Rick Sayre and Mike Rios Can't Figure Out What 45 Other Area School Board Trustees Have

Moreno Valley USD Desperately Needs Bond Funds but the Sayre and Rios "Brain Trust"  Don't Understand Why!

Nine school districts in Riverside and San Bernardino counties have placed bond measures on the Nov. 6 presidential election ballot, hoping that voters will agree to tax themselves to help schools catch up with technology and repair or replace outdated buildings.

Without much hope that the state will pay for such improvements anytime soon, districts are turning to voters during an election expected to draw a higher-than-usual turnout.

“It’s just a large turnout,” said Bob Brown, president of the Temecula Valley Unified School District board, which will be asking voters to approve a $165 million bond measure.

“The more people you get, the more people are interested, the better chance you have,” Brown said.

School districts’ needs are many, and the list grows every year: leaking roofs in San Bernardino, an old air-conditioning system in Hemet, a lack of technical education labs in Temecula, the demand for a high school in Menifee, to name just a few.

Still, many district leaders are concerned that survey results may not reflect voters’ true sentiments and that, when faced with the anonymity of their ballot, they will say no to adding possibly $100 or more to their annual tax bills. That is why some districts, such as Corona-Norco Unified, decided against bond measures.

Voters also will have to decide whether they want to support their local district’s school construction bonds as well as Prop. 30, which seeks to raise taxes temporarily, with a major portion going to education. Many districts will have to cut their budgets midyear if Prop. 30 fails.

Districts are not allowed to spend taxpayer money on bond campaigns. They can ask volunteers to form committees, which can solicit contributions to pay for advertising or other campaign materials.

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE

Since 2009, school districts have been allowed the flexibility to spend many previously restricted funds to save teaching jobs, preserve class sizes and keep student services such as busing, music and counseling.

One of those previously restricted funds was for deferred maintenance and went to pay for periodic work like new paint, fresh asphalt and roofing.

Christakos said Hemet decided it was important to maintain facilities and keep up with that deferred maintenance schedule.

But the deferred maintenance fund normally isn’t enough to pay for a whole new roof intended to last 30 to 50 years, he said. Likewise, heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems are supposed to last 30 years, Christakos said.

“That’s the kind of stuff you want to invest your bond money in,” he said.

Alvord Unified, Hemet Unified and Nuview Union school districts in Riverside County are among a dozen statewide asking voters to reauthorize some of the bonds they approved in 2006 and 2007.

When property values dropped, the districts never issued some bonds because the tax rates needed to pay off the bonds would have been too high. Now they want to decertify the unissued amounts and reauthorize them, without increasing authorized total debt.

TECHNOLOGY NEEDS

When many Inland districts approved bonds during the construction boom several years ago, educators didn’t foresee the huge demand for computers.

Since then, California and most states have adopted Common Core Standards. With the new curriculum, the state plans to replace its paper standardized tests in 2014-15 with tests students take online.

Most schools have a computer lab, often an aging one, that typically will accommodate one class at a time. Standardized tests now are taken by the whole school at the same time. Educators are worried about logistical challenges to get all students to take online tests in the short period allowed by the state.

Hemet Unified School District Assistant Superintendent Vincent Christakos is also vice president of the California Association of School Business Officials. He said wiring and servers for more Internet access are needed by many districts.

“Everybody expects we’re in the modern age,” Christakos said.

Schools also need computer access for programs to help struggling students, he said. Those computer programs automatically adjust to match a student’s current skill levels, rather than wasting time drilling them on what they already know or overwhelming them with questions way beyond their current ability.

BANKING ON ‘YES’

Many districts said the projects that would be covered by the bonds can’t be postponed forever.

In their bond documents, districts say it is important to get that work done now, before it becomes more pressing and costly. Construction costs and interest rates are historically low, so the money will go further, they say.

Passing a bond measure requires a “yes” from at least 55 percent of voters. The districts must appoint citizen oversight committees to make sure the bonds are spent as intended.

Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified is another district with a bond. It placed a $98 million bond measure on the Nov. 6 ballot to help upgrade its aging facilities and classroom technology.

The school district would sell the bonds in three or four series over a span of 10 to 15 years.

In January, when the Yucaipa-Calimesa school board was researching whether to float a bond measure, consultant Ann Feng-Gagne acknowledged at a board meeting that November's ballot is going to be crowded.

The board decided to proceed because Assistant Superintendent George Velarde said the district’s needs have become astronomical.

Calimesa resident Linda Molina supports the bond measure.

"These are desperate times,” she told the school board. “I see this as a way for our community to support our district in ways we haven't been able to."

Also contributing: Staff writer Erin Waldner, ewaldner@pe.com

SCHOOL BONDS

Nine school districts in Riverside and San Bernardino counties are putting bond measures on the Nov. 6 ballot.

Temecula Valley Unified, $165 million, cost to property owners $10 per $100,000 assessed valuation annually. Needs: facilities, equipment for vocational education in health, science, technology and the trades; upgraded computers and classrooms science labs.

Perris Union High School District, $153.4 million, cost to property owners $30 per $100,000 assessed valuation annually. Needs: improved classrooms, science labs, vocational education and instructional technology; hazardous materials removal; fire safety improvements; other upgrades.

Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified, $98 million, cost to property owners up to $44.25 per $100,000 of assessed valuation annually. Needs: computer and instructional technology upgrades; new or improved vocational classrooms and labs; repairs, replacement of leaky roofs, aging classrooms, old restrooms and other facilities.

Alvord Unified, in parts of Riverside and Corona, $79 million reauthorization of 2007 bonds, cost to property owners $51 per $100,000 in assessed valuation annually. Needs: new or refurbished classrooms and schools, including vocational education facilities, heating and air-conditioning systems, science labs and computer technology access.

Hemet Unified, $49 million, cost to property owners $27.50 per $100,000 assessed valuation annually. Needs: upgrade or replace heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems; reduce borrowing costs on 2006 bonds.

Nuview Union School District, east of Perris, $4 million reauthorization of 2006 bonds, cost to property owners $27 (capped at $30) per $100,000 assessed valuation annually. Needs: better student access to computers and technology; building or renovations; new equipment; lower borrowing costs.

San Bernardino City Unified, $250 million, cost to property owners up to $34 per $100,000 assessed valuation annually. Needs: repair or replace leaky roofs, deteriorating classrooms, fire alarms, security and electrical systems; remove asbestos; update classroom technology, labs and other upgrades.

Coachella Valley Unified, $41 million, cost to property owners not available. Needs: upgrades to electrical and computer systems; new mobile learning devices; and school facility upgrades.

Chaffey Joint Union High School District, in Ontario, $848 million, cost to property owners up to $19.94 per $100,000 assessed valuation. Needs: repair restrooms, leaky roofs, heating, air-conditioning and fire safety systems; remove asbestos; upgrade handicapped accessibility; science and computer labs; other upgrades.

"Am I crazy? I believe every child can have an excellent teacher--without firing any teachers?"

TUESDAY, AUGUST 21, 2012

Posted August 21, 2012 by Maura Larkins,

San Diego Education Report Blog

Am I crazy? I believe every child can have an excellent teacher--without firing any teachers!

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 save money!

Am I crazy to think this?

HERE'S THE MATH:

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

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

New plan: $90 + $45 + $45 + $45 + $45 = $270

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, computer 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.

Here is a chart of average teacher salaries in the US.

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 $45 thousand, and allow master teachers to rise to an average of $90 thousand--for overseeing four 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: $90 + $45 + $45 + $45 + $45 = $270

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 get 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.

A Whole Lot of Lawsuits in Jurupa Unified School District in Riverside

First published THURSDAY, JANUARY 26, 2012
San Deigo Education Report

 by Richard D. Ackerman Attorney at Law
Subject: Ermine Nelson: PERB Case No. LA-CE-5517-E

I attended yesterday’s 01/26/2012 PERB hearing for Ms. Ermine Nelson [PERB Case No. LA-CE-5517-E].
 The hearing went very well from my perspective. What was alarming, however, is what was testified to about the absolute inaction and ignorance of the leadership of the employee unions’ representatives within the Jurupa Unified School District. Based on the fact that I contacted union leadership for the NEAJ and CSEA before then, I can only assume that the disregard of what the District is doing is intentional or you are being union-busted by the District and don’t even know it.

Under Government Code §§ 3540-3543 and related provisions of law, the District had an absolute duty to send any grievances, however old or new, merit or no merit, directly to the Union upon receipt (where the grievance originated from a member or presumed employee). In this particular case and many others I have tried to tell you about, NEAJ was never aware of grievances (as many as 28 in one case alone in July 2010).

Under oath and cross-examination, Tamara Elzig testified to the two following key facts. Her testimony is memorialized and recorded:

1. It is the District’s position that union and employee rights go on leave at the same time the employee goes on medical leave (regardless of whether breaches of the CBA occurred even while on leave – Which would include: breaches of union privacy, keeping information from the union, interfereing with lawful association of union members, and interfering with attorney work-product under CCP 2018, and union busting);

2. It is the District’s position that it does not have to forward grievances to the Unions when it feels that there is no merit to the grievance.

I very quickly, in an objection-response exchange, mentioned to Judge Cu that we have not filed a charge against the District’s unions. I am aware of 150+ grievances that have been filed by my clients alone (both classified and certificated). I am going to very nicely ask you folks to once again review your policies, practices, and procedures to make sure that your members’ rights aren’t being trampled right under your noses. As you know, the Code does confer the right to an individual employee to bring a Superior Court action. We have already mentioned the violation of many of these rights in Archambault v. JUSD, et.al. (a First Amendment, Due Process, anti-discrimination, ant-racism, and Equal Application declaratory relief case).

If you all really believe that DFEH, EEOC, USDOE, CTA, NEA, CDOE will take to the position that a disabled employee, on approved medical leave, cannot file any grievances whatsoever, this will be a REALLY BIG PROBLEM not only for the District, but for you. If the lack of attention to grievance processes meant that employees did not know they could even file grievances, there is a bigger problem. Unfortunately, there is plenty of sworn testimony on this issue already.

It makes one wonder about how many other employee problems were kept from you and the CSEA. Worse yet, how many breaches of confidentiality of membership, representative organizations, and counsel have occurred? It is a federal and state crime to monitor union membership communications without adequate notice and without sufficient probable cause. I am reserving all rights my clients have under Section 1983 and to take further action.

The District has already lost a motion under CCP 425.16, rendered damaging sworn testimony on lack of Due Process in the Braden arbitration conducted before Hon. Arturo Morales, and Superintendent Elzig’s performance yesterday was an outright admission of an intention to directly interfere with Union Rights. We already know from the Norman and Gonzalez cases that the District monitors all communications over its electronic wire systems and mail systems (as defined under Federal Law) and is aware of and checks the content of union and legal counsel writings and communications. Employees and union membership are not adequately warned of the tapping.

With regard to Mr. Vigrass, why don’t you have a private e-mail address for Union business? The District has already proven that it knows what you discuss. You have no less than two or three members under fire for what was allegedly found on their classroom computers (including Union business). Some of the horrifically perturbing information was placed on my client’s computer, in the Norman case, after he was already on administrative leave (a literal, figurative, and unconstitutionally sound reality).

Yesterday, your District proved, beyond a doubt, that it doesn’t see your union activities as confidential. Superintendent Elzig and her counsel vigorously argued for a claim to know what you are up to, when you meet with your members, and how many times. This is constitutionally unacceptable and, in my privileged opinion, violates many state and federal laws.

The ALJ also could not rule on whether your discussions with accused union members was/is confidential. I am supposed to brief that issue. I’ve never been to a PERB hearing and didn’t even know what PERB was before this proceeding.

Fortunately for the Union, in this limited case, you were not at the scene of ‘crime’ as it were. The unions had already chosen to ignore Nelson’s case and the District made CBA union representatives look ignorant and ineffective. As you can see from the attached briefing done in CSEA cases and testimony, this isn’t new.

I do know what the law is and basically had to argue it for the unions. It is the District’s position, through counsel and Elzig, that your communications with members are fair game. Worse yet, you have an indemnity provision in your CBA that gives the unions the privilege of paying the District’s bill (at their discretion), win, lose or draw. This is a constitutional and due process disaster of unprecedented proportion. I have many friends who are public employees, in official and elected capacities, and none would approve of this – regardless of politics.

I will look back in my files to find the e-mail from the CSEA’s Janet Jones telling me to mind my own business. More than one of my certificated clients has/have heard similar threats from others aside from Messrs. Sibby and Vigrass. I believe that you have all the right intentions, but your rights, as well as those of your members, have been trampled to death. Identifying what’s left of those rights will not be cheap, easy, or likely to come through my one-man office. I just got out of the hospital myself, am still being diagnosed and evaluated, and am overwhelmed by what is going on within this District. I am desperately hanging on to my ability to achieve victories for your members, but also don’t have the resources to keep it up if the Unions don’t get involved more visibly and effectively.

The amount of real exposure created for the Unions is beginning to be massive to say the least. I am on your side, but I don’t have the resources or manpower to argue matters directly affecting your leadership. Messrs. Sibby and Vigrass have been upfront with me, pursued what information they could verify, and don’t appear to be neutral on the rights of their members. Even with their efforts, the District has now crossed battlefield lines that will end up with innumerable casualties of failures in applying the Principles of the Constitution.

Should you choose to share this e-mail with Ms. Elzig and Mr. Duchon, if they have not already seen it, please let them know that these are simply my opinions and the hearing transcript speaks for itself. The unions got worked over bad and were made to look very stupid and ignorant – and it wasn’t by me.

Perhaps we should discuss this in a more confidential forum. My clients are very concerned and so am I. If you want to meet with my clients as a group and get your colleagues to join us from the CSEA, it would be appreciated.

Richard D. Ackerman
Law Offices of R.D. Ackerman
www.AttorneyAckerman.com

I AM RE-POSTING THIS PEICE AS I HAVE UNCOVERED THAT JURUPA USD HAS THE MOST PENDING OAH - bullshit - hearings planned than any other SCHOOL district ALMOST EQUAL TO LAUSD. LAUSD IS MORE THAN 20x the size of JURUPA!  
I, PRAETORIAN

Cost of Courage

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...

Five Myths (Lies) About Teaching in America - Edited by yours truly.

Originally Published  2/29/2012
Myth #1:  Teachers make more than the average American. Their salary is not less than it should be.

Let’s take a look at those claims… the average teacher salary in the United States is $52,900 and the average salary for all workers in the United States is $52,544 so yes, teachers make slightly more than average. However, the average income for American workers with a bachelor’s degree or better is $77,293 (1) well above the average teacher.

Looking at total compensation (includes insurance, paid holidays, retirement etc.) the private sector average is $71,000 and the public sector average is $69,000.(2)

It should be clear that teacher’s pay lags well behind that of our similarly educated peers. It should also be clear why we have the paid retirement and insurance we do – it helps bring our compensation in line with our private sector peers. And we still lag behind our private sector peers.

Myth #2: Teachers should not have a “Job for Life.” The teacher’s unions protect bad teachers and make it impossible to fire bad teachers.

Nothing could be further form the truth. First, it is important to be clear on what teacher tenure is and what it is not. “Unlike tenure for university professors, tenure for K-12 teachers does not shield them from dismissal. Instead, it's simply a guarantee of due process — that if a teacher is fired, it will be for cause.”(3)

Teachers and their unions are not the least bit interested in hiring or protecting poor teachers. Nor are teachers hired for life. Teachers and their union are interested only in protecting good teachers from abuse and arbitrary firings and this requires due process. The fact that poor teachers can hide behind these protections is really a reflection of administrators who are unable or unwilling to clearly articulate a case against a poor teacher and that we DON'T have any valid standardized way of evaluating performance. Currently, many administrators who were poor teachers themselves that moved on  to get out of the classroom, subjectively write the final evaluation of teachers through a process where personalities and non-teaching agendas come into play.

Myth #3: We have to do something; we are lagging far behind other countries in education.

I do not know a teacher who does not believe that education in America has critical flaws. Teachers also believe that we are lagging behind other industrialized countries and there are grave concerns about our failure to keep up. However, how we come to that conclusion and how we measure ourselves against the world is flawed. (See the preceding article.)

The “Us versus Them” comparisons are flawed and causing grave harm to education in this country due to the reliance on standardized testing to measure student and teacher performance.

There are major issues with this comparison.

For starters, China, India et. al. Do not test every student, nor do they attempt to educate every student.(4) Schools in the United States (excepting private schools and in many cases charter schools) are required to accept and teach any student who appears at their door. This includes well qualified students, motivated students, unmotivated students, students with special emotional or mental needs ( read - not enough school counselors,) unprepared students, students with little support outside of schools, students who don’t speak a common language, the list goes on. Most of these students would not be accepted to, or be allowed to remain in most foreign schools. Up untell the Bush administration, most Americans were proud of this fact. Further, the fact that we have chosen to educate all children is the only socially progressive achievement we can lay claim to ahead of any other country.

This is in no way a complaint about providing instruction to these students or an excuse or even a claim that these students can’t or shouldn’t be taught, but simply a clear reason why the comparison of test scores is problematic at best, and faulty and harmful in the extreme.

Not only is the comparison flawed, it has led us to the point where we are basing our educational decisions on standardized tests and even trying to evaluate teachers on how well their students do on these tests. (5)

The problem is, a test does not provide information on how well a teacher has taught a subject, at best a test tells us how well a student has learned the subject. In the absence of other data, a test does not even do that reliably.

While there is plenty of research on the subject – enough to write a book – the simple explanation is this: a teacher cannot control all of the variables that go into how well a student learns. The support a student receives at home is far more important than what goes on in their school. How motivated a student is to learn will effect how well they learn.

Interestingly, China is attempting to rely less on standardized test and create a more American system. (6) Chinese policy makers are beginning to realize that teaching to the test has created generations of very good test takers who are unable to critically analyze and solve complex problems or creatively think of new ideas.

"We have just seen 43 states and DC adopt a Common Core curriculum that will have a Common Core national test (common “yardstick”) in 2014-15, and another name for that national test is “gao kao.” It will drive U.S. education for decades and we may never be able to get off of it. The American teacher was always unique in deciding what to teach, when to teach, and how to teach it…and the variability in creative questioning has gained us 270+ Nobel Prizes. (Score for China-educated doing research in China is zero…but that will soon change due to many who return after receiving a graduate education in U.S.) But now, partly from test envy and international ignorance, we have headed down a path to standardization in testing that we will not be able to get out of in our lifetime." (7)

Is this really where we want to head?

“But [the] intention is to use the Special Curriculum as a laboratory to experiment with a curriculum that will help all Chinese students, not just those who study abroad. Special Curriculum students may be encouraged to exercise and play, watch movies and read novels, engage in chit-chat and extracurricular activities. But in tests they do just as well as – or even better than – students who are given no choice but to study all day. This fact has profound implications for curriculum design and implementation in China. (8)

Scientific research and the experience of Finland’s highly praised education system show that a varied and flexible schedule that incorporates play and pleasure with study and work produces the best learners. Fitness and nutrition, music and arts, sports and games are not unnecessary distractions to learning but healthy supplements.” (9)

Myth #4: In this economy teachers are lucky to have a job.

No, teachers are not lucky to have a job.

This should not minimize the severity of our current economic situation, but unemployment is near 9% (10) meaning that if you selected 100 people at random 91 of those people would be employed. Having a job isn’t lucky, not having employment is unlucky.

In addition, many teachers worked very hard to earn degrees and employment that is relatively stable. Having a job now is the result of making good choices when selecting a career. Many teachers chose to forgo maximum profit for security and it is paying off now.

Myth #5: Why shouldn’t teachers be held accountable when everyone else is accountable for their performance?

Teachers are and should be held accountable. For good teaching. Not politically driven misconceptions by people without Credentials to even understand the complexity of issues. Bill Gates stole the idea behind Windows from Apple Inc, who had stolen the actual code for their PC interface from the scientists at Bell Laboratories with no repercussions. In spite Gates' many books,  Gates' is intellectually, experientially and functionally unqualified to comment on Education change. He hasn't taught one day in a public school. He could not qualify to teach. He dropped out of college. Leaving him approximately five years of college to even qualify.

Most teachers want to be the very best teacher they can be and that is impossible without being regularly and properly evaluated. It is difficult to make specific comments because how teachers are evaluated varies from district to district but it is fair to say that most teachers don’t have an issue with being evaluated.

However, teachers want to be evaluated on their teaching. Tying their evaluations and pay to student performance is unfair. There are far too many variables that are outside a teacher’s control. And unlike a manager in the private sector a teacher cannot interview potential students and pick the best nor can a teacher fire those who choose to ignore their responsibilities in school.

A teacher’s role is to teach the best they are able. To implement best practice and the best teaching strategies. To continually adapt to the needs of their students and to learn new ways to reach them and teach them. Additionally, an ability to form positive relations with most if not all of their students. As we all know certain personality traits and false expectations lend to negative impact on the learning process In those developmental years.


That is what a teacher should be evaluated upon.

A student’s role is to be in class and to complete the tasks a teacher asks – whatever those task may be – to the best of their ability. If a student does not do this, for whatever reason, they are not doing their job and they will not learn as well as they are able. A teacher does not control this, and no matter how well the teacher teaches a student who fails to perform their job will fall short of expectations and their potential.

1. “ 2011 Statistical Abstract,” U.S. Census Bureau, accessed February 23, 2011, http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/
2. “For public-sector workers, a wage penalty,” Economic Policy Institute, accessed February 23, 2011, http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/for_public_sector_worke...
3. Greenblatt, Alan, “Is Teacher Tenure Still Necessary?” NPR.Com, accessed February 23, 2011, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126349435
4. Compton, Robert, “2 Million Minutes: A Global Examination”, The Finland Phenomon, accessed February 23, 2011, http://www.2mminutes.com/
5. “K-12 testing,” Fair Test, the national Center for Fair and Open Testing, accessed February 23, 2011, http://www.fairtest.org/k-12
6. Schrock, John Richard, “Why Doesn’t China Get Off the Teach-to-the-Test System?” Yong Zhao, accessed February 23, 2001, http://zhaolearning.com/2010/12/29/john-richard-schrock-why-doesnt-...
7. Ibid.
8. “Education Reform in China: What the educators think,” OECD 50, Better policies for Better Lives, accessed February 23, 2011, http://oecdinsights.org/2010/03/19/education-reform-in-china-what-t...
9. Ibid.
10. “Table A-14. Unemployed persons by industry,” United States Department of Labor, accessed February 23, 2011, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t14.htm

Sources:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126349435
http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/for_public_sector_worke...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/20/ravitch.teachers.blamed/index...
http://www.dianeravitch.com/
http://www.worldsalaries.org/usa.shtml
http://www.educationworld.net/salaries_us.html
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Country=United_States/Salary
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
http://www.aeaweb.org/students/Careers.php
http://zhaolearning.com/2010/12/10/a-true-wake-up-call-for-arne-dun...
http://slatest.slate.com/id/2284732/entry/4/#add-comment
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/chinas-education-prepares-students-t...
http://zhaolearning.com/2010/12/29/john-richard-schrock-why-doesnt-...
http://oecdinsights.org/2010/03/19/education-reform-in-china-what-t...
http://www.aare.edu.au/05pap/zho05780.pdf
http://www.asainstitute.org/2mm/index.html
Compton, Robert 2 Million Minutes: A Global Examination (2008), http://www.2mminutes.com/

Tyack, David B. The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education (1974)

Tyack, David B., and Elizabeth Hansot. Managers of virtue: Public school leadership in America, 1820–1980. (1982)

Archbald, Doug A.; Newmann, Fred M. Beyond Standardized Testing: Assessing Authentic Academic Achievement in the Secondary School (1988)

Alfie Kohn The case against standardized testing: raising the scores, ruining the schools (2000)

"Beware the Military-Industrial Complex"

31 July 2012 (Tank manufacturer's lobby)

According to Pentagon sources...

The Pentagon has wanted to stop production of the Abrams Tank for some years, but it's manufacturer, General Dynamics and GD's lobbiests are so strong that the Pentagon doesn't have the courage to stop its production!

Abram's M1 Tank

This is a clear example of corporate domination of the state. Exactly what President Eisenhower said in his fair-well speech... beware the Military-Industrial complex.

"I Know the Financial, Personal, Emotional and Physical Damage... "

by Lorna Stremcha

I know first hand the financial, personal, emotional and physical damage that can result when school administrators, the Montana Education Association and the National Education Association put their own interests above the students, teachers and the taxpayers of the State of Montana My files contain mountains of paperwork including depositions, declarations of truth, notarized documents and exhibits resulting from an arduous legal process that finally ended when the Havre (Montana) School District settled two lawsuits - a Federal suit and one filed in State District Court. These documents also include a letter from a union representative stating, " This is nothing more than a witch hunt." Yet the union continued to allow the school administration to harass, bully and bring harm to me.

These two lawsuits resulted from a single incident that, had it been handled differently and under the light of public scrutiny, would not have snowballed into awards of more than $200,000 worth of damages. Funds that eventually came from the taxpayers' pockets. Ironically, as a taxpayer in Hill County, my family and I are helping to pay for the damages awarded to me. This covered the attorneys' fees. The settlement did not include my attorney fees, however the district, insurance and taxpayers paid the defendants attorney bills, which exceeded mine. The settlement was made on March 2, 2006.

I was a tenured teacher at Havre Middle School with a successful work history of nearly ten years. I was approached and harassed in my classroom by a mentally challenged and dangerous person during school hours. His speech and actions caused me fear that I would be raped, or worse. The administration's less-than-positive response to the situation eventually caused me to file a sexual harassment and hostile environment complaint. After making the complaint and following the chain of command within the school system with no results, I filed a Montana Human Rights Complaint with the Montana Human Rights Bureau. This was a dual filing with the EEOC. Upon returning to work the next school year, I found hard-core pornographic emails on my school computer. When I reported these emails to the proper authorities, their response was that "keep quiet". When I asked them to trace the pornography, the administration replied that it couldn't be done.

As I pressed the issue, the administration's reaction was to try to find a way to get rid of me. They embarked upon a series of closed meetings with students and parents in an attempt to discover anything and everything they could use to build a case to terminate me. Students were taken from their class for meetings with the administration and were told to keep the discussions "a secret". While I was never allowed to meet with parents or students to discuss what were obviously fabrications, rumors were rampant. Administration leaks were prevalent although I was continually told to keep silent I also received letters from administration threatening termination. These letters lacked a basis in fact and were simply threats. Such a campaign can take a toll. Admittedly, my teaching suffered. I was afraid to discipline any student in fear that such an action would result in more closed meetings and threats of termination. Grades were questioned. Parents called and met with members of the administration. These meetings were either scheduled for times during which they knew I could not attend or simply held without notification. I was totally isolated. These are only the highlights of a year of harassment and intimidation. Naturally, my health suffered. At one point, I weighed 90 pounds and my physician prescribed medication for stress. In fact, he recommended that I take a leave of absence.

When I returned from that leave, my classroom was bare. My personal possessions were boxed. Student work had been removed, was missing or destroyed. Grades had been awarded in my name that I had not authorized. In response to all of this and other forms of harassment, my union representative said simply, "They can do what they want. They're administration." Finally, I was terminated.

While doing discovery [legal process], I learned that members of the Montana Human Rights Commission, members of the school district's law firm, the Montana School Board Association and Montana Teachers Union all had political ties with the superintendent who terminated me. To make matters worse, he chairs the Board of Public Education. All of these people met to discuss my complaints against the administration. These meetings were not publicized and I was not in attendance. During the same period in which I was under daily scrutiny and discipline, male employees were allowed to use corporal punishment, have inappropriate relationships with students and drink alcohol on school sporting trips. Other topics brought to the attention of the administration during this same period included the treatment of a Native American paraplegic paraprofessional and her Native American students as well as the use of derogatory names referring to women, ethnic groups and special needs children. All these were dealt with behind closed doors. The 
public was never informed and no other teacher lost his job.


Even though I received a settlement, I have been blacklisted and cannot be employed in my chosen career. Sadly, I have lost my passion for classroom teaching and find myself fearful of those who work as administrators in the field of public education. This entire scenario could have been avoided had the school administration been willing to discuss openly and frankly the events that led to my filing the first grievance. (This is almost always the case. Our district administrators and the defected personalities at the helm, keep pushing the illogical and ridiculously expensive personal vendettas in order to keep from having to admit they were wrong in the way they handled things. Sometimes it is out of fear of retaliation of other administrators).   It was filed only after the administration refused to listen to my concerns and only after I was told to "keep quiet". At one point, the administration represented me as a hysterical female whose problem might be "hormonal". All this was done with union knowledge and while I was under a Collective Bargaining agreement. The union was in contact with the administration and was contacted by the administration. They did not protect me nor did they stand up for me. I believe this would not have happened had the Union done their job and not breached their contract with me. Again, these are only highlights.

With truth on my side,

Lorna Stremcha

THIS TEACHER'S STORY ALSO PROVIDES A VERY GOOD REASON TO BEWARE OF OUR UNIONS AS MANY OF OUR MEMBERS HAVE SADLY DISCOVERED. WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS TEACHER, AND MOST OF OUR OTHER TEACHER MEMBERS INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT OF NAPTA, COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED IF WE HAD REAL UNIONS. AND CONSIDERING THAT MANY OF OUR POLITICIANS RELY ON THE UNIONS WE HAVE FOR THEIR FINANCIAL BACKING, OUR POLITICIANS ARE UNWITTING PUPPETS OF EDUCRAT$ ALL OVER THIS NATION. 








Top

 BACKGROUND

What to Do if the Unthinkable Happens... and You are Forced to Rely On Your CTA Appointed Attorney?

The following came from Union Plus Legal Services web site:
I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the claims here in

AFT, pursuant to the AFT Legal Defense Fund, assists FEA by sharing the costs of in-house counsel on matters that fall within the scope of its program.  In-house counsel provide representation to locals in matters before the Public Employees Relations Commission; appeals of final agency orders; and legal actions relative to collective bargaining, organizing or political action.  The Office also provides representation to individual members in dismissal, certification, appeals of final agency orders when legally warranted, and other matters as determined under the program.

Find a Lawyer in Your Area

NOTE: When you contact a lawyer in the network, tell them you're calling for the Union Plus Legal Service so you can get your free initial onsultation and discount.

1.     Call  1-888-993-8886 (9-7 ET, M-F) or

2.     Find a lawyer online and after selecting a lawyer, use the online tool to notify that lawyer by email of your intent to contact their office; you can even briefly describe your legal issue.

3.     Print a Union Plus Legal Service business card as a handy reference.

No participating lawyers in your area? Let us know where the program needs participating lawyers, email legal@unionprivilege.org or recommend a lawyer in your area by completing this form.

Find a lawyer in your area using the Union Plus Legal Service

In legal matters, union members rely on expert advice. And to help find lawyers who can answer their personal legal questions, members can consult the Union Plus Legal Service.

Need a lawyer? Lawyers in the legal panel have expertise in:

 Family law
 Traffic matters
Wills and estate-planning
Real estate
 Immigration law and more.

The Union Plus Legal Service helps:

Make legal services more accessible and affordable to union members and their families.
Simplify the search for legal advice for working families.
Encourage the use of preventive law-get advice before a legal question becomes a legal problem.

"Legal aid services you can trust:"

Selective? (HARDLY!) Union Plus Legal Service lawyers are carefully selected to make sure members receive the best cheapest services available (to CTA). Labor-friendly? (Unless you think attorney malfeasance and the loss of YOUR career unfriendly.) Many of the panel of attorneys serving the program have been selected from lists of lawyers involved in the union movement and those involved with similar group legal services programs. 

Do You Know? Is it Really True? Not in This Educators Experience

One of the (supposed) benefits provided by NEA and your State Association is job rights protection under the Kate Frank/DuShane Unified Legal Services Program (ULSP). The following is printed right off a state NEA affiliate's site:


The ULSP is a jointly sponsored NEA and state affiliate program that provides appropriate legal assistance to members who are subjected to discipline or discharge by their employer. But did you also know that NEA provides two other important benefits that may be available to members who are falsely accused?  


Some cases involving very serious allegations can result in criminal charges being filed against you and may require you to retain a criminal defense attorney. If the charges arise in the course of your employment and you are fully exonerated or all the charges are dropped, then the NEA (approved )Educators Employment Liability (EEL) Program will reimburse you up to $35,000 for attorneys’ fees.  (Note:  If the criminal charges are limited to corporal punishment, there is reimbursement even if you are not exonerated.)  JUST DON'T GET CAUGHT DISSENTING FROM THE CTA/NEA PARTY LINE OR YOU'LL STAND ALONE REGARDLESS.


Be sure to contact your state Association CTA, before retaining a criminal defense attorney. (THIS WAY THEY CAN CHECK YOU AGAINST A LIST OF KNOWN CTA DETRACTORS.) Your state Association may be able to recommend a reputable attorney who has experience with child abuse cases.


You also might be sued for damages by the alleged victim and/or the parents. Under the EEL Program, all NEA members are covered for claims up to $1 million in civil lawsuits against them for damages and attorneys’ fees arising out of their employment activities. The policy kicks in after any insurance available through the school district, and is subject to several exclusions.  

Check with YOUR state Association (Of course! Those lying pricks!) for additional information about the scope of  CTA coverage under the EEL Program.