of recovery can be high, but this court forced government to incur that cost.

Technical footnote: The court ruled the commissioners had probably violated the county's policy by deleting e-mails that were of significant value, when the policy said that onlyinsignificant records would be deleted. However, this detail should not change our understanding of the case's import.  From the point of view of someone writing records management policy, the risk is ever-present that a court will second-guess users after-the-fact.  Looking back at past decisions, a court can always say, "user should not have allowed that e-mail to be deleted" or "user should have placed that e-mail in retention category X rather than retention category Y."  Users always make records management mistakes, and thus leave an enterprise constantly exposed to the threat of having to employ forensics (after-the-fact) to reverse user decisions.  Therefore, the policy writer is motivated just to remove users from retention/deletion decisions.

Background:  One of the purposes behind Freedom of Information Acts -- and public records acts generally -- is to enable citizens, FBI, police and internal auditors to investigate public officials for fraud, waste, corruption, embezzlement, conflicts of interest and misappropriation of funds.  The ever-present possibility of such a probe motivates officials to be fair and honest.

–Benjamin Wright