Am I crazy too

Here's how every child can have an excellent teacher--
without firing or laying-off any teachers!

Follow up to the post, "Am I crazy to think that...

by Maura Larkins

San Diego Education Report

By Maura Larkins 
"There’s very good evidence that teacher quality
matters a lot in terms of student performance in
school and success later on in life.

The economist Raj Chetty of Harvard, for example, has found that students randomly placed with more experienced kindergarten teachers not
only perform better on tests but earn more and save more for retirement as adults, are likelier to go to college, and go to better colleges than their peers with less experienced teachers.

Eric Hanushek of Stanford estimates that a good teacher – defined as at the 84th percentile... Provides students with test scores associated withan increase of between $22,000 and $46,000
in lifetime earnings."--Washington Post
Lots of kids get stuck for years with various incompetent teachers, but it doesn't have to be that way. We can fix the problem. And not spend any more money!

HERE'S THE PLAN:

An excellent teacher could come into each classroom for just a few hours a week and make a huge difference--if that teacher had responsibility for student  success and authority to make decisions.

Parents should not need political clout to get a good teacher for their child. Every student should--and could--have a great teacher, without wasting time and energy on the losing battle to fire incompetent teachers.

The truth is that the critical moments in learning don't happen continuously five hours a  day. They add up to at most a couple of hours each day, and probably much less. The rest of the time an ordinary, mediocre teacher can handle the skill practice and lesson reinforcement, omputer activities, art projects, silent reading (how much skill is needed to be in charge of that?) and so on.

GIVING SUPPORT TEACHERS A REAL JOB

At my old school we were paying a top salary--well over $60,000, for a computer teacher who was very nice, but her job was merely to familiarize kids with computer programs. An aide could have done the job. When the principal (Ollie Matos) tried to switch that computer teacher to giving basic reading and math lessons, the teachers went ballistic. The story became a sensation in the San Diego Press, and a group of angry teachers were named the "Castle Park Five" by San Diego Union-Tribune editor Don Sevrens. Basically, what the teachers wanted was 45 minutes a week in which they could send their students to another teacher. But in my plan, classroom teachers would have this kind of help and relief for more than an entire day each week! The nice computer teacher could become a master teacher!

Resource teachers like computer teachers and language and math support teachers could become master teachers. And let's face it: how much good are those resource teachers able to do? They go around and offer suggestions, but they are really doing the equivalent of passing out band-aids. I would never want such a job. It might be relaxing not to have direct responsibility for student learning, but isn't that the point of being a teacher?

NO MORE ABUSIVE TEACHERS

Academics would not be the only thing that master teachers would be responsible for. 
Abusive, immature teachers with a habit of undermining students could be overruled and 
guided by the master teacher.

WE COULD SAVE MONEY!

Why do we pay bad teachers the same amount of money as good teachers? It makes no 
sense!

Excellent teachers should be paid much more than average teachers, and could be responsible for all students in several classrooms.

Each classroom could have a full-time regular teacher who be paid a lower salary, but would be eligible to become a master teacher. The master teacher would also be responsible for helping and guiding the regular teacher.

In California the average teacher salary is roughly $60,000 (with a starting salary of $35,000.) We could allow regular teachers to rise in salary to an average of $50 thousand, and allow master teachers to rise to an average of $100 thousand--for overseeing our classrooms (or, in a time of better budgets, three classrooms.

Money for support teachers and teacher aides would be switched to master teacher positions in the classrooms. (Of course, special education would still require teacher aides.) Some people who are currently teacher aides could become regular teachers.)

Here's the comparison for four classrooms and one extra salary (thousands):

Currently: $60 + $60 + $60 + $60 + $60 = $300

New plan: $100 + $50 + $50 + $50 + $50 = $300

MEANINGFUL EVALUATIONS OF TEACHERS WOULD BE REQUIRED
Of course, meaningful evaluations of teachers would have to be instituted to make this plan work. Current evaluation systems are worse than useless. My plan would call for frequent observations by both master and regular teachers, but they would observe classrooms in other districts to keep school politics out of the process as much as possible. The observations would have a beneficial side effect: they would allow teachers to pick up new ideas.

I believe it would be good to use student test scores when choosing who is to be a master  teacher, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary. The good thing about it is that it would take some of the politics out of teacher evaluation. It should be noted that although student test scores vary widely from year to year for most teachers, some teachers do get 
consistently high scores from their students year after year.

"Students First" does not put students first. "Stand For Children" does not stand for children. "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) leaves lots of children behind.

POLITICALLY MOTIVATED PROGRAMS LIKE: "Students First" does not put students first. "Stand For Children" does not stand for children. "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) leaves lots of children behind.

from Schools Matter by skrashen

Sent to Yakima Herald-Republic (WA) for "Saturday Soapbox"
By Jane Watson
August 31, 2012

“Doublethink” is alive and well.

In 1948, George Orwell wrote 1984. “Big Brother is Watching You” was born. So was “doublethink,” the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously and accepting both of them. TVs watch YOU. Language is paradoxical. Less is more. War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

The organization Stand For Children endorses gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna and Charter Schools. Who doesn’t want to Stand For Children? Who wants Children Left Behind? Who doesn’t want Students First?

The fallacies and failures of NCLB (No Child Left Behind – aka No CORPORATION Left Behind) are well documented. ‘Nuff said.

The CEO of Stand For Children is Geoffrey Canada, a well financed man who opened Harlem’s Children’s Zone, a school which was able to provide many benefits to students who otherwise would have been left to the resources of public schools. Canada was able to spend $14,000 per student to help mitigate the effects of poverty. [Wish public schools could do that!]

When students did not get acceptable test scores, Canada kicked an entire class out of school to maintain Harlem Children Zone’s high test scores. http://susanohanian.org/show_atrocities.php?id=9289. Presumably, these students went to public schools, which don’t turn away anybody – kind of like the Statue of Liberty.

Charter schools take money from public education. They do not do better than public schools. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/charter-schools/about-the-brill-story-on-chart.html
Most national research shows that on average public schools perform as well as charter schools or better.

Michelle Rhee heads Students First. She was chancellor of DC public schools, (2007 – 2010) which had low test scores. When she was chancellor, test scores rose. Ms. Rhee’s reputation rests on those test scores, which soared while she was chancellor. Last March, USA Today published the results (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2011-03-28-1Aschooltesting28_CV_N.htm) of a yearlong investigation of the Washington schools that found a high rate of erasures on tests as well as suspiciously large gains at 41 schools — one-third of the elementary and middle schools in the district. Michelle Rhee is now under investigation for fixing test scores. Michelle Rhee taught third grade for one year, but couldn’t control her class, said the stress gave her hives, and taped children’s mouths to keep them quiet. Rhee’s first year test scores showed a precipitous drop in her class: Average math percentile dropped from 64% to 17%. Average reading percentile dropped from 37% to 21%

In straight talk, Students First does not put students first. Stand For Children does not stand for children. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) leaves children behind.

Where does one get the truth? Talk to teachers. They’re the ones on the front line. They know students are more than test scores. They know children are being robbed of music, art, and many other things by the narrowing of the curriculum as a result of excessive testing.

Go to Parents Across America website. http://parentsacrossamerica.org/ Sign up for their newsletter.

Go to the Save Our schools website. Help them keep the “public” in public ed. http://www.saveourschoolsmarch.org/ Attend their webinars and tweets with educational professionals. (499)


CITATIONS

Charter Schools
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/charter-schools/about-the-brill-story-on-chart.html

Charters vs. public schools: Behind the numbers
http://www.educationjustice.org/newsletters/nlej_iss21_art5_detail_CharterSchoolAchievement.htm

CHARTER SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT: HYPE VS. EVIDENCE
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/education/duncan-and-rhee-on-panel-amid-dc-schools-inquiry.html?_r=1

Gerald Coles: KIPP Schools: Power Over Evidence
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2012/08/gerald_coles_kipp_schools_powe.html

Arne Duncan Dishes $21.5 Million to College Board and Calls It Helping the Poor

originally published in "School Matters"
Wednesday, August 01, 2012 

Duncan Dishes $21.5 Million to College Board and Calls It Helping the Poor
Arne Duncan has a No Excuses approach to education, and to prove it once more, he has just signed off on a plan to give every American child living in a car, motel room, or urban hovel a chance to take another test to show how hopelessly behind she is.  As a side benefit for the testing-industrial complex, the College Board collects the entire sum:

The U.S. Department of Education announced the award of more than $21.5 million in grants to 43 states to cover all or part of the fees charged to low-income students for taking Advanced Placement tests. . . .
"These funds will help eliminate financial roadblocks for more low-income students and allow them to fully benefit from the AP program,” Duncan said.

Yes, those nasty financial roadblocks for which there are no excuses.  Does one know whether to laugh or cry?

Clearly, it looks like the $750,000 that the College Board spent on lobbying last year is paying off big time. Here is a clip from PalyVoice, which had an informative spread in May 2012 (my bolds):

. . . As the records from the most recently released Form 990 indicate, the College Board has been breezing through the 2009-2010 fiscal year with profits enviable by comparable industries in the private sector.

Of the over $594 million in total expenses in the 2009-2010 fiscal year, $7.8 million was allocated for the compensation of current officers, directors, trustees and key employees, $111.1 million went towards other salaries and wages, $13.7 million was for traveling expenses and $2.9 million paid for advertising and promotions, among other items.

Among the total of 1370 employees hired by the College Board, 456 individuals received more than $100,000 in compensation.
The multitude of Senior Vice Presidents and Officers received even more in total compensation and nontaxable benefits; Chief Executive Officer and President Gaston Caperton, the highest paid employee, received $1.3 million of such compensation and benefits, while the second highest paid employee, Chief Operating Officer and Senior Vice President Herbert Elish, received nearly $600,000.

Even after all of these expenses, there is still a $65.6 million gap between the expenses and the total revenue. From the College Board’s Form 990, it is unclear as to what the nearing $70 million profit is going towards.
However, one expense in particular is salient: over $750,000 spent towards lobbying in the 2009-2010 year. While it is illegal for a nonprofit organization to participate in “direct or indirect political campaign activities,” it is still allowed to engage in lobbying activities.

The Form 990 indicated that the College Board has attempted “to influence foreign, national, state or local legislation, including any attempt to influence public opinion on a legislative matter or referendum, through the use of... paid staff or management [as well as] direct contact with legislators, their staffs, government officials or a legislative body.”

According to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), a nonprofit, nonpartisan research group in Washington D.C., three separate lobbying firms and seven different lobbyists represent the College Board on Capitol Hill.
The organization has been lobbying the federal government on issues and bills pertaining to education since 1998, as well as matters regarding Federal Budget and Appropriations since 2002...

Any Public School with Such a Record of Abuse, Corruption, and Anti-Social Malfeasance Would have been Shut Years Ago

Any Public School with such a record of abuse, corruption, and anti-social malfeasance would have been Shut Down Years Ago.  Why Did Authorities Look The Other Way For "Oakland Charter?"

 From the Oakland Tribune:

Published in Schools Matter, 6/17/2012

The head of an Oakland charter school organization that has made national headlines for its low-income students' outstanding test scores is now faced with mounting evidence that he used his position to enrich himself and his family. 

A state investigation into allegations of operational fraud and other unscrupulous activity by Ben Chavis -- a businessman who has also served, off and on, as director of three publicly funded but independently run charter schools named American Indian -- and his wife, who provided financial services to the school, cited numerous examples of financial conflicts of interest and fraudulent expenditures.

The American Indian Model's middle schools have the best test scores in Oakland and among the highest in the state; its high school also has near-perfect scores. In his book, "Crazy like a Fox," Director Ben Chavis touts the model's success and ridicules the public school system for wasting tax dollars, arguing that schools don't need more money.

But in recent months, Chavis' own stewardship of public funds has come under scrutiny. The state Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team, which produced the scathing report, was asked by Alameda County Superintendent Sheila Jordan to investigate allegations made by a former employee of financial abuses -- including a $100,000 salary he took during at least one year of his retirement.

Now that auditors have found significant evidence to back those claims, 

---

---

Chavis could soon find himself the subject of a criminal investigation. Jordan announced Wednesday she would forward the case to the District Attorney's office, as recommended by the audit team. Jordan said she also wrote a letter to Oakland Superintendent Tony Smith, asking the district to consider revoking the schools' charters.

"The lack of oversight by the AIMS board and the unethical practices by its founder are unacceptable and an abuse of the public trust," Jordan said.

Between mid-2007 and the end of 2011, the school paid Chavis, his wife, Marsha Amador, and their various real estate and consulting businesses about $3.8 million, the auditors found. Many of those payments were made with state and federal facilities grants in the form of construction contracts to Chavis' companies -- business deals for school construction work that never went out to bid.

Meanwhile, the school's weak governing board did little to stand in the way, auditors found. For a short period of time last year, Chavis served on the board while he was employed as the organization's director and his wife was handling the books.

"The lack of due diligence and internal controls by the governing board has effectively granted the founder and his spouse unrestricted access to the assets of the organization and implied authority to enter into a variety of business arrangements for personal gain," the report stated.

Other findings included the opening and closing of bank accounts without approval and $25,700 in credit card purchases billed to the school with no authorization or apparent benefit to the school. They included airfare, restaurant, hotel and retail bills from out-of-state, including the North Carolina town where Chavis owns a farm; DirecTV; Giants tickets; and costs related to another venture, which foundered after the investigation became public -- the opening of a charter school in Arizona.

Chavis announced his retirement before the start of 2007-08 school year and returned to the school as director in 2011. He said at a recent hearing that he was a paid adviser during some of the time in between.

Chavis could not be immediately reached for comment.

Although Chavis did not found the original school, his name and reputation are most closely associated with the organization. A Lumbee Indian from North Carolina, he overhauled the academic program when he took over as director of the original school in East Oakland's Laurel District in 2000.

The new curriculum emphasized reading, writing and math and eliminated much of the school's Native American cultural teachings. Chavis instilled a strict and unorthodox discipline system that would bring notoriety to the school, sometimes using humiliation to motivate students to behave.

The most famous example of Chavis' brand of discipline is a student head-shaving that took place at a school assembly, with parent permission, after the boy was caught stealing. Today, few if any of the school's students are Native American.

Chavis announced his retirement shortly after the Oakland school district's charter schools office began raising concerns about his conduct. That spring, the East Bay Express published a story about an explosive incident involving a Mills College professor and graduate students who had come to tour the school. An African-American graduate student said Chavis cursed at him and aggressively kicked him out of the school -- claims that Chavis later acknowledged to be true, saying it was because the student came late.

The Oakland school district's charter school office, under new leadership, again expressed concerns this year when one of the three schools, American Indian Public Charter School II, applied for a renewed charter. The charter office recommended that the Oakland school board deny the charter renewal, potentially closing the school.

But at a packed hearing in which Chavis entered to rousing applause, the Oakland school board went against the charter school office's recommendation and, in a 4-3 vote, allowed the high-performing school to stay open.

Chris Dobbins, an Oakland school board member who supported the school at that meeting, said Wednesday afternoon that he couldn't "tear the school apart" because of the alleged improprieties of its leader. Even now, he said, he didn't have an easy answer.
"At the end of the day, it's hard to argue those test scores," he said. "It's a really hard question."

Read Katy Murphy's Oakland schools blog at www.IBAbuzz.com/education. Follow her at Twitter.com/katymurphy.

evidence against chavis

The Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance team published the below findings about apparent conflicts of interest and misappropriation of funds at American Indian Model schools -- mostly by its founder and current director, Ben Chavis:

Publicly funded construction contracts for school improvements with Chavis' personal businesses were "not supported by formal contracts, competitive bidding or authorization by the governing board." That is a violation of federal regulations and could result in the loss of all federal funding to AIMS schools. 

In addition to wages and construction income, Chavis collected $2.8 million from the schools through rent and storage fees he charged as the school landlord, additional construction projects and a mandatory summer program run by his private business. Some checks from a school bank account were written to Chavis' companies and signed by Chavis.

In all, the schools made $3.8 million in payments to Chavis, his wife and their businesses from 2007-08 through the end of 2011.

Chavis' wife, Marsha Amador, provided financial administrative services to the schools. Her duties included general accounting; processing accounts payable; compliance reporting to local, state and federal agencies; and assisting with an annual audit. 

Chavis' personal and unrelated business expenses were commingled with purchases for the AIMS schools.About 35 percent of the credit card purchases paid for from the schools' accounts $25,700," ...were inappropriate or lack proper authorization." Many of the purchases originated out of state.

Memphis Consolidation Plan Trojan Horse for Urban Privatization Via Charter Schools

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Memphis Consolidation Plan Trojan Horse for Urban Privatization Via Charter Schools

When Memphis City Schools announced it would accept $90 million from Gates to "improve teacher quality," Supt. Kriner Cash blubbered, “This is huge, this is huge, this puts Memphis City Schools in very elite territory, on the front page of the nation.”  Now almost three years later, Gates's fingerprints are on every aspect of school operations in Memphis, including a scheme to shut down 21 public schools in Memphis and turn the buildings over to corporate charter schools.  Now Cash and the Memphis City Schools are faced with a whole list of disturbing recommendations, including one that would totally disrupt the feeder school system in Memphis, which will lead to privatized high schools in the next phase of corporate takeover--if the Gates lemmings have their way.  From the Commercial Appeal:

 ...For MCS, among the most disturbing is the recommendation to cut 21 city schools and lease the space to charter schools. TPC estimates annual savings at $21 million, already plugged into the finance section to reduce an estimated $57 million deficit between the plan and revenue.

Cash insists the cuts won't save $21 million. He takes further exception that the majority of schools on the close list are in an "already underpopulated" southwest corner of the city.

"This would escalate that hemorrhaging," he said, adding that no one filed a plan with the city for refurbishing what would be gutted neighborhoods.

The list of to-close includes an inordinate number of middle schools, Cash says, which would "decimate the feeder pattern" in the southwest... .

WHY WON'T THE ACLU FIGHT FOR FREE SPREECH for EDUCATORS?

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2012

Is the ACLU actively supporting the suppression of free speech in schools?

    

Originally Published on the
San Diego Education Report Blog



By Maura Larkins

Why is the San Diego ACLU trying to silence free speech for teachers at the same time that it is protecting free speech for students (protecting free speech for all is one of its major stated purposes.) I understand why school attorneys want to keep the public unaware of what goes on behind closed doors in our schools, but why is ACLU attorney David Loy so interested in helping them?

I have long wondered if the ACLU was doing California Teachers Association little favors by refusing to take free speech cases for teachers. The recently-retired CTA head counsel Beverly Tucker had previously worked for the ACLU.

I got my answer on April 28, 2010 (see email below from David Loy). Yes, I learned, the ACLU definitely tries to silence teachers who don't speak through the union.

I attended the Annual Membership meeting of the San Diego ACLU today, and listened to ACLU attorney David Loy boast about how the ACLU had protected student free speech.

I asked him, "What about free speech for teachers?"

Mr. Loy responded with only one case, Johnson v. Poway, a case in which the ACLU supported a teacher who draped huge banners with religious admonitions across his classroom. The ACLU's victory in the district court was overturned by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal:

"We thus reverse and remand with instructions that the district court vacate its grant of injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as its award of damages, and enter summary judgment in favor of Poway and its officials on all claims. Johnson shall bear all costs. Fed. R. App. P. 39(a)(3)."

Daniel R. Shinoff, Jack M. Sleeth, Jr. (argued), Paul V. Carelli, IV, Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, APC, San Diego, California, for defendants-appellants Poway Unified School District, et al

David Blair-Loy, ACLU Foundation of San Diego and Imperial Counties, San Diego, California, for Amicus Curiae American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties in Support of plaintiff (Johnson)

Apparently California Teachers Association didn't take part in this case.

Neither David Loy nor Kevin Keenan could think of another case in which the ACLU had defended freedom of speech for teachers, but they noted that the ACLU frequently defends the free speech rights of law enforcement officers. Is this perhaps because the police unions don't donate to the ACLU like the teacher unions do?

Even Lori Shellenberger, the San Diego ACLU's "civic engagement" attorney, is vehemently uninterested in free speech for teachers. She spoke at the Annual Membership meeting about the voting rights workshops she held for parents throughout the school district, and giving parents the chance to speak about what they wanted from schools. I told Ms. Shellenberger, "What good are voting rights when parents don't know what is going on in schools? Democracy requires an informed electorate. You want to expand parent participation, but you keep parents ignorant by silencing teachers who know what's going on in schools." Ms. Shellenberger said she wasn't interested in free speech. Her associate Vince Hall specifically told me he wasn't interested in my letter to the ACLU board.

It would seem to me that Shellenberger and Hall are unlikely to improve schools unless they're willing to work toward transparency in schools, to reveal the secret life of schools. They are basically asking parents to stand up and address the powers behind the curtain of secrecy in schools in the manner in which Dorothy, the Tin Man and friends addressed the Wizard of Oz. The ACLU wants to make sure the curtain is not pulled back revealing a charlatan pulling strings.

Interestingly, Mr. Keenan is convinced that the U.S. Supreme Court will overrule the Ninth Circuit. "We always win," said Kevin Keenan. If the ACLU wins in the U.S. Supreme Court, it will not be with the aid of the civil libertarians on the court, I believe. It will be with the aid of those who want the U.S. to be a Christian nation. Mr. Keenan's goal is apparently to win, not to stick to the ACLU's principles. He spends years trying to get the cross taken down from Mount Soledad in San Diego, only to turn around and try to get it erected (figuratively speaking) in a classroom in Poway.

Not so. The ACLU tried to silence my website discussions about Stutz law firm, which represented the school district in this case. The Court of Appeal didn't go along with the ACLU's position, ruling instead thatan injunction completely silencing my discussion of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz was "exceedingly unconstitutional."

Mr. Keenan bemoaned the fact that the San Diego Zoo has more members that the ACLU does, even when counting all ACLU members in the entire country. The reason might be that the ACLU compromised its principles a bit too often, pushing out ordinary people who demand equal treatment with the good old boys and girls in the ACLU power structure. In fact, Mr. Keenan said to me, "I'm surprised you're still a member." I'm not the one who has a problem with equal treatment for everyone, Mr. Keenan. But I'm curious, how many ordinary people has the ACLU intimidated into giving up their civil rights? They tried to get me to take down my website, but I didn't think much of their exhortations.

Mr. Loy tried to get me to obey an obviously unconstitutional injunction:

from dblairloy@aclusandiego.org
to Maura Larkins
date Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 9:18 PM
...However, the law does not allow anyone - a government official or a private person - to disobey a court order because they believe it is illegal. Under the law, the proper course is to seek appellate review of an order, and/or a stay of the order,rather than to disobey it. The rule of law in our system depends on compliance with court orders until or unless they are stayed or reversed...
David

Mr. Loy must also have known I was not legally required to de-publish the information about Stutz law firm on my website while the injunction was under appeal. (The mandative aspects of an injunction are staying during that time.) Either Mr. Loy was shockingly ignorant of the law, or he was intentionally deceiving me about the law to protect Stutz law firm when he said, “The rule of law in our system depends on compliance with court orders until or unless they are stayed or reversed...”. Why would he do this? To earn “civility” awards from the Bar Association? As a sort of trade-off of free speech rights, helping Dan Shinoff silence a teacher in exchange for Mr. Shinoff’s agreeing to settle student speech cases? To please donors to the ACLU who care less about education than they do about preserving the power of certain individuals in schools?

The Court of Appeal didn’t agree with Stutz law firm and the ACLU; on August 5, 2011 it ruled that the injunction Mr. Loy wanted me to obey was “exceedingly unconstitutional.” Of course, Mr. Loy knew perfectly well that the injunction was unconstitutional when he insisted that I must obey it.

But here’s the larger question: why did the ACLU board support Mr. Loy’s actions?

JUDGE JAMES STIVEN

I asked this question of ACLU board member Hon. James Stiven. He said, "I'm not getting involved because I'm a part of this organization." Wait a minute. Isn't that exactly why he has an obligation to get involved? He's on the board! He's in charge!

I said, "So if ACLU lawyers do something hostile to civil rights, you wouldn't intervene?"

He said, "I don't know that they have done anything wrong."

I said, "Yes you do. You're a judge."

Here's what they've done wrong:

1) To start with, David Loy aided and abetted a violation of my constitutional rights. I believe he intentionally gave me false legal advice in an effort to silence me.

2) The San Diego ACLU seeks and gets money by false advertising. I have heard ACLU speakers around town repeating what Kevin Keenan said at the 2012 Annual Membership meeting, "We guarantee rights for all people, not just the people we like. We stand up for equal protection of all people."

3) The above tactics have been approved at the highest levels of the San Diego ACLU. The San Diego ACLU Board knows about and tacitly approves the above actions.

Disenfranchised-Educators

Moreno Valley Educators

 Are You In or Out? 

The Neo-School Counselor
School Counseling Videocast
Disenfranchised-Educators

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.