In the comment section after local CSEA president, Bill Faust's Forum decrying the potential layoffs of CSEA members, one anti union blogger said parents and children need unions as well. The article is found here:
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/article_0637c825-2670-5fba-ae77-70b193083be1.html?mode=story
In the comment section was the following quote:
"Students and parents need to become a self-interest group too!"
They already are. Students and parents have the strongest voice in how school sites and the district as a whole are run. There voice is much stronger than any school employee's voice.
There are many ways for parents to make sure their voice is heard and heard loudly.
The parents can join the PTA and participate in PTA activities at the school site. PTA members particularly the ones who come to the site for PTA meetings are given a great deal of respect. Their expressed concerns are taken VERY seriously by site administration and site teachers. No one messes with the PTA.
In addition parents are encouraged to join the School Site Council which controls significant site funds. As I recall parents make up the majority of votes at the SSCs.
Schools are mandated by various state and federal regulations to include parents in decision making on campus. We welcome parents on campus and we encourage them to suggest improvements.
In addition, there are multiple committees at any public school administrative office. Parents that are involved with these committees get to know district admin and can talk to them informally about site concerns. When district admin gets involved there are instant changes at sites. No site admin, no school teacher would dare to ignore any 'suggestion' from a district administrator.
Contrary to what our ANTIs say NO ONE's JOB IS SAFE at a public school. Teachers in California DO NOT have tenure. Every year at least five or six percent of teachers in VUSD and other districts do not return to their jobs. They have been 'eased' out. One of the functions of the release time association president is to help in this process.
The association through the president and her appointees makes sure that there is a fair process as the association is REQUIRED to do by labor law. That law is called the Fair Labor Standards Act. Should an association NOT represent its members in this process, it is at risk of significant financial penalties both through legal actions and actions by the Fair Labor Relations Board.
It benefits no one to keep poor teachers in the classroom. No one wants teachers in a classroom who are ineffective. However it is far more cost effective to try remediation measures to increase a teacher's effectiveness before they are 'non re-elected'. Nevertheless for the first two years in a new district any teacher can be dismissed for any or no reason whatsoever. If a principal does not like the way a new teacher dresses, the teacher's haircut, the teacher's political views--ANYTHING, the teacher can and will be dismissed.
The son of a friend of mine was dismissed for refusing to coach again for a third time in his second year of teaching in a school district near Fresno. Each coaching assignment is two or three months long for two or three hours after school every day. Coaching significantly effects a teacher's after school lesson plan preparation and student paper grading time.
Teaching is not easy. No children anywhere just sit quickly in their seats for more than thirty seconds at best as any parent who has had a birthday or slumber party at their homes well knows.
When you remember a quiet classroom where you were learning a lot or if you observe a quiet well mannered class today that is no accident. Quiet actively learning students happen because some teacher is exerting tremendous control of the students.
Finding the skills and the will to do is so difficult that the vast majority of folks who get a teaching credential are never able to use it as an employed teacher.
The attrition rate among new public school teachers is very high. Nearly half of all newly employed public school have left the profession within five years.
In addition parents are usually voters in the district where their children attend school. Voting is the ultimate expression of power in a district.
In our district parents joined with most of the rest of the VUSD community in recalling ANTI public education extremists in 1994. Voting and the action of becoming informed school district elections is the ultimate PARENT power.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Do you think you will get swine flu shot? 40% say, 'Yes"
Harvard School of Public Health
Survey finds just 40 percent of adults 'absolutely certain' they will get H1N1 vaccine
Major reasons people saying 'no' or 'maybe' to vaccine include belief they are at low risk of illness and concerns about vaccine safety
Boston, MA—In a new survey, Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) researchers found that just 40% of adults are "absolutely certain" they will get the H1N1 vaccine for themselves, and 51% of parents are "absolutely certain" that they will get the vaccine for their children. The survey examined the reasoning among those who said they would not get the vaccine or might not. This is the latest in a series of surveys of public views concerning the H1N1 flu outbreak undertaken by the Harvard Opinion Research Program at HSPH. The polling was done September 14-20, 2009.
Public Mixed on Getting Vaccine, but Interest May Jump If Outbreak Is Severe
About six in ten adults are not "absolutely certain" they will get the H1N1 vaccine for themselves, including 41% who say they will not get it, 6% who say they don't know if they will get it, and 11% who say they are planning to get it but may change their mind. About four in ten parents (44%) are not "absolutely certain" that they will get the vaccine for their children, including 21% who will not get it, 7% who don't know, and 16% who say they are planning to get it but may change their mind.
If there were people in their community who were sick or dying from H1N1, roughly six in ten adults (59%) who say they do not think they'll get the vaccine would change their mind and get it for themselves. About the same percentage of parents (60%) who say they do not think they'll get the vaccine for their children would change their minds if H1N1 was causing sickness or death in their community.
"These findings suggest that public health officials need to be prepared for a surge in demand for the H1N1 vaccine if the H1N1 flu becomes more severe," said Robert J. Blendon, Professor of Health Policy and Political Analysis at HSPH.
Major Reasons for Not Getting Vaccine or Being Unsure
Those who were not "absolutely certain" they will get the H1N1 vaccine cited the following as the top "major" reasons for their thinking:
(1) they are concerned about getting side effects from the vaccine (30%);
(2) they don't think they are at risk of getting a serious case of the illness (28%); and
(3) they think they could get medication to treat H1N1 if they do get sick (26%).
The top "major" reasons cited by parents who are not "absolutely sure" they will get the vaccine are that
(1) they are concerned about side effects of the vaccine (38%);
(2) they are concerned that their children could get other illnesses from the vaccine (33%); and (3) they do not trust public health officials to provide correct information about the safety of the vaccine (31%).
"There's still a lot of uncertainty about what people will ultimately do in terms of getting the vaccine. If public health officials want to encourage a larger number of people to get vaccinated this fall, they will need to address the public's concerns in the coming weeks," said Blendon.
Safety Concerns
At this point in time, only about a third (33%) of the public sees the H1N1 vaccine as very safe "generally for most people to take." By comparison, the figure is 57% for the seasonal flu vaccine. A smaller fraction of the public thinks the H1N1 vaccine is very safe for particular groups to take, including children ages 6 months to 2 years (18%) and pregnant women (13%). The Centers for Disease Control is encouraging these groups, among others, to get the vaccine as early as possible.
Concerns About Outbreak on the Rise
Public concern about a fall or winter outbreak of H1N1 has risen since June. Roughly three-quarters of the public (76%) believe there will be widespread cases of H1N1 this fall or winter with people getting very sick, which is an increase from June when only 59% felt the same way. More people are also now concerned that they or someone in their immediate family will get sick from H1N1 during the next 12 months (52% in later September, as compared to 38% in June). Roughly two-thirds of people (64%) think that public health officials' concerns about a possible outbreak have been justified, while one third (31%) think that they have been overblown.
This poll is part of a series of polls about the way that Americans and their institutions are responding to the H1N1 flu outbreak. The first three focus on the American public, and the fourth focuses on views of businesses across the United States.
Methodology
This poll is part of an on-going series of surveys focused on the public and biological security by the Harvard Opinion Research Program (HORP) at Harvard School of Public Health. The study was designed and analyzed by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH). The project director is Robert J. Blendon of the Harvard School of Public Health. The research team also includes Gillian K. SteelFisher, John M. Benson, and Kathleen J. Weldon of the Harvard School of Public Health, and Melissa J. Herrmann of SSRS/ICR. Fieldwork was conducted via telephone (including both landline and cell phone) for HORP by SSRS/ICR of Media (PA) September 14-20, 2009.
The survey was conducted with a representative national sample of 1,042 adults age 18 and over, including oversamples of non-Hispanic African Americans and Hispanics. Altogether, 144 non-Hispanic African Americans and 126 Hispanics were interviewed. In the overall results, these groups were weighted to their actual proportion of the total adult population.
The margin of error for the total sample is plus or minus 3.7 percentage points. Possible sources of non-sampling error include non-response bias, as well as question wording and ordering effects. Non-response in telephone surveys produces some known biases in survey-derived estimates because participation tends to vary for different subgroups of the population. To compensate for these known biases, sample data are weighted to the most recent Census data available from the Current Population Survey for gender, age, race, education, region, and number of adults in the household. Other techniques, including random-digit dialing, replicate subsamples, and systematic respondent selection within households, are used to ensure that the sample is representative.
###
Funding
This Harvard School of Public Health series is funded under a cooperative agreement with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The award enables HORP to provide technical assistance to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as well as to other national and state government health officials in order to support two critical goals: (1) to better understand the general public's response to public health emergencies, including biological threats and natural disasters; and (2) to improve related public health communications.
Harvard School of Public Health ( http://www.hsph.harvard.edu ) is dedicated to advancing the public's health through learning, discovery, and communication. More than 400 faculty members are engaged in teaching and training the 1,000-plus student body in a broad spectrum of disciplines crucial to the health and well being of individuals and populations around the world. Programs and projects range from the molecular biology of AIDS vaccines to the epidemiology of cancer; from risk analysis to violence prevention; from maternal and children's health to quality of care measurement; from health care management to international health and human rights. For more information on the school visit: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu
Survey finds just 40 percent of adults 'absolutely certain' they will get H1N1 vaccine
Major reasons people saying 'no' or 'maybe' to vaccine include belief they are at low risk of illness and concerns about vaccine safety
Boston, MA—In a new survey, Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) researchers found that just 40% of adults are "absolutely certain" they will get the H1N1 vaccine for themselves, and 51% of parents are "absolutely certain" that they will get the vaccine for their children. The survey examined the reasoning among those who said they would not get the vaccine or might not. This is the latest in a series of surveys of public views concerning the H1N1 flu outbreak undertaken by the Harvard Opinion Research Program at HSPH. The polling was done September 14-20, 2009.
Public Mixed on Getting Vaccine, but Interest May Jump If Outbreak Is Severe
About six in ten adults are not "absolutely certain" they will get the H1N1 vaccine for themselves, including 41% who say they will not get it, 6% who say they don't know if they will get it, and 11% who say they are planning to get it but may change their mind. About four in ten parents (44%) are not "absolutely certain" that they will get the vaccine for their children, including 21% who will not get it, 7% who don't know, and 16% who say they are planning to get it but may change their mind.
If there were people in their community who were sick or dying from H1N1, roughly six in ten adults (59%) who say they do not think they'll get the vaccine would change their mind and get it for themselves. About the same percentage of parents (60%) who say they do not think they'll get the vaccine for their children would change their minds if H1N1 was causing sickness or death in their community.
"These findings suggest that public health officials need to be prepared for a surge in demand for the H1N1 vaccine if the H1N1 flu becomes more severe," said Robert J. Blendon, Professor of Health Policy and Political Analysis at HSPH.
Major Reasons for Not Getting Vaccine or Being Unsure
Those who were not "absolutely certain" they will get the H1N1 vaccine cited the following as the top "major" reasons for their thinking:
(1) they are concerned about getting side effects from the vaccine (30%);
(2) they don't think they are at risk of getting a serious case of the illness (28%); and
(3) they think they could get medication to treat H1N1 if they do get sick (26%).
The top "major" reasons cited by parents who are not "absolutely sure" they will get the vaccine are that
(1) they are concerned about side effects of the vaccine (38%);
(2) they are concerned that their children could get other illnesses from the vaccine (33%); and (3) they do not trust public health officials to provide correct information about the safety of the vaccine (31%).
"There's still a lot of uncertainty about what people will ultimately do in terms of getting the vaccine. If public health officials want to encourage a larger number of people to get vaccinated this fall, they will need to address the public's concerns in the coming weeks," said Blendon.
Safety Concerns
At this point in time, only about a third (33%) of the public sees the H1N1 vaccine as very safe "generally for most people to take." By comparison, the figure is 57% for the seasonal flu vaccine. A smaller fraction of the public thinks the H1N1 vaccine is very safe for particular groups to take, including children ages 6 months to 2 years (18%) and pregnant women (13%). The Centers for Disease Control is encouraging these groups, among others, to get the vaccine as early as possible.
Concerns About Outbreak on the Rise
Public concern about a fall or winter outbreak of H1N1 has risen since June. Roughly three-quarters of the public (76%) believe there will be widespread cases of H1N1 this fall or winter with people getting very sick, which is an increase from June when only 59% felt the same way. More people are also now concerned that they or someone in their immediate family will get sick from H1N1 during the next 12 months (52% in later September, as compared to 38% in June). Roughly two-thirds of people (64%) think that public health officials' concerns about a possible outbreak have been justified, while one third (31%) think that they have been overblown.
This poll is part of a series of polls about the way that Americans and their institutions are responding to the H1N1 flu outbreak. The first three focus on the American public, and the fourth focuses on views of businesses across the United States.
Methodology
This poll is part of an on-going series of surveys focused on the public and biological security by the Harvard Opinion Research Program (HORP) at Harvard School of Public Health. The study was designed and analyzed by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH). The project director is Robert J. Blendon of the Harvard School of Public Health. The research team also includes Gillian K. SteelFisher, John M. Benson, and Kathleen J. Weldon of the Harvard School of Public Health, and Melissa J. Herrmann of SSRS/ICR. Fieldwork was conducted via telephone (including both landline and cell phone) for HORP by SSRS/ICR of Media (PA) September 14-20, 2009.
The survey was conducted with a representative national sample of 1,042 adults age 18 and over, including oversamples of non-Hispanic African Americans and Hispanics. Altogether, 144 non-Hispanic African Americans and 126 Hispanics were interviewed. In the overall results, these groups were weighted to their actual proportion of the total adult population.
The margin of error for the total sample is plus or minus 3.7 percentage points. Possible sources of non-sampling error include non-response bias, as well as question wording and ordering effects. Non-response in telephone surveys produces some known biases in survey-derived estimates because participation tends to vary for different subgroups of the population. To compensate for these known biases, sample data are weighted to the most recent Census data available from the Current Population Survey for gender, age, race, education, region, and number of adults in the household. Other techniques, including random-digit dialing, replicate subsamples, and systematic respondent selection within households, are used to ensure that the sample is representative.
###
Funding
This Harvard School of Public Health series is funded under a cooperative agreement with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The award enables HORP to provide technical assistance to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as well as to other national and state government health officials in order to support two critical goals: (1) to better understand the general public's response to public health emergencies, including biological threats and natural disasters; and (2) to improve related public health communications.
Harvard School of Public Health ( http://www.hsph.harvard.edu ) is dedicated to advancing the public's health through learning, discovery, and communication. More than 400 faculty members are engaged in teaching and training the 1,000-plus student body in a broad spectrum of disciplines crucial to the health and well being of individuals and populations around the world. Programs and projects range from the molecular biology of AIDS vaccines to the epidemiology of cancer; from risk analysis to violence prevention; from maternal and children's health to quality of care measurement; from health care management to international health and human rights. For more information on the school visit: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu
Segregation leads to minority learning disparities according to Emory Study
Here is the study. What do you think? Are the researchers correct in their conclusions? If so, how do their conclusions affect schools in VUSD?
Emory University
Study finds racial segregation a strong factor in learning disparities
Racial segregation in the schools is fueling the learning disparity between young black and white children, while out-of-school factors are more important to the growth of social class gaps, according to a study by Emory University sociologist Dennis Condron.
His findings were published in the October issue of the American Sociological Review.
Condron was perplexed by prior research showing that schools narrow the achievement gap among students of varying social classes while widening the gap between black and white students. To tease out possible reasons for this difference, he analyzed data from the Kindergarten Cohort of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study.
He found that between the fall and spring of first grade, black students' reading and math skills fall almost two months behind those of white students. After controlling for other factors, the data suggested that segregation of schools was a primary driver of this early black-white learning disparity. In contrast, out-of-school factors explained the growth of social class gaps.
"This research adds an important piece to the puzzle of when and why social class and black-white inequalities in academic achievement emerge," says Condron, assistant professor of sociology. "And I hope it raises awareness that social class and black-white achievement gaps come from different sources to some extent. We tend to speak of 'the' achievement gap, but in reality different gaps probably have different sources and require different solutions."
His research also indicated that regardless of social class, black students are less often taught by certified teachers than are white students, and black students are far more likely than white students to attend predominantly minority schools, high-poverty schools and schools located in disadvantaged neighborhoods.
The findings are "a reminder of a persistent problem," Condron says, decades after the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka struck down state laws establishing separate schools for black and white students.
"De facto segregation remains high these days, with important implications for education," he says. "When it comes to both housing and schools, race trumps class as the central axis upon which blacks and whites are segregated. Real solutions to the black-white achievement gap lie far beyond schools and require changes to society more broadly."
###
Condron's study is the lead article in the October issue of the American Sociological Review, which also features two other studies of educational inequality.
A specialist in educational disparities, Condron is currently analyzing data on more than 80 countries to research the impact of economic inequality on countries' average achievement levels.
For more news on the natural and social sciences at Emory, visit www.emory.edu/esciencecommons.
Emory University
Study finds racial segregation a strong factor in learning disparities
Racial segregation in the schools is fueling the learning disparity between young black and white children, while out-of-school factors are more important to the growth of social class gaps, according to a study by Emory University sociologist Dennis Condron.
His findings were published in the October issue of the American Sociological Review.
Condron was perplexed by prior research showing that schools narrow the achievement gap among students of varying social classes while widening the gap between black and white students. To tease out possible reasons for this difference, he analyzed data from the Kindergarten Cohort of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study.
He found that between the fall and spring of first grade, black students' reading and math skills fall almost two months behind those of white students. After controlling for other factors, the data suggested that segregation of schools was a primary driver of this early black-white learning disparity. In contrast, out-of-school factors explained the growth of social class gaps.
"This research adds an important piece to the puzzle of when and why social class and black-white inequalities in academic achievement emerge," says Condron, assistant professor of sociology. "And I hope it raises awareness that social class and black-white achievement gaps come from different sources to some extent. We tend to speak of 'the' achievement gap, but in reality different gaps probably have different sources and require different solutions."
His research also indicated that regardless of social class, black students are less often taught by certified teachers than are white students, and black students are far more likely than white students to attend predominantly minority schools, high-poverty schools and schools located in disadvantaged neighborhoods.
The findings are "a reminder of a persistent problem," Condron says, decades after the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka struck down state laws establishing separate schools for black and white students.
"De facto segregation remains high these days, with important implications for education," he says. "When it comes to both housing and schools, race trumps class as the central axis upon which blacks and whites are segregated. Real solutions to the black-white achievement gap lie far beyond schools and require changes to society more broadly."
###
Condron's study is the lead article in the October issue of the American Sociological Review, which also features two other studies of educational inequality.
A specialist in educational disparities, Condron is currently analyzing data on more than 80 countries to research the impact of economic inequality on countries' average achievement levels.
For more news on the natural and social sciences at Emory, visit www.emory.edu/esciencecommons.
Guajome Park Academy passes VUSD review
The VUSD trustees as part of their oversight responsibilities ordered a review of procedures at Guajome Park Academy. No significant problems were found. Read the article here:
http://nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_33130f91-a8df-5c3a-a640-cc76ae6f39ba.html?mode=story
Below in blue is part of the article from the above URL. Notice toward the end of the article that Guajome Park, as a charter school, does not necessarily have to abide by the same rules as a regular school district public school.
Lack of same standards of accountability is one of the reasons that all major school organization oppose the US Education Secretary, Arne Duncan's directive to all states to allow unlimited number of charters to open.
In the case of Guajome Park, staff members are allowed to sit on its board of directors which is the equivalent of its school board. Regular school district teachers or anyone else employed by a school district like VUSD are NOT allowed to sit on their own school boards by state law. Charters are treated and tested differently than the schools you and I teach/taught at. They have an unfair advantage when it comes to competition and comparisons between them and our regular schools.
Also strangely they do not seem to have the same requirement for large playground areas for their students as regular district schools have. During my visit by car to Guajome Park, I found no track, football or soccer fields.
The first few paragraphs of the above article:
VISTA: Report says charter school is correcting problems
STACY BRANDT - sbrandt@nctimes.com Posted: Thursday, October 1, 2009 10:15 pm 1 Comment
Font Size:Default font sizeLarger font sizeA district-ordered review of the Guajome Park Academy charter school found some issues with the school's leadership and curriculum, but nothing that can't be corrected, according to a report presented to Vista school trustees.
Many of the issues at the charter campus have already been addressed now that the school has a new superintendent, Bob Hampton, the report said.
Hampton said Thursday he is confident that the school and the district can work through any issues collectively and collaboratively. Still, he said he doesn't agree with all of the conclusions in the report.
"I think a lot of their issues and concerns are probably philosophical in nature," Hampton said.
The Vista Unified school board decided earlier this year to ask a lawyer to look into practices at the charter program after receiving complaints about leadership, conflicts of interest and the school's independent study program.
As part of the review, attorney Dina Harris, with the firm Best, Best and Krieger, examined documents and conducted interviews related to the complaints.
Guajome Park serves 1,500 students in grades six through 12 with a project-centered curriculum. It's a charter school, meaning it is publicly funded but operates independently and is not subject to many of the rules typical public schools face.
Districts such as Vista Unified that sponsor charter programs are responsible for monitoring the schools to make sure they're financially and academically successful.
The district's report on Guajome Park came back last month, focusing on potential conflicts of interest on the school's governing board and concerns about leadership at the school.
Among the issues were having school employees on the governing board and an ineffective complaint procedure related to the school's lack of a superintendent for nearly a year. The school hired Hampton in July.
He said he plans to lead the school through strategic planning to look at how it operates and what goals its educators, students and parents have for the future.
Employees, including the school's superintendent, have been on Guajome Park Academy's board for years. State law is unclear on whether rules that prohibit public employees from serving on their employer's governing board apply to charter schools, Harris states in the report.
http://nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_33130f91-a8df-5c3a-a640-cc76ae6f39ba.html?mode=story
Below in blue is part of the article from the above URL. Notice toward the end of the article that Guajome Park, as a charter school, does not necessarily have to abide by the same rules as a regular school district public school.
Lack of same standards of accountability is one of the reasons that all major school organization oppose the US Education Secretary, Arne Duncan's directive to all states to allow unlimited number of charters to open.
In the case of Guajome Park, staff members are allowed to sit on its board of directors which is the equivalent of its school board. Regular school district teachers or anyone else employed by a school district like VUSD are NOT allowed to sit on their own school boards by state law. Charters are treated and tested differently than the schools you and I teach/taught at. They have an unfair advantage when it comes to competition and comparisons between them and our regular schools.
Also strangely they do not seem to have the same requirement for large playground areas for their students as regular district schools have. During my visit by car to Guajome Park, I found no track, football or soccer fields.
The first few paragraphs of the above article:
VISTA: Report says charter school is correcting problems
STACY BRANDT - sbrandt@nctimes.com Posted: Thursday, October 1, 2009 10:15 pm 1 Comment
Font Size:Default font sizeLarger font sizeA district-ordered review of the Guajome Park Academy charter school found some issues with the school's leadership and curriculum, but nothing that can't be corrected, according to a report presented to Vista school trustees.
Many of the issues at the charter campus have already been addressed now that the school has a new superintendent, Bob Hampton, the report said.
Hampton said Thursday he is confident that the school and the district can work through any issues collectively and collaboratively. Still, he said he doesn't agree with all of the conclusions in the report.
"I think a lot of their issues and concerns are probably philosophical in nature," Hampton said.
The Vista Unified school board decided earlier this year to ask a lawyer to look into practices at the charter program after receiving complaints about leadership, conflicts of interest and the school's independent study program.
As part of the review, attorney Dina Harris, with the firm Best, Best and Krieger, examined documents and conducted interviews related to the complaints.
Guajome Park serves 1,500 students in grades six through 12 with a project-centered curriculum. It's a charter school, meaning it is publicly funded but operates independently and is not subject to many of the rules typical public schools face.
Districts such as Vista Unified that sponsor charter programs are responsible for monitoring the schools to make sure they're financially and academically successful.
The district's report on Guajome Park came back last month, focusing on potential conflicts of interest on the school's governing board and concerns about leadership at the school.
Among the issues were having school employees on the governing board and an ineffective complaint procedure related to the school's lack of a superintendent for nearly a year. The school hired Hampton in July.
He said he plans to lead the school through strategic planning to look at how it operates and what goals its educators, students and parents have for the future.
Employees, including the school's superintendent, have been on Guajome Park Academy's board for years. State law is unclear on whether rules that prohibit public employees from serving on their employer's governing board apply to charter schools, Harris states in the report.
Trustee Elizabeth Jaka responds to Jill Parvin's lies
Pro public education, VUSD school board trustee, Elizabeth Jaka reponded in print in a North County Times Forum piece today to the lies that Jill Parvin was allowed to publish in the North County Times recently.
Read what Jill Parvin wrote here:
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/article_63509623-7cf4-5259-9fb7-2817cc3670d8.html?mode=story
Read the Jaka's response here:
http://nctimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/article_6164f23a-ab93-5977-af1c-23b5bfc4db9b.html?mode=story
Unlike Jill Parvin's Forum, Elizabeth Jaka's Forum was fact checked and is correct. No information is made up. Below is the full text of Jaka's response.
FORUM: Vista Unified is seeking legal opinion on VTA pact
R. ELIZABETH JAKA -- VUSD trustee Posted: Friday, October 2, 2009 12:00 am
A recently published Community Forum questioned a long-standing contractual agreement between the Vista Unified School District and the Vista Teachers' Association. In the article, Ms. Jill Parvin misstates the action requested, the board's response and the financial implications of the issue. As a result, she creates a very distorted picture of the board's conduct and leadership.
At issue is a contractual agreement that calls for Vista Unified to pay for the VTA president's release time to the district. According to a staff report, the intent is to pay for the VTA president's time spent conducting district business, freeing him or her from teaching duties. District responsibilities may include working to prevent litigation, processing grievances, participating in negotiations, as well as other business related to the VTA.
In her forum, Ms. Parvin claims that Jim Gibson asked the board to "demand that the union return the money" the district has paid under this agreement. That is not true. In fact, Mr. Gibson asked the board to "Approve staff lawyers to investigate the legality of the union contract and report back to the board at the next board meeting concerning the Vista Teacher Associations' president's salary."
After some discussion on this item, board members voted, 5-0, to have staff send the issue to the state attorney general for an opinion. Contrary to Ms. Parvin's claims, it was not sent "to staff for consideration."
It's important to know that the VTA president's release time was negotiated and approved through attorneys as far back as 25 years ago. Since then, the legality of this practice has been investigated by the district's attorneys multiple times. Most recently, a review of the issue was presented at the Sept. 8, 2005, board meeting, and before that it went to the attorneys in March 2003.
It makes no sense to spend limited district funds to have this agreement investigated by the attorneys again. By sending our request to the state attorney general this time, we will receive a "truly independent legal opinion" at a fraction of the cost of paying district attorneys for yet another review. In the process, perhaps we will be able to settle this issue once and for all.
Finally, Ms. Parvin gives some impressive figures to further support her claims. However, she fails to factor in the money that Vista Unified is obligated to pay for work done for the district, and that greatly reduces any potential refund.
While every dollar is critical, it's important to keep things in perspective.
Any money that might be refunded would be greatly appreciated, but it won't be enough to bring back buses, or even save one part-time job.
In the end, it comes to this: The Vista Unified board was asked to seek an independent legal opinion on a contractual issue. We unanimously agreed to take that action. To claim that anything other than this occurred does a disservice to the district and the community we serve.
R. ELIZABETH JAKA lives in Oceanside and is a member of the Vista Unified School District board.
Read what Jill Parvin wrote here:
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/article_63509623-7cf4-5259-9fb7-2817cc3670d8.html?mode=story
Read the Jaka's response here:
http://nctimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/article_6164f23a-ab93-5977-af1c-23b5bfc4db9b.html?mode=story
Unlike Jill Parvin's Forum, Elizabeth Jaka's Forum was fact checked and is correct. No information is made up. Below is the full text of Jaka's response.
FORUM: Vista Unified is seeking legal opinion on VTA pact
R. ELIZABETH JAKA -- VUSD trustee Posted: Friday, October 2, 2009 12:00 am
A recently published Community Forum questioned a long-standing contractual agreement between the Vista Unified School District and the Vista Teachers' Association. In the article, Ms. Jill Parvin misstates the action requested, the board's response and the financial implications of the issue. As a result, she creates a very distorted picture of the board's conduct and leadership.
At issue is a contractual agreement that calls for Vista Unified to pay for the VTA president's release time to the district. According to a staff report, the intent is to pay for the VTA president's time spent conducting district business, freeing him or her from teaching duties. District responsibilities may include working to prevent litigation, processing grievances, participating in negotiations, as well as other business related to the VTA.
In her forum, Ms. Parvin claims that Jim Gibson asked the board to "demand that the union return the money" the district has paid under this agreement. That is not true. In fact, Mr. Gibson asked the board to "Approve staff lawyers to investigate the legality of the union contract and report back to the board at the next board meeting concerning the Vista Teacher Associations' president's salary."
After some discussion on this item, board members voted, 5-0, to have staff send the issue to the state attorney general for an opinion. Contrary to Ms. Parvin's claims, it was not sent "to staff for consideration."
It's important to know that the VTA president's release time was negotiated and approved through attorneys as far back as 25 years ago. Since then, the legality of this practice has been investigated by the district's attorneys multiple times. Most recently, a review of the issue was presented at the Sept. 8, 2005, board meeting, and before that it went to the attorneys in March 2003.
It makes no sense to spend limited district funds to have this agreement investigated by the attorneys again. By sending our request to the state attorney general this time, we will receive a "truly independent legal opinion" at a fraction of the cost of paying district attorneys for yet another review. In the process, perhaps we will be able to settle this issue once and for all.
Finally, Ms. Parvin gives some impressive figures to further support her claims. However, she fails to factor in the money that Vista Unified is obligated to pay for work done for the district, and that greatly reduces any potential refund.
While every dollar is critical, it's important to keep things in perspective.
Any money that might be refunded would be greatly appreciated, but it won't be enough to bring back buses, or even save one part-time job.
In the end, it comes to this: The Vista Unified board was asked to seek an independent legal opinion on a contractual issue. We unanimously agreed to take that action. To claim that anything other than this occurred does a disservice to the district and the community we serve.
R. ELIZABETH JAKA lives in Oceanside and is a member of the Vista Unified School District board.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Bill Faust, president CSEA decrying proposed CSEA cuts
Bill Faust current CSEA president was allowed to have a Forum published in the North County Times today decrying the potential cuts to CSEA members in the proposed budget adjustment.
I agree with him the cuts are draconian. I spend a couple of years as a custodian. It is a tough thankless job. No one seems to notice that the room gets cleaned at night. They just seem to take it for granted that it happens "by magic" every night. But when the custodian is absent, the room suddenly is dirty and dusty in the morning, and everyone notices. Suddenly custodians become important again. It looks like this scenario is about to happen here in VUSD not because the custodians are suddenly all ill instead because budget shotfalls may result in lay offs.
Mr. Faust is decrying in his Forum piece the potential loss of not just custodians but many other fine CSEA workers. His Forum piece is found here:
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/article_0637c825-2670-5fba-ae77-70b193083be1.html?mode=story
Here is the answer I gave to the ANTI bloggers who immediately attacked the VTA even though the VTA is not what he is upset about.
Mr. Faust is not ragging on the VTA. He is saying that schools need more than just teachers and administrators to run. He is correct. We need the classified staff of secretaries, custodians, food service workers, bus drivers, and others. The problem is money. Our funding has been reduced due to lower state and local tax revenue during the recession.
Vista teachers have some of the lowest salaries in the county of San Diego. The money is not going to teacher salaries. ALL Vista teachers gave up a full day of pay to keep other teachers from being fired and K-3 class size from being increased hence no lay offs. But that money came out of teacher take home pay not from anywhere else.
Stimulus money (Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) came from the federal government and saved the seven school days that the Governor Schwarzenegger had proposed cutting from the school year. Otherwise the cuts would have been greater. We are all grateful to President Obama and the democrats that voted for the stimulus (Bilbray and Issa, our local Congressman voted AGAINST the stimulus that allowed our California school children to be educated for a full year of school this year)
Vista test scores are increasing and have been for years. We outperform most other school districts in the state with our demographics.
As to what happened in 1999, the third school bond (Prop LL) was 'defeated' by a tiny minority of ANTI public education folks in our district. They "defeated" it even though Prop LL passed with a two thirds majority in every single VUSD precinct on election day. A few hundred absentee ANTI votes tipped the election to 'defeat' meaning even though the VAST majority of voters wanted new schools, over 66%, the bond failed due to California's archaic two thirds majority bond requirements at the time.
After that third defeat in 1999, many discouraged parents at our highest performing and most overcrowded schools moved their children out of our school. Over TWO THOUSAND left before the start of the following school year. Losing high performing students did drop our scores temporarily but VUSD scores are now recovering. We outscore Oceanside school district which has a nearly idenical demographic.
The teachers union is not at fault for the bond failure. We worked hard to pass it. We spent our time and money knowing that if a bond passed, money for salaries would be in shorter supply as new schools are never fully funded and stocked by a bond.
Finally we teachers, parents and other community members passed a bond, Prop O, and built many, many new schools in VUSD six or seven elementary schools, a middle school and a high school.
The teachers in this district have been the hardworking heroes in the struggles of that this district has had overcoming the influence of ANTI public education folks who do not believe in government schools nor building new public schools nor fact based science, history and sex education classes.
I agree with him the cuts are draconian. I spend a couple of years as a custodian. It is a tough thankless job. No one seems to notice that the room gets cleaned at night. They just seem to take it for granted that it happens "by magic" every night. But when the custodian is absent, the room suddenly is dirty and dusty in the morning, and everyone notices. Suddenly custodians become important again. It looks like this scenario is about to happen here in VUSD not because the custodians are suddenly all ill instead because budget shotfalls may result in lay offs.
Mr. Faust is decrying in his Forum piece the potential loss of not just custodians but many other fine CSEA workers. His Forum piece is found here:
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/article_0637c825-2670-5fba-ae77-70b193083be1.html?mode=story
Here is the answer I gave to the ANTI bloggers who immediately attacked the VTA even though the VTA is not what he is upset about.
Mr. Faust is not ragging on the VTA. He is saying that schools need more than just teachers and administrators to run. He is correct. We need the classified staff of secretaries, custodians, food service workers, bus drivers, and others. The problem is money. Our funding has been reduced due to lower state and local tax revenue during the recession.
Vista teachers have some of the lowest salaries in the county of San Diego. The money is not going to teacher salaries. ALL Vista teachers gave up a full day of pay to keep other teachers from being fired and K-3 class size from being increased hence no lay offs. But that money came out of teacher take home pay not from anywhere else.
Stimulus money (Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) came from the federal government and saved the seven school days that the Governor Schwarzenegger had proposed cutting from the school year. Otherwise the cuts would have been greater. We are all grateful to President Obama and the democrats that voted for the stimulus (Bilbray and Issa, our local Congressman voted AGAINST the stimulus that allowed our California school children to be educated for a full year of school this year)
Vista test scores are increasing and have been for years. We outperform most other school districts in the state with our demographics.
As to what happened in 1999, the third school bond (Prop LL) was 'defeated' by a tiny minority of ANTI public education folks in our district. They "defeated" it even though Prop LL passed with a two thirds majority in every single VUSD precinct on election day. A few hundred absentee ANTI votes tipped the election to 'defeat' meaning even though the VAST majority of voters wanted new schools, over 66%, the bond failed due to California's archaic two thirds majority bond requirements at the time.
After that third defeat in 1999, many discouraged parents at our highest performing and most overcrowded schools moved their children out of our school. Over TWO THOUSAND left before the start of the following school year. Losing high performing students did drop our scores temporarily but VUSD scores are now recovering. We outscore Oceanside school district which has a nearly idenical demographic.
The teachers union is not at fault for the bond failure. We worked hard to pass it. We spent our time and money knowing that if a bond passed, money for salaries would be in shorter supply as new schools are never fully funded and stocked by a bond.
Finally we teachers, parents and other community members passed a bond, Prop O, and built many, many new schools in VUSD six or seven elementary schools, a middle school and a high school.
The teachers in this district have been the hardworking heroes in the struggles of that this district has had overcoming the influence of ANTI public education folks who do not believe in government schools nor building new public schools nor fact based science, history and sex education classes.
Guffanti Gibson hanky panky transfer of $5000 given by developer David Arnold
The following refers to what could be interpreted as an attempt to hide money donated by developer David Arnold to Jim Gibson and his slate candidate, Patty Anderson during the 2006 campaign. Had the community known that Gibson was taking money from a SECOND developer who wanted to stop the construction of our third high school at a second site after FIRST taking massive amounts of money in 2002 from those opposed to the cheap level Strawberry hill site, perhaps Gibson would not have been re-elected. This deal smells dirty. It looks dirty. I looks like an attempt to manipulate campaign finance laws. However the North County Times editor has refused to allow me to write any of this, so the following post had to be a bit 'cutesy' and a bit obtuse. I was not allowed to even ask in question form if this could be campaign money laundering.
Speaking of financial oddness, Guffanti do you remember in 2006 when you accepted a $5000 campaign gift from David Arnold the owner of the Melrose site of our new third high school? You do remember Mr. Arnold right? He was the guy who wanted to build houses at the site instead of a high school and filed an expensive lawsuits against the district to stop the third high school from being built.
Weird you would accept money from someone wasting VUSD resources. Weirder still, you were not running for re-election in 2006, but Jim Gibson was.
Then something really strange happened, do you remember some weeks later writing the Forum piece in this paper patting yourself on the back for giving $5000 to the Gibson campaign. If not you can re-read it here:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/10/23/opinion/commentary/102206140413.txt
Quite a co-incidence that you gave exactly the same amount to Gibson that you got from Arnold. But puzzling that in your Forum piece you never mentioned that Arnold had given you $5000 a few weeks earlier. Since you were not running no one knew about Arnold's $5000 donation until January 2007--two months after Jim Gibson was re-elected.
Here is the North County Times article that made the community aware of the weird coincidence:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/02/06/news/inland/2_04_282_5_07.txt
How do you explain the coincidence of the $5000, Guffanti? Please do enlighten us.
Here are some quotes from the article above:
"Though he wasn't running in the election, Trustee Stephen Guffanti received $5,000 in September for his election committee from Hi Hope Ranch Ventures, a subsidiary of Hillcrest Homes, according to a campaign finance report filed recently with the county"
and another
"David Arnold, president of Tustin-based Hillcrest Homes, said Monday he didn't recall donating the money to Guffanti's war chest and didn't want to comment."
and one more
"Within weeks of Arnold's donation, Guffanti's committee contributed $5,000 to the campaigns of Gibson and first-time candidate Anderson, who were running for two open seats on the board."
Speaking of financial oddness, Guffanti do you remember in 2006 when you accepted a $5000 campaign gift from David Arnold the owner of the Melrose site of our new third high school? You do remember Mr. Arnold right? He was the guy who wanted to build houses at the site instead of a high school and filed an expensive lawsuits against the district to stop the third high school from being built.
Weird you would accept money from someone wasting VUSD resources. Weirder still, you were not running for re-election in 2006, but Jim Gibson was.
Then something really strange happened, do you remember some weeks later writing the Forum piece in this paper patting yourself on the back for giving $5000 to the Gibson campaign. If not you can re-read it here:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/10/23/opinion/commentary/102206140413.txt
Quite a co-incidence that you gave exactly the same amount to Gibson that you got from Arnold. But puzzling that in your Forum piece you never mentioned that Arnold had given you $5000 a few weeks earlier. Since you were not running no one knew about Arnold's $5000 donation until January 2007--two months after Jim Gibson was re-elected.
Here is the North County Times article that made the community aware of the weird coincidence:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/02/06/news/inland/2_04_282_5_07.txt
How do you explain the coincidence of the $5000, Guffanti? Please do enlighten us.
Here are some quotes from the article above:
"Though he wasn't running in the election, Trustee Stephen Guffanti received $5,000 in September for his election committee from Hi Hope Ranch Ventures, a subsidiary of Hillcrest Homes, according to a campaign finance report filed recently with the county"
and another
"David Arnold, president of Tustin-based Hillcrest Homes, said Monday he didn't recall donating the money to Guffanti's war chest and didn't want to comment."
and one more
"Within weeks of Arnold's donation, Guffanti's committee contributed $5,000 to the campaigns of Gibson and first-time candidate Anderson, who were running for two open seats on the board."
Guffanti and Gibson wasted 40 million dollars of Prop O taxpayer money
Back to Guffanti and fiscal irresponsibility.
Question for Guffanti, who was it that cost the taxpayers of VUSD 40 million dollars of Prop O money? Who were the two out of five board members who consistently and publicly opposed building the third high school on the cheap, level, fully graded, 50 acre site behind Strawberry Hill? Who forced the district to go through a several additional years of search, tens of thousands of dollars of researching other sites for a secondary high school site? Do you remember Guffanti? You ought to because YOU and GIBSON are the two WASTEFUL, SPENDTHRIFTS who did that.
It took FOUR of five board members to acquire the ONE MILLION dollar Strawberry Hill site in 2002 but TWO members were ADAMANTLY opposed and refused to change their minds.
Now instead of a fifty or sixty million dollar third high school started in 2002 and finished about 2004 or 5, we have a hundred million dollar high school at the EXPENSIVE, HILLY, UN-graded Melrose site. The extra 40 million dollars of cost is on YOU, Guffanti and your confederate in crime, Jim Gibson.
Seventeen million extra for the purchase of the Melrose site, millions more to grade it level enough for a school, millions more in additional grading and road building required by the very unfriendly City Council of Oceanside where the site was located. TOTAL at least FORTY MILLION dollars of waste.
The result of this colossal waste? The money for finishing landscaping and other items at the new middle school and some of the elementary schools is not there. They students are there but the schools are not done. The new high school is still not open for students at least four years after it would have opened had you supported the CHEAP, LEVEL, Strawberry Hill site that was inside VISTA CITY limits.
Aren't you proud of yourself Guffanti? Is this the dismantling of public education that the national anti public education group you supported in 2000 wanted?
Question for Guffanti, who was it that cost the taxpayers of VUSD 40 million dollars of Prop O money? Who were the two out of five board members who consistently and publicly opposed building the third high school on the cheap, level, fully graded, 50 acre site behind Strawberry Hill? Who forced the district to go through a several additional years of search, tens of thousands of dollars of researching other sites for a secondary high school site? Do you remember Guffanti? You ought to because YOU and GIBSON are the two WASTEFUL, SPENDTHRIFTS who did that.
It took FOUR of five board members to acquire the ONE MILLION dollar Strawberry Hill site in 2002 but TWO members were ADAMANTLY opposed and refused to change their minds.
Now instead of a fifty or sixty million dollar third high school started in 2002 and finished about 2004 or 5, we have a hundred million dollar high school at the EXPENSIVE, HILLY, UN-graded Melrose site. The extra 40 million dollars of cost is on YOU, Guffanti and your confederate in crime, Jim Gibson.
Seventeen million extra for the purchase of the Melrose site, millions more to grade it level enough for a school, millions more in additional grading and road building required by the very unfriendly City Council of Oceanside where the site was located. TOTAL at least FORTY MILLION dollars of waste.
The result of this colossal waste? The money for finishing landscaping and other items at the new middle school and some of the elementary schools is not there. They students are there but the schools are not done. The new high school is still not open for students at least four years after it would have opened had you supported the CHEAP, LEVEL, Strawberry Hill site that was inside VISTA CITY limits.
Aren't you proud of yourself Guffanti? Is this the dismantling of public education that the national anti public education group you supported in 2000 wanted?
Why I fight the ANTIs
I answered another blogger who asked for facts that Guffanti lied about (see my previous six posts). I am happy to fight these folks. I have a very personal reason as well as my general dislike for folks who do not use facts and make baseless and mean spirtied charges against my fellow teachers in order to further their political agenda.
No problem Craig. I am glad to do it. I have been fighting this battle since the mid 80s when my oldest was in kindergarten.
Our family helped with Prop K for Kids thinking we would have new schools for our children. My wife and I could not imagine it would fail. But it did (59.5% majority but not enough, not 2/3rds).
We tried again with Prop L, then Prop LL. Finally after all my children had graduated from high school did we get Prop O passed.
My children were forced to be in overcrowded falling apart schools for their entire school careers. I am still angry with the ANTIs over what they did to my children.
My youngest child in particular. He is now horribly crippled with autoimmune disease. He will never again have a regular, healthy life. But he was healthy from birth through his senior year in college before the diseases started.
During his K-12 years here in VUSD, the ##%* ANTI folks forced him to be in old crowded deteriorating schools. The best years of his life are now gone. The only truly healthy years he had are finished and our ANTI friends diminished those years for him. For me it's a blood feud. I will fight these ANTI folks for as long as I breathe.
No problem Craig. I am glad to do it. I have been fighting this battle since the mid 80s when my oldest was in kindergarten.
Our family helped with Prop K for Kids thinking we would have new schools for our children. My wife and I could not imagine it would fail. But it did (59.5% majority but not enough, not 2/3rds).
We tried again with Prop L, then Prop LL. Finally after all my children had graduated from high school did we get Prop O passed.
My children were forced to be in overcrowded falling apart schools for their entire school careers. I am still angry with the ANTIs over what they did to my children.
My youngest child in particular. He is now horribly crippled with autoimmune disease. He will never again have a regular, healthy life. But he was healthy from birth through his senior year in college before the diseases started.
During his K-12 years here in VUSD, the ##%* ANTI folks forced him to be in old crowded deteriorating schools. The best years of his life are now gone. The only truly healthy years he had are finished and our ANTI friends diminished those years for him. For me it's a blood feud. I will fight these ANTI folks for as long as I breathe.
Likely lie and clear slander without facts in evidence
Inflammatory accusations must be backed up with facts on normal newspaper editorial pages. Where are the facts to back up this likely outrageous Guffanti lie?
"Oceanside's unions attacked Jim Gibson's business rather than his position on the issues. The attack, verging on libel, was extraordinary in that if believed, it would not only undermine Gibson's campaign, but would also destroy his living"
Facts not in evidence, Guffanti.
Where is there a newspaper article or TV interview posted on U-tube backing up this inflammatory and outrageous charge? This becomes just more Guffanti slimy slander if there is no documentation.
If there is some, give it so we can check it out. Maybe we will all be outraged. But given your track record of slander, slurs, over the top inflammatory rhetoric and fantasy charges--real only inside your fevered mind-- that you have made against the good teachers of Vista Unified, I do not expect you to back up this charge either.
After all FACTS were never your friend Guffanti, were they?
"Oceanside's unions attacked Jim Gibson's business rather than his position on the issues. The attack, verging on libel, was extraordinary in that if believed, it would not only undermine Gibson's campaign, but would also destroy his living"
Facts not in evidence, Guffanti.
Where is there a newspaper article or TV interview posted on U-tube backing up this inflammatory and outrageous charge? This becomes just more Guffanti slimy slander if there is no documentation.
If there is some, give it so we can check it out. Maybe we will all be outraged. But given your track record of slander, slurs, over the top inflammatory rhetoric and fantasy charges--real only inside your fevered mind-- that you have made against the good teachers of Vista Unified, I do not expect you to back up this charge either.
After all FACTS were never your friend Guffanti, were they?
Guffanti lie six, the union's job is to get money without adding value
Lie five is not only untrue, its inflammatory and a despicable slur on all union members everywhere. Hard to believe a statement like the following would be allowed in a fairly refereed editorial page.
Lying slander, # 6 in the series of Guffanti lies:
"In fairness, the union was just doing its job of getting more money without providing more value.."
Here are some of the values that the Vista Teacher's Association have added HEROICALLY to our VUSD community.
(VALUE 1) We took the political and personal risk of responding to the citizens of VUSD and joining in a recall of two school board trustees who turned our district school board meetings into circuses with HUNDREDS in attendance and satellite TV trucks in the parking lot (CNN, FOX not News, CBS and NBC were a few). There were reporters from all the cable networks, local TV stations and others here in little old VUSD. Why to watch, marvel at, and broadcast to the world the ANTI school board majority's antics. We were the original Dover, Pennsylvania type attack on public education in the United States. It was huge news. And it needed to stop so we could get back to educating our children. VTA joined. We recalled. VUSD is back to business. No more sideshows here or anywhere else in our county or state since.
(VALUE 2) The Vista Teachers Association ACTIVELY supported every school bond in the last twenty years--Prop K , Prop L Prop LL and Prop O and eventually the ANTI crowd's steadfast rejection of all school bonds was overcome in 2002. Prop O passed. Many many schools were built. VUSD is coming back from two decades of unmerited attacks by ANTI-Public education folks.
(VALUE 3) We have interviewed, using the same questions and panels, all school board candidates who are willing to be interviewed. The panels used the same scoring for each candidate. Each time we interviewed it was very clear that there were some candidates who supported public education with their words, deeds and by where their children attended and some who did not. We recommended those who did support FACT based public education.
I remember only one close vote ever and that was the decision not to support Barbara Donovan again in favor of (I forgot sorry). I voted to support Barbara but was out voted by other members of our large Representative Assembly. A group made of representatives from every site in the district. It is the governing board of the VTA.
Every single other time, there was no question about who to support because only a few candidates believed in public education. The others wanted to dismantle it. In 2000, Guffanti actually belonged to a national organization whose stated goal was the dismantlement of all public education in the United States.
If VTA could have broadcast the interviews of those candidates and the voters of VUSD could see what the ANTI candidates said, the ANTIs would be getting only a few hundred votes each election. As it is their numbers have declined in each election since 1992.
(VALUE 4) Some of the finest, most self sacrificing teachers in the North County doing some of the finest teaching.
Lying slander, # 6 in the series of Guffanti lies:
"In fairness, the union was just doing its job of getting more money without providing more value.."
Here are some of the values that the Vista Teacher's Association have added HEROICALLY to our VUSD community.
(VALUE 1) We took the political and personal risk of responding to the citizens of VUSD and joining in a recall of two school board trustees who turned our district school board meetings into circuses with HUNDREDS in attendance and satellite TV trucks in the parking lot (CNN, FOX not News, CBS and NBC were a few). There were reporters from all the cable networks, local TV stations and others here in little old VUSD. Why to watch, marvel at, and broadcast to the world the ANTI school board majority's antics. We were the original Dover, Pennsylvania type attack on public education in the United States. It was huge news. And it needed to stop so we could get back to educating our children. VTA joined. We recalled. VUSD is back to business. No more sideshows here or anywhere else in our county or state since.
(VALUE 2) The Vista Teachers Association ACTIVELY supported every school bond in the last twenty years--Prop K , Prop L Prop LL and Prop O and eventually the ANTI crowd's steadfast rejection of all school bonds was overcome in 2002. Prop O passed. Many many schools were built. VUSD is coming back from two decades of unmerited attacks by ANTI-Public education folks.
(VALUE 3) We have interviewed, using the same questions and panels, all school board candidates who are willing to be interviewed. The panels used the same scoring for each candidate. Each time we interviewed it was very clear that there were some candidates who supported public education with their words, deeds and by where their children attended and some who did not. We recommended those who did support FACT based public education.
I remember only one close vote ever and that was the decision not to support Barbara Donovan again in favor of (I forgot sorry). I voted to support Barbara but was out voted by other members of our large Representative Assembly. A group made of representatives from every site in the district. It is the governing board of the VTA.
Every single other time, there was no question about who to support because only a few candidates believed in public education. The others wanted to dismantle it. In 2000, Guffanti actually belonged to a national organization whose stated goal was the dismantlement of all public education in the United States.
If VTA could have broadcast the interviews of those candidates and the voters of VUSD could see what the ANTI candidates said, the ANTIs would be getting only a few hundred votes each election. As it is their numbers have declined in each election since 1992.
(VALUE 4) Some of the finest, most self sacrificing teachers in the North County doing some of the finest teaching.
Guffanti's next lie in his Editorial
More lies in Guffanti's editorial in the North County Times, "Dangers of Union Control" found here:
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/guffanti/article_6a6d3551-d441-5f2d-85ce-a173c0d411e9.html?mode=story
Here is the lie: (VUSD)"fell to the brink of bankruptcy and declined academically..."
Lie five is another deception by leaving out crucial information.
Yes, revenues and student scores did decline temporarily after 1999 (not 1994 when the community based recall happened) so technically Guffanti is correct again. But he knows the teachers had nothing to do with either.
What happened in 1999? The third attempt at passing a school bond to relieve overcrowding in our district "failed" even though EVERY SINGLE precinct in VUSD passed the bond with a two thirds majority on election day. The 1999 bond failed when a few hundred absentee votes from the ANTI public education crowd slightly tipped the total vote to the less than two thirds required majority. The VAST majority of the district voters wanted new schools built, almost 66%, but a tiny minority of ANTI public education folks 'defeated' the bond. Why is that defeat important? Because the discouraged parents of OVER TWO THOUSAND students from our highest performing and most overcrowded schools withdrew their children from our district.
That massive loss of high performing students not only temporarily affected our test scores, it also impacted the finances of our district. School districts are paid per student by the state. Fewer students, less money.
But it was not the teacher's fault that the bond failed. The teachers contributed huge amounts of time and money into trying to get the 1999 bond (Prop LL) passed just as we had for the two previous school bonds, Prop L and Prop K. We spent our time and money for our students not for ourselves knowing opening new schools would lower our salaries for years to come as no bond ever FULLY pays for all the costs of opening new schools.
Guffanti saying the district was on the verge of bankruptcy caused by the teachers union is a out right, bald-faced lie and he knows it. He was on the board in 2000. He knows what happened to our students base and he knows why. The very ANTI education folks who are his most fervent supporters were responsible for the defeat of the 1999 bond that resulted in VUSD student flight, test score declines and financial difficulties.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/guffanti/article_6a6d3551-d441-5f2d-85ce-a173c0d411e9.html?mode=story
Here is the lie: (VUSD)"fell to the brink of bankruptcy and declined academically..."
Lie five is another deception by leaving out crucial information.
Yes, revenues and student scores did decline temporarily after 1999 (not 1994 when the community based recall happened) so technically Guffanti is correct again. But he knows the teachers had nothing to do with either.
What happened in 1999? The third attempt at passing a school bond to relieve overcrowding in our district "failed" even though EVERY SINGLE precinct in VUSD passed the bond with a two thirds majority on election day. The 1999 bond failed when a few hundred absentee votes from the ANTI public education crowd slightly tipped the total vote to the less than two thirds required majority. The VAST majority of the district voters wanted new schools built, almost 66%, but a tiny minority of ANTI public education folks 'defeated' the bond. Why is that defeat important? Because the discouraged parents of OVER TWO THOUSAND students from our highest performing and most overcrowded schools withdrew their children from our district.
That massive loss of high performing students not only temporarily affected our test scores, it also impacted the finances of our district. School districts are paid per student by the state. Fewer students, less money.
But it was not the teacher's fault that the bond failed. The teachers contributed huge amounts of time and money into trying to get the 1999 bond (Prop LL) passed just as we had for the two previous school bonds, Prop L and Prop K. We spent our time and money for our students not for ourselves knowing opening new schools would lower our salaries for years to come as no bond ever FULLY pays for all the costs of opening new schools.
Guffanti saying the district was on the verge of bankruptcy caused by the teachers union is a out right, bald-faced lie and he knows it. He was on the board in 2000. He knows what happened to our students base and he knows why. The very ANTI education folks who are his most fervent supporters were responsible for the defeat of the 1999 bond that resulted in VUSD student flight, test score declines and financial difficulties.
Gufanti lie four, the union kept the district from building schools for ten years
Lie four: "During the next 10 years, the district stopped building schools without a bond"
The money from developer fees ran out as vacant land ran out in VUSD. How are schools built with no money? Fairy dust?
However a couple of new charters were started, Guajome Park Academy in portables on a piece of vacant land the district acquired with developers fees before that money ran out.
Then there was Guffanti's supported and locally infamous for incompetence charter called VLACS. Guffanti sat BOTH on the charter board of VLACS and on the VUSD school board that was supposed to oversee VLACS. Seems like a conflict of interest to me but I guess it was technically legal. VLACS used Guffanti's self published reading program 'Rocket Phonetics'. But financial problems and City of Vista Code violations finally closed VLACS down. Was VLACS a glowing example of a school 'built' without money? A school whose classrooms were empty office buildings that did not meet city code and whose playground was a public parking lot?
But how are a new high school, a new middle school and six new elementary school built without school bonds? Don't hint about the possibility of how schools are built without money, Guffanti. Tell us the magic way that happens. Does the rain make them spring up like mushrooms?
The folks who supported you candidacy opposed new school bonds for over a decade. There tiny but mobilized minority were enough to stop school bonds from passing with the archaic 2/3rds majority which was then California State law.
The fault of not building schools lies with you Dear Guffanti and your group of ANTI public education followers.
The money from developer fees ran out as vacant land ran out in VUSD. How are schools built with no money? Fairy dust?
However a couple of new charters were started, Guajome Park Academy in portables on a piece of vacant land the district acquired with developers fees before that money ran out.
Then there was Guffanti's supported and locally infamous for incompetence charter called VLACS. Guffanti sat BOTH on the charter board of VLACS and on the VUSD school board that was supposed to oversee VLACS. Seems like a conflict of interest to me but I guess it was technically legal. VLACS used Guffanti's self published reading program 'Rocket Phonetics'. But financial problems and City of Vista Code violations finally closed VLACS down. Was VLACS a glowing example of a school 'built' without money? A school whose classrooms were empty office buildings that did not meet city code and whose playground was a public parking lot?
But how are a new high school, a new middle school and six new elementary school built without school bonds? Don't hint about the possibility of how schools are built without money, Guffanti. Tell us the magic way that happens. Does the rain make them spring up like mushrooms?
The folks who supported you candidacy opposed new school bonds for over a decade. There tiny but mobilized minority were enough to stop school bonds from passing with the archaic 2/3rds majority which was then California State law.
The fault of not building schools lies with you Dear Guffanti and your group of ANTI public education followers.
Guffanti editorial lie three, "the district built a school a year without bonds"
Lie three is a lie by deception, leaving out crucial information. Here is the lie: " a district (VUSD) that had built a school a year for the previous eight years without a bond."
First off Guffanti should name these eight schools, I know of only two--Sierra Vista and Rancho Buena Vista High School. Both were built without bonds true. So Guffanti is technically correct but he does not tell where the money to build them came from.
Sierra Vista is a special education high school built by a consortium of surrounding districts on land donated by VUSD near Vista High School. Originally it was used by many districts and the funds to build it came through grants from the state of California that were combined to build a high school. I believe VUSD paid less because we donated the land. This was back when there was lots of vacant land in the VUSD area. The money to build it was from state money and money from other districts surrounding us because there was a need in our area for a special ed high school and VUSD had land if not money available. That deal was a once in a blue moon deal.
Rancho Buena Vista High School was built on land that the developers of Shadow Ridge donated in lieu of paying building impact fees when they built the homes at Shadowridge.
This sweet heart deal saved the developer millions of dollars in real money by allowing him to donate an equivalent value of land. Except it was not equivalent. He gave his worst land. It was un-buildable for houses. It was underlain by blue (super hard) granite that could not be bulldozed and had to be dynamited which cost huge extra amounts of VUSD money when the site was being prepared for RBVHS.
The loss of the millions needed to remove the super hard granite rock meant there were not enough funds for the RBVHS stadium to be included at the time and it had to be built later with new money. But worse all the side walks on the RBVHS campus were narrowed to save money on cement which makes terrible traffic flow problems when students change classes and creates huge slow downs during disaster drills.
If Guffanti was on the board when that land was donated, then he did not do due diligence in accepting that land.
The money to level the site and erect building at RBVHS came from builder fees on the many other housing developments being constructed in other parts of our district--notably east Oceanside. Lots of vacant land, lots of houses built, meant lots of school building funds in the short term.
However, the state of California CAPPED the amount that school districts could charge developers to an amount far less than was needed to build all the schools for the children generated from those housing developments.
Guffanti was on the board when the VUSD board voted to raise our fees UP to this new state minimum and Guffanti voted against raising the fees. How can he brag about building schools without bonds when he tried to lower the amount of money our district would have to build those schools? Chutzpah!
Once the builder's fee money was gone, how was the district going to construct more schools without local school bonds that Guffanti either actively opposed or did nothing to demonstrate support of in the 80's and 90's. I am talking about VUSD’s Prop K for Kids, Prop L, and Prop LL.
In a previous comment post for another article, Guffanti or one of his supporters bragged about money that the district had received from state taxpayers. VUSD qualified for the money as a basket case district because our schools were overcrowded and we could not pass a local bond to raise money for the schools that were needed. Our district went hat in hand and got some money. A little shameful.
Guffanti says schools were built without bonds. Why doesn't Guffanti recognize that the money we spent came from a STATE BOND? A bond is a bond. The taxpayer pays for all bonds. Or did Guffanti mean it was fine to let citizens in other parts of our state pay double for schools? Once for their own schools in their own districts and once for our schools in our district?
Why in Guffanti's world are bonds bad when local folks pay for local schools but good when other taxpayers who get no benefit pay for our local schools?
First off Guffanti should name these eight schools, I know of only two--Sierra Vista and Rancho Buena Vista High School. Both were built without bonds true. So Guffanti is technically correct but he does not tell where the money to build them came from.
Sierra Vista is a special education high school built by a consortium of surrounding districts on land donated by VUSD near Vista High School. Originally it was used by many districts and the funds to build it came through grants from the state of California that were combined to build a high school. I believe VUSD paid less because we donated the land. This was back when there was lots of vacant land in the VUSD area. The money to build it was from state money and money from other districts surrounding us because there was a need in our area for a special ed high school and VUSD had land if not money available. That deal was a once in a blue moon deal.
Rancho Buena Vista High School was built on land that the developers of Shadow Ridge donated in lieu of paying building impact fees when they built the homes at Shadowridge.
This sweet heart deal saved the developer millions of dollars in real money by allowing him to donate an equivalent value of land. Except it was not equivalent. He gave his worst land. It was un-buildable for houses. It was underlain by blue (super hard) granite that could not be bulldozed and had to be dynamited which cost huge extra amounts of VUSD money when the site was being prepared for RBVHS.
The loss of the millions needed to remove the super hard granite rock meant there were not enough funds for the RBVHS stadium to be included at the time and it had to be built later with new money. But worse all the side walks on the RBVHS campus were narrowed to save money on cement which makes terrible traffic flow problems when students change classes and creates huge slow downs during disaster drills.
If Guffanti was on the board when that land was donated, then he did not do due diligence in accepting that land.
The money to level the site and erect building at RBVHS came from builder fees on the many other housing developments being constructed in other parts of our district--notably east Oceanside. Lots of vacant land, lots of houses built, meant lots of school building funds in the short term.
However, the state of California CAPPED the amount that school districts could charge developers to an amount far less than was needed to build all the schools for the children generated from those housing developments.
Guffanti was on the board when the VUSD board voted to raise our fees UP to this new state minimum and Guffanti voted against raising the fees. How can he brag about building schools without bonds when he tried to lower the amount of money our district would have to build those schools? Chutzpah!
Once the builder's fee money was gone, how was the district going to construct more schools without local school bonds that Guffanti either actively opposed or did nothing to demonstrate support of in the 80's and 90's. I am talking about VUSD’s Prop K for Kids, Prop L, and Prop LL.
In a previous comment post for another article, Guffanti or one of his supporters bragged about money that the district had received from state taxpayers. VUSD qualified for the money as a basket case district because our schools were overcrowded and we could not pass a local bond to raise money for the schools that were needed. Our district went hat in hand and got some money. A little shameful.
Guffanti says schools were built without bonds. Why doesn't Guffanti recognize that the money we spent came from a STATE BOND? A bond is a bond. The taxpayer pays for all bonds. Or did Guffanti mean it was fine to let citizens in other parts of our state pay double for schools? Once for their own schools in their own districts and once for our schools in our district?
Why in Guffanti's world are bonds bad when local folks pay for local schools but good when other taxpayers who get no benefit pay for our local schools?
Guffanti editorial lies exposed--No the VTA does not control the district if they did...
Continuing the previous comments critiquing and correcting the lies of Dr. Stephen Guffanti in his fact free editorial in the North County Times, Dangers of Union Control found here:
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/guffanti/article_6a6d3551-d441-5f2d-85ce-a173c0d411e9.html?mode=story
Lie two, "gave it control of the Vista Unified School District" It referring to the good, long suffering folks of the Vista Teachers Association whose average member is a forty some year old college educated woman.
(1) If the teachers controlled the district, why would there be NO contract in the last two years?
(2) If the teachers controlled the district, why would there be no pay raise in the last two years?
If the teachers controlled the district would the average VUSD teacher salary have dropped from the third highest among unified school districts in the county to one of the VERY lowest in the county of San Diego?
FACT: VUSD salaries are now 22nd out of 29 districts in San Diego county. Only six districts in the county have lower average salaries than VUSD. Only three districts in the county had declining salaries. VUSD was one of those and it declined by over 2%. The other two declined by less than 1%
http://www.sacbee.com/1098/story/995141.html?appSession=80478235118357
(3) If the teachers controlled the district then wouldn't one expect that they had veto power or at least input in selecting a superintendent?
FACT: VTA leadership was NOT allowed to even talk to Joyce Bales, the current VUSD superintendent, before she was hired let alone have any input or veto power over her selection.
(4) If the VTA controlled the district would Joyce Bales have been given a three year contract extension just before the election last November?
Why is there NO FACT CHECKING at the North County Times?
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/guffanti/article_6a6d3551-d441-5f2d-85ce-a173c0d411e9.html?mode=story
Lie two, "gave it control of the Vista Unified School District" It referring to the good, long suffering folks of the Vista Teachers Association whose average member is a forty some year old college educated woman.
(1) If the teachers controlled the district, why would there be NO contract in the last two years?
(2) If the teachers controlled the district, why would there be no pay raise in the last two years?
If the teachers controlled the district would the average VUSD teacher salary have dropped from the third highest among unified school districts in the county to one of the VERY lowest in the county of San Diego?
FACT: VUSD salaries are now 22nd out of 29 districts in San Diego county. Only six districts in the county have lower average salaries than VUSD. Only three districts in the county had declining salaries. VUSD was one of those and it declined by over 2%. The other two declined by less than 1%
http://www.sacbee.com/1098/story/995141.html?appSession=80478235118357
(3) If the teachers controlled the district then wouldn't one expect that they had veto power or at least input in selecting a superintendent?
FACT: VTA leadership was NOT allowed to even talk to Joyce Bales, the current VUSD superintendent, before she was hired let alone have any input or veto power over her selection.
(4) If the VTA controlled the district would Joyce Bales have been given a three year contract extension just before the election last November?
Why is there NO FACT CHECKING at the North County Times?
Guffanti Editorial, "Dangers of Union Control" first lie exposed--True history of the Recall
The North County Times editorial staff reaches yet another new low in allowing Dr. Stephen Guffanti to publish an editorial without fact checking. Most local folks have their editorials fact checked before they are published. A pro-public education editorial by Jim Wickstrom was fact checked line by line by J. Stryker Meyer as publishing was delayed and delayed. The Double Standard at the North County Times is blatant. The only surprise is that comments are allowed after the article.
Guffanti's fact free editorial, "Dangers of Union Control" here:
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/guffanti/article_6a6d3551-d441-5f2d-85ce-a173c0d411e9.html?mode=story
Let's start lie by lie in this editorial. Here is the very first one: "after Vista's teachers union engineered a recall"
The recall in 1994 was COMMUNITY organized. It was started by community members after the December 1992 school board meeting in which the three member ANTI board majority decided to debate whether science should be taught in VUSD classrooms.
The Vista Teachers Association did not join until the Spring (I believe in March). There are MEETING NOTES on file at the VTA office that prove this.
There was great debate in the VTA about joining. Many of us INCLUDING myself were dis-inclined to join the COMMUNITY organized recall. I argued against joining at the Executive Board of the VTA when the proposal was first brought up. We had reached out to the ANTI board to try to find 'common ground". I thought we should continue with our efforts. We even had a 'common ground' conference with those board members at the district office organized by then superintendent, Rene Townsend.
I VOTED for one of the ANTIs Deidre Holiday in the 1990 election because she had come to my church and been introduced to our congregation by our pastor as a Christian running for school board. Little did I or he know that she was part of a movement of folks I now call little god, hate filled christians who felt that confrontational, "muscular" christianity and ABSOLUTE allegiance to their peculiar view of the Bible was necessary. To be a Christian in their view, you must believe that the Bible says God created the earth six thousand years ago POOF and you must deny all science. In fact you had to believe that all the science of the last 150 years was an some kind of evil plot to destroy christianity.
As opposed to long held protestant beliefs that said good people read the Bible for themselves. No priest tells them what it says. They read and decide based on what they see in scripture PARTICULARLY the beginning and the end of the Bible--Genesis and Revelations. The doctrine is called 'The Priesthood of the Individual."
The VTA did not join the recall because of the attacks on Science by the ANTI board. We did not join until the ANTI board reached into our classroom and took OUT curriculum vital to the health of our students and tried to adopt a racist and fact free sex education curriculum. "Pet you dog not your date' was a quote from their curriculum.
I was even told by one of the supporters that "FACTS ONCE GIVEN COULD NEVER BE TAKEN BACK". I changed my mind on the recall because PUBLIC SCHOOLS are in the business of giving children information not withholding it.
This ANTI board got so nutty that NATIONAL newspapers noticed. Our tiny little district in north San Diego County made the FRONT PAGE of the NEW YORK TIMES, the LATimes and the SF Chronicle among others.
The ANTI board turned down multi million dollar grants that staff and teachers had worked on for years. They did not believe in taking government money. I know it made no sense for the trustees of a PUBLIC school to turn down government money when the concern (VUSD) they were charged with running got 100% of its money from taxpayers. The very definition of a PUBLIC service means taxpayer money but there you have it.
The RECALL was a BROAD BASED community effort. Real estate brokers were particularly helpful as home prices started to decline when our once proud district was being daily humiliated by the actions of this board and the press coverage those actions were receiving. Other business in town helped as well. Parents were involved. Retirees from many backgrounds helped.
The only ones "engineering" anything in Vista were the ANTI majority. Their actions resulted in great dissatisfaction in this community and they were removed from office (two of them). Diedre chose not to run again. The recall worked exactly as it was envisioned by Republican Governor Hiram Johnson and his supporters in 1911. Bad folks who were not doing the job they were elected to do were removed from office before they could do anymore damage.
Guffanti's fact free editorial, "Dangers of Union Control" here:
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/columnists/guffanti/article_6a6d3551-d441-5f2d-85ce-a173c0d411e9.html?mode=story
Let's start lie by lie in this editorial. Here is the very first one: "after Vista's teachers union engineered a recall"
The recall in 1994 was COMMUNITY organized. It was started by community members after the December 1992 school board meeting in which the three member ANTI board majority decided to debate whether science should be taught in VUSD classrooms.
The Vista Teachers Association did not join until the Spring (I believe in March). There are MEETING NOTES on file at the VTA office that prove this.
There was great debate in the VTA about joining. Many of us INCLUDING myself were dis-inclined to join the COMMUNITY organized recall. I argued against joining at the Executive Board of the VTA when the proposal was first brought up. We had reached out to the ANTI board to try to find 'common ground". I thought we should continue with our efforts. We even had a 'common ground' conference with those board members at the district office organized by then superintendent, Rene Townsend.
I VOTED for one of the ANTIs Deidre Holiday in the 1990 election because she had come to my church and been introduced to our congregation by our pastor as a Christian running for school board. Little did I or he know that she was part of a movement of folks I now call little god, hate filled christians who felt that confrontational, "muscular" christianity and ABSOLUTE allegiance to their peculiar view of the Bible was necessary. To be a Christian in their view, you must believe that the Bible says God created the earth six thousand years ago POOF and you must deny all science. In fact you had to believe that all the science of the last 150 years was an some kind of evil plot to destroy christianity.
As opposed to long held protestant beliefs that said good people read the Bible for themselves. No priest tells them what it says. They read and decide based on what they see in scripture PARTICULARLY the beginning and the end of the Bible--Genesis and Revelations. The doctrine is called 'The Priesthood of the Individual."
The VTA did not join the recall because of the attacks on Science by the ANTI board. We did not join until the ANTI board reached into our classroom and took OUT curriculum vital to the health of our students and tried to adopt a racist and fact free sex education curriculum. "Pet you dog not your date' was a quote from their curriculum.
I was even told by one of the supporters that "FACTS ONCE GIVEN COULD NEVER BE TAKEN BACK". I changed my mind on the recall because PUBLIC SCHOOLS are in the business of giving children information not withholding it.
This ANTI board got so nutty that NATIONAL newspapers noticed. Our tiny little district in north San Diego County made the FRONT PAGE of the NEW YORK TIMES, the LATimes and the SF Chronicle among others.
The ANTI board turned down multi million dollar grants that staff and teachers had worked on for years. They did not believe in taking government money. I know it made no sense for the trustees of a PUBLIC school to turn down government money when the concern (VUSD) they were charged with running got 100% of its money from taxpayers. The very definition of a PUBLIC service means taxpayer money but there you have it.
The RECALL was a BROAD BASED community effort. Real estate brokers were particularly helpful as home prices started to decline when our once proud district was being daily humiliated by the actions of this board and the press coverage those actions were receiving. Other business in town helped as well. Parents were involved. Retirees from many backgrounds helped.
The only ones "engineering" anything in Vista were the ANTI majority. Their actions resulted in great dissatisfaction in this community and they were removed from office (two of them). Diedre chose not to run again. The recall worked exactly as it was envisioned by Republican Governor Hiram Johnson and his supporters in 1911. Bad folks who were not doing the job they were elected to do were removed from office before they could do anymore damage.
VTA our community heroes for fighting the ANTI crowd--comment following Bill Faust Forum
Bill Faust, president of the CSEA, had a forum published in the North County Times today lamenting the proposed reduction of CSEA staff members. He says that schools need more than just a teaching staff. I agree unfortunately the ANTI public education crowd took the opportunity after his Forum to run down our VUSD teachers. So I responded in the North County Times comment section to their charges.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/article_0637c825-2670-5fba-ae77-70b193083be1.html?mode=story
Mr. Faust is not ragging on the VTA. He is saying that schools need more than just teachers and administrators to run. He is correct. We need the classified staff of secretaries, custodians, food service workers, bus drivers, and others. The problem is money. Our funding has been reduced due to lower state and local tax revenue during the recession.
Vista teachers have some of the lowest salaries in the county of San Diego. The money is not going to teacher salaries. ALL Vista teachers gave up a full day of pay to keep other teachers from being fired and K-3 class size from being increased hence no lay offs. But that money came out of teacher take home pay not from anywhere else.
Stimulus money (Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) came from the federal government and saved the seven school days that the Governor Schwarzenegger had proposed cutting from the school year. Otherwise the cuts would have been greater. We are all grateful to President Obama and the democrats that voted for the stimulus (Bilbray and Issa, our local Congressman voted AGAINST the stimulus that allowed our California school children to be educated for a full year of school this year)
Vista test scores are increasing and have been for years. We outperform most other school districts in the state with our demographics.
As to what happened in 1999, the third school bond (Prop LL) was 'defeated' by a tiny minority of ANTI public education folks in our district. They "defeated" it even though Prop LL passed with a two thirds majority in every single VUSD precinct on election day. A few hundred absentee ANTI votes tipped the election to 'defeat' meaning even though the VAST majority of voters wanted new schools, over 66%, the bond failed due to California's archaic two thirds majority bond requirements at the time.
After that third defeat in 1999, many discouraged parents at our highest performing and most overcrowded schools moved their children out of our school. Over TWO THOUSAND left before the start of the following school year. Losing high performing students did drop our scores temporarily but VUSD scores are now recovering. We outscore Oceanside school district which has a nearly identical demographic.
The teachers union is not at fault for the bond failure. We worked hard to pass it. We spent our time and money knowing that if a bond passed, money for salaries would be in shorter supply as new schools are never fully funded and stocked by a bond.
Finally we teachers, parents and other community members passed a bond, Prop O, and built many, many new schools in VUSD six or seven elementary schools, a middle school and a high school.
The teachers in this district have been the hardworking heroes in the struggles of that this district has had overcoming the influence of ANTI public education folks who do not believe in government schools nor building new public schools nor fact based science, history and sex education classes.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/article_0637c825-2670-5fba-ae77-70b193083be1.html?mode=story
Mr. Faust is not ragging on the VTA. He is saying that schools need more than just teachers and administrators to run. He is correct. We need the classified staff of secretaries, custodians, food service workers, bus drivers, and others. The problem is money. Our funding has been reduced due to lower state and local tax revenue during the recession.
Vista teachers have some of the lowest salaries in the county of San Diego. The money is not going to teacher salaries. ALL Vista teachers gave up a full day of pay to keep other teachers from being fired and K-3 class size from being increased hence no lay offs. But that money came out of teacher take home pay not from anywhere else.
Stimulus money (Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) came from the federal government and saved the seven school days that the Governor Schwarzenegger had proposed cutting from the school year. Otherwise the cuts would have been greater. We are all grateful to President Obama and the democrats that voted for the stimulus (Bilbray and Issa, our local Congressman voted AGAINST the stimulus that allowed our California school children to be educated for a full year of school this year)
Vista test scores are increasing and have been for years. We outperform most other school districts in the state with our demographics.
As to what happened in 1999, the third school bond (Prop LL) was 'defeated' by a tiny minority of ANTI public education folks in our district. They "defeated" it even though Prop LL passed with a two thirds majority in every single VUSD precinct on election day. A few hundred absentee ANTI votes tipped the election to 'defeat' meaning even though the VAST majority of voters wanted new schools, over 66%, the bond failed due to California's archaic two thirds majority bond requirements at the time.
After that third defeat in 1999, many discouraged parents at our highest performing and most overcrowded schools moved their children out of our school. Over TWO THOUSAND left before the start of the following school year. Losing high performing students did drop our scores temporarily but VUSD scores are now recovering. We outscore Oceanside school district which has a nearly identical demographic.
The teachers union is not at fault for the bond failure. We worked hard to pass it. We spent our time and money knowing that if a bond passed, money for salaries would be in shorter supply as new schools are never fully funded and stocked by a bond.
Finally we teachers, parents and other community members passed a bond, Prop O, and built many, many new schools in VUSD six or seven elementary schools, a middle school and a high school.
The teachers in this district have been the hardworking heroes in the struggles of that this district has had overcoming the influence of ANTI public education folks who do not believe in government schools nor building new public schools nor fact based science, history and sex education classes.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
ANTI--Poking the teacher's union in the eye--Federal Race to the Top funds
Our ANTI friends on the federal level are crowing about Obama's education secretary Arne Duncan's clubbing of schools and teachers with the Race to the Top part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Stimulus).
Good News is the 44.5 billion dollars for education under the Stimulus filled back in the state budget cuts that were going to be horrific for school systems in all fifty states. In fed lingo, the Stimulus money "minimized the funding cliff' that schools found themselves facing.
Here in California Governor Schwarzenegger planed to reduce the number of school days by seven, thus reducing the pay of every single California Teacher by seven full days (the fraction reduction was typically going to be 7 over 180 days or about 4% of a teacher's yearly salary). Thanks to Obama and the Democrats (NOT one Republican in Congress voted for it-including our local Reps Issa and Bilbray) we did not lose 4% of our salary. Hooray for Obama and the Democrats in the House and Senate!
So again I say, whoopee! for pro public education Democrats and Obama who kept us from losing 4% of our salary this year!
Sadly there are no provisions for stimulus money to be granted to that states next school year (2010-2011). Currently our state, California, is still bankrupt.
Sacramento is debating how to fix our tax laws this week so that we will not be bankrupt next year as well. Our Republican friends want to reduce income taxes on the wealthy among other cuts, after all their mantra has been the more taxes are reduced, the more taxes are collected by the state. Yes, it sounds crazy and has never been shown to work, but that is what they are paid to say and do by the wealthy lobbying interests in Sacramento ,so that is what our current crop of Republican state legislators say and do.
Neither the governor nor the Republicans in the State Senate or Assembly are willing to talk about the two elephants in the room-- one, an oil extraction tax and two, a split roll property tax system.
We do not tax oil extraction from state lands and waters the way every other state in the union does and we do not have the same property tax standards for large corporations as we do for homeowners and small business so we miss a lot of revenue.
Alaska funds its state and local government with oil tax revenue and also gives thousands of dollars each year to every Alaskan from this huge pot of money. The potentially largest oil field in the entire 48 lower states was announced at a site near Bakersfield last week. Mark Wyland our local State Assembly person is opposed to taxing oil extraction in California. Without Republican votes no tax can pass the Assembly or State Senate as both houses require a 2/3rds majority by California state law. Our Republicans friends in the state houses hold barely over 1/3 minority in each house which is enough no votes to stop any tax no matter how reasonable or necessary or dire the consequences of not passing the tax.
Stimulus then was a good thing at least for this year anyway, right? Who cares about next year. Well yes the stimulus was mostly good this year, we haven't lost 4% of our salary but sadly not all parts of this year's stimulus for education were as good.
The evil Arne Dunacan, Obama's education secretary, is holding hostage the part of the stimulus called The Race to the Top funds until all states agree to evaluate teachers on the basis of 'value added' to test scores of their students and to eliminate all caps on the number of charter schools allowed in each and every state.
One problem with Arne Duncan's demands is that standardized tests are not developed as a tool to evaluate teachers. One person said it's like using a cholesterol test to decide if a patient needs hip surgery. The other major problem is that teachers in high performing schools will be 'graded' as better teachers giving those teachers more merit pay, and less chance of being dismissed, moved to another school or losing tenure.
Already our friends in those high performing schools have fewer discipline problems, better attendance, more parental help and more funding support. Paying them more and declaring them to be superior teachers based on where they happened to get a job seems like adding insult to injury.
The "no limits" on charter school problem is even nastier.
Charters do not have to follow the same rules as regular public schools.They do not have to met the same standards as public schools to be declared a success. There is no current California state approved method of evaluating whether they are effective or not. There have been financial scandals up and down the state at charter schools where founders made off with tens of thousands of dollars. Some people have even been jailed. Still we have no way to evaluate charters.
Worse on state tests 17% of charter school students do better than the average public school student, 34% of charter school students do WORSE than public school students (That's right DOUBLE the number of charter school students actually do worse!) and the rest are about the same according to testimony by the California Federation of Teachers representative yesterday (9/29/09) to the state assembly committee dealing with Race to the Top issues. I watched on cable, The California Channel.
For the first time in my memory all the stakeholders in California Public Education agreed about an issue. The all agreed that adopting the "student testing teacher evaluation" and "no limit on charter schools" was a bad idea. Representatives from The California School Board Association (CSBA), the California Administrators Association (ASCA), the California Teacher's Association (CTA), and the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) all spoke against changing California state law to adjust our law to what the federal government demands. (Actually what one man is demanding--the evil Arne Duncan who has NEVER been a classroom teacher). Yet the proposal looks assured of passing. The forty year war on public schools and unions seems to have worked.
The ANTI-public education Fordham Institute spokesman in an Education Week article was quoted as calling Arne Duncan's proposal "Poking the teacher's unions in the eye".
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/07/23/37race.h28.html?tkn=YSUFYIm%2BMA2jCca4Ty69mm89stWNLqKb4Eu2
Here is an example in Los Angeles where a charter that will take over Garfield High will be meeting much LOWER standards than the school was forced to meet when it was a public school.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/09/garfield-high-which-became-nationally-known-as-the-real-life-setting-for-the-film-stand-and-deliver-will-be-among-the.html
Here is the quote from the article:
When compared with schools that serve similar students, Garfield rates a 6 of 10, which puts it in the upper half of state schools by that yardstick. An independently operated charter school, for example, would be eligible for renewal if it achieved a 4 of 10 in this category. Charter schools are exempt from some rules governing traditional schools, including adherence to the district’s union contracts.
Good news on stimulus, we didn't get our pay cut by 4%. Bad news is Arne Duncan has added poison pills to the money so that teachers in high performing schools will get more pay than low performing schools. Most low performing schools will be charter-ized and the unions busted. Goodbye union pay and benefits.
Good News is the 44.5 billion dollars for education under the Stimulus filled back in the state budget cuts that were going to be horrific for school systems in all fifty states. In fed lingo, the Stimulus money "minimized the funding cliff' that schools found themselves facing.
Here in California Governor Schwarzenegger planed to reduce the number of school days by seven, thus reducing the pay of every single California Teacher by seven full days (the fraction reduction was typically going to be 7 over 180 days or about 4% of a teacher's yearly salary). Thanks to Obama and the Democrats (NOT one Republican in Congress voted for it-including our local Reps Issa and Bilbray) we did not lose 4% of our salary. Hooray for Obama and the Democrats in the House and Senate!
So again I say, whoopee! for pro public education Democrats and Obama who kept us from losing 4% of our salary this year!
Sadly there are no provisions for stimulus money to be granted to that states next school year (2010-2011). Currently our state, California, is still bankrupt.
Sacramento is debating how to fix our tax laws this week so that we will not be bankrupt next year as well. Our Republican friends want to reduce income taxes on the wealthy among other cuts, after all their mantra has been the more taxes are reduced, the more taxes are collected by the state. Yes, it sounds crazy and has never been shown to work, but that is what they are paid to say and do by the wealthy lobbying interests in Sacramento ,so that is what our current crop of Republican state legislators say and do.
Neither the governor nor the Republicans in the State Senate or Assembly are willing to talk about the two elephants in the room-- one, an oil extraction tax and two, a split roll property tax system.
We do not tax oil extraction from state lands and waters the way every other state in the union does and we do not have the same property tax standards for large corporations as we do for homeowners and small business so we miss a lot of revenue.
Alaska funds its state and local government with oil tax revenue and also gives thousands of dollars each year to every Alaskan from this huge pot of money. The potentially largest oil field in the entire 48 lower states was announced at a site near Bakersfield last week. Mark Wyland our local State Assembly person is opposed to taxing oil extraction in California. Without Republican votes no tax can pass the Assembly or State Senate as both houses require a 2/3rds majority by California state law. Our Republicans friends in the state houses hold barely over 1/3 minority in each house which is enough no votes to stop any tax no matter how reasonable or necessary or dire the consequences of not passing the tax.
Stimulus then was a good thing at least for this year anyway, right? Who cares about next year. Well yes the stimulus was mostly good this year, we haven't lost 4% of our salary but sadly not all parts of this year's stimulus for education were as good.
The evil Arne Dunacan, Obama's education secretary, is holding hostage the part of the stimulus called The Race to the Top funds until all states agree to evaluate teachers on the basis of 'value added' to test scores of their students and to eliminate all caps on the number of charter schools allowed in each and every state.
One problem with Arne Duncan's demands is that standardized tests are not developed as a tool to evaluate teachers. One person said it's like using a cholesterol test to decide if a patient needs hip surgery. The other major problem is that teachers in high performing schools will be 'graded' as better teachers giving those teachers more merit pay, and less chance of being dismissed, moved to another school or losing tenure.
Already our friends in those high performing schools have fewer discipline problems, better attendance, more parental help and more funding support. Paying them more and declaring them to be superior teachers based on where they happened to get a job seems like adding insult to injury.
The "no limits" on charter school problem is even nastier.
Charters do not have to follow the same rules as regular public schools.They do not have to met the same standards as public schools to be declared a success. There is no current California state approved method of evaluating whether they are effective or not. There have been financial scandals up and down the state at charter schools where founders made off with tens of thousands of dollars. Some people have even been jailed. Still we have no way to evaluate charters.
Worse on state tests 17% of charter school students do better than the average public school student, 34% of charter school students do WORSE than public school students (That's right DOUBLE the number of charter school students actually do worse!) and the rest are about the same according to testimony by the California Federation of Teachers representative yesterday (9/29/09) to the state assembly committee dealing with Race to the Top issues. I watched on cable, The California Channel.
For the first time in my memory all the stakeholders in California Public Education agreed about an issue. The all agreed that adopting the "student testing teacher evaluation" and "no limit on charter schools" was a bad idea. Representatives from The California School Board Association (CSBA), the California Administrators Association (ASCA), the California Teacher's Association (CTA), and the California Federation of Teachers (CFT) all spoke against changing California state law to adjust our law to what the federal government demands. (Actually what one man is demanding--the evil Arne Duncan who has NEVER been a classroom teacher). Yet the proposal looks assured of passing. The forty year war on public schools and unions seems to have worked.
The ANTI-public education Fordham Institute spokesman in an Education Week article was quoted as calling Arne Duncan's proposal "Poking the teacher's unions in the eye".
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/07/23/37race.h28.html?tkn=YSUFYIm%2BMA2jCca4Ty69mm89stWNLqKb4Eu2
Here is an example in Los Angeles where a charter that will take over Garfield High will be meeting much LOWER standards than the school was forced to meet when it was a public school.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/09/garfield-high-which-became-nationally-known-as-the-real-life-setting-for-the-film-stand-and-deliver-will-be-among-the.html
Here is the quote from the article:
When compared with schools that serve similar students, Garfield rates a 6 of 10, which puts it in the upper half of state schools by that yardstick. An independently operated charter school, for example, would be eligible for renewal if it achieved a 4 of 10 in this category. Charter schools are exempt from some rules governing traditional schools, including adherence to the district’s union contracts.
Good news on stimulus, we didn't get our pay cut by 4%. Bad news is Arne Duncan has added poison pills to the money so that teachers in high performing schools will get more pay than low performing schools. Most low performing schools will be charter-ized and the unions busted. Goodbye union pay and benefits.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Firm discipline for energy consuming students transforms them into tomorrow's leaders
Will those students that push the boundaries in our classroom be their generations leaders? It seem it may depend on how you respond to their challenges.
Do your children push the boundaries?
It may be a sign of future leadership abilities
Toronto, September 24, 2009 –Children whose parents use a firm parenting style that still allows them to test the rules and learn from it are more likely to assume leadership roles as adults according to a new study published in a recent edition of The Leadership Quarterly.
Researchers used data from a long-term Minnesota study of twins. They found that children raised with an “authoritative” parenting style – where parents set clear limits and expectations while also being supportive of their children – assumed more leadership roles at work and in their communities later in life. While these children were also less likely to engage in serious rule-breaking, children who did engage in serious rule-breaking were less likely to assume leadership roles.
Good parenting may better prepare children for future leadership roles if the children happen to challenge the boundaries set out by their parents. This gives the children an opportunity to learn why the rules are in place and then learn from their parents how to achieve their goals without breaking the rules.
“Some of these early examples of rule-breaking behaviour, more the modest type, don’t necessarily produce negative outcomes later in life – that was fairly intriguing,” says Maria Rotundo, a professor at the Rotman School of Management. “It doesn’t mean all children of authoritative parents are going to become leaders, but they are more likely to.”
The study adds more weight to the idea that leaders are raised more than they are born. Behavioural genetics has shown that innate factors account for only 30% of who will end up in leadership positions and people’s leadership styles.
Prof. Rotundo co-authored the study with Bruce Avolio of Seattle’s Michael G. Foster School of Business, and Fred Walumbwa from Arizona State University.
The complete study is available at:
http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/newthinking/rotundoleadership.pdf .
For the latest thinking on business, management and economics from the Rotman School of Management, visit http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/NewThinking.
The Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto is redesigning business education for the 21st century with a curriculum based on Integrative Thinking. Located in the world’s most diverse city, the Rotman School fosters a new way to think that enables the design of creative business solutions. The School is currently raising $200 million to ensure Canada has the world-class business school it deserves. For more information, visit http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca.
Do your children push the boundaries?
It may be a sign of future leadership abilities
Toronto, September 24, 2009 –Children whose parents use a firm parenting style that still allows them to test the rules and learn from it are more likely to assume leadership roles as adults according to a new study published in a recent edition of The Leadership Quarterly.
Researchers used data from a long-term Minnesota study of twins. They found that children raised with an “authoritative” parenting style – where parents set clear limits and expectations while also being supportive of their children – assumed more leadership roles at work and in their communities later in life. While these children were also less likely to engage in serious rule-breaking, children who did engage in serious rule-breaking were less likely to assume leadership roles.
Good parenting may better prepare children for future leadership roles if the children happen to challenge the boundaries set out by their parents. This gives the children an opportunity to learn why the rules are in place and then learn from their parents how to achieve their goals without breaking the rules.
“Some of these early examples of rule-breaking behaviour, more the modest type, don’t necessarily produce negative outcomes later in life – that was fairly intriguing,” says Maria Rotundo, a professor at the Rotman School of Management. “It doesn’t mean all children of authoritative parents are going to become leaders, but they are more likely to.”
The study adds more weight to the idea that leaders are raised more than they are born. Behavioural genetics has shown that innate factors account for only 30% of who will end up in leadership positions and people’s leadership styles.
Prof. Rotundo co-authored the study with Bruce Avolio of Seattle’s Michael G. Foster School of Business, and Fred Walumbwa from Arizona State University.
The complete study is available at:
http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/newthinking/rotundoleadership.pdf .
For the latest thinking on business, management and economics from the Rotman School of Management, visit http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/NewThinking.
The Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto is redesigning business education for the 21st century with a curriculum based on Integrative Thinking. Located in the world’s most diverse city, the Rotman School fosters a new way to think that enables the design of creative business solutions. The School is currently raising $200 million to ensure Canada has the world-class business school it deserves. For more information, visit http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
VUSD Good News! Dictionaries from the Pride of Vista Lion's Club
VUSD GOOD NEWS—THE PRIDE of VISTA Lion’s Club Dictionary gifts
The wonderful members of the Vista Lion’s Club have been making the rounds of VUSD third grade classrooms. This fine volunteer group gives a free dictionary to each and every third grade student in our district. For many third graders this is their first dictionary. The children are thrilled to get them. The student dictionaries not only contain the usual words and definitions but also have a measurement conversion table, rulers, a US map, roman numerals, and a cursive alphabet.
It is the perfect gift for third graders because the California State Standards for third graders require the learning of dictionary skills. The third graders also have measurement standards in math and of course they first begin to learn to write in cursive.
One third grade teacher said, “It is wonderful when someone comes around who is nice and who cares about education and values the kids and wants to help instead of hinder. They (Pride of Vista) come every year. It makes you feel good about VUSD community and the good people who live here.”
The Pride of Vista also did a short ten minute presentation with the students showing them how to use the dictionary—guide words, extras in the back of the dictionary. The Lion’s club men and women were dressed in their blue vests. They passed out the dictionaries and asked the students to look up the word ‘volunteer’ and read the definition. They explained that they were volunteers and that the students could be volunteers as well whenever they helped someone else.
The students were ecstatic to get a gift. Many are so poor that getting gifts is a very rare event. Here are some of the things that student wrote in thank you notes to the Lion’s Club volunteers:
“I love my brand new dictionary. It is nice to know you would like to help third graders learn more things and spell hard words. I am going to try to memorize the dictionary. I am going to use it to help me with my homework.”
“Your club is really cute because of your cool outfits.” (refering to the blue vests)
“I never had a dictionary I am going to tell my little cousin because he is in kinder. I am going to keep my dictionary until I am in college.”
“I will protect it from my little sister because she cuts my stuff and my clothes. Thanks for showing us how to use it.”
It is nice to report good news about VUSD. The Pride of Vista Lion’s Club reminds us that there are many fine people in Vista and eastern Oceanside who care about our students and want to make our community better.
Thank you Pride of Vista Lion’s Club
The wonderful members of the Vista Lion’s Club have been making the rounds of VUSD third grade classrooms. This fine volunteer group gives a free dictionary to each and every third grade student in our district. For many third graders this is their first dictionary. The children are thrilled to get them. The student dictionaries not only contain the usual words and definitions but also have a measurement conversion table, rulers, a US map, roman numerals, and a cursive alphabet.
It is the perfect gift for third graders because the California State Standards for third graders require the learning of dictionary skills. The third graders also have measurement standards in math and of course they first begin to learn to write in cursive.
One third grade teacher said, “It is wonderful when someone comes around who is nice and who cares about education and values the kids and wants to help instead of hinder. They (Pride of Vista) come every year. It makes you feel good about VUSD community and the good people who live here.”
The Pride of Vista also did a short ten minute presentation with the students showing them how to use the dictionary—guide words, extras in the back of the dictionary. The Lion’s club men and women were dressed in their blue vests. They passed out the dictionaries and asked the students to look up the word ‘volunteer’ and read the definition. They explained that they were volunteers and that the students could be volunteers as well whenever they helped someone else.
The students were ecstatic to get a gift. Many are so poor that getting gifts is a very rare event. Here are some of the things that student wrote in thank you notes to the Lion’s Club volunteers:
“I love my brand new dictionary. It is nice to know you would like to help third graders learn more things and spell hard words. I am going to try to memorize the dictionary. I am going to use it to help me with my homework.”
“Your club is really cute because of your cool outfits.” (refering to the blue vests)
“I never had a dictionary I am going to tell my little cousin because he is in kinder. I am going to keep my dictionary until I am in college.”
“I will protect it from my little sister because she cuts my stuff and my clothes. Thanks for showing us how to use it.”
It is nice to report good news about VUSD. The Pride of Vista Lion’s Club reminds us that there are many fine people in Vista and eastern Oceanside who care about our students and want to make our community better.
Thank you Pride of Vista Lion’s Club
Release Time President--VUSD Board Presentation Sepember 2005
Our ANTI friends are trying to make a mountain where a molehill does not even exist. See the the public document copied below that explains the history of release time presidents in VUSD.
BOARD PRESENTATION FOR SEPTEMBER 8, 2005
EMPLOYEE RELEASE TIME
Two certificated positions are full-time release positions from teaching responsibilities:
1. VTA President – VTA Contract, Article 9.10, allows for up to a 100% release of the VTA President. The cost of this release time will be borne by the VTA based on Class C, Step 4 ($41,562) of the Teacher’s Salary Schedule.
The history of this contract language is as follows:
1995- Present – VTA President has up to 100% of contract released. VTA reimburses District at Class C, Step 4.
1990-1993 – VTA President released 50% to 100% of his/her contract. District is reimbursed at Class D, Step 7.
1988-1990 – VTA President released up to 50% of a contract. Released time is paid by VTA at Class D, Step 7 of the Teacher’s Salary Schedule.
1985 – 1988 – VTA President granted up to fifteen (15) days of release. Substitute costs by paid by VTA.
In March 2003, a legal opinion was provided to the Vista Unified School District regarding the legality of this full release. An informal audit was performed reviewing the activities of the VTA President in 2003. The President’s activities fell within the legal limits of allowable activities. These allowable activities include processing grievances, any negotiations activities, and District business as related to VTA. Unallowed activities or “internal union business” are activities such as attendance at State CTA, involvement with other school District job actions, and any activities that are not connected to the bargaining contract negotiations or VUSD business. The District is currently in the process of conducting an audit of the VTA President’s release time to insure the District falls within the legal guidelines.
The District receives reimbursement from VTA equal to C4 on the salary schedule. This is approximately 60% of the VTA President’s salary. Based on this, the VTA President would legally be allowed to do 60% of internal union business. The District paid approximately $35,00 (salary + benefits) for the full time release of the VTA President in the 2004/05 school year.
2. CTA Elected Board Member – Tom Conry is on full release at a Board Member of the California Teacher’s Association. California Education Code 44987 entitles the elected Board Member to release time from his/her teaching position. The current proposed agreement provides for full reimbursement to VUSD from CTA for the employee’s salary, benefits and all associated costs. There is no financial cost to VUSD for the full release of the CTA Board member, Tom Conry. VUSD does not have the option to deny this full release due to Ed Code 44987.
3. Negotiated release from the VTA and VUSD contract authorizes the VTA President to grant up to 75 days of release time. Substitute cost is covered by the VTA.
BOARD PRESENTATION FOR SEPTEMBER 8, 2005
EMPLOYEE RELEASE TIME
Two certificated positions are full-time release positions from teaching responsibilities:
1. VTA President – VTA Contract, Article 9.10, allows for up to a 100% release of the VTA President. The cost of this release time will be borne by the VTA based on Class C, Step 4 ($41,562) of the Teacher’s Salary Schedule.
The history of this contract language is as follows:
1995- Present – VTA President has up to 100% of contract released. VTA reimburses District at Class C, Step 4.
1990-1993 – VTA President released 50% to 100% of his/her contract. District is reimbursed at Class D, Step 7.
1988-1990 – VTA President released up to 50% of a contract. Released time is paid by VTA at Class D, Step 7 of the Teacher’s Salary Schedule.
1985 – 1988 – VTA President granted up to fifteen (15) days of release. Substitute costs by paid by VTA.
In March 2003, a legal opinion was provided to the Vista Unified School District regarding the legality of this full release. An informal audit was performed reviewing the activities of the VTA President in 2003. The President’s activities fell within the legal limits of allowable activities. These allowable activities include processing grievances, any negotiations activities, and District business as related to VTA. Unallowed activities or “internal union business” are activities such as attendance at State CTA, involvement with other school District job actions, and any activities that are not connected to the bargaining contract negotiations or VUSD business. The District is currently in the process of conducting an audit of the VTA President’s release time to insure the District falls within the legal guidelines.
The District receives reimbursement from VTA equal to C4 on the salary schedule. This is approximately 60% of the VTA President’s salary. Based on this, the VTA President would legally be allowed to do 60% of internal union business. The District paid approximately $35,00 (salary + benefits) for the full time release of the VTA President in the 2004/05 school year.
2. CTA Elected Board Member – Tom Conry is on full release at a Board Member of the California Teacher’s Association. California Education Code 44987 entitles the elected Board Member to release time from his/her teaching position. The current proposed agreement provides for full reimbursement to VUSD from CTA for the employee’s salary, benefits and all associated costs. There is no financial cost to VUSD for the full release of the CTA Board member, Tom Conry. VUSD does not have the option to deny this full release due to Ed Code 44987.
3. Negotiated release from the VTA and VUSD contract authorizes the VTA President to grant up to 75 days of release time. Substitute cost is covered by the VTA.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
ANTI charge: Release time president legal decision has not been reviewed in twenty years
As far as legal opinion, all parts of a bargained contract are run passed to legal counsel here in VUSD and elsewhere before they are adopted.
The president of a large association being released full time to work on personnel matters has passed every legal review in every large district in California that has bargained this issue every single time over the last twenty years.
There have been at least a thousand times that this concept has passed legal muster in the last few decades. A legal review happens each and every time before a new contract is signed between a bargaining unit and a school district. Scores of LARGE California school districts have a bargained release time president. Every year or two a new contract is bargained. Let me guess that 100 districts (conservative guess) in the state have released time presidents for the last two or three decades with a new agreement every two years.
Here is the math 100 times 20 years divided by two equals at least ONE THOUSAND INDEPENDENT legal reviews of this policy.
Why should VUSD have to spend money on an EXPENSIVE law firm, that VUSD is not contracted with, for reviewing a matter that has been ESTABLISHED as a LONG STANDING, LEGAL part of bargaining?
Oh I know, I know. Because Jim Gibson does not care about wasting taxpayer money. No surprise he would call for an EXPENSIVE law firm not contracted with VUSD to review a long established legal precedent in California educational law.
The president of a large association being released full time to work on personnel matters has passed every legal review in every large district in California that has bargained this issue every single time over the last twenty years.
There have been at least a thousand times that this concept has passed legal muster in the last few decades. A legal review happens each and every time before a new contract is signed between a bargaining unit and a school district. Scores of LARGE California school districts have a bargained release time president. Every year or two a new contract is bargained. Let me guess that 100 districts (conservative guess) in the state have released time presidents for the last two or three decades with a new agreement every two years.
Here is the math 100 times 20 years divided by two equals at least ONE THOUSAND INDEPENDENT legal reviews of this policy.
Why should VUSD have to spend money on an EXPENSIVE law firm, that VUSD is not contracted with, for reviewing a matter that has been ESTABLISHED as a LONG STANDING, LEGAL part of bargaining?
Oh I know, I know. Because Jim Gibson does not care about wasting taxpayer money. No surprise he would call for an EXPENSIVE law firm not contracted with VUSD to review a long established legal precedent in California educational law.
Isn't VTA prohibited by federal law from politicking on campus?
Roxy asked at "Do federal laws prohibit UNIONS and PUBLIC OFFICIALS from politicking on PUBLIC SCHOOL GROUNDS?"
Roxy I am not sure but I do know that the school district has rules about political organizing during school hours. This issue became a campaign controversy when ANTI public education candidate, Stephen Guffanti violated this school board policy during the last election.
Teachers are highly restricted from political action. Bush era National Labor Relations Board decisions by Bush appointees restricted unions from contacting membership through company (district) mail or email, passing out campaign literature to students or parents during school hours, wearing buttons advocating a politician or political viewpoint, political posters in their rooms, etc. (with one exception--high school civics classes where local elections can be discussed)
However, Teachers ARE allowed to have bumper stickers on, or campaign signs in, their cars parked on campus. Political meetings after school hours are also allowed in school facilities.
Clear? Other questions?
Roxy I am not sure but I do know that the school district has rules about political organizing during school hours. This issue became a campaign controversy when ANTI public education candidate, Stephen Guffanti violated this school board policy during the last election.
Teachers are highly restricted from political action. Bush era National Labor Relations Board decisions by Bush appointees restricted unions from contacting membership through company (district) mail or email, passing out campaign literature to students or parents during school hours, wearing buttons advocating a politician or political viewpoint, political posters in their rooms, etc. (with one exception--high school civics classes where local elections can be discussed)
However, Teachers ARE allowed to have bumper stickers on, or campaign signs in, their cars parked on campus. Political meetings after school hours are also allowed in school facilities.
Clear? Other questions?
ANTI lie: VTA always campaigns that it is for the children
Roxy wrote incorrectly at 11:08 PM in the comment section following the Parvin Forum atrocity, the following:
"As far as the “for the children” quote you know it is true. As you may recall the VTA campaigns always use the children."
Roxy, sorry, you are wrong.
The signs purchased by the voluntary contributions of Vista Teachers have for years contained the following three items:
(1) "The Teachers Choice", as our slogan,
(2) the names of our recommended candidates, and
(3) a red apple.
I just went out to the garage and looked at one of the signs to make sure my memory was correct and it was.
However, the inappropriate use of the VTA slogan and symbol was an issue during the 2008 and 2006 campaigns.
During those campaigns, ANTI Public EDUCATION slate candidate, Patty Anderson, used a very similar slogan, "Teachers for Patty Anderson" and a similar apple logo to try to confuse voters into thinking that the teachers of the district supported her school board candidacy.
Her despicable deception did not work. I believe she finished next to last.
"As far as the “for the children” quote you know it is true. As you may recall the VTA campaigns always use the children."
Roxy, sorry, you are wrong.
The signs purchased by the voluntary contributions of Vista Teachers have for years contained the following three items:
(1) "The Teachers Choice", as our slogan,
(2) the names of our recommended candidates, and
(3) a red apple.
I just went out to the garage and looked at one of the signs to make sure my memory was correct and it was.
However, the inappropriate use of the VTA slogan and symbol was an issue during the 2008 and 2006 campaigns.
During those campaigns, ANTI Public EDUCATION slate candidate, Patty Anderson, used a very similar slogan, "Teachers for Patty Anderson" and a similar apple logo to try to confuse voters into thinking that the teachers of the district supported her school board candidacy.
Her despicable deception did not work. I believe she finished next to last.
ANTI LIE: Most VUSD students are functioning (sic) illiterate
Roxy a person with similar views to our district's ANTI folks posted this lie following the Parvin Forum atrocity.
My response to Roxy was:
Roxy at 11:08PM also wrote the following incorrect statement:
"the majority of the “CHILDREN” at VUSD are functioning(sic) illiterate."
No Roxy the majority of children in VUSD are good readers and their reading scores are improving each year on the California Standards Test.
Here is an example of a math problem which requires fairly high level reading skills that seven and eight year old students are reading and solving here in VUSD right now. This problem is from the current third grade curriculum in the fourth week of school during this school year.
Each of the 18 students in Marlene's class either to play kickball or to jump rope during recess. If 12 more students chose to play kickball than to jump rope, how many chose each?
a) 6 chose to play kickball and 12 chose to jump rope
b) 8 chose to play kickball and 10 chose to jump rope
c) 12 chose to play kickball and 6 chose to jump rope
d) 15 chose to play kickball and 3 chose to jump rope
Seems pretty obvious to us but think about how much you knew at the beginning of third grade. The children with birthdays in September, October, November and December are still SEVEN years old when they see and solve problems like this.
The expectations for students today are higher than they were when were in school and our VUSD students are meeting them. Many of our students have multiple disadvantages that neither we or our children had, yet they are learning and learning at a record pace.
My response to Roxy was:
Roxy at 11:08PM also wrote the following incorrect statement:
"the majority of the “CHILDREN” at VUSD are functioning(sic) illiterate."
No Roxy the majority of children in VUSD are good readers and their reading scores are improving each year on the California Standards Test.
Here is an example of a math problem which requires fairly high level reading skills that seven and eight year old students are reading and solving here in VUSD right now. This problem is from the current third grade curriculum in the fourth week of school during this school year.
Each of the 18 students in Marlene's class either to play kickball or to jump rope during recess. If 12 more students chose to play kickball than to jump rope, how many chose each?
a) 6 chose to play kickball and 12 chose to jump rope
b) 8 chose to play kickball and 10 chose to jump rope
c) 12 chose to play kickball and 6 chose to jump rope
d) 15 chose to play kickball and 3 chose to jump rope
Seems pretty obvious to us but think about how much you knew at the beginning of third grade. The children with birthdays in September, October, November and December are still SEVEN years old when they see and solve problems like this.
The expectations for students today are higher than they were when were in school and our VUSD students are meeting them. Many of our students have multiple disadvantages that neither we or our children had, yet they are learning and learning at a record pace.
ANTI Lie: Gibson did NOT cost VUSD taxpayers 40 million dollars
This false assertion was made by Samuel in the comment section after the following Parvin opinion piece:
Here are the actual facts as I responded in my post to Samuel:
Samuel wrote at 11:42PM the following ridiculous statement, "yet continue to claim that Mr. Gibson was responsible for a waste of $40 million on the high school project. You can not offer any valid proof to support your claim"
Poor, poor Samuel. Denial is the one of the steps of grief and you are still there. I know how sad it must make you feel to know that Gibson OWNS the 40 million dollar EXTRA cost of the new high school and no amount of your spinning about decisions MADE AFTER Gibson forced the district to go to the more expensive Melrose site can save him or your argument.
Everyone living in the VUSD during the 2002 election campaign remembers that plethora of GIBSON SIGNS saying "STOP the 10,000 car MEGA High School" which location was that Samuel?
Oh that's right Gibson was campaigning to STOP the purchase of the cheap, level, graded, 50 acre Kawano site behind Strawberry Hill. How much did that site cost? ONE million dollars. How much did the secondary site cost at Melrose that Gibson's opposition forced on the district? EIGHTEEN MILLION! The Melrose site was HILLY and NOT graded--millions more of taxpayer's money wasted by Gibson. The site was in the CITY of Oceanside instead of the City of Vista. The Oceanside City Council contained a majority of council members who two years later ENDORSED Gibson campaign to become an Oceanside City Councilman. Yet that SAME PRO-GIBSON city council added in a bunch or nasty and unhelpful extra requirements that cost VUSD millions more. Weird that a city council that Gibson has so much influence with added in onerous and expensive grading and road building requirements to the construction of the VUSD third high school. I wonder why? Ask Jim Gibson.
Samuel, you want more PROOF that GIBSON in cahoots with the other ANTI public education member of VUSD (Stephen Guffanti) cost the district taxpayers 40 million dollars? You do remember it took FOUR school board members in favor to purchase the cheap level Kawano land? Right? Even you cannot deny that.
Let's read what Gibson said about purchasing the cheap level fully graded site Kawano site. From an article in the North County Times dated August 9, 2003
"Vista still searching for home of magnet high schools" written By: DAVID STERRETT
Quote: "Board members Jim Gibson and Stephen Guffanti said they refuse to support condemning the Kawano (behind Strawberry Hill) property...The Strawberry Hills site is unacceptable," Gibson said. "That's not the only site out there, and there are other possible sites that they could look at."
How many much more proof do you need Samuel? I have seven or eight more quotes from seven or eight more articles published in the North County Times from the spring of 2002 into the spring of 2004 with Gibson and Guffanti PUBLICLY declaring they would not support buying the CHEAP LEVEL Kawano property.To purchase the Kawano site, VUSD had to have FOUR of the five board members supporting the decision to purchase. Only TWO ever and frequently opposed that purchase your buddy, Gibson and his confederate in waste, Guffanti.
Gibson OWNS the waste of the EXTRA FORTY MILLION DOLLARS that the second best site cost our Vista school district. I know it. You know it. Best of all the community knows it. That is one of the many reasons why Gibson will suffer yet another humiliating political defeat in his school board re-election bid in November 2010. The voters know him now. He was humiliated when he ran in the Republican primary for Temecula Assemblyman. He was humiliated last November when he ran for Oceanside City Council where he lost badly even though a majority of the Oceanside council members endorsed him. He will lose in November 2010 and perhaps the good decent folks of the North County will be done with this Orange County carpetbagger.
Here are the actual facts as I responded in my post to Samuel:
Samuel wrote at 11:42PM the following ridiculous statement, "yet continue to claim that Mr. Gibson was responsible for a waste of $40 million on the high school project. You can not offer any valid proof to support your claim"
Poor, poor Samuel. Denial is the one of the steps of grief and you are still there. I know how sad it must make you feel to know that Gibson OWNS the 40 million dollar EXTRA cost of the new high school and no amount of your spinning about decisions MADE AFTER Gibson forced the district to go to the more expensive Melrose site can save him or your argument.
Everyone living in the VUSD during the 2002 election campaign remembers that plethora of GIBSON SIGNS saying "STOP the 10,000 car MEGA High School" which location was that Samuel?
Oh that's right Gibson was campaigning to STOP the purchase of the cheap, level, graded, 50 acre Kawano site behind Strawberry Hill. How much did that site cost? ONE million dollars. How much did the secondary site cost at Melrose that Gibson's opposition forced on the district? EIGHTEEN MILLION! The Melrose site was HILLY and NOT graded--millions more of taxpayer's money wasted by Gibson. The site was in the CITY of Oceanside instead of the City of Vista. The Oceanside City Council contained a majority of council members who two years later ENDORSED Gibson campaign to become an Oceanside City Councilman. Yet that SAME PRO-GIBSON city council added in a bunch or nasty and unhelpful extra requirements that cost VUSD millions more. Weird that a city council that Gibson has so much influence with added in onerous and expensive grading and road building requirements to the construction of the VUSD third high school. I wonder why? Ask Jim Gibson.
Samuel, you want more PROOF that GIBSON in cahoots with the other ANTI public education member of VUSD (Stephen Guffanti) cost the district taxpayers 40 million dollars? You do remember it took FOUR school board members in favor to purchase the cheap level Kawano land? Right? Even you cannot deny that.
Let's read what Gibson said about purchasing the cheap level fully graded site Kawano site. From an article in the North County Times dated August 9, 2003
"Vista still searching for home of magnet high schools" written By: DAVID STERRETT
Quote: "Board members Jim Gibson and Stephen Guffanti said they refuse to support condemning the Kawano (behind Strawberry Hill) property...The Strawberry Hills site is unacceptable," Gibson said. "That's not the only site out there, and there are other possible sites that they could look at."
How many much more proof do you need Samuel? I have seven or eight more quotes from seven or eight more articles published in the North County Times from the spring of 2002 into the spring of 2004 with Gibson and Guffanti PUBLICLY declaring they would not support buying the CHEAP LEVEL Kawano property.To purchase the Kawano site, VUSD had to have FOUR of the five board members supporting the decision to purchase. Only TWO ever and frequently opposed that purchase your buddy, Gibson and his confederate in waste, Guffanti.
Gibson OWNS the waste of the EXTRA FORTY MILLION DOLLARS that the second best site cost our Vista school district. I know it. You know it. Best of all the community knows it. That is one of the many reasons why Gibson will suffer yet another humiliating political defeat in his school board re-election bid in November 2010. The voters know him now. He was humiliated when he ran in the Republican primary for Temecula Assemblyman. He was humiliated last November when he ran for Oceanside City Council where he lost badly even though a majority of the Oceanside council members endorsed him. He will lose in November 2010 and perhaps the good decent folks of the North County will be done with this Orange County carpetbagger.
ANTI lie: Jan O'Reilly has not turned in a time card in months
The ANTI lie in the title of this blog was found in the posted comments by the blogger calling herself, Housewife ,following the Jill Parvin Forum piece. Found here:
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/article_63509623-7cf4-5259-9fb7-2817cc3670d8.html?mode=story
Here is the ANTI lie:
Housewife you are badly misinformed. You wrote, "She's not turned in a timecard in months" referring to the VTA president, Jan O'Reilly.
Here is the truth:
School teachers do not turn in time cards. Jan O'Reilly is a release time school teacher. A time card indicates punching a time card at a time clock.
If teachers used time cards and time clocks then they would get overtime when they went beyuond the 7 1/2 hour contracted day. But teachers get NO overtime. Jan O'Reilly gets NO overtime.
VUSD teachers and the VTA president typically put in 12 to 14 hour days. The extra five or more hours are uncompensated. There is no overtime and no extra pay for teachers or the president of the VTA. Too bad.
Perhaps with time cards and time clocks teachers could either get home to their families before dark or get paid for their hours of extra work. Sadly teachers as CONTRACT labor get the same amount of money no matter how many hours they work past the end of the contract day.
However, the VTA president does have to turn in a monthly time sheet indicating all of her daily (and I believe hourly) activities. When I saw it decades ago, I believe it was on a single sheet of gold colored paper. If the president failed to turn in the time sheets, she could and would be fired by district admin for insubordination.
Someone in the ANTI camp has lied to you about time cards, housewife. A word to the wise, whoever, told you this lie is not a person whose word you can or should trust again.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/article_63509623-7cf4-5259-9fb7-2817cc3670d8.html?mode=story
Here is the ANTI lie:
Housewife you are badly misinformed. You wrote, "She's not turned in a timecard in months" referring to the VTA president, Jan O'Reilly.
Here is the truth:
School teachers do not turn in time cards. Jan O'Reilly is a release time school teacher. A time card indicates punching a time card at a time clock.
If teachers used time cards and time clocks then they would get overtime when they went beyuond the 7 1/2 hour contracted day. But teachers get NO overtime. Jan O'Reilly gets NO overtime.
VUSD teachers and the VTA president typically put in 12 to 14 hour days. The extra five or more hours are uncompensated. There is no overtime and no extra pay for teachers or the president of the VTA. Too bad.
Perhaps with time cards and time clocks teachers could either get home to their families before dark or get paid for their hours of extra work. Sadly teachers as CONTRACT labor get the same amount of money no matter how many hours they work past the end of the contract day.
However, the VTA president does have to turn in a monthly time sheet indicating all of her daily (and I believe hourly) activities. When I saw it decades ago, I believe it was on a single sheet of gold colored paper. If the president failed to turn in the time sheets, she could and would be fired by district admin for insubordination.
Someone in the ANTI camp has lied to you about time cards, housewife. A word to the wise, whoever, told you this lie is not a person whose word you can or should trust again.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Jill Parvin only person EVER allowed to violate North County Times editorial policy
It should be noted that Jill Parvin (see next post) is the ONLY PERSON allowed to violate the North County Times long standing editorial policy which limits editorial page appearances to only one appearance every two weeks. No one has been allowed to violate this maximum except Parvin, perhaps because she writes ANTI public education letters. This NCT editorial policy has contiuously been in effect since at least the election of 2006, when PRO public education letter writers were severely limited as to the number of times they could get a letter published in the weeks before the election.
That the North County Times editorial staff has DOUBLE STANDARDS--one for pro-public education letter writers and a different more lenient policy for the ANTI group comes as no surprise to those who have read the NCTimes unfair and unbalanced attacks on the middle class, unions and in particular the Vista Teachers Association over the last 15 years.
Here is the pertinent part of the policy:
"Writers are limited to one letter to the editor or Community Forum about every two weeks."
Policy found here:
http://www.nctimes.com/app/forms/letters/
Note: I believe the word 'about' has been added to the long standing policy in the last month as this issue came up recently in the VUSD blog wars following articles in the NCT. I will check my records to verify that the word 'about' has recently been added.
Parvin was allowed a letter to the editor (October 14, 2008) and a Forum piece (October 16, 2008) in the same week.
Why would the ANTI firefighters union, ANTI police union and ANTI grocery store clerks union and ANTI teacher union, editorial staff of the North County Times make this exception? Gee, what a mystery. The NCTimes editorial troika is sooo 'fair' and 'balanced', why would they allow Parvin this exception that no one else is allowed?
See Parvin's editorial pieces that violated the North County editorial 'standards' here:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/10/14/opinion/letters/z66b9517b9d82427d882574e1007bab3d.txt
AND here:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/10/16/opinion/commentary/z13c33839a3f05601882574e2006e5826.txt#blogcomments
That the North County Times editorial staff has DOUBLE STANDARDS--one for pro-public education letter writers and a different more lenient policy for the ANTI group comes as no surprise to those who have read the NCTimes unfair and unbalanced attacks on the middle class, unions and in particular the Vista Teachers Association over the last 15 years.
Here is the pertinent part of the policy:
"Writers are limited to one letter to the editor or Community Forum about every two weeks."
Policy found here:
http://www.nctimes.com/app/forms/letters/
Note: I believe the word 'about' has been added to the long standing policy in the last month as this issue came up recently in the VUSD blog wars following articles in the NCT. I will check my records to verify that the word 'about' has recently been added.
Parvin was allowed a letter to the editor (October 14, 2008) and a Forum piece (October 16, 2008) in the same week.
Why would the ANTI firefighters union, ANTI police union and ANTI grocery store clerks union and ANTI teacher union, editorial staff of the North County Times make this exception? Gee, what a mystery. The NCTimes editorial troika is sooo 'fair' and 'balanced', why would they allow Parvin this exception that no one else is allowed?
See Parvin's editorial pieces that violated the North County editorial 'standards' here:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/10/14/opinion/letters/z66b9517b9d82427d882574e1007bab3d.txt
AND here:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/10/16/opinion/commentary/z13c33839a3f05601882574e2006e5826.txt#blogcomments
North County Times allows Jill Parvin to lower their 'standards'
The North County Times hits a new low today printing this Jill Parvin tripe:
FORUM: Vista teachers union needs to return money
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/article_63509623-7cf4-5259-9fb7-2817cc3670d8.html?mode=story
Jill Parvin claims that money needs to be returned to the district. What? How crazy is that? The salary and release time president were NEGOTIATED with the district twenty years ago. So NEGOTIATED contracts are not legal in Parvin's wacky world? Even the North County Times admits most large districts have the same provision with their Association presidents.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_c9e6be3a-c966-5c67-9dbd-d6744ed46385.html?mode=story
The president of the Vista Teacher's Association just like the president of virtually all large teacher organizations in San Diego County and California is released from classroom activities for the term of office. Why? As a MONEY SAVING measure. The president of the union works on employee issues that might otherwise be forced to be settled with EXPENSIVE legal actions. A release time president is the NORM in big districts because it SAVES TAXPAYER MONEY.
The Association PAYS the FULL salary of a FULLY qualified teacher to replace the president. The only reason that the president's salary tends to be higher is that usually a person elected president of an association has been with the district for decades and has moved closer to the top of the salary schedule then a new hire that replaces her. The same thing happens when a teacher retires the new hire costs far less.
By the way the VUSD teacher's salary schedule TOPS out FAR BELOW Parvin's assertion of $92,000 a year. After THIRTY FULL YEARS all of those years spent teaching only in the VUSD, and with 90 post graduate college units, a teacher in VUSD maxes out at $81,262 NOT 92K. How can Parvin claim that the VTA president's salary averages over 92K when fact checking is so easy? How can the North County Times allow a Forum to be published that is not fact checked? I guess if the allegations in a Forum piece match the prejudices of the editorial staff fact checking is unnecessary.
See VUSD teacher's salary schedule:http://www.vusd.k12.ca.us/Departments/hr/certificatedHR/Certificated%20HR%20Documents/Teacher%20Salary%20Schedule.pdf
When the president finishes her term of office (two to no more than four years) the president is allowed to return to a classroom somewhere in the district. She is NOT entitled to return to the classroom or the assignment she left or necessarily even the grade level. Upon returning she usually has to re-integrate into teaching with a different staff of teachers, administrators and curriculum than what she had when she left. It is NOT a reward. It is not fun to have to learn a whole different curriculum and to try to accumulate a whole different set of materials.
The release time association president CANNOT spend any time on politics. She would be fired if she did. She must report her daily and even hourly activities to the district admin EVERY SINGLE MONTH or she would be fired. Her main job which often requires twelve to sixteen hour days is managing personnel problems that might in other venues (legal, for instance) cost the district far more money. Her job is NOT fun. It is a grueling, difficult thankless job.
Parvin's article today is just a stalking horse for the re-election campaign in 2010 of ANTI-public education candidate, Jim Gibson. A truly selfish man who has cost the taxpayers of this district as much as forty million dollars in extra costs for VUSD third high school by his stubborn delays and his insistence that a cheap level fully graded site not be used in favor of a site that costs 17 million dollars more to purchase and tens of millions more in grading, permits, and lawsuits. Gibson and his supporters are desperate for an issue so that he is not voted off the board next year as he so richly deserves to be.
FORUM: Vista teachers union needs to return money
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/article_63509623-7cf4-5259-9fb7-2817cc3670d8.html?mode=story
Jill Parvin claims that money needs to be returned to the district. What? How crazy is that? The salary and release time president were NEGOTIATED with the district twenty years ago. So NEGOTIATED contracts are not legal in Parvin's wacky world? Even the North County Times admits most large districts have the same provision with their Association presidents.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_c9e6be3a-c966-5c67-9dbd-d6744ed46385.html?mode=story
The president of the Vista Teacher's Association just like the president of virtually all large teacher organizations in San Diego County and California is released from classroom activities for the term of office. Why? As a MONEY SAVING measure. The president of the union works on employee issues that might otherwise be forced to be settled with EXPENSIVE legal actions. A release time president is the NORM in big districts because it SAVES TAXPAYER MONEY.
The Association PAYS the FULL salary of a FULLY qualified teacher to replace the president. The only reason that the president's salary tends to be higher is that usually a person elected president of an association has been with the district for decades and has moved closer to the top of the salary schedule then a new hire that replaces her. The same thing happens when a teacher retires the new hire costs far less.
By the way the VUSD teacher's salary schedule TOPS out FAR BELOW Parvin's assertion of $92,000 a year. After THIRTY FULL YEARS all of those years spent teaching only in the VUSD, and with 90 post graduate college units, a teacher in VUSD maxes out at $81,262 NOT 92K. How can Parvin claim that the VTA president's salary averages over 92K when fact checking is so easy? How can the North County Times allow a Forum to be published that is not fact checked? I guess if the allegations in a Forum piece match the prejudices of the editorial staff fact checking is unnecessary.
See VUSD teacher's salary schedule:http://www.vusd.k12.ca.us/Departments/hr/certificatedHR/Certificated%20HR%20Documents/Teacher%20Salary%20Schedule.pdf
When the president finishes her term of office (two to no more than four years) the president is allowed to return to a classroom somewhere in the district. She is NOT entitled to return to the classroom or the assignment she left or necessarily even the grade level. Upon returning she usually has to re-integrate into teaching with a different staff of teachers, administrators and curriculum than what she had when she left. It is NOT a reward. It is not fun to have to learn a whole different curriculum and to try to accumulate a whole different set of materials.
The release time association president CANNOT spend any time on politics. She would be fired if she did. She must report her daily and even hourly activities to the district admin EVERY SINGLE MONTH or she would be fired. Her main job which often requires twelve to sixteen hour days is managing personnel problems that might in other venues (legal, for instance) cost the district far more money. Her job is NOT fun. It is a grueling, difficult thankless job.
Parvin's article today is just a stalking horse for the re-election campaign in 2010 of ANTI-public education candidate, Jim Gibson. A truly selfish man who has cost the taxpayers of this district as much as forty million dollars in extra costs for VUSD third high school by his stubborn delays and his insistence that a cheap level fully graded site not be used in favor of a site that costs 17 million dollars more to purchase and tens of millions more in grading, permits, and lawsuits. Gibson and his supporters are desperate for an issue so that he is not voted off the board next year as he so richly deserves to be.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
An ANTI says: Obama speech scary because who knows how it will be used
I think it is a good thing for us to be exposed to the paranoid and angry thinking of the ANTI public education crowd who do not support FACT based public education. Here is one from the Letters to the Editor comment page. It kind of hurts the brain to read but still this is the broken thinking of those who would destroy public education in America.
GFlash said on: September 24, 2009, 5:53 am
Letting my Kidds listen to the Obama speech was not the issue.
Letting my kids listen to the Obama speech in the Liberal public school setting and then who knows what they will use it for is a big issue.
Remember the Teachers unions were supporting Gay marriiage and that is against my wishes.
These days I have no respect for the public school system. Public school is not good enough for my children.
GFlash said on: September 24, 2009, 5:53 am
Letting my Kidds listen to the Obama speech was not the issue.
Letting my kids listen to the Obama speech in the Liberal public school setting and then who knows what they will use it for is a big issue.
Remember the Teachers unions were supporting Gay marriiage and that is against my wishes.
These days I have no respect for the public school system. Public school is not good enough for my children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)