Teaching is about a life time of service and sacrifice.
Public school teaching has always been less financially lucrative than virtually any other job that takes the same amount of education to qualify for. In fact teachers make less money, than babysitters do. Baby sitters usually get at least two dollars per child per hour. Most classroom teachers have about 32 students per class per hour multiply that 32 times seven hours a day times 180 days and you get about $80,640.
A baby sitter with no requirement to teach anything to her charges, no minimum educational requirements and in her very first year of babysitting can make more money than the average public school teacher who has 60 units of college credit and twenty years in her classroom.
Even according to disputed and significantly inflated statistics in the anti-teacher Sacramento Bee, the average public school teacher in California made $65,808 in 2008. The VUSD average was less, $63,443.
This SacBee teacher average pay distortion is still less than what a baby sitter would get for babysitting 32 children seven hours a day for 180 days. The SacBee average "teacher" salary included much better paying non-teaching, credentialed positions in the average.
http://www.sacbee.com/1098/story/995141.html?appSession=80478235118357
Teachers are among the finest people I have known in my life. They are a few of the true shining lights in our society. Long hours, horrible working conditions, constant threats to their persons and their careers; yet they seldom complain even as they are viciously attacked by con men on the radio like John and Ken KFI AM640, in print (the North County Times editorial page) and on Fake News on cable TV.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
KFI AM 640 John and Ken, a Bully and a Coward, Daily Rant about 1A through 1F
Props 1A through 1E will likely fail on Tuesday chiefly thanks to the lack of free speech on the KFI AM 640 radio hosts, John and Ken. They have spent at least four hours a day for months bad mouthing 1A through 1F in particular and public employees particularly school teachers in general.
No opposing viewpoints are allowed without being shouted down while those who attempt such a feat are presenting their view and then mocked after the caller is arbitrarily clicked off the air by John.
John and Ken could allow a pro 1A through 1E spokesman to control the microphone for just one hour a week of their twenty plus hours of rants per week. But they will not. Bullies and cowards always fear the well informed and those who can defend themselves. Being in a fair fight or even one that has any fairness at all terrifies bullies and cowards like John and Ken.
It certainly is not free speech or equal access when John yells down a well informed caller who supports 1A through 1E.
Polls show that John and Ken have been all too successful in their campaign of distortion and misinformation. Governor Schwarzenegger, himself, has publicly wondered allow if these two now run our state. Of course Schwarzenegger loved it when John and Ken spent the better part of six months trashing Gray Davis and making it possible for Schwarzenegger to be elected governor after the recall of Davis. John and Ken were just as unfair and un-American then as they are now.
Why should two unelected radio hosts have the uncontested power to dominate our elections?
After the election on Tuesday, John and Ken will continue to make millions spewing the distortions their advertisers desire of them. On the other hand public school teachers, those who do not get laid off, will take salary cuts next year of between $1500 and $4000. Those are the amounts that seven days of pay (plus the one lost already) will take from lowest to highest salaried teachers in VUSD. Teachers in other districts will loose slightly more as most teachers make more in salary then our VUSD teachers who are among the lowest paid in San Diego County.
Seven days of pay is exactly what Governor Schwarzenegger says he will cut when 1A through 1F fail.
Teachers will soldier on. They will teach. They will take children of poverty who have no access to printed material and often do not have anyone in their household who speaks English and turn those children into educated productive English speaking American citizens.They will do their jobs whether appreciated or not, whether fairly compensated or not, whether they are unfairly vilified or not. Why? Because public school teachers are good people. Teaching attracts the caring, the compassionate, and the unselfish. Thank goodness for now there are enough of those fine people today to fill our classrooms. I hope there will be next year as well.
You can read about the "anti-tax" rally they engineered here:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/05/16/news/californian/riverside/z15d6b5ab0a89e0e0882575b700672eaa.txt
Here is the title and a few key sentences and paragraphs from the article:
CORONA: Thousands attend anti-tax rally
Radio hosts call for defeat of ballot propositions
CORONA ---- Bombastic radio talk show hosts "John and Ken" lit the fuse.
And thousands of Southern California residents provided the "boom," turning the normally laid-back setting of Tom's Farms, a pastoral roadside attraction/farmers market on the outskirts of Corona, into a raucous staging ground for an anti-tax rally on Saturday afternoon.
The rally, a companion piece to the anti-tax KFI AM 640 hosts' live broadcast, featured hundreds of colorful signs, "Don't Tread on Me" flags and life-size effigies of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ripped to pieces by a industrial shredder.
----------
At one point during the rally, the crowd, cheered on by the radio show hosts, chanted in unison: "Liars, thieves and whores! Liars, thieves and whores! Liars, thieves and whores!"
------------
The focus of the crowd's ire was the state's politicians ---- both sides of the aisle ---- big business, big oil, state worker's unions, teacher's unions and, in somewhat of a stretch, the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team.
-----------
"We're going to beat the propositions and we're going to beat the Lakers!" shouted the pair, whose full names are John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou.
-----------
Danielle Marrujo, a Temecula resident, attended the rally with her 14-year-old son Devin.
Taped to Marrujo's chest was a picture of Gov. Schwarzenegger with a red bar crossed through his face.
"He lied to us," Marrujo said, explaining why she singled out Schwarzenegger for criticism. "He's raising our taxes."
In the last few months, Marrujo said her life in Temecula ---- she's lived in the city for six years ---- has started to unravel.
"I'm losing everything, my home ... my husband has been laid off. I realize (the governor) can't control everything. It's not all his fault. It's everybody's fault, all the political parties," she said. "If not for my parents, me and my family would be homeless."
---------------
Debbie Adams said the issue is personal for her because she is an English teacher who is trying to help put her daughter through college. Just recently, her daughter's state grant money was cut by 15 percent.
"Where am I going to get that 15 percent?" she asked.
-----------------
One wonders how much more Debbie Adams salary and her daughter's state grant will be cut when 1A through 1F fail on Tuesday. Adams demonstrated the power of unelected demagogues to convince the gullible to act against their own and our state's best interest.
Here are some selected comments following the article. I especially like the first one by googy for his creative spelling of "colleges." Perhaps he could have used the service on one. All that are highlighted in red are by our ANTI friends. The one in blue is not. Note the ANTI pitiful attempt at "humor" in the second post by Dummocrat.
googy May 17, 2009 7:00AM PST
One thing I agree with the Republicans is to get rid of the public school system and social grants to collages.
Dummocrat May 17, 2009 9:37AM PST
Hee, haw. Janeane Garafolo is RIGHT! You tea baggers are just a bunch of red neck racists. What all of you selfish right-wing homophobes need to do is just SHUT UP and pay your taxes...all of them. This is what we call SPREADING THE WEALTH. You bigots at Tom's Farms should just leave Arnold Schwarzennegger alone! He is related to that magnificent liberal lion, Ted Kennedy, and the Kennedy family doesn't need any more pain right now. If you really want to know how to vote correctly this Tuesday, vote YES, YES, YES, YES, and YES on Props 1A through 1E. Vote NO on 1F...we shouldn't be creating hardships for our hard working Democrat leaders in Sacramento. Don't you know that they work hard for their paychecks too?!?! Come on Kalifornians...open up your hearts by opening up your wallets. Vote YES on 1A - 1E and let's all save the teacher unions and public employee unions from paycuts and layoffs. After all, government is the ONLY THING that works well in Kalifornia. Heh, heh.Hee, haw!
Will Adam May 17, 2009 11:12AM PST
First thing is get rid of all of the spend happy DEMOCRATS in the state legislature. You can't blame the GOP for this, since spending bills only require a simple majority and the DEMOCRATS haven't seen a spending increase or new program they didn't like.
Next would make sure no state aid goes to any illegal. And for the state to work with the Federal government to turn over for deportation any illegal(no what country they come from) they come across from emergency room visits, kids at school and have the police verfiy the citizenship from all traffic stops.
Next is the needed is to get rid of the entitlements from any program, and take away the auto pilot of all programs and make everything a general fund. The next thing to do is get rid of Prop 98 for education and the teachers union's. With very few exceptions, the teachers are not taking a hit in pay. Instead of taking a 10-15% pay cut so most teachers who are being laid off won't. But again they and the prision guard union is about nothing but greed. I would cut the prision guard's pay by aleast 25%.
One of the easiest approaches would be after the above isto freeze the budget at 2005 level and leave it there and only increase it when revenue increase. It's not that hard, but the democrats claim it is. If they hadn't been so spend happy we wouldn't be in this mess.
I believe that would be a great start.
Clarity May 17, 2009 12:21PM PST
The village idiots have found leaders in John and Ken - two rabid rabble-rousing radio personalities saturating the airwaves with head-on-astick anger, hate and intolerance. They hate taxes, politicians, illegal immigrants for entertainment and ratings. It's easy to assemble a mob but it doesn't solve problems. The problems will get worse when the propositions fail and public services are cut drastically.
Hound Dog May 17, 2009 3:00PM PST
The T bag rallies are legal,loud, and in someways, pointless. There is a lot of anger in our Country,some of it well founded, some of it politically motivated. The signs being carried were anti tax, anti schwaenegger anti Democrat,anti Obama,pretty much anti everything government.. The crowed was whipped up by John and Ken who pushed all the buttons they knew would rouse the group. Tea Parties are fine, but I think folks need to help come up with real answers to real problems. No new taxes sounds good but it is only a slogan. No one wants to pay taxes. Personally I'm interested in the manner in which our taxes are being spent.I was asking the same questions during the Bush Administration but not a Tea bagger was evident at that time. No easy answers on that question either. Complainig is easy and therapeutic,solutions are hard and not always popular. I'm hoping that people who are motivated to carry signs and protest will also, through their elected officials, find "real" answers. The original Tea bag prostest in Boston harbor was aginst tax without reprsentation. This one seems to be against taxation with representation.
No opposing viewpoints are allowed without being shouted down while those who attempt such a feat are presenting their view and then mocked after the caller is arbitrarily clicked off the air by John.
John and Ken could allow a pro 1A through 1E spokesman to control the microphone for just one hour a week of their twenty plus hours of rants per week. But they will not. Bullies and cowards always fear the well informed and those who can defend themselves. Being in a fair fight or even one that has any fairness at all terrifies bullies and cowards like John and Ken.
It certainly is not free speech or equal access when John yells down a well informed caller who supports 1A through 1E.
Polls show that John and Ken have been all too successful in their campaign of distortion and misinformation. Governor Schwarzenegger, himself, has publicly wondered allow if these two now run our state. Of course Schwarzenegger loved it when John and Ken spent the better part of six months trashing Gray Davis and making it possible for Schwarzenegger to be elected governor after the recall of Davis. John and Ken were just as unfair and un-American then as they are now.
Why should two unelected radio hosts have the uncontested power to dominate our elections?
After the election on Tuesday, John and Ken will continue to make millions spewing the distortions their advertisers desire of them. On the other hand public school teachers, those who do not get laid off, will take salary cuts next year of between $1500 and $4000. Those are the amounts that seven days of pay (plus the one lost already) will take from lowest to highest salaried teachers in VUSD. Teachers in other districts will loose slightly more as most teachers make more in salary then our VUSD teachers who are among the lowest paid in San Diego County.
Seven days of pay is exactly what Governor Schwarzenegger says he will cut when 1A through 1F fail.
Teachers will soldier on. They will teach. They will take children of poverty who have no access to printed material and often do not have anyone in their household who speaks English and turn those children into educated productive English speaking American citizens.They will do their jobs whether appreciated or not, whether fairly compensated or not, whether they are unfairly vilified or not. Why? Because public school teachers are good people. Teaching attracts the caring, the compassionate, and the unselfish. Thank goodness for now there are enough of those fine people today to fill our classrooms. I hope there will be next year as well.
You can read about the "anti-tax" rally they engineered here:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/05/16/news/californian/riverside/z15d6b5ab0a89e0e0882575b700672eaa.txt
Here is the title and a few key sentences and paragraphs from the article:
CORONA: Thousands attend anti-tax rally
Radio hosts call for defeat of ballot propositions
CORONA ---- Bombastic radio talk show hosts "John and Ken" lit the fuse.
And thousands of Southern California residents provided the "boom," turning the normally laid-back setting of Tom's Farms, a pastoral roadside attraction/farmers market on the outskirts of Corona, into a raucous staging ground for an anti-tax rally on Saturday afternoon.
The rally, a companion piece to the anti-tax KFI AM 640 hosts' live broadcast, featured hundreds of colorful signs, "Don't Tread on Me" flags and life-size effigies of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ripped to pieces by a industrial shredder.
----------
At one point during the rally, the crowd, cheered on by the radio show hosts, chanted in unison: "Liars, thieves and whores! Liars, thieves and whores! Liars, thieves and whores!"
------------
The focus of the crowd's ire was the state's politicians ---- both sides of the aisle ---- big business, big oil, state worker's unions, teacher's unions and, in somewhat of a stretch, the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team.
-----------
"We're going to beat the propositions and we're going to beat the Lakers!" shouted the pair, whose full names are John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou.
-----------
Danielle Marrujo, a Temecula resident, attended the rally with her 14-year-old son Devin.
Taped to Marrujo's chest was a picture of Gov. Schwarzenegger with a red bar crossed through his face.
"He lied to us," Marrujo said, explaining why she singled out Schwarzenegger for criticism. "He's raising our taxes."
In the last few months, Marrujo said her life in Temecula ---- she's lived in the city for six years ---- has started to unravel.
"I'm losing everything, my home ... my husband has been laid off. I realize (the governor) can't control everything. It's not all his fault. It's everybody's fault, all the political parties," she said. "If not for my parents, me and my family would be homeless."
---------------
Debbie Adams said the issue is personal for her because she is an English teacher who is trying to help put her daughter through college. Just recently, her daughter's state grant money was cut by 15 percent.
"Where am I going to get that 15 percent?" she asked.
-----------------
One wonders how much more Debbie Adams salary and her daughter's state grant will be cut when 1A through 1F fail on Tuesday. Adams demonstrated the power of unelected demagogues to convince the gullible to act against their own and our state's best interest.
Here are some selected comments following the article. I especially like the first one by googy for his creative spelling of "colleges." Perhaps he could have used the service on one. All that are highlighted in red are by our ANTI friends. The one in blue is not. Note the ANTI pitiful attempt at "humor" in the second post by Dummocrat.
googy May 17, 2009 7:00AM PST
One thing I agree with the Republicans is to get rid of the public school system and social grants to collages.
Dummocrat May 17, 2009 9:37AM PST
Hee, haw. Janeane Garafolo is RIGHT! You tea baggers are just a bunch of red neck racists. What all of you selfish right-wing homophobes need to do is just SHUT UP and pay your taxes...all of them. This is what we call SPREADING THE WEALTH. You bigots at Tom's Farms should just leave Arnold Schwarzennegger alone! He is related to that magnificent liberal lion, Ted Kennedy, and the Kennedy family doesn't need any more pain right now. If you really want to know how to vote correctly this Tuesday, vote YES, YES, YES, YES, and YES on Props 1A through 1E. Vote NO on 1F...we shouldn't be creating hardships for our hard working Democrat leaders in Sacramento. Don't you know that they work hard for their paychecks too?!?! Come on Kalifornians...open up your hearts by opening up your wallets. Vote YES on 1A - 1E and let's all save the teacher unions and public employee unions from paycuts and layoffs. After all, government is the ONLY THING that works well in Kalifornia. Heh, heh.Hee, haw!
Will Adam May 17, 2009 11:12AM PST
First thing is get rid of all of the spend happy DEMOCRATS in the state legislature. You can't blame the GOP for this, since spending bills only require a simple majority and the DEMOCRATS haven't seen a spending increase or new program they didn't like.
Next would make sure no state aid goes to any illegal. And for the state to work with the Federal government to turn over for deportation any illegal(no what country they come from) they come across from emergency room visits, kids at school and have the police verfiy the citizenship from all traffic stops.
Next is the needed is to get rid of the entitlements from any program, and take away the auto pilot of all programs and make everything a general fund. The next thing to do is get rid of Prop 98 for education and the teachers union's. With very few exceptions, the teachers are not taking a hit in pay. Instead of taking a 10-15% pay cut so most teachers who are being laid off won't. But again they and the prision guard union is about nothing but greed. I would cut the prision guard's pay by aleast 25%.
One of the easiest approaches would be after the above isto freeze the budget at 2005 level and leave it there and only increase it when revenue increase. It's not that hard, but the democrats claim it is. If they hadn't been so spend happy we wouldn't be in this mess.
I believe that would be a great start.
Clarity May 17, 2009 12:21PM PST
The village idiots have found leaders in John and Ken - two rabid rabble-rousing radio personalities saturating the airwaves with head-on-astick anger, hate and intolerance. They hate taxes, politicians, illegal immigrants for entertainment and ratings. It's easy to assemble a mob but it doesn't solve problems. The problems will get worse when the propositions fail and public services are cut drastically.
Hound Dog May 17, 2009 3:00PM PST
The T bag rallies are legal,loud, and in someways, pointless. There is a lot of anger in our Country,some of it well founded, some of it politically motivated. The signs being carried were anti tax, anti schwaenegger anti Democrat,anti Obama,pretty much anti everything government.. The crowed was whipped up by John and Ken who pushed all the buttons they knew would rouse the group. Tea Parties are fine, but I think folks need to help come up with real answers to real problems. No new taxes sounds good but it is only a slogan. No one wants to pay taxes. Personally I'm interested in the manner in which our taxes are being spent.I was asking the same questions during the Bush Administration but not a Tea bagger was evident at that time. No easy answers on that question either. Complainig is easy and therapeutic,solutions are hard and not always popular. I'm hoping that people who are motivated to carry signs and protest will also, through their elected officials, find "real" answers. The original Tea bag prostest in Boston harbor was aginst tax without reprsentation. This one seems to be against taxation with representation.
Friday, May 15, 2009
VUSD Hero, Elizabeth Jaka, Pushes to Open Third HS
Elizabeth Jaka continues her outstanding reign of service to the students and taxpayers of VUSD by suggesting that the new high school open temporarily at Washington Middle School where there is extra room behind the school. The first few hundred students will start next September. Otherwise VUSD students would have to wait an additional year for their new third high school.
Here is the article in the NCTimes reporting her brilliant suggestion.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/05/15/news/coastal/vista/z8916a8369d444e3a882575b7001af393.txt#tp_newCommentAnchor
This is what the North County Times reported Elizabeth saying about getting the high school opened:
"We have put it off, put it off, put it off and promised and promised," Trustee Elizabeth Jaka said before the vote about the delays the school has already seen. Not opening the school this year would cause the district to lose credibility, she said, and be unfair to the students who have signed up for it.
Thank you, Elizabeth!
Let's get this high school started. The VUSD community has suffered through three previous failed bond issues from 1985 through 1999, the one in 1999 failed by only a few hundred votes. Any one of those bonds would have had our third high school built more than a decade ago and on cheaper more centrally located land. Too bad our ANTI friends did not support those bonds. Think of the taxpayer money that could have been saved if the third high school had been built when construction and land costs were so much less.
Finally in 2002, the VUSD community passed Prop O and money was available to build that third high school. Sadly our two ANTI board members Jim Gibson and Stephen Guffanti refused to be the necessary fourth vote for VUSD to acquire the only graded level site that was large enough for a high school and still available inside our district boundaries.
The VUSD community thought we would get a new high school right away, but no. Our Gibson and Guffanti, who are more interested in non-VUSD issues like Prop 8 and Carrie Prejean, refused to be the fourth necessary vote. That site was the Jay Kawano property behind Strawberry Hill. It would have cost only one million dollars.
Instead we are five years later at a much more expensive site to buy (17.7 million) that was neither level or graded and has required many, many millions more dollars of tax payer money for grading and site preparation.
What could have been a fifty or sixty million dollar high school in 2002 will now cost taxpayers of VUSD at least a 100 million dollars.
Let's elect more school board members like Elizabeth Jaka, Angela Chunka, Carol Herrera, and Steve Lilly who have broad community support and believe in using VUSD taxpayer bond money to build a new high school as quickly and cheaply as possible.
Too bad all four were not on the school board in 2002 or we would have had the votes for building a much cheaper high school that could have been built by September 2005. That wonderful opportunity was denied to the taxpayers and students in VUSD by two minority voting members (Gibson and Guffanti) either of who could have volunteered to be the necessary fourth vote.
I wonder if Gibson and Guffanti would have refused to be the needed fourth vote if any of their school age children or their supporter's children actually attended VUSD schools.
Thank goodness Guffanti after the last election is no longer on our school board.
Jim Gibson can do less damage to the taxpayer now that he is only one vote. But he has demonstrated that he can still damage VUSD reputation by stirring controversy on non education matters like his request for a Carrie Prejean Day. Sad that extremists like Gibson and Guffanti with other than education agendas were ever elected to our VUSD board.
Here is the article in the NCTimes reporting her brilliant suggestion.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/05/15/news/coastal/vista/z8916a8369d444e3a882575b7001af393.txt#tp_newCommentAnchor
This is what the North County Times reported Elizabeth saying about getting the high school opened:
"We have put it off, put it off, put it off and promised and promised," Trustee Elizabeth Jaka said before the vote about the delays the school has already seen. Not opening the school this year would cause the district to lose credibility, she said, and be unfair to the students who have signed up for it.
Thank you, Elizabeth!
Let's get this high school started. The VUSD community has suffered through three previous failed bond issues from 1985 through 1999, the one in 1999 failed by only a few hundred votes. Any one of those bonds would have had our third high school built more than a decade ago and on cheaper more centrally located land. Too bad our ANTI friends did not support those bonds. Think of the taxpayer money that could have been saved if the third high school had been built when construction and land costs were so much less.
Finally in 2002, the VUSD community passed Prop O and money was available to build that third high school. Sadly our two ANTI board members Jim Gibson and Stephen Guffanti refused to be the necessary fourth vote for VUSD to acquire the only graded level site that was large enough for a high school and still available inside our district boundaries.
The VUSD community thought we would get a new high school right away, but no. Our Gibson and Guffanti, who are more interested in non-VUSD issues like Prop 8 and Carrie Prejean, refused to be the fourth necessary vote. That site was the Jay Kawano property behind Strawberry Hill. It would have cost only one million dollars.
Instead we are five years later at a much more expensive site to buy (17.7 million) that was neither level or graded and has required many, many millions more dollars of tax payer money for grading and site preparation.
What could have been a fifty or sixty million dollar high school in 2002 will now cost taxpayers of VUSD at least a 100 million dollars.
Let's elect more school board members like Elizabeth Jaka, Angela Chunka, Carol Herrera, and Steve Lilly who have broad community support and believe in using VUSD taxpayer bond money to build a new high school as quickly and cheaply as possible.
Too bad all four were not on the school board in 2002 or we would have had the votes for building a much cheaper high school that could have been built by September 2005. That wonderful opportunity was denied to the taxpayers and students in VUSD by two minority voting members (Gibson and Guffanti) either of who could have volunteered to be the necessary fourth vote.
I wonder if Gibson and Guffanti would have refused to be the needed fourth vote if any of their school age children or their supporter's children actually attended VUSD schools.
Thank goodness Guffanti after the last election is no longer on our school board.
Jim Gibson can do less damage to the taxpayer now that he is only one vote. But he has demonstrated that he can still damage VUSD reputation by stirring controversy on non education matters like his request for a Carrie Prejean Day. Sad that extremists like Gibson and Guffanti with other than education agendas were ever elected to our VUSD board.
Gibson's Political Grandstand on Prejean generates huge crowds
Our lone ANTI board member Jim Gibson managed to generate a lot of attention for himself with his request to declare June 1, Carrie Prejean Day.
Hundreds came to the VUSD school board meeting last night.
Read more about it in the NCTimes here:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/05/14/news/coastal/vista/z3b24cd1550963a8a882575b7001c52ec.txt
Too bad Jim Gibson did not use his flair for making political headlines into the cause of getting the third high school built. Imagine if Jim Gibson had made getting that his goal in the the 2002 school board election instead of campaigning against the cheap level fifty acre one million dollar Jay Kawano site with his fear and smear campaign calling it a 10,000 car mega school.
He got a lot of political donations but cost VUSD millions of dollars. Now instead of having a fifty million dollar high school slated to be finished by September 2005 we have at least a 100 million dollar high school at a much worst, much more hilly site that will not be opened until at least January of 2010.
Hundreds came to the VUSD school board meeting last night.
Read more about it in the NCTimes here:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/05/14/news/coastal/vista/z3b24cd1550963a8a882575b7001c52ec.txt
Too bad Jim Gibson did not use his flair for making political headlines into the cause of getting the third high school built. Imagine if Jim Gibson had made getting that his goal in the the 2002 school board election instead of campaigning against the cheap level fifty acre one million dollar Jay Kawano site with his fear and smear campaign calling it a 10,000 car mega school.
He got a lot of political donations but cost VUSD millions of dollars. Now instead of having a fifty million dollar high school slated to be finished by September 2005 we have at least a 100 million dollar high school at a much worst, much more hilly site that will not be opened until at least January of 2010.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
$1500 to $3700 per teacher pay cut next year if Props 1A-1E fail
The governor announced today his "May revise" budget. These are announced every year to take into consideration new information as it comes up. Schwarzenegger announced two budgets. One for if Prop 1A through 1E* pass and one if they don't.
Right now 1A through 1E are failing at the polls. (1F may pass). The Republicans are running a massive campaign to defeat them. TODAY in the last three hours, I have had TWO different scripted robo calls at my home urging a NO vote on these props--each from the Republican party--one featured an Orange County supervisor reading the script.
KFI AM 640 radio station hosts John and Ken are daily using their four hours of afternoon drive time broadcast to defeat these propositions. No time is given to competing views. There is NO FAIRNESS DOCTRINE at KFI. I recommend boycotting John and Ken's advertisers. KFI claims to have one million listeners.
If they are not passed next Tuesday The governor May Revise budget says that he will cut 7.5 days out of the school year which will reduce our salaries by the percentage of those days out of our school year.
Read: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CALIFORNIA_BUDGET?SITE=CAPOR&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Here are the two key sentences from the above article:
If voters reject the ballot measures next week, as polls indicate they are inclined to do, education will be cut by a total of $5.4 billion and the school year will be shortened by 7.5 days. Schwarzenegger said that will lead to teacher layoffs and larger class sizes.
VUSD teachers have already given up one day to maintain class size reduction in the K-3 classrooms for next year. We will give up 8.5 days of pay next year if 1A through 1F fail.
For VUSD teachers will lose between $1563 to $3750 from their yearly salary. Is it worth a few thousand dollars to you to help get these measures passed? Come volunteer to make phone calls. Call CTA San Marcos office today at 760 744-4108.
Here are the figures for salary reductions in the Vista Unified School District if Props 1A through 1E* fail:
Average VUSD teacher salary reduction: 8.5 divided by 185= 0.0459x $63,443 = $2912
Lowest paid teacher salary reduction: 8.5 divided by 185 =0.0459 x 34,043 = $1563
Highest paid teacher salary reduction: 8.5 divided by 185=0.0459 x 81,703 = $3750
Average, high, and low salaries are based on the state wide teacher salary information given by the Sacramento Bee at the following URL:
http://www.sacbee.com/1098/story/995141.html?appSession=80478235118357
Vista Unified Salary average, high and low are at this specific URL on the Sac Bee website:
http://www.sacbee.com/1098/story/995141.html?appSession=56186918375992&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=1&cpipage=2&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=
*Editor's Note: I recommend a NO on Prop 1F. This proposition gives the state no additional money. It's only purpose is to penalize middle class income state senators and assembly persons if the minority party millionaires decide to have another temper tantrum in Sacramento next year and refuse to pass a balanced budget.
The goal of the minority party in Sacramento in placing Prop 1F on the ballet is to force the lower wealth senators and assembly persons of the majority party to give in to their draconian demands or face personal financial ruin.
Right now 1A through 1E are failing at the polls. (1F may pass). The Republicans are running a massive campaign to defeat them. TODAY in the last three hours, I have had TWO different scripted robo calls at my home urging a NO vote on these props--each from the Republican party--one featured an Orange County supervisor reading the script.
KFI AM 640 radio station hosts John and Ken are daily using their four hours of afternoon drive time broadcast to defeat these propositions. No time is given to competing views. There is NO FAIRNESS DOCTRINE at KFI. I recommend boycotting John and Ken's advertisers. KFI claims to have one million listeners.
If they are not passed next Tuesday The governor May Revise budget says that he will cut 7.5 days out of the school year which will reduce our salaries by the percentage of those days out of our school year.
Read: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CALIFORNIA_BUDGET?SITE=CAPOR&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Here are the two key sentences from the above article:
If voters reject the ballot measures next week, as polls indicate they are inclined to do, education will be cut by a total of $5.4 billion and the school year will be shortened by 7.5 days. Schwarzenegger said that will lead to teacher layoffs and larger class sizes.
VUSD teachers have already given up one day to maintain class size reduction in the K-3 classrooms for next year. We will give up 8.5 days of pay next year if 1A through 1F fail.
For VUSD teachers will lose between $1563 to $3750 from their yearly salary. Is it worth a few thousand dollars to you to help get these measures passed? Come volunteer to make phone calls. Call CTA San Marcos office today at 760 744-4108.
Here are the figures for salary reductions in the Vista Unified School District if Props 1A through 1E* fail:
Average VUSD teacher salary reduction: 8.5 divided by 185= 0.0459x $63,443 = $2912
Lowest paid teacher salary reduction: 8.5 divided by 185 =0.0459 x 34,043 = $1563
Highest paid teacher salary reduction: 8.5 divided by 185=0.0459 x 81,703 = $3750
Average, high, and low salaries are based on the state wide teacher salary information given by the Sacramento Bee at the following URL:
http://www.sacbee.com/1098/story/995141.html?appSession=80478235118357
Vista Unified Salary average, high and low are at this specific URL on the Sac Bee website:
http://www.sacbee.com/1098/story/995141.html?appSession=56186918375992&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=1&cpipage=2&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=
*Editor's Note: I recommend a NO on Prop 1F. This proposition gives the state no additional money. It's only purpose is to penalize middle class income state senators and assembly persons if the minority party millionaires decide to have another temper tantrum in Sacramento next year and refuse to pass a balanced budget.
The goal of the minority party in Sacramento in placing Prop 1F on the ballet is to force the lower wealth senators and assembly persons of the majority party to give in to their draconian demands or face personal financial ruin.
Textbooks on line OK'ed by California Senate
The California State Senate has agreed to allow school districts to use state text book funds to purchase on-line testbooks.
The Senate Bill has to be approved by the California State Assembly and signed by the governor.
I believe it is likely to get both Assembly approval and the governor's signature. Everyone wants to appear high tech especially elected officials. I predict very little opposition.
Here are a few paragraphs from the article in the LATimes:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-school-books12-2009may12,0,3863262.story
Senate approves software as an alternative to textbooks
L.A. Unified supports the bill, which moves to the Assembly.
By Patrick McGreevy
May 12, 2009
Reporting from Sacramento -- California teenagers may be spared having to lug back-breaking loads of textbooks to school under a proposal that would make it easier for campuses to use electronic instructional material.
Allowing high schools greater freedom to spend state money on software to put textbooks on laptops and other electronic devices was backed by the Los Angeles Unified School District and approved Monday by the state Senate.
The Assembly will consider the proposal, drafted by state Sen. Elaine Alquist (D-Santa Clara). "Today's K-12 students represent the first generation to have spent their entire lives surrounded by and using computers, video games, digital music players, video cameras, cellphones and all the other gadgets of the digital age," Alquist said after the 36-0 Senate vote.
"Today's students are no longer the students of blackboards and chalk."
California law limits how school districts can use state funds for instructional materials, requiring them to purchase enough textbooks for all students before spending money on electronic material.
As a result, some districts have purchased materials in both book form and software or have refrained from buying software, Alquist said.
SB 247 would allow districts to satisfy textbook requirements if they can provide each student with hardware and software that meet the same accessibility requirements that printed textbooks offer.
The rest of the article is at the URL listed above.
The Senate Bill has to be approved by the California State Assembly and signed by the governor.
I believe it is likely to get both Assembly approval and the governor's signature. Everyone wants to appear high tech especially elected officials. I predict very little opposition.
Here are a few paragraphs from the article in the LATimes:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-school-books12-2009may12,0,3863262.story
Senate approves software as an alternative to textbooks
L.A. Unified supports the bill, which moves to the Assembly.
By Patrick McGreevy
May 12, 2009
Reporting from Sacramento -- California teenagers may be spared having to lug back-breaking loads of textbooks to school under a proposal that would make it easier for campuses to use electronic instructional material.
Allowing high schools greater freedom to spend state money on software to put textbooks on laptops and other electronic devices was backed by the Los Angeles Unified School District and approved Monday by the state Senate.
The Assembly will consider the proposal, drafted by state Sen. Elaine Alquist (D-Santa Clara). "Today's K-12 students represent the first generation to have spent their entire lives surrounded by and using computers, video games, digital music players, video cameras, cellphones and all the other gadgets of the digital age," Alquist said after the 36-0 Senate vote.
"Today's students are no longer the students of blackboards and chalk."
California law limits how school districts can use state funds for instructional materials, requiring them to purchase enough textbooks for all students before spending money on electronic material.
As a result, some districts have purchased materials in both book form and software or have refrained from buying software, Alquist said.
SB 247 would allow districts to satisfy textbook requirements if they can provide each student with hardware and software that meet the same accessibility requirements that printed textbooks offer.
The rest of the article is at the URL listed above.
Some legitimate teacher groups oppose Prop 1A
I finally saw the commercial with the teachers opposed to Prop 1A. yes indeed there are two legitimate teacher organizations that oppose Prop 1A. The California branch of the American Federation of Teachers--the second largest K-12 teacher association in California opposes Prop 1A and the California Faculty Association which represents college teachers in the CSU system also opposes Prop 1A.
CTA continues to support all the propositions including Prop 1A and Prop 1F.
I understand that the AFT opposes 1A because it limits the amount of money schools can be funded below what they are guaranteed by Prop 98. AFT believes that schools will get a better deal in court by suing the state to enforce Prop 98 then Prop 1A provides. CTA says maybe that is true but court cases take a VERY long time (years at least), are not a sure thing, and by the way,what do schools do in the meantime for funds? CTA thinks a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Who knows who is right. You decide.
I personally voted NO only on Prop 1F which penalizes working class legislators by denying them pay when wealthy, minority party, millionaires have a temper tantrum and hold up balancing the state budget.
CTA urges a yes vote on 1F. I believe they publicly urge a yes vote as part of a compromise to get school funding propositions on the ballet.
CTA continues to support all the propositions including Prop 1A and Prop 1F.
I understand that the AFT opposes 1A because it limits the amount of money schools can be funded below what they are guaranteed by Prop 98. AFT believes that schools will get a better deal in court by suing the state to enforce Prop 98 then Prop 1A provides. CTA says maybe that is true but court cases take a VERY long time (years at least), are not a sure thing, and by the way,what do schools do in the meantime for funds? CTA thinks a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Who knows who is right. You decide.
I personally voted NO only on Prop 1F which penalizes working class legislators by denying them pay when wealthy, minority party, millionaires have a temper tantrum and hold up balancing the state budget.
CTA urges a yes vote on 1F. I believe they publicly urge a yes vote as part of a compromise to get school funding propositions on the ballet.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
CDC says Swine flu is widespread across US
The three thousand plus confirmed cases in the United States greatly underestimates the total number or actual cases in the US according to CDC. Be aware any of your children could be ill even without traditional symptoms of fever. Be on the lookout for cough and nausea vomiting diarrhea.
Pregnant women (immune system suppressed by fetus) and those with asthma are at highest risk of death. Current death rate for swine flu based on Mexico City case studies is between 4 per thousand and possibly as high as 1 0r 2 per hundred. Death rate in US has been much lower so far.
Now 3,352 cases of new flu in US, CDC says
Wed May 13, 2009 11:21am EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE54B4V820090513?sp=true
CHICAGO (Reuters) - The United States now has 3,352 confirmed cases of the new H1N1 influenza across 45 states and Washington, D.C., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on Wednesday.
The outbreak of swine flu has been mostly mild in the United States, with only three deaths, the CDC said in a statement.
CDC officials have said the virus is widespread across the country and testing is greatly underestimating the true number of cases.
(Reporting by Julie Steenhuysen, Editing by Sandra Maler)
Pregnant women (immune system suppressed by fetus) and those with asthma are at highest risk of death. Current death rate for swine flu based on Mexico City case studies is between 4 per thousand and possibly as high as 1 0r 2 per hundred. Death rate in US has been much lower so far.
Now 3,352 cases of new flu in US, CDC says
Wed May 13, 2009 11:21am EDT
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE54B4V820090513?sp=true
CHICAGO (Reuters) - The United States now has 3,352 confirmed cases of the new H1N1 influenza across 45 states and Washington, D.C., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on Wednesday.
The outbreak of swine flu has been mostly mild in the United States, with only three deaths, the CDC said in a statement.
CDC officials have said the virus is widespread across the country and testing is greatly underestimating the true number of cases.
(Reporting by Julie Steenhuysen, Editing by Sandra Maler)
Many Swine Flu cases have no fever
Up to a third of swine flu cases in Mexico have no fever. Be aware that students sick with this new flu may not have traditional symptoms of flu.
Read:
May 13, 2009
Many Swine Flu Cases Have No Fever
By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN
Many people suffering from swine influenza, even those who are severely ill, do not have fever, an odd feature of the new virus that could increase the difficulty of controlling the epidemic, said a leading American infectious-disease expert who examined cases in Mexico last week.
Fever is a hallmark of influenza, often rising abruptly to 104 degrees at the onset of illness. Because many infectious-disease experts consider fever the most important sign of the disease, the presence of fever is a critical part of screening patients.
But about a third of the patients at two hospitals in Mexico City where the American expert, Dr. Richard P. Wenzel, consulted for four days last week had no fever when screened, he said.
“It surprised me and my Mexican colleagues, because the textbooks say that in an influenza outbreak the predictive value of fever and cough is 90 percent,” Dr. Wenzel said by telephone from Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, where he is chairman of the department of internal medicine.
The rest of the article is at this url:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13fever.html
Read:
May 13, 2009
Many Swine Flu Cases Have No Fever
By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN
Many people suffering from swine influenza, even those who are severely ill, do not have fever, an odd feature of the new virus that could increase the difficulty of controlling the epidemic, said a leading American infectious-disease expert who examined cases in Mexico last week.
Fever is a hallmark of influenza, often rising abruptly to 104 degrees at the onset of illness. Because many infectious-disease experts consider fever the most important sign of the disease, the presence of fever is a critical part of screening patients.
But about a third of the patients at two hospitals in Mexico City where the American expert, Dr. Richard P. Wenzel, consulted for four days last week had no fever when screened, he said.
“It surprised me and my Mexican colleagues, because the textbooks say that in an influenza outbreak the predictive value of fever and cough is 90 percent,” Dr. Wenzel said by telephone from Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, where he is chairman of the department of internal medicine.
The rest of the article is at this url:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13fever.html
Teacher Retirement Services--a 403b scam?
Just a few minutes ago, we received an unsolicited phone call here at our home from someone calling herself, Debbie. She said she was calling from "Teacher Retirement Services" and she had "The laws have changed and we would like to give you information on a new 403b plan."
She asked for the teacher in our house by name.
I asked her what herlast name was. I heard her say what I thought was "Astro" The teacher in our house on the other phone thought "debbie" said, "Matsua" .
The teacher in our house then asked, "what is your address?" She replied with one word, "Fallbrook" She did not provide an address.
The teacher in our house asked, "what your phone number?"
She replied, "Aren't you interested?"
I asked how she got our name. She replied, "the person I work for, gave me a list"
"Who is that person?" I asked
"Oh aren't you interested?" she evasively answered the question with her same question again.
"Maybe," I replied, "who is the person you work for?"
Click. She hung up with no reply at all
I cannot believe that a legitimate organization would refuse to give their phone number, address or name of their supervisor.
I further object to the way they contact us. They gave the aura of an official call from a government organization. I felt that was their clear intent. They never said we are an independent for profit organization selling 403b plans or anything similar to that. She very much seemed to be trying to confuse us with her opening remarks and with the name of the business that sounds surprisingly official.
Teacher Retirement Services representatives have called us at our home several times in the last month or so.
Last week the representative called asking for the teacher in our home by name and telling that teacher about 'the new laws and the 403b and said that she would be happy to meet with the teacher in our home at our home or at our school.' The teacher in our house said she was not interested.
About thirty minutes later, the same representative called our number again, this time to ask for me by name. I haven't work for the district in about ten years so she is working off an old list.
Unless I hear otherwise from this group, I will consider this group and their product a scam. I suggest you be deeply suspicious of them and any of their products as well.
While I was a teacher in VUSD, I often found post card like "junk mail" from Teacher's Retirement Services in my teacher's mail box and saw that every teacher at the school had them as well--clearly a violation of the use of school mailboxes for VUSD purposes only and not for commercial use.
When I called to complain about the illegitimate use of our mail boxes and their confusing name that sounded like an official State Teacher Retirement System (STRS), i was hung up on. The post cards continued to arrive in our school mail boxes once or twice a month until I retired--years later.
The first time I got their 'post card" in my box, I thought it looked official enough that it was from the State Teacher Retirement Services. I found out later that Teacher Retirement Services is not affiliated with STRS. I recommend that anyone contacted by this organization hang up and refuse to do business with them until this group identifies who they are and where they got our phone numbers from.
I googled Teacher Retirement System and the only response I got was a place in Scottsdale, Arizona
http://www.educatingeducators.com/index.cfm
If any one has additional information on Teacher Retirement Services, I would appreciate hearing from you.
She asked for the teacher in our house by name.
I asked her what herlast name was. I heard her say what I thought was "Astro" The teacher in our house on the other phone thought "debbie" said, "Matsua" .
The teacher in our house then asked, "what is your address?" She replied with one word, "Fallbrook" She did not provide an address.
The teacher in our house asked, "what your phone number?"
She replied, "Aren't you interested?"
I asked how she got our name. She replied, "the person I work for, gave me a list"
"Who is that person?" I asked
"Oh aren't you interested?" she evasively answered the question with her same question again.
"Maybe," I replied, "who is the person you work for?"
Click. She hung up with no reply at all
I cannot believe that a legitimate organization would refuse to give their phone number, address or name of their supervisor.
I further object to the way they contact us. They gave the aura of an official call from a government organization. I felt that was their clear intent. They never said we are an independent for profit organization selling 403b plans or anything similar to that. She very much seemed to be trying to confuse us with her opening remarks and with the name of the business that sounds surprisingly official.
Teacher Retirement Services representatives have called us at our home several times in the last month or so.
Last week the representative called asking for the teacher in our home by name and telling that teacher about 'the new laws and the 403b and said that she would be happy to meet with the teacher in our home at our home or at our school.' The teacher in our house said she was not interested.
About thirty minutes later, the same representative called our number again, this time to ask for me by name. I haven't work for the district in about ten years so she is working off an old list.
Unless I hear otherwise from this group, I will consider this group and their product a scam. I suggest you be deeply suspicious of them and any of their products as well.
While I was a teacher in VUSD, I often found post card like "junk mail" from Teacher's Retirement Services in my teacher's mail box and saw that every teacher at the school had them as well--clearly a violation of the use of school mailboxes for VUSD purposes only and not for commercial use.
When I called to complain about the illegitimate use of our mail boxes and their confusing name that sounded like an official State Teacher Retirement System (STRS), i was hung up on. The post cards continued to arrive in our school mail boxes once or twice a month until I retired--years later.
The first time I got their 'post card" in my box, I thought it looked official enough that it was from the State Teacher Retirement Services. I found out later that Teacher Retirement Services is not affiliated with STRS. I recommend that anyone contacted by this organization hang up and refuse to do business with them until this group identifies who they are and where they got our phone numbers from.
I googled Teacher Retirement System and the only response I got was a place in Scottsdale, Arizona
http://www.educatingeducators.com/index.cfm
If any one has additional information on Teacher Retirement Services, I would appreciate hearing from you.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Phony Teachers Group opposes 1A-1F
Editor Note written days after this was originally posted: I have now seen the commercial in question three times. The two organizations are real. One is the second largest teachers union in California--the American Federation of Teachers, the other is an association representing the faculty at California State Universities. In this case the ads are not some phony front group as I had earlier guessed. Read more about the two teachers group that oppose 1A and 1B on my blog at: http://vistaschools.blogspot.com/ click on: Some legitimate teacher groups oppose Prop 1A
The rest of this blog post is apparently wrong. There seems to be no phony teacher's group created just to oppose the passage of 1A and 1B. I will highlight the original post in red. I leave it up because our ANTI friends have often used the tactic of a phony group made up to oppose something they do no like. Move Foward America to try to mock and dilute the power of MoveOn.org., The Center for Consumer Freedom, a group funded by restaurants and food companies to oppose common sense health regulations, Competitive Enterprise Institute to promote oil and coal company pollution agendas and on and on. We should always be suspecious of organizations even with nice sounding names as too often now a days, they have been create to advance goals that harm average Americans and benefit a wealthy few.
My three apparently incorrect paragraphs are highlighted in red below, The references to the articles following are correct and the rest of the blog entry are correct as well.
Two close relatives have told me that they have seen ads on TV by some organization calling itself the American Faculty of Teachers. I googled the group and could not find it. The ads say that teachers oppose 1A through 1F. Yeah, right. We teachers really want the state to go from 15 billion in debt to twenty three billion if the propositions do not pass.
This commercial is of course made by a state wide group of ANTI-public education folks with funding from wealthy extremists who view FACT based public education as a danger to their prejudges and factually challenged worldview.
The ads are phony. Do not be fooled. Instead be outraged.
Call CTA San Marcos office and offer to help make phone calls to support 1A - 1F. The phone number of CTA San Marcos office is 760-744-4108
Time is running out. There will be massive education cuts (even more than we will have to have anyway) if 1A through 1F do not pass. Tens of thousands of teachers will laid off at minimum. Probably the school year will be cut by a week or two with salaries taken down as a percentage of those days divided by 180 school days times our teacher salaries. The consequences of failure of 1A through 1F will be the most catastrophic to schools since Prop 13 passed forty years ago.
Of course our ANTI friends say dire predictions are all phony, but in this case the dire warnings are real and imminent. The scale of the massive debt is so great that even if prison guard, state government worker and CHP person is laid off, the savings for the state are barely half of what will be needed to balance the budget (according to the LA Times). See:
Twenty three billion is truly a massive colossal number that will hurt us all in the state far more than a small tax increase would.
Read more at the following URLs:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap13-2009apr13,0,3757188.column?page=2
From the Los Angeles Times
CAPITOL JOURNAL
Sharing the state's fiscal pain
Polls show voter skepticism about the measures.
But if they're rejected, the electorate had better be prepared for sharper cuts in other social services, as well as schools. There's already a projected $8-billion deficit for the next fiscal year. If Props. 1D and 1E fail, the hole will get nearly $1 billion deeper.
Most likely to be rejected is Prop. 1C, which would allow the state to borrow $5 billion against future lottery winnings. If the three props go down, the hole grows to $14 billion.
Another tax hike seems improbable.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-california-budget-crisis8-2009may08,0,7342537.story
From the Los Angeles Times
California could be broke by July, state official warns
Despite the budget fix enacted in February, the state is on track to come up $23 billion short of what it needs to get through the year, the Legislature's chief budget analyst says.
By Evan Halper and Eric Bailey
10:26 PM PDT, May 7, 2009
The rest of this blog post is apparently wrong. There seems to be no phony teacher's group created just to oppose the passage of 1A and 1B. I will highlight the original post in red. I leave it up because our ANTI friends have often used the tactic of a phony group made up to oppose something they do no like. Move Foward America to try to mock and dilute the power of MoveOn.org., The Center for Consumer Freedom, a group funded by restaurants and food companies to oppose common sense health regulations, Competitive Enterprise Institute to promote oil and coal company pollution agendas and on and on. We should always be suspecious of organizations even with nice sounding names as too often now a days, they have been create to advance goals that harm average Americans and benefit a wealthy few.
My three apparently incorrect paragraphs are highlighted in red below, The references to the articles following are correct and the rest of the blog entry are correct as well.
Two close relatives have told me that they have seen ads on TV by some organization calling itself the American Faculty of Teachers. I googled the group and could not find it. The ads say that teachers oppose 1A through 1F. Yeah, right. We teachers really want the state to go from 15 billion in debt to twenty three billion if the propositions do not pass.
This commercial is of course made by a state wide group of ANTI-public education folks with funding from wealthy extremists who view FACT based public education as a danger to their prejudges and factually challenged worldview.
The ads are phony. Do not be fooled. Instead be outraged.
Call CTA San Marcos office and offer to help make phone calls to support 1A - 1F. The phone number of CTA San Marcos office is 760-744-4108
Time is running out. There will be massive education cuts (even more than we will have to have anyway) if 1A through 1F do not pass. Tens of thousands of teachers will laid off at minimum. Probably the school year will be cut by a week or two with salaries taken down as a percentage of those days divided by 180 school days times our teacher salaries. The consequences of failure of 1A through 1F will be the most catastrophic to schools since Prop 13 passed forty years ago.
Of course our ANTI friends say dire predictions are all phony, but in this case the dire warnings are real and imminent. The scale of the massive debt is so great that even if prison guard, state government worker and CHP person is laid off, the savings for the state are barely half of what will be needed to balance the budget (according to the LA Times). See:
Twenty three billion is truly a massive colossal number that will hurt us all in the state far more than a small tax increase would.
Read more at the following URLs:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap13-2009apr13,0,3757188.column?page=2
From the Los Angeles Times
CAPITOL JOURNAL
Sharing the state's fiscal pain
Polls show voter skepticism about the measures.
But if they're rejected, the electorate had better be prepared for sharper cuts in other social services, as well as schools. There's already a projected $8-billion deficit for the next fiscal year. If Props. 1D and 1E fail, the hole will get nearly $1 billion deeper.
Most likely to be rejected is Prop. 1C, which would allow the state to borrow $5 billion against future lottery winnings. If the three props go down, the hole grows to $14 billion.
Another tax hike seems improbable.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-california-budget-crisis8-2009may08,0,7342537.story
From the Los Angeles Times
California could be broke by July, state official warns
Despite the budget fix enacted in February, the state is on track to come up $23 billion short of what it needs to get through the year, the Legislature's chief budget analyst says.
By Evan Halper and Eric Bailey
10:26 PM PDT, May 7, 2009
Teacher Tenure--a problem?
Teacher tenure has become a hot button issue in our local newspaper blogs and in the Los Angeles Times which has been running a series of hit pieces targeting public education and school teachers.
Of course all California classroom teachers understand that there is NO TEACHER TENURE IN CALIFORNIA. See the California Education Code on line at:
You will find no mention of tenure. K-12 teachers in California can become permanent with due process rights but no K-12 teacher has tenure. Permanent teachers only have the right to a hearing before they are fired (non re elected) and to have evidence presented at that hearing against them. Probationary teachers have NO RIGHTS. They can be fired for no reason other than a principal's whim.
Before collective bargaining no teachers had safe jobs. No teacher had any right to a hearing or to hear evidence of why they were being fired. There were no standards of misconduct that would result in firing. At that time wearing the wrong clothing could be a firing offense for a teacher.
Both my in-laws were California public school teachers as was my father. All three had tales of horror from the time before collective bargaining and required procedures with evidence needed for firing a teacher.
When my father in law was a very young teacher, in his first or second year; he taught at a small high school--under one thousand students. At that high school he met and grew to know an older English teacher who he had a lot of respect for. She had been at the school for over twenty years and her students and former students loved her.
In my father in laws final year at the high school, the principal at the school decided to let that English teacher go at the end of the year because the principal's nephew had just graduated from teaching college and needed a job. His nephew wanted to be an English teacher (credentials then were general secondary and a teacher could teach any class they felt comfortable in).
The principal made no secret of why he let her go nor did he need to. At the time teacher's had no rights to a fair hearing or an agreed upon set of violation that a teacher could be fired for. My father in law decided, he did not want to stay at a school run by such a man and he left for a nearby district. Easier for him to do then the older English teacher, as he was young and had no family or home in the town.
The principal suffered no consequences from the firing of the English teacher other than having a young music teacher (my father in law) leave. Those kind of arbitrary and unfair hiring and firing practices were the rule not the exception before due process and collective bargaining.
At that time it was common for women teachers to be paid less than men teachers who were teaching the same subjects. The reason given was that men had to support families and for women salaries were for pocket change or frivolous unneeded spending.
It was also common for principal's to decide the salary of every teacher at the school and use criteria like this teacher had three children that one was single so the one with children was paid more.
Husbands and wives could not be hired to teach in the same school district because that was double dipping.
Teachers were only hire if they agreed to live and shop in the small towns where the school was located, so that the town's money stayed in the town.
At my father first job, hewas required to come to the school at the whim of the school board to set up chairs and tables for meetings of various community groups on the weekends or after school, whenever any community group wanted to use the school. He was expected to stay for the entire meeting and take down and put away the tables and chairs afterwards. All for no extra pay beyond his teacher's salary.
He vividly remembers a Saturday evening when a prominent local men's club decided they wanted a dinner at the school. My father had to go there before eating at home to set up, stay for the dinner and speeches and then take down the tables and chairs (from approximately 4 PM until 9PM). He was hungry the whole time he was there. He remembers looking longlily at the food, telling the guy in charge that he had not eaten and was hungry. But he was given no food and no chance to go get food anywhere else. All as part of his duties as teacher in that community and all for his standard teacher pay and no more. The idea in those days was the community paid a teacher's salary, therefore, his time belonged to the community whether that time was during the school day or not.
Want a more recent example? The son of some good (thirty plus) year friends of ours obtained a job as a probationary teacher at a middle school three years ago. The principal asked him to also coach several sports. His first year he agreed to every request. He felt too intimidated to say no as a new hire.
In his second year in January, his principal came to him and asked him to be the coach for the THIRD time in THAT year. He declined saying he just did not think he could coach again and do the kind of job he wanted to do as a teacher.
He was let go at the end of the year (non-re-elected). He can not prove that it was his refusal to coach the third sport in one year because under current California Educational Code no reason for non re-election need be given to probationary teachers. However, he felt the principal's positive attitude and comments toward him ended as soon as he refused to coach that third sport. This year he is a substitute teacher. He and his wife had planned last year that when he was re-rehired as permanent, they would try for their first child. He wasn't re-hired so there is no child on the way and our friends grandparenting days have been delayed. So many consequences for putting teaching first over coaching a third sport in one year.
There is now a major movement among our statewide ANTI friends here in California to allow school districts to fire experienced and better paid older teachers before younger teachers when budgets are reduced by this recession. There will likely be massive reductions in staff in virtually every district in the state if 1A through 1F fail. Read the one sided hatchet job by the LA Times here: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teachers3-2009may03,0,679507.story
Here is an article send to me by a supporter of PRO-public education. (I will not publish her name unless she gives me permission). The article is in an American Federation of Teachers publication.
http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/spring2009/notebook.htm
American Educator - Spring 2009 - Notebook
Dispelling Myths about Teacher "Tenure"
Education Historian Diane Ravitch on Teachers' Unions
Since February 2007, two leading figures in education, Deborah Meier and Diane Ravitch, have been debating public education-its strengths, weaknesses, improvement strategies, and more-in a blog called Bridging Differences. (A complete archive is available by clicking here) The following is excerpted with permission from Diane Ravitch's post on February 3, 2009.
RECENTLY, AN OLD FRIEND who is a businessman and philanthropist sent me a copy of a speech that he gave at Channel 13's Celebration of Teaching and Learning. For many years, he and his family have very generously supported a school for gifted children in one of New York City's poorest neighborhoods. The main conclusion of his speech was that the obstacle to educating all children well is the union, because the principal cannot hire and fire and assign teachers as he or she wants. He asked me what I thought of his ideas.
I responded that I was puzzled. The unions don't seem to cause low performance in the wealthy suburban districts that surround our city. They don't seem to be a problem for the nations that regularly register high scores on international tests. If getting rid of the unions were the solution to the problem of low performance, then why, I asked him, do the southern states-where unions are weak or nonexistent-continue to perform worse than states with strong unions? And how can we explain the strong union presence in Massachusetts, which is the nation's highest performing state on the National Assessment of Educational Progress? I suggested that low performance must be caused by something else other than teachers' unions. I have not yet received a reply, so I suppose he is thinking about it.
It actually doesn't seem to be all that hard to get rid of incompetent teachers. It appears that 40 percent of all those who enter teaching are gone within five years, according to research that I have seen. In every district, to my knowledge, teachers do not gain due process rights for three years (in some places, it takes five). During those three to five years, their supervisors have plenty of time and opportunity to evaluate them and tell them to leave teaching.
Then, when they have passed the three- or five-year mark, they have due process rights. They cannot be terminated without cause and due process. Although that is usually referred to as tenure, it really is not tenure. In higher education, tenure is an iron-clad guarantee of lifetime employment except for very egregious causes. Teachers do not have that. They have the right to due process. Many administrators would like to fire teachers without due process. I can't blame teachers for wanting protection from arbitrary administrators, especially now, when there are quite a few high-profile superintendents who like to grab headlines by threatening to fire teachers.
The right to form and join a union is one of the rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 23). I made several trips to Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union before the end of the Cold War and met many teachers who were eager to belong to a union that would protect their interests. The state did not want unions or tolerated only faux-unions.
I read recently that membership in unions is now under 10 percent of the private-sector workforce. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich wrote in the Los Angeles Times not long ago that the unions helped our nation build a solid middle class. Now, in these difficult times, we may again see a turn to unionism, and for all the predictable reasons, having to do with protection from arbitrary and capricious management to economic security to the demand to have a voice in decisions about the workplace.
Here is another attack on experienced tenured teachers in today's LATimes:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teachers13-2009may13,0,3359575.story
From the Los Angeles Times
School board members acknowledge swifter firings are needed
Four L.A. Unified board members say state laws need to be changed to get rid of underperforming teachers. Support for such efforts has increased in the wake of a Times investigation.
By Jason Song
May 13, 2009
A majority of Los Angeles school board members said Tuesday that they believe state laws governing teacher discipline need to be revised to allow more swift and effective removal of substandard teachers and other employees, although they acknowledged that changes appear unlikely this year.
In a recent series of articles detailing the lengthy and arduous process of dismissing tenured teachers and other educators in California, The Times found that firing a permanent teacher can often take years of paperwork and hearings. Such instructors can appeal their dismissals to specially convened state boards, which have overturned firings more than a third of the time.
Of course all California classroom teachers understand that there is NO TEACHER TENURE IN CALIFORNIA. See the California Education Code on line at:
You will find no mention of tenure. K-12 teachers in California can become permanent with due process rights but no K-12 teacher has tenure. Permanent teachers only have the right to a hearing before they are fired (non re elected) and to have evidence presented at that hearing against them. Probationary teachers have NO RIGHTS. They can be fired for no reason other than a principal's whim.
Before collective bargaining no teachers had safe jobs. No teacher had any right to a hearing or to hear evidence of why they were being fired. There were no standards of misconduct that would result in firing. At that time wearing the wrong clothing could be a firing offense for a teacher.
Both my in-laws were California public school teachers as was my father. All three had tales of horror from the time before collective bargaining and required procedures with evidence needed for firing a teacher.
When my father in law was a very young teacher, in his first or second year; he taught at a small high school--under one thousand students. At that high school he met and grew to know an older English teacher who he had a lot of respect for. She had been at the school for over twenty years and her students and former students loved her.
In my father in laws final year at the high school, the principal at the school decided to let that English teacher go at the end of the year because the principal's nephew had just graduated from teaching college and needed a job. His nephew wanted to be an English teacher (credentials then were general secondary and a teacher could teach any class they felt comfortable in).
The principal made no secret of why he let her go nor did he need to. At the time teacher's had no rights to a fair hearing or an agreed upon set of violation that a teacher could be fired for. My father in law decided, he did not want to stay at a school run by such a man and he left for a nearby district. Easier for him to do then the older English teacher, as he was young and had no family or home in the town.
The principal suffered no consequences from the firing of the English teacher other than having a young music teacher (my father in law) leave. Those kind of arbitrary and unfair hiring and firing practices were the rule not the exception before due process and collective bargaining.
At that time it was common for women teachers to be paid less than men teachers who were teaching the same subjects. The reason given was that men had to support families and for women salaries were for pocket change or frivolous unneeded spending.
It was also common for principal's to decide the salary of every teacher at the school and use criteria like this teacher had three children that one was single so the one with children was paid more.
Husbands and wives could not be hired to teach in the same school district because that was double dipping.
Teachers were only hire if they agreed to live and shop in the small towns where the school was located, so that the town's money stayed in the town.
At my father first job, hewas required to come to the school at the whim of the school board to set up chairs and tables for meetings of various community groups on the weekends or after school, whenever any community group wanted to use the school. He was expected to stay for the entire meeting and take down and put away the tables and chairs afterwards. All for no extra pay beyond his teacher's salary.
He vividly remembers a Saturday evening when a prominent local men's club decided they wanted a dinner at the school. My father had to go there before eating at home to set up, stay for the dinner and speeches and then take down the tables and chairs (from approximately 4 PM until 9PM). He was hungry the whole time he was there. He remembers looking longlily at the food, telling the guy in charge that he had not eaten and was hungry. But he was given no food and no chance to go get food anywhere else. All as part of his duties as teacher in that community and all for his standard teacher pay and no more. The idea in those days was the community paid a teacher's salary, therefore, his time belonged to the community whether that time was during the school day or not.
Want a more recent example? The son of some good (thirty plus) year friends of ours obtained a job as a probationary teacher at a middle school three years ago. The principal asked him to also coach several sports. His first year he agreed to every request. He felt too intimidated to say no as a new hire.
In his second year in January, his principal came to him and asked him to be the coach for the THIRD time in THAT year. He declined saying he just did not think he could coach again and do the kind of job he wanted to do as a teacher.
He was let go at the end of the year (non-re-elected). He can not prove that it was his refusal to coach the third sport in one year because under current California Educational Code no reason for non re-election need be given to probationary teachers. However, he felt the principal's positive attitude and comments toward him ended as soon as he refused to coach that third sport. This year he is a substitute teacher. He and his wife had planned last year that when he was re-rehired as permanent, they would try for their first child. He wasn't re-hired so there is no child on the way and our friends grandparenting days have been delayed. So many consequences for putting teaching first over coaching a third sport in one year.
There is now a major movement among our statewide ANTI friends here in California to allow school districts to fire experienced and better paid older teachers before younger teachers when budgets are reduced by this recession. There will likely be massive reductions in staff in virtually every district in the state if 1A through 1F fail. Read the one sided hatchet job by the LA Times here: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teachers3-2009may03,0,679507.story
Here is an article send to me by a supporter of PRO-public education. (I will not publish her name unless she gives me permission). The article is in an American Federation of Teachers publication.
http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/spring2009/notebook.htm
American Educator - Spring 2009 - Notebook
Dispelling Myths about Teacher "Tenure"
Education Historian Diane Ravitch on Teachers' Unions
Since February 2007, two leading figures in education, Deborah Meier and Diane Ravitch, have been debating public education-its strengths, weaknesses, improvement strategies, and more-in a blog called Bridging Differences. (A complete archive is available by clicking here) The following is excerpted with permission from Diane Ravitch's post on February 3, 2009.
RECENTLY, AN OLD FRIEND who is a businessman and philanthropist sent me a copy of a speech that he gave at Channel 13's Celebration of Teaching and Learning. For many years, he and his family have very generously supported a school for gifted children in one of New York City's poorest neighborhoods. The main conclusion of his speech was that the obstacle to educating all children well is the union, because the principal cannot hire and fire and assign teachers as he or she wants. He asked me what I thought of his ideas.
I responded that I was puzzled. The unions don't seem to cause low performance in the wealthy suburban districts that surround our city. They don't seem to be a problem for the nations that regularly register high scores on international tests. If getting rid of the unions were the solution to the problem of low performance, then why, I asked him, do the southern states-where unions are weak or nonexistent-continue to perform worse than states with strong unions? And how can we explain the strong union presence in Massachusetts, which is the nation's highest performing state on the National Assessment of Educational Progress? I suggested that low performance must be caused by something else other than teachers' unions. I have not yet received a reply, so I suppose he is thinking about it.
It actually doesn't seem to be all that hard to get rid of incompetent teachers. It appears that 40 percent of all those who enter teaching are gone within five years, according to research that I have seen. In every district, to my knowledge, teachers do not gain due process rights for three years (in some places, it takes five). During those three to five years, their supervisors have plenty of time and opportunity to evaluate them and tell them to leave teaching.
Then, when they have passed the three- or five-year mark, they have due process rights. They cannot be terminated without cause and due process. Although that is usually referred to as tenure, it really is not tenure. In higher education, tenure is an iron-clad guarantee of lifetime employment except for very egregious causes. Teachers do not have that. They have the right to due process. Many administrators would like to fire teachers without due process. I can't blame teachers for wanting protection from arbitrary administrators, especially now, when there are quite a few high-profile superintendents who like to grab headlines by threatening to fire teachers.
The right to form and join a union is one of the rights enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 23). I made several trips to Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union before the end of the Cold War and met many teachers who were eager to belong to a union that would protect their interests. The state did not want unions or tolerated only faux-unions.
I read recently that membership in unions is now under 10 percent of the private-sector workforce. Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich wrote in the Los Angeles Times not long ago that the unions helped our nation build a solid middle class. Now, in these difficult times, we may again see a turn to unionism, and for all the predictable reasons, having to do with protection from arbitrary and capricious management to economic security to the demand to have a voice in decisions about the workplace.
Here is another attack on experienced tenured teachers in today's LATimes:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-teachers13-2009may13,0,3359575.story
From the Los Angeles Times
School board members acknowledge swifter firings are needed
Four L.A. Unified board members say state laws need to be changed to get rid of underperforming teachers. Support for such efforts has increased in the wake of a Times investigation.
By Jason Song
May 13, 2009
A majority of Los Angeles school board members said Tuesday that they believe state laws governing teacher discipline need to be revised to allow more swift and effective removal of substandard teachers and other employees, although they acknowledged that changes appear unlikely this year.
In a recent series of articles detailing the lengthy and arduous process of dismissing tenured teachers and other educators in California, The Times found that firing a permanent teacher can often take years of paperwork and hearings. Such instructors can appeal their dismissals to specially convened state boards, which have overturned firings more than a third of the time.
Letha McWey, a VUSD Hero! Compare her life to an ANTI
I talked to someone a few days ago who knew Letha and was told that Letha was helping out at the high school with an anti-drunk driving campaign for our VUSD students.
I was reminded of all the wonderful volunteer work she has done for our district over the last twenty or twenty five years. I believe she has been PTA president at three different schools. She has organized countless fund raisers and other events to improve our schools. She helped in each of the bond campaigns. She helped to recall an extremist board that felt that did not want FACT based science, history or sex education for our children and whose actions lead VUSD to become infamous with headlines on the front page of the New York Times, LA Times, SF Chronicle and others around the country.
She also was willing to run for school board as a Pro-public education candidate and as we all know in VUSD that means suffering a lot of slings and arrows of outrageous charges and lies by our ANTI friends. They smeared up one way and down the other. Finally in a terrible tragedy for our district she lost her 2002 bid for re-elction and Jim Gibson retained his seat.
Had it been the other way around, VUSD would have had the needed FOUR votes to acquire Jay Kawano's land for our high school. The dual magnet high school would have been built at least four years ago. Such a shame for our district and our students who were forced into four more years of overcrowded high schools. I heard recently that Jay Kawano was kicking himself for not selling the land outright back in 2002 without an eminent domain proceeding as the one million he would have gotten from the district in 2002 was more than the land is worth today.
The tragedy of not obtaining the graded level Kawano property in 2002 has been one all the way around--for our students, for the bond money, even apparently for Kawano. Having Gibson instead of McWey on our board is a tragedy VUSD will live with for years. Imagine if we had the 17 million dollars in the value of the land and the twenty million dollars in cost rides and construction delays at Melrose site! We could completely finish and landscape Rancho Minerva as well as Maryland and other new school sites with money to spare. Instead the money is gone.
I consider Letha and the many other wonderful folks in our district who worked for years against incredible odds and with withering disappointments. * The people on the PRO-public education side work so hard to try to improve our community, our schools and our children's education.
Compare and contrast people like Letha to the name calling, truth challenged, anti-school bonds, anti-public education, anti-improvement folks who challenge us in VUSD at every turn. Gibson Guffanti, Anderson, Brunet, Piro, et. al. when was the last time you heard of any of them volunteering at one of our VUSD schools? Where were they during the three school bonds that failed before Prop O passed? Certainly I never saw or heard of them helping Prop O to pass.Where were they when VUSD had a chance to buy the one million dollar Jay Kawano high school site on Strawberry Hill? Why do they complain that VUSD was forced into the secondary non-level and far more expensive eighteen million dollar Melrose site? What do they do constructively with their time? Anything? Ever?
*Besides her school board seat lost in 2002, there was the 99 million dollar Prop LL school bond failure by a few hundred absentee votes. It garnered more than the required two thirds vote in EVERY precinct in VUSD making it appear to have won causing the defeat to be even more bitter. Within a year of losing that bond issue, TWO THOUSAND students left our four highest performing schools. A lot of really good folks gave up on VUSD and moved elsewhere when that bond failed. It was the second blow following the horrible national headlines generated by our ANTI controlled board from 1992-1994.
I was reminded of all the wonderful volunteer work she has done for our district over the last twenty or twenty five years. I believe she has been PTA president at three different schools. She has organized countless fund raisers and other events to improve our schools. She helped in each of the bond campaigns. She helped to recall an extremist board that felt that did not want FACT based science, history or sex education for our children and whose actions lead VUSD to become infamous with headlines on the front page of the New York Times, LA Times, SF Chronicle and others around the country.
She also was willing to run for school board as a Pro-public education candidate and as we all know in VUSD that means suffering a lot of slings and arrows of outrageous charges and lies by our ANTI friends. They smeared up one way and down the other. Finally in a terrible tragedy for our district she lost her 2002 bid for re-elction and Jim Gibson retained his seat.
Had it been the other way around, VUSD would have had the needed FOUR votes to acquire Jay Kawano's land for our high school. The dual magnet high school would have been built at least four years ago. Such a shame for our district and our students who were forced into four more years of overcrowded high schools. I heard recently that Jay Kawano was kicking himself for not selling the land outright back in 2002 without an eminent domain proceeding as the one million he would have gotten from the district in 2002 was more than the land is worth today.
The tragedy of not obtaining the graded level Kawano property in 2002 has been one all the way around--for our students, for the bond money, even apparently for Kawano. Having Gibson instead of McWey on our board is a tragedy VUSD will live with for years. Imagine if we had the 17 million dollars in the value of the land and the twenty million dollars in cost rides and construction delays at Melrose site! We could completely finish and landscape Rancho Minerva as well as Maryland and other new school sites with money to spare. Instead the money is gone.
I consider Letha and the many other wonderful folks in our district who worked for years against incredible odds and with withering disappointments. * The people on the PRO-public education side work so hard to try to improve our community, our schools and our children's education.
Compare and contrast people like Letha to the name calling, truth challenged, anti-school bonds, anti-public education, anti-improvement folks who challenge us in VUSD at every turn. Gibson Guffanti, Anderson, Brunet, Piro, et. al. when was the last time you heard of any of them volunteering at one of our VUSD schools? Where were they during the three school bonds that failed before Prop O passed? Certainly I never saw or heard of them helping Prop O to pass.Where were they when VUSD had a chance to buy the one million dollar Jay Kawano high school site on Strawberry Hill? Why do they complain that VUSD was forced into the secondary non-level and far more expensive eighteen million dollar Melrose site? What do they do constructively with their time? Anything? Ever?
*Besides her school board seat lost in 2002, there was the 99 million dollar Prop LL school bond failure by a few hundred absentee votes. It garnered more than the required two thirds vote in EVERY precinct in VUSD making it appear to have won causing the defeat to be even more bitter. Within a year of losing that bond issue, TWO THOUSAND students left our four highest performing schools. A lot of really good folks gave up on VUSD and moved elsewhere when that bond failed. It was the second blow following the horrible national headlines generated by our ANTI controlled board from 1992-1994.
ANTI site, "VUSD watch" is back
Our ANTI friends have their own blog spot now. So far it has only copies of articles from the North County Times without commentarty except making selected sentences in the article into bold face.
Notice they are making money on their site. They allow ads to be posted. As I understand each time we blog on their site, the site maker gets some money. I do not think it is much but I will limit my checking on their site to only once in a while.
This site does not contain ads. It never has. Should it become necessary to allow ads on this site, ALL proceeds will go to the election of PRO-public education candidates.
Notice they are making money on their site. They allow ads to be posted. As I understand each time we blog on their site, the site maker gets some money. I do not think it is much but I will limit my checking on their site to only once in a while.
This site does not contain ads. It never has. Should it become necessary to allow ads on this site, ALL proceeds will go to the election of PRO-public education candidates.
Prop O and California Competitive Bidding Law
Our ANTI friends have made a great deal of ruckus about the ordinary and usual glitches that go hand in hand with a large public works project like building the large number of new schools that the Prop O money provided for.
Our friends should be reminded that California State Law requires VUSD to chose the lowest bidder or reject all bids and start over. Often this means that contractors with a history of under performing in the construction parts of the job and over achieving in tricks of the trade to increase costs after the bid must be given the job even when the government entity does not want to.
Here is what the law requires:
Competitive bidding law and policy require the award of a publicly advertised contract to the lowest responsible bidder submitting a responsive bid unless it is in the best interest of the (government entity) to reject all bids.
http://ucop.edu/facil/fmc/facilman/volume1/rpcb.html
What this means is a contractor under bids what he knows it will cost. Then he under performs, when he is called to fix the problems, he claims the district has changed the contract. he reports the fixes as "change orders" and adds the charge to the cost.
I saw this happen time and time again when Lincoln Middle School was 'upgraded' with new paint, new gas heaters to replace radiators, ceiling and wall insulation, AC, electrical and phone lines.
One case I recall very well was the 'peeling paint' in the class rooms and office. The contractor had painted water based latex over oil without sanding. It looked real nice for a day or two until something or someone rubbed against it. Then whole sections would peel off many inches wide and long. Our principal called the contractor's representative and showed him. He said no problem and sent in a crew to repaint.
We thought he was being very good about making up for his shoddy original work until we got a call from the district office (then called the ASC) a few weeks later. The district folks were fuming mad at us. Why? Because all the repairs had been listed as "change orders' by the contractor representative that had been so courteous and helpful. It was too late to get our money back according to the district folks. Apparently we had been "approving change orders" when we were showing the representative the problems with the paint and other construction glitches like windows that did not open or curtains that did not close. He never told us that we were authorizing the expenditure of more money for more profit for him.
I am told that 'change order' tricks are VERY common place in public works projects because the government agency generally has no one who fully understands the whole process from bidding, to construction standards, to how unethical contractors operate.
To see the change order trick in state law read:
http://law.justia.com/california/codes/pcc/5100-5110.html specifically 5110 (4)(b)(1)
(b) In no event shall payment to the contractor pursuant to this section exceed either of the following: (1) The contractor's costs as included in its bid plus the cost of any approved change orders. (bold added for emphasis)
Do those word in red above seem scary to you especially the ones I put in bold face? Do they seem like words that can had 10 to 20 %or more to the cost of a public project? If not, then you do not think like a contractor or contractor's lawyer.
VUSD tried very hard to get around that problem with Prop O money by hiring one of the very best school construction experts in the state, Mike Vail. He did a great job. Here is the url and a short excert from the article in nctimes announcing his retirement.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/06/12/news/coastal/22_42_036_11_05.txt
VUSD building on success
By: ROB O'DELL - Staff Writer Saturday, June 11, 2005 10:51 PM PDT
VISTA ---- Who exactly is Mike Vail, the man behind the Vista Unified School District's school-building spree over the past three years?
By many accounts, he is a man seriously committed to building new schools and who has the knowledge and determination to make it happen. In a long career that has included an 11-year stint as the assistant superintendent of facilities for the Santa Ana Unified School District, Vail has earned the respect of state legislators and county officials and the admiration of his colleagues.
Many of the problems we had at Lincoln with modernization did not happen with the construction of our new schools thanks to Mike Vail, but inevitably state approved state licensed contractors can screw up at times. When they do they either fix the problem or get sued. Suing is exactly what VUSD has been forced to do in one case. See:
Over all VUSD has gotten our money's worth. No more year round schedule. Instead of 163 days all students now get 180 days of instruction. Eight new schools constructed others renovated. I am well satisfied with the bond money I am paying for our property in VUSD. Any fair minded person who looked objectively at all that was accomplished would have to agree.
Our friends should be reminded that California State Law requires VUSD to chose the lowest bidder or reject all bids and start over. Often this means that contractors with a history of under performing in the construction parts of the job and over achieving in tricks of the trade to increase costs after the bid must be given the job even when the government entity does not want to.
Here is what the law requires:
Competitive bidding law and policy require the award of a publicly advertised contract to the lowest responsible bidder submitting a responsive bid unless it is in the best interest of the (government entity) to reject all bids.
http://ucop.edu/facil/fmc/facilman/volume1/rpcb.html
What this means is a contractor under bids what he knows it will cost. Then he under performs, when he is called to fix the problems, he claims the district has changed the contract. he reports the fixes as "change orders" and adds the charge to the cost.
I saw this happen time and time again when Lincoln Middle School was 'upgraded' with new paint, new gas heaters to replace radiators, ceiling and wall insulation, AC, electrical and phone lines.
One case I recall very well was the 'peeling paint' in the class rooms and office. The contractor had painted water based latex over oil without sanding. It looked real nice for a day or two until something or someone rubbed against it. Then whole sections would peel off many inches wide and long. Our principal called the contractor's representative and showed him. He said no problem and sent in a crew to repaint.
We thought he was being very good about making up for his shoddy original work until we got a call from the district office (then called the ASC) a few weeks later. The district folks were fuming mad at us. Why? Because all the repairs had been listed as "change orders' by the contractor representative that had been so courteous and helpful. It was too late to get our money back according to the district folks. Apparently we had been "approving change orders" when we were showing the representative the problems with the paint and other construction glitches like windows that did not open or curtains that did not close. He never told us that we were authorizing the expenditure of more money for more profit for him.
I am told that 'change order' tricks are VERY common place in public works projects because the government agency generally has no one who fully understands the whole process from bidding, to construction standards, to how unethical contractors operate.
To see the change order trick in state law read:
http://law.justia.com/california/codes/pcc/5100-5110.html specifically 5110 (4)(b)(1)
(b) In no event shall payment to the contractor pursuant to this section exceed either of the following: (1) The contractor's costs as included in its bid plus the cost of any approved change orders. (bold added for emphasis)
Do those word in red above seem scary to you especially the ones I put in bold face? Do they seem like words that can had 10 to 20 %or more to the cost of a public project? If not, then you do not think like a contractor or contractor's lawyer.
VUSD tried very hard to get around that problem with Prop O money by hiring one of the very best school construction experts in the state, Mike Vail. He did a great job. Here is the url and a short excert from the article in nctimes announcing his retirement.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/06/12/news/coastal/22_42_036_11_05.txt
VUSD building on success
By: ROB O'DELL - Staff Writer Saturday, June 11, 2005 10:51 PM PDT
VISTA ---- Who exactly is Mike Vail, the man behind the Vista Unified School District's school-building spree over the past three years?
By many accounts, he is a man seriously committed to building new schools and who has the knowledge and determination to make it happen. In a long career that has included an 11-year stint as the assistant superintendent of facilities for the Santa Ana Unified School District, Vail has earned the respect of state legislators and county officials and the admiration of his colleagues.
Many of the problems we had at Lincoln with modernization did not happen with the construction of our new schools thanks to Mike Vail, but inevitably state approved state licensed contractors can screw up at times. When they do they either fix the problem or get sued. Suing is exactly what VUSD has been forced to do in one case. See:
Over all VUSD has gotten our money's worth. No more year round schedule. Instead of 163 days all students now get 180 days of instruction. Eight new schools constructed others renovated. I am well satisfied with the bond money I am paying for our property in VUSD. Any fair minded person who looked objectively at all that was accomplished would have to agree.
Gibson and Prejean the circus continues this Thursday
Jim Gibson latest heavy handed attempt to gain political capital by using the Carrie Prejean Miss California USA controversy will occur this Thursday evening at the board meeting.
Carrie Prejean has a right to her opinion on marriage and the judges at the beauty pageant had a right to include her expressed opinion for or against her. She finished second so apparently she was not hurt too much.
If Jim Gibson really wanted to honor Carrie Prejean for becoming Miss California USA, why did he not press for the passage of this resolution before the controversy?
As with his pressure on the VUSD board to support Prop 8, Jim is trying to take our school board into larger political issues that have nothing to do with the K-12 education of our students. His only purpose seems to be to get his name in the paper again.
Read more at North County Times:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/05/12/news/coastal/vista/zf89dc26bc06e3be9882575b3005cce8c.txt
Carrie Prejean has a right to her opinion on marriage and the judges at the beauty pageant had a right to include her expressed opinion for or against her. She finished second so apparently she was not hurt too much.
If Jim Gibson really wanted to honor Carrie Prejean for becoming Miss California USA, why did he not press for the passage of this resolution before the controversy?
As with his pressure on the VUSD board to support Prop 8, Jim is trying to take our school board into larger political issues that have nothing to do with the K-12 education of our students. His only purpose seems to be to get his name in the paper again.
Read more at North County Times:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/05/12/news/coastal/vista/zf89dc26bc06e3be9882575b3005cce8c.txt
Friday, May 8, 2009
Still Time to Phone Bank for Props 1A - 1F
The California Teachers Association has made phone banking extremely easy for those who want to help try to prevent the looming financial disaster if they do not pass.
The CTA has digital phones with a program that automatically dials numbers of CTA members and others who support education. You do not even need to dial yourself. The phones also have a feature that allows you to report the results of your call via the phone. No written record keeping in necessary. No dialing no writing what could be easier.
If you join the effort and make the calls, you might help turn the election around and prevent a possible financial disaster. No guilt if the measures fail either. You did everything you could. Be one of the finest educators in our community. Help make a difference that counts.
Call the CTA San Marcos office at 744-4418. They are doing phone banking there or you can borrow phones and bring them back to your site.
The CTA has digital phones with a program that automatically dials numbers of CTA members and others who support education. You do not even need to dial yourself. The phones also have a feature that allows you to report the results of your call via the phone. No written record keeping in necessary. No dialing no writing what could be easier.
If you join the effort and make the calls, you might help turn the election around and prevent a possible financial disaster. No guilt if the measures fail either. You did everything you could. Be one of the finest educators in our community. Help make a difference that counts.
Call the CTA San Marcos office at 744-4418. They are doing phone banking there or you can borrow phones and bring them back to your site.
California Budget Fix looks like a loser at the polls
The legislature and governor put together a budget fix a couple of months ago that was dependent on the voters passing props 1A through 1F. The props all look like losers now except 1F which stops legislators from getting pay hikes in fiscal years with deficits. 1F will not help balance the budget.
If they do not pass there is little chance of tax hikes so massive cuts will have to come or the state will go broke by fall with deficits projected into the mid 20 billion dollar range.
I fear the budget cuts forced by such a deficit will be draconian. Traditionally in tough state economic times schools suffer disproportionally. Sad for us. Our classrooms WILL be impacted and likely our salaries and benefits as well.
You can read the bad news and the even worse news by clicking on the links below:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap13-2009apr13,0,3757188.column?page=2
From the Los Angeles Times
CAPITOL JOURNAL
Sharing the state's fiscal pain
Polls show voter skepticism about the measures.
But if they're rejected, the electorate had better be prepared for sharper cuts in other social services, as well as schools. There's already a projected $8-billion deficit for the next fiscal year. If Props. 1D and 1E fail, the hole will get nearly $1 billion deeper.
Most likely to be rejected is Prop. 1C, which would allow the state to borrow $5 billion against future lottery winnings. If the three props go down, the hole grows to $14 billion.
Another tax hike seems improbable.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-california-budget-crisis8-2009may08,0,7342537.story
From the Los Angeles Times
California could be broke by July, state official warns
Despite the budget fix enacted in February, the state is on track to come up $23 billion short of what it needs to get through the year, the Legislature's chief budget analyst says.
By Evan Halper and Eric Bailey
10:26 PM PDT, May 7, 2009
If they do not pass there is little chance of tax hikes so massive cuts will have to come or the state will go broke by fall with deficits projected into the mid 20 billion dollar range.
I fear the budget cuts forced by such a deficit will be draconian. Traditionally in tough state economic times schools suffer disproportionally. Sad for us. Our classrooms WILL be impacted and likely our salaries and benefits as well.
You can read the bad news and the even worse news by clicking on the links below:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap13-2009apr13,0,3757188.column?page=2
From the Los Angeles Times
CAPITOL JOURNAL
Sharing the state's fiscal pain
Polls show voter skepticism about the measures.
But if they're rejected, the electorate had better be prepared for sharper cuts in other social services, as well as schools. There's already a projected $8-billion deficit for the next fiscal year. If Props. 1D and 1E fail, the hole will get nearly $1 billion deeper.
Most likely to be rejected is Prop. 1C, which would allow the state to borrow $5 billion against future lottery winnings. If the three props go down, the hole grows to $14 billion.
Another tax hike seems improbable.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-california-budget-crisis8-2009may08,0,7342537.story
From the Los Angeles Times
California could be broke by July, state official warns
Despite the budget fix enacted in February, the state is on track to come up $23 billion short of what it needs to get through the year, the Legislature's chief budget analyst says.
By Evan Halper and Eric Bailey
10:26 PM PDT, May 7, 2009
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Gibson's revisionist supporters substitute fantasy for fact
Today on the North County Times blogs one of Jim Gibson's supporters re-wrote history. A blogger, who calls himself Vista Watchdog 1, posted wild ravings and fantasies following today's North County Times article indicating VUSD must file a lawsuit as the first step to recovering money from the outside housing developer who owned the land where the Dual Magnet high school is being built.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/04/30/news/coastal/vista/z7f4e67662eb58ec6882575a50077c5e1.txt
LIES AND MISINFORMATION OF NCTIMES BLOGGER VISTA WATCHDOG
The first sentence of today's first VWdog's post refers to a previous post by Randy asking about performance bonds that are required by law to be obtained before any construction is allowed at any site in the United States of America.
My oldest son is a lawyer with a San Francisco company that specializes in litigation surrounding these bonds. Even with the bonds in place, the bond companies delay paying for years during lengthy court proceeding in which responsibility for which bond company should pay is assigned. The contractor has a bond with one comapany. Subcontractors are bonded with another. Other entities with potential liabilities are brought into the suits. It becomes a huge time consuming and costly mess.
In today's post VWdog says that a performance bond was not obtained for the Melrose/Highway 76 dual magnet site. Any one who know anything about construction knows this is a made up lie on the face of it. No permits would be issued without a bond. That sentence is his first delusion of the day.
Again he is referring to Randy's post which was the first post after this article. Randy asked about performance bonds wondering indirectly why the insurance company which issued the bonds was not paying for the housing developer's failure to bring utilities to the site.
Here is what VWdog wrote:
To Randy: Should have! But, the Union trio (now four person majority) was in such a hurry to get this job done (at any cost, and any way they could) that they failed to require such.
VWdog ranges off into even more madness with the following:
Law "suits were filed by the city and county because the district failed to meet zoning and other building codes, stating they were exempt from these things since they were a school district'
Of course this is a lie on the face of it. No one is allowed to build schools in the state of California without the express approval of the state of California not only for all architectural plans and but of all site locations.
California schools are not only required to meet the Uniform Building Code but the much more rigorous Field Act requirements. The Field Act of 1933 was passed by the California State legislature to try to ensure that the disastrous collapse of two and three story brick school building in the great Long Beach quake would never happen again.
Below is the VWdog's total post. Reading it should provide insights into the nuttiness that the four rational caring and community supported board VUSD members face every day on our behalf. Thank you Herrera, Jaka, Chunka and Lilly for putting up with this kind of nonsense from our ANTI friends.
Vista Watchdog1 April 30, 2009 5:34AM PST
To Randy: Should have! But, the Union trio (now four person majority) was in such a hurry to get this job done (at any cost, and any way they could) that they failed to require such. There are MANY other problems resulting from the same mismanagement and ignorance of those who have been running this project, and district, into the ground. But, the only thing most of the (anti quality education) Union bloggers will focus on will be Strawberry Hill (a parcel of property that VUSD could never have developed for a school - but that isn't what the Union fools will tell you), and false claims concerning board minority members filing suits to block the construction (suits were filed by the city and county because the district failed to meet zoning and other building codes, stating they were exempt from these things since they were a school district - more anti education union arrogance and ignorance!). They were warned this school would not be ready by this fall. In fact their opposition candidates told the public it was a pipe dream. But, the public ignored reality and bought into the union pap. Well, they got exactly what they deserved: MORE FAILURES! VUSD is a real JOKE. Unfortunately the only ones to suffer are the children (and our country's future!).
LAWSUITS ASSOCIATED WITH GIBSON COST MILLIONS MORE
The lawsuits that VW dog is referring to cost VUSD millions more. One was orchestrated by a four member group that Stephen Guffanti, former board member, and Gibson political ally was filed. Another refers to a lawsuit filed by the former owners (outside housing developers from Tustin, CA) of the Melrose/Highway 76 site. During Gibson's 2006 run for school board, Gibson found a way to secretly funnel thousands of dollars of campaign contributions from those outside developers through Guffanti's campaign into his.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/02/06/news/inland/2_04_282_5_07.txt
Gibson also benefited from a 15 to 20 thousand dollar scandalously inaccurate mailer produced and distributed on his behalf by the Tustin developer and received at our homes just days before the 2006 school board election.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/04/30/news/coastal/vista/z7f4e67662eb58ec6882575a50077c5e1.txt
LIES AND MISINFORMATION OF NCTIMES BLOGGER VISTA WATCHDOG
The first sentence of today's first VWdog's post refers to a previous post by Randy asking about performance bonds that are required by law to be obtained before any construction is allowed at any site in the United States of America.
My oldest son is a lawyer with a San Francisco company that specializes in litigation surrounding these bonds. Even with the bonds in place, the bond companies delay paying for years during lengthy court proceeding in which responsibility for which bond company should pay is assigned. The contractor has a bond with one comapany. Subcontractors are bonded with another. Other entities with potential liabilities are brought into the suits. It becomes a huge time consuming and costly mess.
In today's post VWdog says that a performance bond was not obtained for the Melrose/Highway 76 dual magnet site. Any one who know anything about construction knows this is a made up lie on the face of it. No permits would be issued without a bond. That sentence is his first delusion of the day.
Again he is referring to Randy's post which was the first post after this article. Randy asked about performance bonds wondering indirectly why the insurance company which issued the bonds was not paying for the housing developer's failure to bring utilities to the site.
Here is what VWdog wrote:
To Randy: Should have! But, the Union trio (now four person majority) was in such a hurry to get this job done (at any cost, and any way they could) that they failed to require such.
VWdog ranges off into even more madness with the following:
Law "suits were filed by the city and county because the district failed to meet zoning and other building codes, stating they were exempt from these things since they were a school district'
Of course this is a lie on the face of it. No one is allowed to build schools in the state of California without the express approval of the state of California not only for all architectural plans and but of all site locations.
California schools are not only required to meet the Uniform Building Code but the much more rigorous Field Act requirements. The Field Act of 1933 was passed by the California State legislature to try to ensure that the disastrous collapse of two and three story brick school building in the great Long Beach quake would never happen again.
Below is the VWdog's total post. Reading it should provide insights into the nuttiness that the four rational caring and community supported board VUSD members face every day on our behalf. Thank you Herrera, Jaka, Chunka and Lilly for putting up with this kind of nonsense from our ANTI friends.
Vista Watchdog1 April 30, 2009 5:34AM PST
To Randy: Should have! But, the Union trio (now four person majority) was in such a hurry to get this job done (at any cost, and any way they could) that they failed to require such. There are MANY other problems resulting from the same mismanagement and ignorance of those who have been running this project, and district, into the ground. But, the only thing most of the (anti quality education) Union bloggers will focus on will be Strawberry Hill (a parcel of property that VUSD could never have developed for a school - but that isn't what the Union fools will tell you), and false claims concerning board minority members filing suits to block the construction (suits were filed by the city and county because the district failed to meet zoning and other building codes, stating they were exempt from these things since they were a school district - more anti education union arrogance and ignorance!). They were warned this school would not be ready by this fall. In fact their opposition candidates told the public it was a pipe dream. But, the public ignored reality and bought into the union pap. Well, they got exactly what they deserved: MORE FAILURES! VUSD is a real JOKE. Unfortunately the only ones to suffer are the children (and our country's future!).
LAWSUITS ASSOCIATED WITH GIBSON COST MILLIONS MORE
The lawsuits that VW dog is referring to cost VUSD millions more. One was orchestrated by a four member group that Stephen Guffanti, former board member, and Gibson political ally was filed. Another refers to a lawsuit filed by the former owners (outside housing developers from Tustin, CA) of the Melrose/Highway 76 site. During Gibson's 2006 run for school board, Gibson found a way to secretly funnel thousands of dollars of campaign contributions from those outside developers through Guffanti's campaign into his.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/02/06/news/inland/2_04_282_5_07.txt
Gibson also benefited from a 15 to 20 thousand dollar scandalously inaccurate mailer produced and distributed on his behalf by the Tustin developer and received at our homes just days before the 2006 school board election.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Gibson Grandstands Again
In today's North County Times is a report that Jim Gibson is up to his old tricks of doing anything to get his name in the newspaper. Apparently Gibson feels neglected unless he is mentioned in the newspaper each time there is a board meeting.
Today Gibson is asking to designate a day at VUSD as Carrie Prejean day. If it's political Gibson is drawn to it as a moth to a flame.
Carrie Prejean as you may have heard was named Miss California USA. During the questioning period one of the judges asked her what she thought about the currently hot button topic of marriage. She politely answered she thought it should only be between a man and a woman only which is less than sensitive to a lot of good friends of mine. However, the openly gay judge instead of letting it go made the situation much worse by being very rude to her. In later interviews with the media, he was even more rude.
The judge is a nobody who thinks he is helping the cause of gay marriage. He is not. Instead he stirred up a hornet's nest and made Carrie Prejean a cause celebre for the religious right. She has been on a large number of national news shows.
Gibson decided to try to grab a piece of her new found celebrity. He is always out for Gibson before anything else. Publicity for himself might turn out to an opportunity to run for higher office which is what he has demonstrated his is prime motivation for being a school board member. He has run for higher office over and over again. He has repeatedly used his position on our board as an stepping stone in two unsuccessful attempts to get a seat on the Oceanside City Council and once in an attempt to get into the State Assembly.
Jim the old publicity hound that he is saw Carrie Prejean as a great opportunity and tried to grab a ride on her new found celebrity.
Here are a couple of lines from the article:
"Gibson, a conservative Christian, has a history of bringing hot topics before the board, including Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriage in California.
He said the proclamation idea wasn't political, although he thought other people could take it that way."
Yeah, right Jim. Everything you do is political. Too bad you did not work half as hard to get our new third high school built or we would have had it built as scheduled in 2005. Your obstructionism kept us from getting the level cheap Kawano strawberry hill site in 2002 which would have allowed the dual magnet high school to open in fall of 2005. However, you did manage to get your name in the newspaper hundreds of times with quotes after every school board meeting and by championing non-educational hot button topics--Prop 8 for instance.
Here is a link to the article and the VUSD blog battle comments following:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/04/28/news/coastal/vista/z8945c0fa046e84a0882575a500784227.txt
BLOG BATTLE HERO of the DAY
There were a great many PRO blogs today. Thanks to all who blogged in. Special thanks to the PRO bloggers for their great blogs. I loved them all. Runner up for best blog goes to Pluto for the following:
Pluto April 29, 2009 9:33AM PST
In response to Freitag: Here's an article from yesterday's papers.
Roger Neal, a spokesman for the Miss California pageant, says beauty queen Carrie Prejean lied when she said state pageant officials told her to apologize to the gay community and refrain from discussing religion on the talk show circuit.
"She chose to stand up in church and in front of the media and say something that was a lie," Neal said Monday. "No one ever said, 'You must apologize to the gay community,' and no one ever said, 'Don't talk about your faith or your religion.' Those two things never came out of anybody's mouth."
Neal said, as an adviser for Miss California in the competition, he told Prejean to emphasize she didn't mean to offend anyone.
Special Runner Up to VistaRes for the following:
VistaRes April 29, 2009 9:31AM PST
Hilarious, typical.. Gibson pandering to his 'constituents' again on non-essential issues. The one Gibson gem I really liked - 'Let's name a middle school after Chesty Puller!' (Chesty Puller by the way was a Marine officer in WWII - a brave, though some ex-Marines would say a violently psychotic officer who was accused of squandering the lives of his fellow Marines). Nevertheless - 'He was a Marine!' . Why, oh why, does Gibson keep going off on these tangents? Answer: the man just can't stay on topic.
However today's winner and the top award for BLOG BATTLE HERO of the DAY goes to: "hatched"
Hatched gets the award for the following blog that makes the point that I missed but should have been obvious to me. Gibson only wants to honor Prejean because of her answer. A different answer and Gibson would never have mentioned her. Where was Gibson with his request to honor her when she first became Miss California USA and before she answered the "question" in the national pageant?
If he really wanted to honor her achievement he would have requested this day for her long before the controversy. Of course then there is would have been no chance at jumping on a publicity train generated by the controversial question.
hatched April 29, 2009 9:57AM PST
Would Gibson want to honor her accomplishments if she had answered the other way? That's the only real question, and the answer is no. He wants to honor her for being successful and agreeing with him. That is wrong and he should be ashamed. She's beautiful, smart, honest, and honorable. I don't agree with her politics, but I have respect for her opinions and her right to voice them.
Today Gibson is asking to designate a day at VUSD as Carrie Prejean day. If it's political Gibson is drawn to it as a moth to a flame.
Carrie Prejean as you may have heard was named Miss California USA. During the questioning period one of the judges asked her what she thought about the currently hot button topic of marriage. She politely answered she thought it should only be between a man and a woman only which is less than sensitive to a lot of good friends of mine. However, the openly gay judge instead of letting it go made the situation much worse by being very rude to her. In later interviews with the media, he was even more rude.
The judge is a nobody who thinks he is helping the cause of gay marriage. He is not. Instead he stirred up a hornet's nest and made Carrie Prejean a cause celebre for the religious right. She has been on a large number of national news shows.
Gibson decided to try to grab a piece of her new found celebrity. He is always out for Gibson before anything else. Publicity for himself might turn out to an opportunity to run for higher office which is what he has demonstrated his is prime motivation for being a school board member. He has run for higher office over and over again. He has repeatedly used his position on our board as an stepping stone in two unsuccessful attempts to get a seat on the Oceanside City Council and once in an attempt to get into the State Assembly.
Jim the old publicity hound that he is saw Carrie Prejean as a great opportunity and tried to grab a ride on her new found celebrity.
Here are a couple of lines from the article:
"Gibson, a conservative Christian, has a history of bringing hot topics before the board, including Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriage in California.
He said the proclamation idea wasn't political, although he thought other people could take it that way."
Yeah, right Jim. Everything you do is political. Too bad you did not work half as hard to get our new third high school built or we would have had it built as scheduled in 2005. Your obstructionism kept us from getting the level cheap Kawano strawberry hill site in 2002 which would have allowed the dual magnet high school to open in fall of 2005. However, you did manage to get your name in the newspaper hundreds of times with quotes after every school board meeting and by championing non-educational hot button topics--Prop 8 for instance.
Here is a link to the article and the VUSD blog battle comments following:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/04/28/news/coastal/vista/z8945c0fa046e84a0882575a500784227.txt
BLOG BATTLE HERO of the DAY
There were a great many PRO blogs today. Thanks to all who blogged in. Special thanks to the PRO bloggers for their great blogs. I loved them all. Runner up for best blog goes to Pluto for the following:
Pluto April 29, 2009 9:33AM PST
In response to Freitag: Here's an article from yesterday's papers.
Roger Neal, a spokesman for the Miss California pageant, says beauty queen Carrie Prejean lied when she said state pageant officials told her to apologize to the gay community and refrain from discussing religion on the talk show circuit.
"She chose to stand up in church and in front of the media and say something that was a lie," Neal said Monday. "No one ever said, 'You must apologize to the gay community,' and no one ever said, 'Don't talk about your faith or your religion.' Those two things never came out of anybody's mouth."
Neal said, as an adviser for Miss California in the competition, he told Prejean to emphasize she didn't mean to offend anyone.
Special Runner Up to VistaRes for the following:
VistaRes April 29, 2009 9:31AM PST
Hilarious, typical.. Gibson pandering to his 'constituents' again on non-essential issues. The one Gibson gem I really liked - 'Let's name a middle school after Chesty Puller!' (Chesty Puller by the way was a Marine officer in WWII - a brave, though some ex-Marines would say a violently psychotic officer who was accused of squandering the lives of his fellow Marines). Nevertheless - 'He was a Marine!' . Why, oh why, does Gibson keep going off on these tangents? Answer: the man just can't stay on topic.
However today's winner and the top award for BLOG BATTLE HERO of the DAY goes to: "hatched"
Hatched gets the award for the following blog that makes the point that I missed but should have been obvious to me. Gibson only wants to honor Prejean because of her answer. A different answer and Gibson would never have mentioned her. Where was Gibson with his request to honor her when she first became Miss California USA and before she answered the "question" in the national pageant?
If he really wanted to honor her achievement he would have requested this day for her long before the controversy. Of course then there is would have been no chance at jumping on a publicity train generated by the controversial question.
hatched April 29, 2009 9:57AM PST
Would Gibson want to honor her accomplishments if she had answered the other way? That's the only real question, and the answer is no. He wants to honor her for being successful and agreeing with him. That is wrong and he should be ashamed. She's beautiful, smart, honest, and honorable. I don't agree with her politics, but I have respect for her opinions and her right to voice them.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
A look at the NCTimes VUSD blog wars
I found a typical VUSD blog war saved in my computer files from a year ago as I was researching the previous blogs. I think the back and forth, the accusations and lies of the ANTIs followed by the calm facts of PRO public education folks might be illuminating to anyone who has not read the North County Times online and seen the blogs following any article that mentioned the Vista Unified School District.
Here is the article:
VISTA: VUSD negotiates lower price for magnet high school
Contractor agrees to shave $2.5 million from project
By STACY BRANDT - Staff Writer Wednesday, May 7, 2008 2:05 PM PDT
Seems like our school board did a good thing right? If you think so then you are not an ANTI.
Let's see what an average battle in the VUSD Wars looks like. I posted the battle below. Note: the PRO public education posts are colored in blue. All other colors represent ANTIs. At the time of these posts there was no requirement by the NCTimes for blogger to have only one name, so the ANTI posts could have been all posted by one person. I believe most of them were, however, from context, I would guess there were actually three ANTIs involved.
There were two PRO bloggers. One was a parent who made only one post.
not in my backyard[-] wrote on May 7, 2008 4:16 PM:please don't build this school here -the roads are no up to the traffic- have you tried to drive EB 76 at rush hour? Why here? The population of east oceanside will not support this school - stop wasting the money!
Observer[-] wrote on May 7, 2008 4:50 PM:NIMBY's correct on all points. It should have been built on the Lincoln site with more than one story buildings. Those would now be finished, ready to be used AND ALL of the buildings would be completed ready to house students this fall -- even a cafeteria!
Transportation vs Location[-] wrote on May 7, 2008 7:27 PM:So, VUSD builds this school at the far end of the District (so far that they had to petition the County Office of Ed. to move District boundaries). They all the schools Magnet High Schools, but don't provide any District funded transportation, and there is no City or county transportation available either.
Enter oil prices soaring to $120+ a barrel and heading toward $200 a barrel, with corresponding Gasoline prices at $4/gal and heading toward $5/gal.
Add in the looming recession (CA is already in one).
Now answer me this: Where are all the students going to come from to populate these new schools? What parent is going to drive up to 10 miles across town (20 miles round trip) 5 days a week, in morning and afternoon traffic on city streets getting no better than 10 MPG (or about $10/day, $50/week, or $1,820/ school year), spending up to an hour or more of daily commuting time, just so their child can attend these schools? Especially when their child can simply walk to the local High School down the block. At best, when this trailer park school opens (most likely behind the new schedule), requiring additional work to be fully completed (see Rancho Minerva Middle School), the enrollment will be too low to effectively run both of the two schools as separate schools. Within a year there will be a move by the District to unify the two schools into a small comprehensive high school, and redraw boundaries within the District to "Force" students to attend this school. Even then, it will have numerous facilities problems (see Madison Middle school and the sewer gas problems) and the trailers will begin to leak due to corner cutting required to come in within the new budget. In the end the test scores of the students forced to attend this school will show no significant improvement, and the taxpayers will be out the nearly $100M spent to build another failing trailer park school.
Oh what a waste of good young minds!
Trailer Park High School[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 1:37 AM:This is what Mission Vista should be called and a White Elephant should be its mascot. Ok, maybe a Trojan Horse because that is what it is. I agree with Transportation vs. Location that within a year it will be turned into a comprehensive High School. Isn't it nice that Administration receives a stick built building, yet the student population has modular buildings with a couple of exceptions? If they were so concerned about the cost, keep the modular trend and build something that is needed. Say, like a cafeteria or a science building, perhaps? Isn’t it fair that if students have to learn in trailers that administrators should follow suit?
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 5:47 AM:The Lincoln Middle School site was too small to be a high school forty years when I was in high school. It was run down then. It's water and sewer systems buried under the buildings was inadequate and still is.
This community has needed a new high school on a high school sized property for the last twenty years. Let's get it built.
To foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 6:30 AM:You say that the Lincoln site is still run down? Have you stopped by to see? It is a shame that these rumors continue. Since we are on rumors...never mind...
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 6:40 AM:To Transportation vs Location
A few of questions for you:
(1) Suppose bond Prop LL had been passed back in the mid-eigties when there was still vacant land in the middle of the district, where do you think the high school would have been built? Perhaps on one of those middle of our district tracts of lands that is now covered in housing developments?
(2) What did you do to help pass those earlier bonds when more centrally located land parcels were available?
(3) Whose fault is it that the only tract of high school sized land left when a bond issue finally passed was out at the far end of the district? (By the way there are hundreds of homes and apartments west and southwest of the new magnet high school. I think they may contain a few potential students who will want a high school near their homes.)
(4) Would you or your side ever be in favor of any new PUBLIC school ever being built?
(5) What do you have against new schools being built? What is really behind your opposition? It cannot be money because if you are a property owner, you personally will be out only a few hundred dollars over thirty years at most. So what is really behind the anger?
shelley[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 6:50 AM:Interesting that the Lincoln site has so many problems and could not be the site for a new HS, but yet it is still being used plumbing problems and all!!!
To foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 7:47 AM:Good luck...
OUSD Bond[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 8:38 AM:How about another bond to fund a complete build out of this campus like Oceanside Unified is doing to finish their school projects. I know that would never happen in VUSD. The question is why? OUSD board vs. VUSD board. Quite a difference...
Sam[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 9:24 AM:Foolednomore should be called morefooled. It is too bad the people were more fooled too, lied too, and cheated too. I hope people think twice about voteing for Bonds. How can the VUSD take monies from another school and use it anywhere they want? I think we have been taken to the cleaners again. I wish Oceanside could get out of the Vista School District. SUCKERS' AGAIN!
Shirley[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 4:11 PM:Yes! Finally the school will be built - just in time for my son to go there. And yes, a LOT of his friends also plan to attend. Honestly, I would love it if the school went comprehensive.
To foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 8:24 PM:(1) As I recall Rancho Buena Vista High School was built back in the 1980s. Wasn’t that High School built without the Passage f Prop LL? VUSD didn’t need a 3rd High School until the 1990s. Also, as I recall Vista’s original High School was in the middle of Vista. But, someone arranged a trade between VUSD and the City and City Hall was moved into the old High School. That site could have been utilized for a High School using Modernization Funds from the State if it had not been traded away to the City. Suppose VUSD had taken advantage of Prop 1A Hardship Funds when they initially qualified for them and had built some of the schools they needed back in 2000? Where were you then when Hubbard was openly opposed to taking advantage of California Taxpayer dollars to build much needed schools?
(2) Suppose VUSD had used the money they had in their building fund back in the late 1990s and applied for Modernization Funds (80% match) and used those funds to expand some of the existing schools UPWARD, thereby effectively utilizing both the taxpayers’ money and the taxpayers’ land, and ending overcrowding without the need for a local Bond before Prop O was even put on the Ballot? Where were you on this option, and what do you have against efficient utilization of taxpayer dollars and the responsible use of land, as opposed to the sprawl designs that continue to take more and more land away from farmers and natural habitat?
(3) That would be the fault of the Board Majority and the past Administration who were bent on building New Schools paid for by a local Bond as opposed to Utilizing funds from a State wide bond for which they were eligible.
a. Not enough to justify the Magnet status of these two schools. Besides, to officially qualify as a MAGNET School, the District needs to show they are actually drawing from a cross-section of the community the District Serves. Not simply a local elite population.
(4) Yes. Especially if it were done in an efficient and effective manner, well planned, and built on schedule and within budget.
(5) Nothing, when they are actually needed, and responsibly built.
a. Waste, Fraud, and Abuse of Public Trust!
b. Actually, the base dollars Prop O is costing me is around $18,000 over 30 years. When you calculate the lost revenues (return on investment ) from those dollars it is closer to around $54,000. Some may think that a small amount, but when on a fixed income that can be quite sizable. Especially when all I keep seeing is VUSD wasting those funds, failing to deliver on their promises concerning the total schools to be built (after having mislead the public on the number of schools needed), and worst of all: Failing the children and community by not delivering a quality education.
c. Waste Fraud and Abuse! Indoctrination as opposed to Education! A failed Public Education System that is more about benefits for the Administrators, maximizing revenues to the Unions, tying the hands of teachers, and utterly failing to prepare children for anything more than becoming serfs, beholden to the Government from cradle to grave!
Vista Watchdog[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 8:32 PM:The Lincoln site has to be occupied or else the State will require it be torn down and replaced. If it were to fully close, VUSD could not get it recertified for occupancy as it does NOT meet the California Earth Quake standards, and many other safety standards. The REAL question concerning Lincoln should be, with all the problems and safety issues why are students being forced to use this school when VUSD could have torn it down and rebuilt a New, Modern, Safe, Multi-Story School in its place?
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 9:13 PM:to Shelley
Yes, the Lincoln site is being used and will continue to be used. However there are NOT two thousand HIGH school students at the Lincoln site now as there would be for a high school. The students there are middle school students. They do not drive and there are far fewer of those middle school students currently at the site than there would be if it were a HIGH school.
HIGH school students require more facilities than middle school. One very important one is a STUDENT parking lot. Look at the immense size of the RBVHS STUDENT parking lot. It has to be ten acres or more in size. There is no room for a STUDENT parking lot at the Lincoln site. The current facility may be painted better than the ugly military green of forty years ago, but the SEWER pipes and WATER pipes are the same. Changing the toilets and washbasins in the bathrooms does not make the too small and clogged up sewer pipes handle any more water. Try flushing TWO toilets at the same time in one of the bathroms there. See what happens. I remember the overflowing toilets and the flooded floors.
The student locker rooms are small, poorly organized and contain many blind corners and allies where no PE coach can supervise. Lots of bad stuff used to happen in those locker rooms. Have they been re-designed so that supervision is possible?
The gym contains only one set of bleachers for both the home and visiting fans to sit in. The mix of the two groups in the one set of seats lead to some bad incidence by the more rowdy male fans. A basketball gym at a high school needs SEPARATE bleachers for home and visting fans. Can you imagine what could happen today in an era of gangs and guns with home and visiting fans mixed together for championship game? Someone has to lose.
I notice that not one of the anti-education crowd wrote in to tell us when they would ever support the building of a new PUBLIC school. I guess their silence means that they would NEVER support our local children having a new school under any circumstances. Had that been the attitude in the 1930's when the bond for the Lincoln site on Escondido Ave passed, I guess all the children in VUSD would be going to school in tents.
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 9:15 PM:To Sam
East Oceanside is inside the VUSD boundaries because school districts were started long before communities in North County were incorporated. The City of Vista was not an incorporated city when I was a child. The city had no set boundaries. It was a general area. However, VUSD did have boundaries because its founding goes back to early part of the twentieth century (even before I was born!).
When the City of Vista was incorporated in the 1960’s, the city founding fathers decided not to set the CITY of VISTA boundaries to overlap the VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT boundaries. They left out the western part of the VUSD lands. Why? Who knows? I do not remember.
For some reason the founding fathers allowed Oceanside to annex land that was traditionally thought of as Vista land. That land which was once west Vista is today called East Oceanside. Maybe someone with a better memory than mine can enlighten us as to why west Vista was given over to Oceanside. I do not remember the reasons except it was something about keeping Vista a rural community.
Foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 10:30 PM:
To Vista watchdog
The Lincoln Middle School site does not met earthquake standards? Really? Exactly how does a school building get an exemption to the FIELD ACT? You know the one passed one month after the Long Beach earthquake in 1933 that destroyed seventy schools. You remember the Act that REQUIRES all buildings used by students at a school site to meet earthquake standards.
You can read all about it at the site below. Here is a statement from that site that might enlighten you: “In 1976 public schools built before the Field Act were phased out of use or retrofitted to comply with the act.” http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pub/Field%20Act%20Findings%20.pdf
So how was has the Lincoln Middle School site been used since 1976 if it did not meet Field Act seismic standards? Do you think your facts might be mixed up again?
To foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 10:35 PM:VUSD recently completed an extensive study of those sewer pipes and found them to be in "amazingly good condition." Nice try on the sewer pipes at Lincoln. Now answer us this one: When will the sewer be installed at the Melrose/76 Site? Yes, students need functioning bathrooms: NOT porta-potties! And, speaking of sewers, isn't it you who keeps bringing up Strawberry Hill, another site that had no sewer hookups available? And as long as we are at it... You mention students needing a student parking lot. Vista High is using a good portion of the student parking lot for portable classrooms. If they were to have used Modernization funds to build the school up to a multi-story school the students would again have a student parking lot at VHS, and we would not need these new schools. Also, as a Magnet school in the middle of Vista, Lincoln would have been well situated to take advantage of Public Transportation at the transportation hub (Sprinter and NCTD Bus) about 1/2 mile away. Finally, if VUSD had not traded away the fine property on which the Original Vista High was located, there would have been plenty of parking available, and plenty of room for future expansion. By the way, what do you have against providing access to those students who would benefit most from having a centrally located magnet school that they could actually walk to?
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 10:37 PM: To Vista Watch Dog
The current Vista City Hall is located on the first Lincoln Middle School campus. The City Hall site was never a high school campus. The old Vista High School across the street (Escondido Ave) from the first Lincoln Middle School was renamed Lincoln Middle School when the new Vista High was built on Bobier. Very confusing to have two different sites in the district called Lincoln at two different times and two different sites called Vista High at two different times. This is an easy mistake to make. You probably have not been around as long as I have.
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 10:39 PM: The problem with the Lincoln site is not failure to meet Field Act requirements. The problem at Lincoln is trying to turn it into a HIGH school because of its inadequate SEWERS and its lack of STUDENT PARKING.
I wonder about a two story high school and the Field Act. Wouldn’t such a school be far more dangerous in an earthquake? Aren’t you already worried about earthquakes?
Where would the money come from to clear the site and build a two story high school? I know according to you it would appear magically from the mythical funds that the state of California just hands over to school districts who refuse to pass local bonds.
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 10:45 PM:Today there are more and more homes in Vista housing more than one family. No new developer fees come in for those multiple families and multiple sets of children living in what used to be single family houses and apartments. Yet we have to house those children in our schools.
The Developer Fees the district acquires with the building of each new house in VUSD are running dry. New houses are not being built fast enough, besides most of the land for building new houses has run out. Substantial amounts of developer fees are a thing of the past. They never were enough to pay for building all the schools VUSD needed and in the future the monies are likely to be less and less.
State money is very difficult to get. Far more districts apply and qualify for far more funds then there are ever available when a state bond passes. When the state bond money runs out and Vista did not get enough of it then what? Our children in tents for classrooms? Again I ask Vista Watchdog, did you ever vote for a State bond? If not why not? If you want to use State bond money to build schools in VUSD don't you have to support the passage of state bonds?
History to foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 10:46 PM:Nice try on the Vista and VUSD Boundaries and Eastern Oceanside. But, you have it all wrong! Vista Unified did NOT include Eastern Oceanside in 1963, as it was actually part of Unincorporated San Diego County when Vist was incorporated. When the developer came in to build Rancho Del Oro, they approached the City of Vista, but the City was not intereseted. However, Oceanside was. They wanted the community to be in a city so as to obtain city services such as Fire, Police, and road maintenance. But, as Oceanside Unified was not a very highly rated School District, and VUSD was currently at the top in San Diego County, the developer approach VUSD and asked them to annex the community into VUSD. This was so that the developer could have better retail pricing on their homes as the homes would be located within the boundaries of the #1 District in SD County!
Vista Watchdog[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 11:27 PM:Lincoln was built to meet the Field Act of 1933, but does NOT meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code as amended. The 1933 earthquake did destroy many schools, but the Sylmar quake (February 1, 1971) destroyed the VA Hospital in Simi Valley that was built to the Field Act standards. So, in the 1970's the Uniform Building Code as amended and required all new construction to be built to much greater standards, and older buildings to eventually be retrofitted (I do believe you will find that is one of the reasons Tri-City Hospital keeps trying to pass a Bond, so that they can complete the required retro-fits of the Uniform Building Code as amended). Lincoln is grandfathered in under the Uniform Building Code so long as it remains an "Active" school. Once it is officially closed it cannot be re-occupied as under the Occupancy Requirements of CA Ed. Code, Lincoln as it is currently constructed will not pass. That is why they had to find something to put in there: the Magnet Middle School, or be forced to sell the property. VUSD does not desire to lose this property as it is still too valuable for other uses, and may eventually be rebuilt. Unfortunately Prop O did not contain adequate funding for the replacement of Lincoln unless it was to be completely torn down. This was due to the fact that VUSD was originally selling the Bond on the presumption of needing a 5th Middle School, so Lincoln was not to be abandoned. But, since enrollment dropped, as predicted by some who were against the bond, continuing to operate Lincoln could no longer be justified. You really should try to get your facts straight before you do your blogging, as you will find the actual date for phasing out schools was June 30 1975, unless the District applied for and received and extension. Then the maximum use would end June 30, 1977. However, as noted above, the 1971 quake accelerated the rebuilding of schools such that all schools had been retrofitted by 1976 (the date you quoted). But, you will also find that shortly after the Sylmar Quake and subsequent amending of the Uniform Building Codes, CA Passed Prop 13, significantly limiting funds for new construction and retrofitting of schools to the new requirements. This brought in the Harold F. Greene act of 1976 which created such things as Modernization Funds, and Hardship Funds. These sources of funding could have been used by VUSD to retro-fit Lincoln or actually remove and replace the unsafe structures. But, certain individuals had too much sentimental attachment to the pseudo-historic Administration buildings and balked at the idea of tearing down the old school. So, where do we go from here? What else shall we discuss from our personal histories of Vista and VUSD? Maybe we should attach the actual date that VUSD became Vista “Unified” School District and see how that stands up to the facts (dates) you mention!
History[-] wrote on May 9, 2008 12:07 AM:There were no Bonds required when Lincoln was built. In fact, if you'd paid attention in school you'd know that we were in the middle of the Great Depression in the 1930s, and agricultural communities like Vista didn’t have a whole lot of money. Many schools built in those days in CA were actually Public Works projects funded by the Federal Government to help put people back to work. You will recall from your reading of the Grapes of Wrath that people were heading out of the Dust Bowl (Mid-west) to California to find work. California was not impacted by the Drying out in the Mid-west and in fact was under the influence of an El Nino that was supplying larger than normal amounts of water. This greatly aided CA farmers in becoming one of the largest producers of agricultural goods to the rest of the US. So, with all these people heading west to CA, new schools were needed to educate the many children arriving in the area. Local communities were heavily strapped for funds and could not afford to build these schools. But also, not everyone coming to CA was able to find work, nor were they all suited for agricultural work. President Roosevelt and Congress implemented many public works projects, including the Interstate Highway system, Hoover Dam, and building of Public Facilities such as schools. So, without needing a Local School bond Lincoln was built and the Vista High School District was founded. Oh yes, High School students were now able to leave their tents (they were living in tents) and actually attend school in a brick and mortar facility. By the way, prior to Prop 13 passage, local school bonds were not “passes” by local voters. Rather, the District Board of Trustees would vote to pass the bond and assess the home owners for the Bond. The abuse of this constant assessment, especially as Districts began to approach the June 30 1975 deadline, was one of the driving factors that caused Prop 13 to pass!
whatta waste[-] wrote on May 9, 2008 6:36 AM:enrollments down,bad place for school
in the mean time i'll still be paying
on the bond
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 9, 2008 4:43 PM:Vista Watchdog says, "Lincoln is grandfathered in under the Uniform Building Code so long as it remains an "Active" school." Please give a website that backs up that assertion. Otherwise we will have to assume that you have no basis for your statement.
I gave a government website that backs up my belief that Lincoln Middle School is in compliance with the Field Act. Can you give a verifiable source that disputes my belief and my government website?
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 9, 2008 4:55 PM: History wrote: “you have it all wrong! Vista Unified did NOT include Eastern Oceanside in 1963, as it was actually part of Unincorporated San Diego County when Vist (sic) was incorporated.”
To History, the incorporation of the city of Vista has nothing to do with the establishment of the Vista Unified SCHOOL DISTRICT. The CITY of Vista and the Vista Unified SCHOOL DISTRICT are two completely governing agencies--different governing structures, different boundaries and different histories. They only share some of the same land and the word “Vista.”
I have emailed the Vista Historical Society and asked them to email an explanation as to how east Oceanside got into the Vista Unified School District. I will post any reply I receive.
I lived way out in the country as a child of the late fifties and sixties. Our home was miles from the city. A school bus came to pick up the various children in isolated houses and took us on a morning and evening meandering trip on tiny roads that took more than an hour each way. None of the other children’s homes were in the city either but we all ended up at a district school. There was never any Fallbrook or Oceanside bus out our way. The school district boundaries must have included our homes even though we lived in what was then unincorporated county land.
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 9, 2008 5:00 PM:To history
Could you agree to let the Vista Historical Society to settle the question of where the money came from to build the buildings now called the Magnet Middle School formerly Lincoln Middle School and before that Vista High School.
Are you saying it was a WPA project? Are you also saying that the citizens in the Vista area did nothing to raise any funds to help build it?
--------------------------------------------
The following was taken from a conversation between NCTimes blogger, Fooled No More and Jack Larimer of the Vista Historical Society May 10, 2008 call duration from approx 12:25PM to 1:20PM.
I have since learned that Vista Historical Society will have a new web site soon. The old one has been abandoned. The email address at the old site does not work.
I called the Vista Historical Society today (Saturday) as my email was returned undeliverable. Jack Larimer answered the phone and then answered the questions in dispute in this blog . He was kind enough to give me almost an hour of his time. He is a very informed person on Vista history. He once worked at City Hall. He was brought up locally and his mother worked for the VUSD at Lincoln Middle School. Here is a summary of the notes I scribbled.
(1) Was the current city hall site ever a high school? The answer is NO.
First elementary school built in Vista was in 1917. Modified building still exists at 644 Vista Village. Second school built was at the current City Hall site. It was originally an elementary school. Then a bond was passed to build Santa Fe Elementary now VAPVA. When Santa Fe was build then the city hall site became a junior high named Lincoln in 1950’s. Then Vista High west of Escondido was built in 1938 but foundation laid 1937. Federal government needed to approve plans. Not a WPA project but there was Federal involvement. There was also a local bond passed. With the construction of the High School and Santa Fe elementary school VUSD hoped to have enough space for all the children in district for many, many years to come. However within five years Crestview was built.
(2) Was east Oceanside incorporated into VUSD as some kind of collusion between developer of Rancho Del Oro and the school district. The answer is NO.
What is now east Oceanside Rancho Del Oro area was long in the VUSD district going back to founding of the Unified district in 1938. There have been some major and minor VUSD boundary shifts since VUSD was founded but that area was in VUSD since it became a unified District in 1938. The biggest change was a major SIZE REDUCTION in VUSD when all the land north of San Luis Rey River was given to Bonsall elementary and Fallbrook High School Districts. Other minor changes Elevado part was added to VUSD because students from houses there had to physically go through Vista Unified to get to Bonsall. Also When College Boulevard was built the nearby wavering line between Oceanside Unified and Vista Unified was straightened to go down the center of College Boulevard. Also an error was made by the original engineer hired to write the description of VUSD boundaries in 1938. He took the easy way out and used a section boundary in the north west corner of the district instead of writing another page or two describing the property boundaries south of the San Luis Rey River. That is why part of the site for the dual magnet high schools north of 76 ended up in Fallbrook High School and Bonsall districts. Hence a land swap was needed to make the site available for the new Dual Magnet High Schools. A record of all school boundary changes can be found at the County Supervisor’s offices in San Diego and possibly at the County Board of Education as well.
(3) Was the dual magnet site (recently the site of Lincoln Middle School) financed by the federal government? Yes and no. There was federal involvement but Mr. Larimer believes there was a local school bond issue passed as well. There are microfiche records at the city library containing copies of the newspapers from 1938. Anyone who wishes to can look up stories from that time and say exactly. However there were bond issues being passed even back then. The problem with rapid growth in Vista started with a bond issue and the formation of the Vista Irrigation Company
Mr. Larimer suggests that more details can be found in a book called the History of Vista by Doyle or History of the Vista Unified School District written in 1992 sold at Rancho Buena Vista or the History of Northern San Diego County. Also I know that Donna Harper wrote a View of Vista that might be useful.
Jack Larimer also mentioned that Rick Hall did a study for VUSD about using the Lincoln site and the City Hall Site together as a high school with bridges crossing over Escondido Avenue between the two sites. the plan had to be approved by the state and the state said, "No" to the combined site.
Here is the article:
VISTA: VUSD negotiates lower price for magnet high school
Contractor agrees to shave $2.5 million from project
By STACY BRANDT - Staff Writer Wednesday, May 7, 2008 2:05 PM PDT
Seems like our school board did a good thing right? If you think so then you are not an ANTI.
Let's see what an average battle in the VUSD Wars looks like. I posted the battle below. Note: the PRO public education posts are colored in blue. All other colors represent ANTIs. At the time of these posts there was no requirement by the NCTimes for blogger to have only one name, so the ANTI posts could have been all posted by one person. I believe most of them were, however, from context, I would guess there were actually three ANTIs involved.
There were two PRO bloggers. One was a parent who made only one post.
not in my backyard[-] wrote on May 7, 2008 4:16 PM:please don't build this school here -the roads are no up to the traffic- have you tried to drive EB 76 at rush hour? Why here? The population of east oceanside will not support this school - stop wasting the money!
Observer[-] wrote on May 7, 2008 4:50 PM:NIMBY's correct on all points. It should have been built on the Lincoln site with more than one story buildings. Those would now be finished, ready to be used AND ALL of the buildings would be completed ready to house students this fall -- even a cafeteria!
Transportation vs Location[-] wrote on May 7, 2008 7:27 PM:So, VUSD builds this school at the far end of the District (so far that they had to petition the County Office of Ed. to move District boundaries). They all the schools Magnet High Schools, but don't provide any District funded transportation, and there is no City or county transportation available either.
Enter oil prices soaring to $120+ a barrel and heading toward $200 a barrel, with corresponding Gasoline prices at $4/gal and heading toward $5/gal.
Add in the looming recession (CA is already in one).
Now answer me this: Where are all the students going to come from to populate these new schools? What parent is going to drive up to 10 miles across town (20 miles round trip) 5 days a week, in morning and afternoon traffic on city streets getting no better than 10 MPG (or about $10/day, $50/week, or $1,820/ school year), spending up to an hour or more of daily commuting time, just so their child can attend these schools? Especially when their child can simply walk to the local High School down the block. At best, when this trailer park school opens (most likely behind the new schedule), requiring additional work to be fully completed (see Rancho Minerva Middle School), the enrollment will be too low to effectively run both of the two schools as separate schools. Within a year there will be a move by the District to unify the two schools into a small comprehensive high school, and redraw boundaries within the District to "Force" students to attend this school. Even then, it will have numerous facilities problems (see Madison Middle school and the sewer gas problems) and the trailers will begin to leak due to corner cutting required to come in within the new budget. In the end the test scores of the students forced to attend this school will show no significant improvement, and the taxpayers will be out the nearly $100M spent to build another failing trailer park school.
Oh what a waste of good young minds!
Trailer Park High School[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 1:37 AM:This is what Mission Vista should be called and a White Elephant should be its mascot. Ok, maybe a Trojan Horse because that is what it is. I agree with Transportation vs. Location that within a year it will be turned into a comprehensive High School. Isn't it nice that Administration receives a stick built building, yet the student population has modular buildings with a couple of exceptions? If they were so concerned about the cost, keep the modular trend and build something that is needed. Say, like a cafeteria or a science building, perhaps? Isn’t it fair that if students have to learn in trailers that administrators should follow suit?
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 5:47 AM:The Lincoln Middle School site was too small to be a high school forty years when I was in high school. It was run down then. It's water and sewer systems buried under the buildings was inadequate and still is.
This community has needed a new high school on a high school sized property for the last twenty years. Let's get it built.
To foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 6:30 AM:You say that the Lincoln site is still run down? Have you stopped by to see? It is a shame that these rumors continue. Since we are on rumors...never mind...
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 6:40 AM:To Transportation vs Location
A few of questions for you:
(1) Suppose bond Prop LL had been passed back in the mid-eigties when there was still vacant land in the middle of the district, where do you think the high school would have been built? Perhaps on one of those middle of our district tracts of lands that is now covered in housing developments?
(2) What did you do to help pass those earlier bonds when more centrally located land parcels were available?
(3) Whose fault is it that the only tract of high school sized land left when a bond issue finally passed was out at the far end of the district? (By the way there are hundreds of homes and apartments west and southwest of the new magnet high school. I think they may contain a few potential students who will want a high school near their homes.)
(4) Would you or your side ever be in favor of any new PUBLIC school ever being built?
(5) What do you have against new schools being built? What is really behind your opposition? It cannot be money because if you are a property owner, you personally will be out only a few hundred dollars over thirty years at most. So what is really behind the anger?
shelley[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 6:50 AM:Interesting that the Lincoln site has so many problems and could not be the site for a new HS, but yet it is still being used plumbing problems and all!!!
To foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 7:47 AM:Good luck...
OUSD Bond[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 8:38 AM:How about another bond to fund a complete build out of this campus like Oceanside Unified is doing to finish their school projects. I know that would never happen in VUSD. The question is why? OUSD board vs. VUSD board. Quite a difference...
Sam[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 9:24 AM:Foolednomore should be called morefooled. It is too bad the people were more fooled too, lied too, and cheated too. I hope people think twice about voteing for Bonds. How can the VUSD take monies from another school and use it anywhere they want? I think we have been taken to the cleaners again. I wish Oceanside could get out of the Vista School District. SUCKERS' AGAIN!
Shirley[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 4:11 PM:Yes! Finally the school will be built - just in time for my son to go there. And yes, a LOT of his friends also plan to attend. Honestly, I would love it if the school went comprehensive.
To foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 8:24 PM:(1) As I recall Rancho Buena Vista High School was built back in the 1980s. Wasn’t that High School built without the Passage f Prop LL? VUSD didn’t need a 3rd High School until the 1990s. Also, as I recall Vista’s original High School was in the middle of Vista. But, someone arranged a trade between VUSD and the City and City Hall was moved into the old High School. That site could have been utilized for a High School using Modernization Funds from the State if it had not been traded away to the City. Suppose VUSD had taken advantage of Prop 1A Hardship Funds when they initially qualified for them and had built some of the schools they needed back in 2000? Where were you then when Hubbard was openly opposed to taking advantage of California Taxpayer dollars to build much needed schools?
(2) Suppose VUSD had used the money they had in their building fund back in the late 1990s and applied for Modernization Funds (80% match) and used those funds to expand some of the existing schools UPWARD, thereby effectively utilizing both the taxpayers’ money and the taxpayers’ land, and ending overcrowding without the need for a local Bond before Prop O was even put on the Ballot? Where were you on this option, and what do you have against efficient utilization of taxpayer dollars and the responsible use of land, as opposed to the sprawl designs that continue to take more and more land away from farmers and natural habitat?
(3) That would be the fault of the Board Majority and the past Administration who were bent on building New Schools paid for by a local Bond as opposed to Utilizing funds from a State wide bond for which they were eligible.
a. Not enough to justify the Magnet status of these two schools. Besides, to officially qualify as a MAGNET School, the District needs to show they are actually drawing from a cross-section of the community the District Serves. Not simply a local elite population.
(4) Yes. Especially if it were done in an efficient and effective manner, well planned, and built on schedule and within budget.
(5) Nothing, when they are actually needed, and responsibly built.
a. Waste, Fraud, and Abuse of Public Trust!
b. Actually, the base dollars Prop O is costing me is around $18,000 over 30 years. When you calculate the lost revenues (return on investment ) from those dollars it is closer to around $54,000. Some may think that a small amount, but when on a fixed income that can be quite sizable. Especially when all I keep seeing is VUSD wasting those funds, failing to deliver on their promises concerning the total schools to be built (after having mislead the public on the number of schools needed), and worst of all: Failing the children and community by not delivering a quality education.
c. Waste Fraud and Abuse! Indoctrination as opposed to Education! A failed Public Education System that is more about benefits for the Administrators, maximizing revenues to the Unions, tying the hands of teachers, and utterly failing to prepare children for anything more than becoming serfs, beholden to the Government from cradle to grave!
Vista Watchdog[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 8:32 PM:The Lincoln site has to be occupied or else the State will require it be torn down and replaced. If it were to fully close, VUSD could not get it recertified for occupancy as it does NOT meet the California Earth Quake standards, and many other safety standards. The REAL question concerning Lincoln should be, with all the problems and safety issues why are students being forced to use this school when VUSD could have torn it down and rebuilt a New, Modern, Safe, Multi-Story School in its place?
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 9:13 PM:to Shelley
Yes, the Lincoln site is being used and will continue to be used. However there are NOT two thousand HIGH school students at the Lincoln site now as there would be for a high school. The students there are middle school students. They do not drive and there are far fewer of those middle school students currently at the site than there would be if it were a HIGH school.
HIGH school students require more facilities than middle school. One very important one is a STUDENT parking lot. Look at the immense size of the RBVHS STUDENT parking lot. It has to be ten acres or more in size. There is no room for a STUDENT parking lot at the Lincoln site. The current facility may be painted better than the ugly military green of forty years ago, but the SEWER pipes and WATER pipes are the same. Changing the toilets and washbasins in the bathrooms does not make the too small and clogged up sewer pipes handle any more water. Try flushing TWO toilets at the same time in one of the bathroms there. See what happens. I remember the overflowing toilets and the flooded floors.
The student locker rooms are small, poorly organized and contain many blind corners and allies where no PE coach can supervise. Lots of bad stuff used to happen in those locker rooms. Have they been re-designed so that supervision is possible?
The gym contains only one set of bleachers for both the home and visiting fans to sit in. The mix of the two groups in the one set of seats lead to some bad incidence by the more rowdy male fans. A basketball gym at a high school needs SEPARATE bleachers for home and visting fans. Can you imagine what could happen today in an era of gangs and guns with home and visiting fans mixed together for championship game? Someone has to lose.
I notice that not one of the anti-education crowd wrote in to tell us when they would ever support the building of a new PUBLIC school. I guess their silence means that they would NEVER support our local children having a new school under any circumstances. Had that been the attitude in the 1930's when the bond for the Lincoln site on Escondido Ave passed, I guess all the children in VUSD would be going to school in tents.
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 9:15 PM:To Sam
East Oceanside is inside the VUSD boundaries because school districts were started long before communities in North County were incorporated. The City of Vista was not an incorporated city when I was a child. The city had no set boundaries. It was a general area. However, VUSD did have boundaries because its founding goes back to early part of the twentieth century (even before I was born!).
When the City of Vista was incorporated in the 1960’s, the city founding fathers decided not to set the CITY of VISTA boundaries to overlap the VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT boundaries. They left out the western part of the VUSD lands. Why? Who knows? I do not remember.
For some reason the founding fathers allowed Oceanside to annex land that was traditionally thought of as Vista land. That land which was once west Vista is today called East Oceanside. Maybe someone with a better memory than mine can enlighten us as to why west Vista was given over to Oceanside. I do not remember the reasons except it was something about keeping Vista a rural community.
Foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 10:30 PM:
To Vista watchdog
The Lincoln Middle School site does not met earthquake standards? Really? Exactly how does a school building get an exemption to the FIELD ACT? You know the one passed one month after the Long Beach earthquake in 1933 that destroyed seventy schools. You remember the Act that REQUIRES all buildings used by students at a school site to meet earthquake standards.
You can read all about it at the site below. Here is a statement from that site that might enlighten you: “In 1976 public schools built before the Field Act were phased out of use or retrofitted to comply with the act.” http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pub/Field%20Act%20Findings%20.pdf
So how was has the Lincoln Middle School site been used since 1976 if it did not meet Field Act seismic standards? Do you think your facts might be mixed up again?
To foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 10:35 PM:VUSD recently completed an extensive study of those sewer pipes and found them to be in "amazingly good condition." Nice try on the sewer pipes at Lincoln. Now answer us this one: When will the sewer be installed at the Melrose/76 Site? Yes, students need functioning bathrooms: NOT porta-potties! And, speaking of sewers, isn't it you who keeps bringing up Strawberry Hill, another site that had no sewer hookups available? And as long as we are at it... You mention students needing a student parking lot. Vista High is using a good portion of the student parking lot for portable classrooms. If they were to have used Modernization funds to build the school up to a multi-story school the students would again have a student parking lot at VHS, and we would not need these new schools. Also, as a Magnet school in the middle of Vista, Lincoln would have been well situated to take advantage of Public Transportation at the transportation hub (Sprinter and NCTD Bus) about 1/2 mile away. Finally, if VUSD had not traded away the fine property on which the Original Vista High was located, there would have been plenty of parking available, and plenty of room for future expansion. By the way, what do you have against providing access to those students who would benefit most from having a centrally located magnet school that they could actually walk to?
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 10:37 PM: To Vista Watch Dog
The current Vista City Hall is located on the first Lincoln Middle School campus. The City Hall site was never a high school campus. The old Vista High School across the street (Escondido Ave) from the first Lincoln Middle School was renamed Lincoln Middle School when the new Vista High was built on Bobier. Very confusing to have two different sites in the district called Lincoln at two different times and two different sites called Vista High at two different times. This is an easy mistake to make. You probably have not been around as long as I have.
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 10:39 PM: The problem with the Lincoln site is not failure to meet Field Act requirements. The problem at Lincoln is trying to turn it into a HIGH school because of its inadequate SEWERS and its lack of STUDENT PARKING.
I wonder about a two story high school and the Field Act. Wouldn’t such a school be far more dangerous in an earthquake? Aren’t you already worried about earthquakes?
Where would the money come from to clear the site and build a two story high school? I know according to you it would appear magically from the mythical funds that the state of California just hands over to school districts who refuse to pass local bonds.
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 10:45 PM:Today there are more and more homes in Vista housing more than one family. No new developer fees come in for those multiple families and multiple sets of children living in what used to be single family houses and apartments. Yet we have to house those children in our schools.
The Developer Fees the district acquires with the building of each new house in VUSD are running dry. New houses are not being built fast enough, besides most of the land for building new houses has run out. Substantial amounts of developer fees are a thing of the past. They never were enough to pay for building all the schools VUSD needed and in the future the monies are likely to be less and less.
State money is very difficult to get. Far more districts apply and qualify for far more funds then there are ever available when a state bond passes. When the state bond money runs out and Vista did not get enough of it then what? Our children in tents for classrooms? Again I ask Vista Watchdog, did you ever vote for a State bond? If not why not? If you want to use State bond money to build schools in VUSD don't you have to support the passage of state bonds?
History to foolednomore[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 10:46 PM:Nice try on the Vista and VUSD Boundaries and Eastern Oceanside. But, you have it all wrong! Vista Unified did NOT include Eastern Oceanside in 1963, as it was actually part of Unincorporated San Diego County when Vist was incorporated. When the developer came in to build Rancho Del Oro, they approached the City of Vista, but the City was not intereseted. However, Oceanside was. They wanted the community to be in a city so as to obtain city services such as Fire, Police, and road maintenance. But, as Oceanside Unified was not a very highly rated School District, and VUSD was currently at the top in San Diego County, the developer approach VUSD and asked them to annex the community into VUSD. This was so that the developer could have better retail pricing on their homes as the homes would be located within the boundaries of the #1 District in SD County!
Vista Watchdog[-] wrote on May 8, 2008 11:27 PM:Lincoln was built to meet the Field Act of 1933, but does NOT meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code as amended. The 1933 earthquake did destroy many schools, but the Sylmar quake (February 1, 1971) destroyed the VA Hospital in Simi Valley that was built to the Field Act standards. So, in the 1970's the Uniform Building Code as amended and required all new construction to be built to much greater standards, and older buildings to eventually be retrofitted (I do believe you will find that is one of the reasons Tri-City Hospital keeps trying to pass a Bond, so that they can complete the required retro-fits of the Uniform Building Code as amended). Lincoln is grandfathered in under the Uniform Building Code so long as it remains an "Active" school. Once it is officially closed it cannot be re-occupied as under the Occupancy Requirements of CA Ed. Code, Lincoln as it is currently constructed will not pass. That is why they had to find something to put in there: the Magnet Middle School, or be forced to sell the property. VUSD does not desire to lose this property as it is still too valuable for other uses, and may eventually be rebuilt. Unfortunately Prop O did not contain adequate funding for the replacement of Lincoln unless it was to be completely torn down. This was due to the fact that VUSD was originally selling the Bond on the presumption of needing a 5th Middle School, so Lincoln was not to be abandoned. But, since enrollment dropped, as predicted by some who were against the bond, continuing to operate Lincoln could no longer be justified. You really should try to get your facts straight before you do your blogging, as you will find the actual date for phasing out schools was June 30 1975, unless the District applied for and received and extension. Then the maximum use would end June 30, 1977. However, as noted above, the 1971 quake accelerated the rebuilding of schools such that all schools had been retrofitted by 1976 (the date you quoted). But, you will also find that shortly after the Sylmar Quake and subsequent amending of the Uniform Building Codes, CA Passed Prop 13, significantly limiting funds for new construction and retrofitting of schools to the new requirements. This brought in the Harold F. Greene act of 1976 which created such things as Modernization Funds, and Hardship Funds. These sources of funding could have been used by VUSD to retro-fit Lincoln or actually remove and replace the unsafe structures. But, certain individuals had too much sentimental attachment to the pseudo-historic Administration buildings and balked at the idea of tearing down the old school. So, where do we go from here? What else shall we discuss from our personal histories of Vista and VUSD? Maybe we should attach the actual date that VUSD became Vista “Unified” School District and see how that stands up to the facts (dates) you mention!
History[-] wrote on May 9, 2008 12:07 AM:There were no Bonds required when Lincoln was built. In fact, if you'd paid attention in school you'd know that we were in the middle of the Great Depression in the 1930s, and agricultural communities like Vista didn’t have a whole lot of money. Many schools built in those days in CA were actually Public Works projects funded by the Federal Government to help put people back to work. You will recall from your reading of the Grapes of Wrath that people were heading out of the Dust Bowl (Mid-west) to California to find work. California was not impacted by the Drying out in the Mid-west and in fact was under the influence of an El Nino that was supplying larger than normal amounts of water. This greatly aided CA farmers in becoming one of the largest producers of agricultural goods to the rest of the US. So, with all these people heading west to CA, new schools were needed to educate the many children arriving in the area. Local communities were heavily strapped for funds and could not afford to build these schools. But also, not everyone coming to CA was able to find work, nor were they all suited for agricultural work. President Roosevelt and Congress implemented many public works projects, including the Interstate Highway system, Hoover Dam, and building of Public Facilities such as schools. So, without needing a Local School bond Lincoln was built and the Vista High School District was founded. Oh yes, High School students were now able to leave their tents (they were living in tents) and actually attend school in a brick and mortar facility. By the way, prior to Prop 13 passage, local school bonds were not “passes” by local voters. Rather, the District Board of Trustees would vote to pass the bond and assess the home owners for the Bond. The abuse of this constant assessment, especially as Districts began to approach the June 30 1975 deadline, was one of the driving factors that caused Prop 13 to pass!
whatta waste[-] wrote on May 9, 2008 6:36 AM:enrollments down,bad place for school
in the mean time i'll still be paying
on the bond
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 9, 2008 4:43 PM:Vista Watchdog says, "Lincoln is grandfathered in under the Uniform Building Code so long as it remains an "Active" school." Please give a website that backs up that assertion. Otherwise we will have to assume that you have no basis for your statement.
I gave a government website that backs up my belief that Lincoln Middle School is in compliance with the Field Act. Can you give a verifiable source that disputes my belief and my government website?
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 9, 2008 4:55 PM: History wrote: “you have it all wrong! Vista Unified did NOT include Eastern Oceanside in 1963, as it was actually part of Unincorporated San Diego County when Vist (sic) was incorporated.”
To History, the incorporation of the city of Vista has nothing to do with the establishment of the Vista Unified SCHOOL DISTRICT. The CITY of Vista and the Vista Unified SCHOOL DISTRICT are two completely governing agencies--different governing structures, different boundaries and different histories. They only share some of the same land and the word “Vista.”
I have emailed the Vista Historical Society and asked them to email an explanation as to how east Oceanside got into the Vista Unified School District. I will post any reply I receive.
I lived way out in the country as a child of the late fifties and sixties. Our home was miles from the city. A school bus came to pick up the various children in isolated houses and took us on a morning and evening meandering trip on tiny roads that took more than an hour each way. None of the other children’s homes were in the city either but we all ended up at a district school. There was never any Fallbrook or Oceanside bus out our way. The school district boundaries must have included our homes even though we lived in what was then unincorporated county land.
foolednomore[-] wrote on May 9, 2008 5:00 PM:To history
Could you agree to let the Vista Historical Society to settle the question of where the money came from to build the buildings now called the Magnet Middle School formerly Lincoln Middle School and before that Vista High School.
Are you saying it was a WPA project? Are you also saying that the citizens in the Vista area did nothing to raise any funds to help build it?
--------------------------------------------
The following was taken from a conversation between NCTimes blogger, Fooled No More and Jack Larimer of the Vista Historical Society May 10, 2008 call duration from approx 12:25PM to 1:20PM.
I have since learned that Vista Historical Society will have a new web site soon. The old one has been abandoned. The email address at the old site does not work.
I called the Vista Historical Society today (Saturday) as my email was returned undeliverable. Jack Larimer answered the phone and then answered the questions in dispute in this blog . He was kind enough to give me almost an hour of his time. He is a very informed person on Vista history. He once worked at City Hall. He was brought up locally and his mother worked for the VUSD at Lincoln Middle School. Here is a summary of the notes I scribbled.
(1) Was the current city hall site ever a high school? The answer is NO.
First elementary school built in Vista was in 1917. Modified building still exists at 644 Vista Village. Second school built was at the current City Hall site. It was originally an elementary school. Then a bond was passed to build Santa Fe Elementary now VAPVA. When Santa Fe was build then the city hall site became a junior high named Lincoln in 1950’s. Then Vista High west of Escondido was built in 1938 but foundation laid 1937. Federal government needed to approve plans. Not a WPA project but there was Federal involvement. There was also a local bond passed. With the construction of the High School and Santa Fe elementary school VUSD hoped to have enough space for all the children in district for many, many years to come. However within five years Crestview was built.
(2) Was east Oceanside incorporated into VUSD as some kind of collusion between developer of Rancho Del Oro and the school district. The answer is NO.
What is now east Oceanside Rancho Del Oro area was long in the VUSD district going back to founding of the Unified district in 1938. There have been some major and minor VUSD boundary shifts since VUSD was founded but that area was in VUSD since it became a unified District in 1938. The biggest change was a major SIZE REDUCTION in VUSD when all the land north of San Luis Rey River was given to Bonsall elementary and Fallbrook High School Districts. Other minor changes Elevado part was added to VUSD because students from houses there had to physically go through Vista Unified to get to Bonsall. Also When College Boulevard was built the nearby wavering line between Oceanside Unified and Vista Unified was straightened to go down the center of College Boulevard. Also an error was made by the original engineer hired to write the description of VUSD boundaries in 1938. He took the easy way out and used a section boundary in the north west corner of the district instead of writing another page or two describing the property boundaries south of the San Luis Rey River. That is why part of the site for the dual magnet high schools north of 76 ended up in Fallbrook High School and Bonsall districts. Hence a land swap was needed to make the site available for the new Dual Magnet High Schools. A record of all school boundary changes can be found at the County Supervisor’s offices in San Diego and possibly at the County Board of Education as well.
(3) Was the dual magnet site (recently the site of Lincoln Middle School) financed by the federal government? Yes and no. There was federal involvement but Mr. Larimer believes there was a local school bond issue passed as well. There are microfiche records at the city library containing copies of the newspapers from 1938. Anyone who wishes to can look up stories from that time and say exactly. However there were bond issues being passed even back then. The problem with rapid growth in Vista started with a bond issue and the formation of the Vista Irrigation Company
Mr. Larimer suggests that more details can be found in a book called the History of Vista by Doyle or History of the Vista Unified School District written in 1992 sold at Rancho Buena Vista or the History of Northern San Diego County. Also I know that Donna Harper wrote a View of Vista that might be useful.
Jack Larimer also mentioned that Rick Hall did a study for VUSD about using the Lincoln site and the City Hall Site together as a high school with bridges crossing over Escondido Avenue between the two sites. the plan had to be approved by the state and the state said, "No" to the combined site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)