The only secondary site left in our district boundaries that is big enough for a full sized high school was located at the far north end of our district at Melrose and north of Highway 76. The site was hilly and ungraded. It was zoned residential increasing its value and cost compared to the Kawano site which was zoned agricultural. The secondary site had a number of problems that Gibson and Guffanti could have reasonably expected to cost the district far more than the cheap level Kawano site they rejected.
First this secondary site was FAR more expensive to purchase (18 million dollars as opposed to one million for the primary site--Kawano Strawberry Hill).
Next problem for the secondary site was that it had a boundary issue with Fallbrook school districts that had to be resolved.
Thirdly, the secondary site was in the City of Oceanside not the City of Vista. The Oceanside City Council has had a long twenty year history of disregard and abuse of the VUSD even though the boundaries of VUSD includes nearly one third of the city of Oceanside. The VUSD boundaries were established DECADES before either the city of Oceanside or the City of Vista incorporated and set their own boundaries. The boundaries those two cities set were completely different than the school district boundaries whose names those cities took.
Fourth--the secondary and only site found to be available after Jim Gibson and Dr. Stephen Guffanti prevented the taxpayers from building at the cheap level Kawano/Strawberry Hill, that secondary site was HILLY, NOT LEVEL, and NOT GRADED and cost million and millions more to grade and level. Even so parts of the site are so hilly that they can never be used for building or athletics.
CITY OF VISTA'S HISTORY OF WORKING WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT--VUSD
The Kawano Strawberry Hill site was inside the City of Vista which has a history of working with the district. On more than one occasion the City of Vista has cooperated in land swaps with VUSD. Some City of Vista Redevelopment funds have also been set aside for the school district.
THE CITY OF OCEANSIDE'S HISTORY OF MISTREATMENT OF THE DISTRICT--VUSD
In the eighties and nineties, Oceanside City allowed construction of massive very dense housing tracts in the part of its boundaries that was in VUSD without charging the full developer's fees for school so VUSD got much less than it needed to build new schools for those students many of whom then were shipped by bus into schools inside the Vista City limits. VUSD protested but the Oceanside City Council did not care. They got a tax base. They got money from the developers for their political campaigns. So it was a bonus that the students generated by those houses had to be taken care of by a neighboring city and not their own schools.
Sure enough the city of Oceanside screwed VUSD again with the secondary site for the new high school being in their city limits. They added onerous, unnecessary and expensive grading and road building requirements including several turn lanes, and even a pedestrian bridge over the highway to the cost of the new high school construction costing MILLIONS more of VUSD taxpayer money. Again the City of Oceanside City Council did not care what impact it had on the VUSD school district as more than two thirds of the taxpayers for VUSD do not live inside the city limits of Oceanside.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/03/10/news/coastal/22_48_873_9_07.txt
JIM GIBSON HAD CLOUT ON OCEANSIDE CITY COUNCIL BUT DID NOT USE IT TO HELP VUSD
Interestingly enough we had a VUSD board member with a great deal of clout with the City of Oceanside when the increased construction demands were being discussed by their council. That trustee was Jim Gibson. Less than two years later a MAJORITY of Oceanside City Council members endorsed Jim Gibson's run for Oceanside City Council. Yet when VUSD needed help reducing expense of the added requirements, Jim Gibson did NOT use his influence to help VUSD reduce those costs. He said nothing. He lifted not one finger to help VUSD taxpayers.
(Jack Feller, Rocky Chavez, and Jerry Kern--all endorsed Jim Gibson in his 2008 unsuccessful candidacy for Oceanside City Council--Note Jerry Kern is currently(as of 10/17/09) facing a recall election in Oceanside.)
Of course that was not his biggest insult to the taxpayers of VUSD. The doubling of the cost of construction of the new third high school from a projected 50 million dollar cost to current cost of 100 million is Jim Gibson's fault.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Jim Gibson's views on Dr. Joyce Bales superintendent of VUSD
When Jim Gibson ran unsuccessfully for Oceanside City Council in November 2008, he was interviewed by a very conservative local website, redcounty.com.
During the interview he was asked about how VUSD would do in his absence if he were elected to the Oceanside City Council. Part of his answer included this quote about Dr. Joyce Bales:
Gibson: "For the last two years the district has had a conservative, knowledgeable and dedicated superintendent - the best I've ever met. She holds the same educational standards I hold."
The rest of the interview can be read here:
http://www.redcounty.com/sandiego/2008/09/oneonone-with-jim-gibson/
ONE-ON-ONE: Jim Gibson, Oceanside City Council Candidate
By Barry Jantz
Here is another quote from the article:
Gibson: "Oceanside is no different than the other cities. When Unions pick candidates to run and support them with large sums of money, the candidate is obligated to return that favor by making sure that all that the labor Unions want and need is there for them. "I believe we must curtail the pay and benefits of city employees and bring them back to reality."
During the interview he was asked about how VUSD would do in his absence if he were elected to the Oceanside City Council. Part of his answer included this quote about Dr. Joyce Bales:
Gibson: "For the last two years the district has had a conservative, knowledgeable and dedicated superintendent - the best I've ever met. She holds the same educational standards I hold."
The rest of the interview can be read here:
http://www.redcounty.com/sandiego/2008/09/oneonone-with-jim-gibson/
ONE-ON-ONE: Jim Gibson, Oceanside City Council Candidate
By Barry Jantz
Here is another quote from the article:
Gibson: "Oceanside is no different than the other cities. When Unions pick candidates to run and support them with large sums of money, the candidate is obligated to return that favor by making sure that all that the labor Unions want and need is there for them. "I believe we must curtail the pay and benefits of city employees and bring them back to reality."
Eight Inconvenient facts for Jim Gibson regarding doubling the cost of the third high school
Jim Gibson and his supporters are terrified that the voters of VUSD will learn The Eight Inconvenient Facts about Jim Gibson's record as a VUSD school board member.
Jim Gibson and his confederate in taxpayer crime, Dr. Stephen Guffanti cost the taxpayers of VUSD 50 million dollars because they refused to support the cheap level Kawano Strawberry Hill site for our third high school in 2002 and 2003 forcing the district to find a secondary site where site purchase, preparation, and construction DOUBLED the price to 100 million dollars.
Here are the eight inconvenient facts that prove Jim Gibson cost the taxpayers of VUSD FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS. I have included links to article in the North County Times so these facts can be checked by any one.
FACT ONE--ON the VUSD school board, ONLY Gibson and Guffanti opposed the cheap level graded Kawano site.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2002/10/30/export21822.txt
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/02/16/export3600.txt
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/03/14/export5702.txt
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/03/23/export6438.txt
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_675be210-95ff-5b76-bda0-4f74980ce7aa.html
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/05/29/news/inland/vista/22_38_385_28_05.txt
FACT TWO--The other three board members favored the cheap level Kawano site in 2002 and 2003 and wanted the district to purchase the land to start construction on the new high school ASAP.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/08/10/news/inland/vista/8_10_0323_00_12.txt
FACT THREE--The support of four board members was needed to acquire the Kawano site.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/03/14/export5702.txt
FACT FOUR--Had either Gibson or Guffanti supported the Kawano site, the third high school would have been completed on or before the opening of school in the fall of 2005.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_efa639a2-178f-5d28-b828-013f70909c1b.html
FACT FIVE--the projected cost for the third high school at the Kawano site was about 50 million dollars.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_efa639a2-178f-5d28-b828-013f70909c1b.html
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/02/13/news/inland/vista/22_01_042_12_07.txt
FACT FIVE POINT ONE: The Kawano Strawberry Hill 50 acred site cost ONE MILLION DOLLARS. The hilly secondary site at Melrose cost EIGHTEEN MILLION DOLLARS!
FACT SIX--Our much delayed third high school that we had to build at the secondary ungraded, hilly site now costs 100 million dollars and is not yet finished.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_6c857e07-a64e-5558-9274-96021809b9a3.html?mode=story
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/02/13/news/inland/vista/22_01_042_12_07.txt
FACT SEVEN--The delays in finding a secondary site large enough to build a full size high school, site preparation at the secondary site for grading and leveling, construction cost increases because of the five year delay, and a set of outrageous extra and expensive additions required by Gibson's Oceanside City Council majority allies, who endorsed him in his last election, have increased the cost of our third high school to ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS!
DOUBLE what it was projected to cost in 2002 at the cheap level Kawano/Strawberry Hill site!
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_6c857e07-a64e-5558-9274-96021809b9a3.html?mode=story
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/01/12/news/coastal/vista/zf5643680dbf299bd882575
3c006a12e6.txt
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/02/16/news/inland/vista/18_83_572_15_07.txt
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/03/10/news/coastal/22_48_873_9_07.txt
FACT EIGHT--JIM GIBSON and DR. STEPHEN GUFFANTI ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS INCREASE because they did not do the job they were elected to do--enable the cheapest site to be purchased for building the third high school as fast and inexpensively as possible.
I will list no additional URLs here as the ones under FACTS ONE through EIGHT all apply.
When will Jim Gibson apologize to the taxpayers of VUSD?
Jim Gibson and his confederate in taxpayer crime, Dr. Stephen Guffanti cost the taxpayers of VUSD 50 million dollars because they refused to support the cheap level Kawano Strawberry Hill site for our third high school in 2002 and 2003 forcing the district to find a secondary site where site purchase, preparation, and construction DOUBLED the price to 100 million dollars.
Here are the eight inconvenient facts that prove Jim Gibson cost the taxpayers of VUSD FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS. I have included links to article in the North County Times so these facts can be checked by any one.
FACT ONE--ON the VUSD school board, ONLY Gibson and Guffanti opposed the cheap level graded Kawano site.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2002/10/30/export21822.txt
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/02/16/export3600.txt
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/03/14/export5702.txt
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/03/23/export6438.txt
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_675be210-95ff-5b76-bda0-4f74980ce7aa.html
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/05/29/news/inland/vista/22_38_385_28_05.txt
FACT TWO--The other three board members favored the cheap level Kawano site in 2002 and 2003 and wanted the district to purchase the land to start construction on the new high school ASAP.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/08/10/news/inland/vista/8_10_0323_00_12.txt
FACT THREE--The support of four board members was needed to acquire the Kawano site.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/03/14/export5702.txt
FACT FOUR--Had either Gibson or Guffanti supported the Kawano site, the third high school would have been completed on or before the opening of school in the fall of 2005.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_efa639a2-178f-5d28-b828-013f70909c1b.html
FACT FIVE--the projected cost for the third high school at the Kawano site was about 50 million dollars.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_efa639a2-178f-5d28-b828-013f70909c1b.html
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/02/13/news/inland/vista/22_01_042_12_07.txt
FACT FIVE POINT ONE: The Kawano Strawberry Hill 50 acred site cost ONE MILLION DOLLARS. The hilly secondary site at Melrose cost EIGHTEEN MILLION DOLLARS!
FACT SIX--Our much delayed third high school that we had to build at the secondary ungraded, hilly site now costs 100 million dollars and is not yet finished.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_6c857e07-a64e-5558-9274-96021809b9a3.html?mode=story
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/02/13/news/inland/vista/22_01_042_12_07.txt
FACT SEVEN--The delays in finding a secondary site large enough to build a full size high school, site preparation at the secondary site for grading and leveling, construction cost increases because of the five year delay, and a set of outrageous extra and expensive additions required by Gibson's Oceanside City Council majority allies, who endorsed him in his last election, have increased the cost of our third high school to ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS!
DOUBLE what it was projected to cost in 2002 at the cheap level Kawano/Strawberry Hill site!
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_6c857e07-a64e-5558-9274-96021809b9a3.html?mode=story
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2009/01/12/news/coastal/vista/zf5643680dbf299bd882575
3c006a12e6.txt
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/02/16/news/inland/vista/18_83_572_15_07.txt
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/03/10/news/coastal/22_48_873_9_07.txt
FACT EIGHT--JIM GIBSON and DR. STEPHEN GUFFANTI ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS INCREASE because they did not do the job they were elected to do--enable the cheapest site to be purchased for building the third high school as fast and inexpensively as possible.
I will list no additional URLs here as the ones under FACTS ONE through EIGHT all apply.
When will Jim Gibson apologize to the taxpayers of VUSD?
Friday, October 16, 2009
Yes, we will remember the 50 million dollars Jim Gibson wasted
In response to an ANTI blogger, "Dorothy," who claims the teachers owe the district money because Dorothy does not like that the VTA bargained for a full time release president in exchange for the VTA paying the full salary of a teacher to replace her.
"Dorothy" also thinks that we should for some reason blame the teachers for the excess costs of our third high school and instructs us to remember how bad the teachers were each time we drive past our new third high school. Yes, it is insane, but we Dorothy is an "ANTI" blogger and normal rules of logic do not apply to ANTIs.
Read Dorothy's rant here:
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_8ce3f24c-6aca-55dc-a9d8-d8785dc91531.html?mode=comments
I agree with Dorothy we should indeed remember who wasted 50 million dollars. My response to her:
-----------
Yes, Dorothy, every time we pass our third high school, we will think of the FIFTY MILLION dollars and five years that JIM GIBSON made the district waste because he would not give his support to the cheap level Kawano site in 2002.
A high school at the Kawano/Strawberry Hill site was projected to cost 50 million TOTAL. How much does the high school now cost? 100 million! DOUBLE the cost! Why? Gibson and his henchman in taxpayer waste, Dr. Stephen Guffanti refused to support the cheap level Kawano/Strawberry Hill site in 2002 and 2003. Their unyielding opposition to the cheap, level, Kawano site forced the district to find a secondary and far less satisfactory and far, far more expensive site.
Let's say it one more time, Gibson refusal more than DOUBLED the price of the third high school and wasted 50 million dollars of the school bond, Prop O, taxpayer money.
The Kawano site was favored by ALL THREE of the PRO-FACT BASED, public education board members. Three board members was a majority that should have been enough, but not in our state. Our state LEGALLY requires the support of four trustees. Jim Gibson and his co-conspirator in taxpayer waste, Dr. Stephen Guffanti, BOTH refused time and time again to give their support for the cheap level Kawano site.
When will Jim Gibson apologize to the taxpayers of VUSD?
By the way Dorothy you are a lying about the teachers owning money to the district and you know you are lying. You have been corrected before. You know that the teachers of VUSD owe the district no money. There is no legal or moral basis for your lie. But hey, I know how good lies make you ANTIs feel. If you can't lie about someone and turn them into an evil straw man, how can you feel that wonderful righteous anger that so energizes you guys?
And Dorothy when will you hold a fund raiser to make up the FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS that your boy, Jim Gibson cost this district?
You know I can prove every allegation about Jim Gibson in this post. I have many times previous given the URLs of articles that prove Gibson's utter indifference to the waste of tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money for the construction of the third high school.
But I am willing to post a couple again for your edification.
(1)Proof that the third high school was supposed to cost only 50 million in 2002: http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_efa639a2-178f-5d28-b828-013f70909c1b.html
(2)Proof that JIM GIBSON and Dr. Stephen Guffanti were responsible for stopping the high school on the cheap level Kawano/Strawberry Hill site
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2002/10/30/export21822.txtNCTimes
headline:
"Two VUSD candidates attack magnet high school site"
Tuesday, October 29, 2002.
(3)More proof of Gibson and Guffanti's opposition to the cheap level Kawano site in 2002 and 2003: http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/02/16/export3600.txt
Here is a quote from this article:
"Two of the five members ---- Jim Gibson and Stephen Guffanti ---- have said they oppose putting the school on the Kawano property (Strawberry Hill)."
(4) http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/08/10/news/inland/vista/8_10_0323_00_12.txt
NCTimes headline: "Vista still searching for home of magnet high schools"NCTimes, August 9, 2003--
Quote from this article: "Board members Jim Gibson and Stephen Guffanti said they refuse to support condemning the Kawano property (Strawberry Hill)"
I have many more of these articles and incriminating quotes from Jim Gibson and his buddy in the waste of taxpayer funds, Dr. Stephen Guffanti.
Just ask and I will post the quotes and URLs that prove that VUSD could have had a brand new high school finished at the latest by the fall of 2005 for a projected cost of just fifty million dollars TOTAL (not the current one hundred million dollars) if Jim Gibson had done what he was elected to do--find the quickest cheapest site for the new high school.
"Dorothy" also thinks that we should for some reason blame the teachers for the excess costs of our third high school and instructs us to remember how bad the teachers were each time we drive past our new third high school. Yes, it is insane, but we Dorothy is an "ANTI" blogger and normal rules of logic do not apply to ANTIs.
Read Dorothy's rant here:
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_8ce3f24c-6aca-55dc-a9d8-d8785dc91531.html?mode=comments
I agree with Dorothy we should indeed remember who wasted 50 million dollars. My response to her:
-----------
Yes, Dorothy, every time we pass our third high school, we will think of the FIFTY MILLION dollars and five years that JIM GIBSON made the district waste because he would not give his support to the cheap level Kawano site in 2002.
A high school at the Kawano/Strawberry Hill site was projected to cost 50 million TOTAL. How much does the high school now cost? 100 million! DOUBLE the cost! Why? Gibson and his henchman in taxpayer waste, Dr. Stephen Guffanti refused to support the cheap level Kawano/Strawberry Hill site in 2002 and 2003. Their unyielding opposition to the cheap, level, Kawano site forced the district to find a secondary and far less satisfactory and far, far more expensive site.
Let's say it one more time, Gibson refusal more than DOUBLED the price of the third high school and wasted 50 million dollars of the school bond, Prop O, taxpayer money.
The Kawano site was favored by ALL THREE of the PRO-FACT BASED, public education board members. Three board members was a majority that should have been enough, but not in our state. Our state LEGALLY requires the support of four trustees. Jim Gibson and his co-conspirator in taxpayer waste, Dr. Stephen Guffanti, BOTH refused time and time again to give their support for the cheap level Kawano site.
When will Jim Gibson apologize to the taxpayers of VUSD?
By the way Dorothy you are a lying about the teachers owning money to the district and you know you are lying. You have been corrected before. You know that the teachers of VUSD owe the district no money. There is no legal or moral basis for your lie. But hey, I know how good lies make you ANTIs feel. If you can't lie about someone and turn them into an evil straw man, how can you feel that wonderful righteous anger that so energizes you guys?
And Dorothy when will you hold a fund raiser to make up the FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS that your boy, Jim Gibson cost this district?
You know I can prove every allegation about Jim Gibson in this post. I have many times previous given the URLs of articles that prove Gibson's utter indifference to the waste of tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money for the construction of the third high school.
But I am willing to post a couple again for your edification.
(1)Proof that the third high school was supposed to cost only 50 million in 2002: http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_efa639a2-178f-5d28-b828-013f70909c1b.html
(2)Proof that JIM GIBSON and Dr. Stephen Guffanti were responsible for stopping the high school on the cheap level Kawano/Strawberry Hill site
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2002/10/30/export21822.txtNCTimes
headline:
"Two VUSD candidates attack magnet high school site"
Tuesday, October 29, 2002.
(3)More proof of Gibson and Guffanti's opposition to the cheap level Kawano site in 2002 and 2003: http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/02/16/export3600.txt
Here is a quote from this article:
"Two of the five members ---- Jim Gibson and Stephen Guffanti ---- have said they oppose putting the school on the Kawano property (Strawberry Hill)."
(4) http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/08/10/news/inland/vista/8_10_0323_00_12.txt
NCTimes headline: "Vista still searching for home of magnet high schools"NCTimes, August 9, 2003--
Quote from this article: "Board members Jim Gibson and Stephen Guffanti said they refuse to support condemning the Kawano property (Strawberry Hill)"
I have many more of these articles and incriminating quotes from Jim Gibson and his buddy in the waste of taxpayer funds, Dr. Stephen Guffanti.
Just ask and I will post the quotes and URLs that prove that VUSD could have had a brand new high school finished at the latest by the fall of 2005 for a projected cost of just fifty million dollars TOTAL (not the current one hundred million dollars) if Jim Gibson had done what he was elected to do--find the quickest cheapest site for the new high school.
Will Bales push to maximize ADA put our kids at risk for swine flu?
The latest news on swine flu is grim and seems to be getting grimmer. More child deaths from swine flu in the last six weeks then for an entire normal flu season. Nearly half (44%)of the patients hospitalized have NO predisposing, or underlying condition. Half the children dying are teenagers--an age group usually the LEAST likely to have flu complications.
In hospitals, desperate measures have had to be taken to try to save patients in which H1N1 (swine flu) has caused ARDS--Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. These measures include a 'cut down' to an artery and directing arterial blood though an oxygenating machine because intubation and mechanical ventilation are not enough to increase oxygen saturation of the blood sufficiently to prevent death.
Even with EXTREME measures at least half of ARDS patients are dying. Some from systemic infections introduced through the cut down, others because there is no way to get enough oxygen into blood, yet others die from infections caused by H1N1 leaving the lungs and attacking and stopping the heart.
Yet in VUSD, students are NOT being sent home with severe coughs. No matter how severe the coughing, students are being sent back to class. Only students with high temperatures are sent home. Low grade or no fever and severe cough are sent back to class to infect other students. Surprisingly some 30 to 40% of those infected with H1N1 have NO fever whatsoever, unlike ordinary flu.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13fever.html
In a world wide and nation wide epidemic of a very severe illness, why is our VUSD policy to return students with severe coughs to the classroom when teachers send them to the nurse?
I believe there can only be one reason--ADA--average daily attendance. Schools are paid by the state based on students being in class. Students at home mean NO money for the district.
In the past California schools were still paid by the state when a child stayed home sick if a signed parental note was sent with the student when the student returned. But no more. The state changed its attendance laws and now only students physically present in the classroom are counted for ADA and paid for by the state. This new requirement is the likely reason for the Joyce Bales, "keep sick kids in class" policy.
Under the Bales policy, children are only sent home for the big three, "burning up", bleeding, or barfing.
Burning up is defined by Bales as a fever over 100 degrees yet it has been known for months that many with swine flu never have a fever at all. Teachers who send children in just for coughing are treated as 'naughty'.
See her letter to parents here: http://www.vusd.k12.ca.us/news/News%20Archives/H1N1%20Flu%20Virus%20(Swine%20Flu)%20Information%20letter.pdf
Not only is Joyce Bales' VUSD policy dangerous to our students who may be sick with H1N1, but it also is contrary to the goal of improving ADA. Keeping sick students in our classrooms may give us ADA for that day for that ONE student, but now he has had a chance to infect a whole lot more students who may stay home in the following days. ADA for the school as a whole declines because of Bales' ill conceived policy. It's penny wise and pound foolish.
Isolating the sick is the only way to slow or stop a flu infection. Why aren't we doing that in VUSD?
In hospitals, desperate measures have had to be taken to try to save patients in which H1N1 (swine flu) has caused ARDS--Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. These measures include a 'cut down' to an artery and directing arterial blood though an oxygenating machine because intubation and mechanical ventilation are not enough to increase oxygen saturation of the blood sufficiently to prevent death.
Even with EXTREME measures at least half of ARDS patients are dying. Some from systemic infections introduced through the cut down, others because there is no way to get enough oxygen into blood, yet others die from infections caused by H1N1 leaving the lungs and attacking and stopping the heart.
Yet in VUSD, students are NOT being sent home with severe coughs. No matter how severe the coughing, students are being sent back to class. Only students with high temperatures are sent home. Low grade or no fever and severe cough are sent back to class to infect other students. Surprisingly some 30 to 40% of those infected with H1N1 have NO fever whatsoever, unlike ordinary flu.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13fever.html
In a world wide and nation wide epidemic of a very severe illness, why is our VUSD policy to return students with severe coughs to the classroom when teachers send them to the nurse?
I believe there can only be one reason--ADA--average daily attendance. Schools are paid by the state based on students being in class. Students at home mean NO money for the district.
In the past California schools were still paid by the state when a child stayed home sick if a signed parental note was sent with the student when the student returned. But no more. The state changed its attendance laws and now only students physically present in the classroom are counted for ADA and paid for by the state. This new requirement is the likely reason for the Joyce Bales, "keep sick kids in class" policy.
Under the Bales policy, children are only sent home for the big three, "burning up", bleeding, or barfing.
Burning up is defined by Bales as a fever over 100 degrees yet it has been known for months that many with swine flu never have a fever at all. Teachers who send children in just for coughing are treated as 'naughty'.
See her letter to parents here: http://www.vusd.k12.ca.us/news/News%20Archives/H1N1%20Flu%20Virus%20(Swine%20Flu)%20Information%20letter.pdf
Not only is Joyce Bales' VUSD policy dangerous to our students who may be sick with H1N1, but it also is contrary to the goal of improving ADA. Keeping sick students in our classrooms may give us ADA for that day for that ONE student, but now he has had a chance to infect a whole lot more students who may stay home in the following days. ADA for the school as a whole declines because of Bales' ill conceived policy. It's penny wise and pound foolish.
Isolating the sick is the only way to slow or stop a flu infection. Why aren't we doing that in VUSD?
Thursday, October 15, 2009
JIM GIBSON's supporters try to deny his responsibility for DOUBLING the cost of our third high school
ANTI bloggers are again trying to run away from the fact that JIM Gibson's actions in not being the fourth vote for the third high school at Strawberry Hill Kawano site cost the district 50 million dollars. What was a projected 50 million dollar high school in 2002, has with the Gibson caused delays ballooned to 100 million dollars--DOUBLE the original cost. That extra FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS of WASTE is entirely JIM GIBSON's fault. His supporters know it. We know it.Gibson and his supporters are terrified that this fact will cost him the election next November.
Jim Gibson apologist and blogger, Samuel, wrote a long post trying to blame the extra costs of the third high school on anybody but JIMMY. I corrected him today in the article about the third high school being completed.
The article here:
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_6c857e07-a64e-5558-9274-96021809b9a3.html
Samuel's comments follow the article. My response to Samuel:
Samuel, I understand why you want to run away from the 50 million dollars that Jim Gibson cost the voters of VUSD.
Your post at 9:33PM is about delays and problems that happened AFTER THE FACT, and AS A RESULT of your boy, JIM GIBSON, denying the district voters the chance to get a FAST, CHEAP, new high school for HALF what eventually had to be paid. None of those costs would have happened had your boy supported the cheap level Kawano/Strawberry Hill site.
JIM GIBSON refused to be the legally necessary FOURTH school board member to support the CHEAP LEVEL FULLY GRADED Jay Kawano site behind Strawberry Hill.
Hey you want proof, Sam. Something YOU have not provided in your post. I provide LINKS to the articles that allow anyone to check and verify that indeed it was JIM GIBSON that denied our district the CHEAP LEVEL KAWANO site.
Where are your links? Of course, who cares? As you can only babble on about things that happened after and as a result of JIM GIBSON denying our district the cheap level Kawano site.
And Sammy, you know that NO OTHER VUSD school board member EVER indicated PUBLICLY or in any other way that they would not vote for Strawberry Hill. ONLY TWO board members denied the LEGALLY NECESSARY fourth school board member's support to build at the cheap, level Kawano/Strawberry Hill site--JIM GIBSON and DR. STEPHEN GUFFANTI.
Before your next post in which you prattle on about official votes or no official votes, READ quote three in article three below.
ALL THREE pro-public education board members, who did NOT believe in wasting money, told the reporter in AUGUST of 2003 that THEY SUPPORTED BUILDING AT THE KAWANO STRAWBERRY HILL SITE.
Here are five links, five article headlines and five proving quotes: (PS I have more articles that PROVE JIM GIBSON denied VUSD voters the chance to build a third high school for HALF the price.I will be glad to give you links to those as well if you wish.)
STORY ONE
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2002/10/30/export21822.txt
Two VUSD candidates attack magnet high school site
Tuesday, October 29, 2002
Incumbent school board Trustee Jim Gibson and the candidate he endorses ---- Steve Bradford ---- said this week that they oppose putting the campus, which would accommodate two magnet high schools, on the property the district is studying on East Vista Way between Mason Road and Osborne Street in an area called Strawberry Hill.
---------------------------
STORY TWO
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/02/16/export3600.txt
New Vista high school project picking up steam
Saturday, February 15, 2003
In the latter case, the district board of trustees would be faced with a difficult decision. Two of the five members ---- Jim Gibson and Stephen Guffanti ---- have said they oppose putting the school on the Kawano property (Strawberry Hill).
------------------------------------------
STORY THREE
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/08/10/news/inland/vista/8_10_0323_00_12.txt
Vista still searching for home of magnet high schools
August 9, 2003
Three board members say they wanted to build the high schools on a 50-acre tract known as Strawberry Hills in Bonsall.
But the other two members (GIBSON and GUFFANTI) said they want the district to put more effort into looking at smaller sites around the city. The board couldn't agree on the Strawberry Hills site…
Board members Jim Gibson and Stephen Guffanti said they refuse to support condemning the Kawano property (strawberry hill)
------------------------
STORY FOUR
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/05/29/news/inland/vista/22_38_385_28_05.txt
VUSD sees Melrose campus as key project
Saturday, May 28, 2005 10:48 PM PDT
The long road
Vail said the district seriously considered three other sites before settling on the Melrose property. Those sites included property south of Highway 76 off East Vista Way that didn't work out for environmental reasons; the "Kawano" or "Strawberry Hill" property that failed to generate enough support among school board trustees; and the Lincoln Middle School/Vista City Hall site that fell through because the state wouldn't provide necessary funding.
STORY FIVE
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/03/23/export6438.txt
School district exploring new high school campus proposal
...there are very few properties left big enough to accommodate a high-school campus serving around 2,000 students. District trustees voted 5-0 on March 13 to abandon the most recent possibility, a produce farm (Kawano property aka Strawberry Hill) on East Vista Way in the unincorporated area just north of Vista. The proposal encountered opposition from neighbors and the property owner was unwilling to sell. Two of the board trustees objected to the site (Guffanti and Gibson), which would have left the five-member board short of the four votes needed to institute an eminent domain proceeding that would be needed to obtain the property.
Jim Gibson apologist and blogger, Samuel, wrote a long post trying to blame the extra costs of the third high school on anybody but JIMMY. I corrected him today in the article about the third high school being completed.
The article here:
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_6c857e07-a64e-5558-9274-96021809b9a3.html
Samuel's comments follow the article. My response to Samuel:
Samuel, I understand why you want to run away from the 50 million dollars that Jim Gibson cost the voters of VUSD.
Your post at 9:33PM is about delays and problems that happened AFTER THE FACT, and AS A RESULT of your boy, JIM GIBSON, denying the district voters the chance to get a FAST, CHEAP, new high school for HALF what eventually had to be paid. None of those costs would have happened had your boy supported the cheap level Kawano/Strawberry Hill site.
JIM GIBSON refused to be the legally necessary FOURTH school board member to support the CHEAP LEVEL FULLY GRADED Jay Kawano site behind Strawberry Hill.
Hey you want proof, Sam. Something YOU have not provided in your post. I provide LINKS to the articles that allow anyone to check and verify that indeed it was JIM GIBSON that denied our district the CHEAP LEVEL KAWANO site.
Where are your links? Of course, who cares? As you can only babble on about things that happened after and as a result of JIM GIBSON denying our district the cheap level Kawano site.
And Sammy, you know that NO OTHER VUSD school board member EVER indicated PUBLICLY or in any other way that they would not vote for Strawberry Hill. ONLY TWO board members denied the LEGALLY NECESSARY fourth school board member's support to build at the cheap, level Kawano/Strawberry Hill site--JIM GIBSON and DR. STEPHEN GUFFANTI.
Before your next post in which you prattle on about official votes or no official votes, READ quote three in article three below.
ALL THREE pro-public education board members, who did NOT believe in wasting money, told the reporter in AUGUST of 2003 that THEY SUPPORTED BUILDING AT THE KAWANO STRAWBERRY HILL SITE.
Here are five links, five article headlines and five proving quotes: (PS I have more articles that PROVE JIM GIBSON denied VUSD voters the chance to build a third high school for HALF the price.I will be glad to give you links to those as well if you wish.)
STORY ONE
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2002/10/30/export21822.txt
Two VUSD candidates attack magnet high school site
Tuesday, October 29, 2002
Incumbent school board Trustee Jim Gibson and the candidate he endorses ---- Steve Bradford ---- said this week that they oppose putting the campus, which would accommodate two magnet high schools, on the property the district is studying on East Vista Way between Mason Road and Osborne Street in an area called Strawberry Hill.
---------------------------
STORY TWO
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/02/16/export3600.txt
New Vista high school project picking up steam
Saturday, February 15, 2003
In the latter case, the district board of trustees would be faced with a difficult decision. Two of the five members ---- Jim Gibson and Stephen Guffanti ---- have said they oppose putting the school on the Kawano property (Strawberry Hill).
------------------------------------------
STORY THREE
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/08/10/news/inland/vista/8_10_0323_00_12.txt
Vista still searching for home of magnet high schools
August 9, 2003
Three board members say they wanted to build the high schools on a 50-acre tract known as Strawberry Hills in Bonsall.
But the other two members (GIBSON and GUFFANTI) said they want the district to put more effort into looking at smaller sites around the city. The board couldn't agree on the Strawberry Hills site…
Board members Jim Gibson and Stephen Guffanti said they refuse to support condemning the Kawano property (strawberry hill)
------------------------
STORY FOUR
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/05/29/news/inland/vista/22_38_385_28_05.txt
VUSD sees Melrose campus as key project
Saturday, May 28, 2005 10:48 PM PDT
The long road
Vail said the district seriously considered three other sites before settling on the Melrose property. Those sites included property south of Highway 76 off East Vista Way that didn't work out for environmental reasons; the "Kawano" or "Strawberry Hill" property that failed to generate enough support among school board trustees; and the Lincoln Middle School/Vista City Hall site that fell through because the state wouldn't provide necessary funding.
STORY FIVE
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2003/03/23/export6438.txt
School district exploring new high school campus proposal
...there are very few properties left big enough to accommodate a high-school campus serving around 2,000 students. District trustees voted 5-0 on March 13 to abandon the most recent possibility, a produce farm (Kawano property aka Strawberry Hill) on East Vista Way in the unincorporated area just north of Vista. The proposal encountered opposition from neighbors and the property owner was unwilling to sell. Two of the board trustees objected to the site (Guffanti and Gibson), which would have left the five-member board short of the four votes needed to institute an eminent domain proceeding that would be needed to obtain the property.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
No Child Left Behind not reaching math goals
From the New York Times, the math results under NCLB have been disappointing. The rate of increase in scores has slowed even below what was seen with reforms BEFORE No Child Left Behind.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/education/15math.html?_r=1&ref=education
October 15, 2009
Sluggish Results Seen in U.S. Math Scores
By SAM DILLON
Scores on the most important nationwide math test increased only marginally for eighth graders and not at all for fourth graders, continuing a six-year trend of sluggish results that suggest the nation will not come close to bringing all children to proficiency by 2014, a central goal of the Bush-era federal education law, No Child Left Behind.
Thirty-nine percent of fourth graders and 34 percent of eighth graders scored at or above the proficient level on the test, administered this spring.
“The trend is flat; it’s a plateau. Scores are not going anywhere, at least nowhere important,” said Chester E. Finn, Jr., president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a research organization in Washington. “That means that eight years after enactment of No Child Left Behind, the problems it set out to solve are not being solved, and now we’re five years from the deadline and we’re still far, far from the goal.”
The test, known as the National Assessment of Educational Progress, was given to 329,000 fourth- and eighth-grade students. Results in reading are to be released next year, officials said.
“This is the first time in 19 years that fourth-grade math scores are flat,” said Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. “We’ve got to get better faster.”
The latest scores were especially disappointing because score gaps between white and minority students did not diminish at all since the last time the math test was administered, in 2007. On average, the nation’s fourth graders scored 240 on a 500-point scale, just as they did in 2007. White fourth graders, on average, scored 248, Hispanics scored 227 and blacks scored 222.
Eighth graders, on average, scored 283 on the same scale, up from 281 in 2007. White eighth graders, on average, scored 293, while Hispanics scored 266 and black eighth graders scored 261.
The gap of 32 points separating average black and white eighth graders represents about three years’ worth of math learning.
The No Child Left Behind law, which President George W. Bush signed in 2001, raised the importance of the National Assessment, requiring the Department of Education to increase the frequency of its administration in math and reading to once every two years, to help Americans monitor progress toward the goals of universal proficiency and the elimination of the achievement gap.
The federal law’s enactment followed a decade dominated by a standards and accountability movement that brought deep changes to public schools across the nation. Educators and policy makers, in nearly every state, often led by governors, including Mr. Bush when he was the Texas governor, laid out standards as to what students were expected to know in each grade and subject, and required schools to use those standards to guide instruction.
Nearly every state established standardized testing regimes during the 1990s, intended to measure whether students were meeting the standards, with the intent of holding schools accountable for student achievement.
The No Child Left Behind law, proposed by President Bush and passed by bipartisan majorities in Congress in his first year in office, sought to build on the standards and accountability movement with many new federal rules, including a requirement that states administer reading and math tests to every student every year in all elementary and middle schools, and once in students’ high school careers.
It also required that schools publish test scores not just as averages, but broken down by students’ race, sex and other groups, a rule that most educators agree has focused nationwide attention on narrowing achievement gaps.
The law also for the first time made it a national goal to bring every student to proficiency in those subjects by 2014.
With the latest test results, it is possible to trace student achievement growth over the years before the law’s passage, when states were dominant in education policy, and over the years since, when the federal law has become a powerful force in classrooms.
They show that scores grew faster during the seven years before the federal law’s enactment. During those years, average fourth-grade math scores grew by 11 points, to 235 in 2003 from 224 in 1996, and eighth-grade scores grew by eight points, to 278 in 2003 from 270 in 1996. In the six years since the law took effect, fourth-grade scores have risen by five points, to 240 from 235. Eighth-grade scores have risen by an equal amount, to 283 from 278.
“If we look at the gains between 1996 and 2003, which is the era preceding the No Child law, when states were enacting accountability and standards, the gains were larger than during the No Child era that began in 2003 and has run to 2009,” said Mark Schneider, who from 2005 to 2008 was commissioner of the arm of the Department of Education that oversees the National Assessment. “Either the standards movement has played out, or the No Child law failed to build on its momentum. Whatever momentum we had, however, is gone.”
William Schmidt, an education professor at Michigan State University, also called the results disappointing.
“We’re just inching upwards, and we’ve only got about a third of our students proficient,” Professor Schmidt said.
The large variation in average scores by state, he said, should be a focus of national analysis. In Massachusetts, for instance, where educators have sharply raised math scores in recent years by carefully reworking standards and instruction, 57 percent of fourth graders scored at or above proficient on the latest test. That compares with Mississippi, where only 16 percent of students scored at proficient.
“How can we as a nation allow such disparity?” Professor Schmidt asked.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/education/15math.html?_r=1&ref=education
October 15, 2009
Sluggish Results Seen in U.S. Math Scores
By SAM DILLON
Scores on the most important nationwide math test increased only marginally for eighth graders and not at all for fourth graders, continuing a six-year trend of sluggish results that suggest the nation will not come close to bringing all children to proficiency by 2014, a central goal of the Bush-era federal education law, No Child Left Behind.
Thirty-nine percent of fourth graders and 34 percent of eighth graders scored at or above the proficient level on the test, administered this spring.
“The trend is flat; it’s a plateau. Scores are not going anywhere, at least nowhere important,” said Chester E. Finn, Jr., president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a research organization in Washington. “That means that eight years after enactment of No Child Left Behind, the problems it set out to solve are not being solved, and now we’re five years from the deadline and we’re still far, far from the goal.”
The test, known as the National Assessment of Educational Progress, was given to 329,000 fourth- and eighth-grade students. Results in reading are to be released next year, officials said.
“This is the first time in 19 years that fourth-grade math scores are flat,” said Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. “We’ve got to get better faster.”
The latest scores were especially disappointing because score gaps between white and minority students did not diminish at all since the last time the math test was administered, in 2007. On average, the nation’s fourth graders scored 240 on a 500-point scale, just as they did in 2007. White fourth graders, on average, scored 248, Hispanics scored 227 and blacks scored 222.
Eighth graders, on average, scored 283 on the same scale, up from 281 in 2007. White eighth graders, on average, scored 293, while Hispanics scored 266 and black eighth graders scored 261.
The gap of 32 points separating average black and white eighth graders represents about three years’ worth of math learning.
The No Child Left Behind law, which President George W. Bush signed in 2001, raised the importance of the National Assessment, requiring the Department of Education to increase the frequency of its administration in math and reading to once every two years, to help Americans monitor progress toward the goals of universal proficiency and the elimination of the achievement gap.
The federal law’s enactment followed a decade dominated by a standards and accountability movement that brought deep changes to public schools across the nation. Educators and policy makers, in nearly every state, often led by governors, including Mr. Bush when he was the Texas governor, laid out standards as to what students were expected to know in each grade and subject, and required schools to use those standards to guide instruction.
Nearly every state established standardized testing regimes during the 1990s, intended to measure whether students were meeting the standards, with the intent of holding schools accountable for student achievement.
The No Child Left Behind law, proposed by President Bush and passed by bipartisan majorities in Congress in his first year in office, sought to build on the standards and accountability movement with many new federal rules, including a requirement that states administer reading and math tests to every student every year in all elementary and middle schools, and once in students’ high school careers.
It also required that schools publish test scores not just as averages, but broken down by students’ race, sex and other groups, a rule that most educators agree has focused nationwide attention on narrowing achievement gaps.
The law also for the first time made it a national goal to bring every student to proficiency in those subjects by 2014.
With the latest test results, it is possible to trace student achievement growth over the years before the law’s passage, when states were dominant in education policy, and over the years since, when the federal law has become a powerful force in classrooms.
They show that scores grew faster during the seven years before the federal law’s enactment. During those years, average fourth-grade math scores grew by 11 points, to 235 in 2003 from 224 in 1996, and eighth-grade scores grew by eight points, to 278 in 2003 from 270 in 1996. In the six years since the law took effect, fourth-grade scores have risen by five points, to 240 from 235. Eighth-grade scores have risen by an equal amount, to 283 from 278.
“If we look at the gains between 1996 and 2003, which is the era preceding the No Child law, when states were enacting accountability and standards, the gains were larger than during the No Child era that began in 2003 and has run to 2009,” said Mark Schneider, who from 2005 to 2008 was commissioner of the arm of the Department of Education that oversees the National Assessment. “Either the standards movement has played out, or the No Child law failed to build on its momentum. Whatever momentum we had, however, is gone.”
William Schmidt, an education professor at Michigan State University, also called the results disappointing.
“We’re just inching upwards, and we’ve only got about a third of our students proficient,” Professor Schmidt said.
The large variation in average scores by state, he said, should be a focus of national analysis. In Massachusetts, for instance, where educators have sharply raised math scores in recent years by carefully reworking standards and instruction, 57 percent of fourth graders scored at or above proficient on the latest test. That compares with Mississippi, where only 16 percent of students scored at proficient.
“How can we as a nation allow such disparity?” Professor Schmidt asked.
CalPads and CalTides data bases that will determine your teaching future
latimes.com/news/local/la-me-schools15-2009sep15,0,6657057.story
latimes.com
Obscure database is key to U.S. educational funds for California
The data system tracks student, teacher and administrator performance year to year but has barely gotten off the ground. Other states' systems improve student performance and hold schools accountable.
By Jason Felch and Jason Song
7:56 PM PDT, September 14, 2009
California's chance to receive hundreds of millions of federal educational dollars may rest heavily on an obscure and long-neglected piece of education infrastructure: a statewide data system that tracks students, teachers and administrators year to year.
Such education systems are expensive, complex and do not win elections for politicians. But experts say they are essential to learn how much of the nearly $60 billion that California spends on K-12 education makes a difference, a fact that student achievement tests only hint at.
Last month, California rolled out the first component, a student database known as CalPADS. It will eventually make it possible to measure what works and what doesn't in classrooms throughout the state. The second major component, a teacher and administrator database known as CalTIDES, will not come online until 2011.
Though still in its infancy, the state's data system has had a rocky history. The project was first conceived in the 1980s, but has been stalled repeatedly by infighting among state agencies and a lack of political support. Already overdue and over budget, it lacks many of the key components in place in other states such as Texas and Florida.
On Friday, the state Legislature passed a bill that removed one of the system's key limitations -- it sets aside a 2006 state law that, at the insistence of teachers unions, prevented California from using the system to evaluate teachers based on the academic gains of their students.
Experts say that identifying the most effective and least effective teachers is one of the most important factors in improving education, and the Obama administration has said that California would be ineligible for $4.35 billion in competitive federal education grants unless it changed the law.
But education officials say that Friday's legislative fix does little to make California more competitive for the federal money, known as Race to the Top funds. To improve the state's chances, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and several legislators have proposed a sweeping education reform bill that, among other things, seeks to hold teachers accountable for the performance of their students.
So far, few in Sacramento have championed the proposal, and the Democrat-controlled Legislature is facing pressure from the powerful teachers unions to delay the bill, education officials say.
David Sanchez, president of the California Teachers Assn., made his position clear at a summer meeting with his membership.
"Paying and evaluating teachers based on a single test score does not improve student learning and does not help attract and retain quality teachers in lower-performing schools," Sanchez said.
"And we will not stand for it."
Disorganized data
California has long been awash in educational data. The state Department of Education alone has 125 separate databases, including those that track student test scores, national origin and school finances.
But for all that data, the state cannot answer many basic questions about public education: Which high school classes are best at preparing students for success in college? Do the hundreds of millions of dollars spent annually on training actually make for better teachers? Which credentialing programs prepare the most effective educators?
For the most part, officials say, nobody knows.
David Gordon, the superintendent for Sacramento County schools, recalls a discussion in 1983 over unifying the databases to make it easier to measure the effectiveness of education reforms.
For two decades, the idea has been popular among reformers and policy wonks, but never received political support or funding.
In the meantime, other states developed data systems that have allowed them to improve student performance, hold schools accountable and spend education dollars more efficiently.
California was spurred into action in 2002, when the No Child Left Behind law required the state to collect new data. The Legislature approved CalPADS that year with little opposition. It was projected to cost $6 million.
In fact, the student database has taken seven years and tens of millions of dollars to build -- the exact figures are in some dispute.
Many attribute the project's delays to the Department of Finance, which one study said used "100 ways of saying no" to slow the project. Finance officials have fought bitterly with the education department on the scope of the system and who would control access to the data.
H.D. Palmer, spokesman for the finance department, acknowledged his department's concerns about privacy and costs over the years. But once the system was approved, "in no way, shape or form have we been an impediment to providing the funds to build the system."
Even today, the two departments have dramatically different estimates for the pricetag: Finance puts it at more than $100 million, including ongoing costs; the Department of Education says one-time development costs were $24 million.
Whatever the figure, some say the state has been penny-wise and pound-foolish, wasting far more money by not investing in the system sooner. "If you're going to be investing $60 billion a year, to have a $20-million system in place to monitor what is working seems an obvious and appropriate investment," said Gary K. Hart, the former secretary of education for Gov. Gray Davis.
"We've been something of an embarrassment in the states on this issue," said Gordon, the Sacramento County superintendent. "This has been way, way too long in coming."
Despite the delays, CalPADS' development has already yielded some major breakthroughs for the state. California has been able to count the number of dropouts far more accurately, and students' test data and enrollment history will now follow them when they transfer between districts, eliminating the need for some of the costly testing.
And soon, the state will be able to answer those basic questions about what works in California classrooms.
When the teacher and administrator database is in place, the state for the first time will be able to determine which teacher training programs produce the most effective teachers.
Used together, the systems will allow the state to save money by eliminating programs that are not working.
"It's not going to solve the state budget deficit," said Mary Perry, deputy director of EdSource, a California policy group that has studied the data system. "But it's going to help educators learn what helps student performance and what doesn't."
jason.felch@latimes.com
jason.song@latimes.com
latimes.com
Obscure database is key to U.S. educational funds for California
The data system tracks student, teacher and administrator performance year to year but has barely gotten off the ground. Other states' systems improve student performance and hold schools accountable.
By Jason Felch and Jason Song
7:56 PM PDT, September 14, 2009
California's chance to receive hundreds of millions of federal educational dollars may rest heavily on an obscure and long-neglected piece of education infrastructure: a statewide data system that tracks students, teachers and administrators year to year.
Such education systems are expensive, complex and do not win elections for politicians. But experts say they are essential to learn how much of the nearly $60 billion that California spends on K-12 education makes a difference, a fact that student achievement tests only hint at.
Last month, California rolled out the first component, a student database known as CalPADS. It will eventually make it possible to measure what works and what doesn't in classrooms throughout the state. The second major component, a teacher and administrator database known as CalTIDES, will not come online until 2011.
Though still in its infancy, the state's data system has had a rocky history. The project was first conceived in the 1980s, but has been stalled repeatedly by infighting among state agencies and a lack of political support. Already overdue and over budget, it lacks many of the key components in place in other states such as Texas and Florida.
On Friday, the state Legislature passed a bill that removed one of the system's key limitations -- it sets aside a 2006 state law that, at the insistence of teachers unions, prevented California from using the system to evaluate teachers based on the academic gains of their students.
Experts say that identifying the most effective and least effective teachers is one of the most important factors in improving education, and the Obama administration has said that California would be ineligible for $4.35 billion in competitive federal education grants unless it changed the law.
But education officials say that Friday's legislative fix does little to make California more competitive for the federal money, known as Race to the Top funds. To improve the state's chances, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and several legislators have proposed a sweeping education reform bill that, among other things, seeks to hold teachers accountable for the performance of their students.
So far, few in Sacramento have championed the proposal, and the Democrat-controlled Legislature is facing pressure from the powerful teachers unions to delay the bill, education officials say.
David Sanchez, president of the California Teachers Assn., made his position clear at a summer meeting with his membership.
"Paying and evaluating teachers based on a single test score does not improve student learning and does not help attract and retain quality teachers in lower-performing schools," Sanchez said.
"And we will not stand for it."
Disorganized data
California has long been awash in educational data. The state Department of Education alone has 125 separate databases, including those that track student test scores, national origin and school finances.
But for all that data, the state cannot answer many basic questions about public education: Which high school classes are best at preparing students for success in college? Do the hundreds of millions of dollars spent annually on training actually make for better teachers? Which credentialing programs prepare the most effective educators?
For the most part, officials say, nobody knows.
David Gordon, the superintendent for Sacramento County schools, recalls a discussion in 1983 over unifying the databases to make it easier to measure the effectiveness of education reforms.
For two decades, the idea has been popular among reformers and policy wonks, but never received political support or funding.
In the meantime, other states developed data systems that have allowed them to improve student performance, hold schools accountable and spend education dollars more efficiently.
California was spurred into action in 2002, when the No Child Left Behind law required the state to collect new data. The Legislature approved CalPADS that year with little opposition. It was projected to cost $6 million.
In fact, the student database has taken seven years and tens of millions of dollars to build -- the exact figures are in some dispute.
Many attribute the project's delays to the Department of Finance, which one study said used "100 ways of saying no" to slow the project. Finance officials have fought bitterly with the education department on the scope of the system and who would control access to the data.
H.D. Palmer, spokesman for the finance department, acknowledged his department's concerns about privacy and costs over the years. But once the system was approved, "in no way, shape or form have we been an impediment to providing the funds to build the system."
Even today, the two departments have dramatically different estimates for the pricetag: Finance puts it at more than $100 million, including ongoing costs; the Department of Education says one-time development costs were $24 million.
Whatever the figure, some say the state has been penny-wise and pound-foolish, wasting far more money by not investing in the system sooner. "If you're going to be investing $60 billion a year, to have a $20-million system in place to monitor what is working seems an obvious and appropriate investment," said Gary K. Hart, the former secretary of education for Gov. Gray Davis.
"We've been something of an embarrassment in the states on this issue," said Gordon, the Sacramento County superintendent. "This has been way, way too long in coming."
Despite the delays, CalPADS' development has already yielded some major breakthroughs for the state. California has been able to count the number of dropouts far more accurately, and students' test data and enrollment history will now follow them when they transfer between districts, eliminating the need for some of the costly testing.
And soon, the state will be able to answer those basic questions about what works in California classrooms.
When the teacher and administrator database is in place, the state for the first time will be able to determine which teacher training programs produce the most effective teachers.
Used together, the systems will allow the state to save money by eliminating programs that are not working.
"It's not going to solve the state budget deficit," said Mary Perry, deputy director of EdSource, a California policy group that has studied the data system. "But it's going to help educators learn what helps student performance and what doesn't."
jason.felch@latimes.com
jason.song@latimes.com
Schwarzenegger signs bill "teacher evaluation tied to student test scores," Is it time to look for a job at a high performing school?
Today Governor Schwarzenegger cheerfully signed into law the ability for districts to evaluate teachers based on how well their students do on standardized tests.
No one worries that these tests were not created to measure teachers.
No one worries that teachers with students from wealthy backgrounds will have better performing students and consequently better evaluations and better pay.
The evil Arne Duncan, Obama education secretary, who has NEVER taught in a school classroom is especially delighted with this new attack on teachers.
latimes.com/news/local/la-me-education-firewall14-2009oct14,0,3475835.story
latimes.com
Governor praised for signing education funding eligibility bill
U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan calls the bill, which eliminates a ban on using test data to determine educator pay or promotions, 'a victory for children.'
By Jason Song and Jason Felch
October 14, 2009
The nation's top education official praised Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Tuesday for signing a bill that will make California eligible for competitive federal education funding.
Schwarzenegger signed the bill, SB 19 by Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), on Sunday, striking a clause in a 2006 law Simitian wrote that bars state use of testing data to determine educator pay or promotion.
"This is a victory for children," said U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan in a telephone interview Tuesday.
Obama administration officials have said that states applying for $4.35 billion in education funding can have no "firewalls" between student achievement data and teachers.
Schwarzenegger and others emphasized that the bill does not guarantee the state any federal funding and urged legislators to approve other legislation, including repealing the state's charter school cap, to give California a better chance to get education dollars.
Federal officials have emphasized that the funding program, known as Race to the Top, is competitive and that only a few states will get funding.
Race to the Top funding will be awarded in two stages and it is unclear if California legislators will finish their work in time to meet the first deadline.
Federal officials have not finalized the deadline but expect that it will be sometime this winter.
States that apply but do not receive funding during the first round will get a detailed response from the federal government and can try again.
jason.song@latimes.com
jason.felch@latimes.com
No one worries that these tests were not created to measure teachers.
No one worries that teachers with students from wealthy backgrounds will have better performing students and consequently better evaluations and better pay.
The evil Arne Duncan, Obama education secretary, who has NEVER taught in a school classroom is especially delighted with this new attack on teachers.
latimes.com/news/local/la-me-education-firewall14-2009oct14,0,3475835.story
latimes.com
Governor praised for signing education funding eligibility bill
U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan calls the bill, which eliminates a ban on using test data to determine educator pay or promotions, 'a victory for children.'
By Jason Song and Jason Felch
October 14, 2009
The nation's top education official praised Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Tuesday for signing a bill that will make California eligible for competitive federal education funding.
Schwarzenegger signed the bill, SB 19 by Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto), on Sunday, striking a clause in a 2006 law Simitian wrote that bars state use of testing data to determine educator pay or promotion.
"This is a victory for children," said U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan in a telephone interview Tuesday.
Obama administration officials have said that states applying for $4.35 billion in education funding can have no "firewalls" between student achievement data and teachers.
Schwarzenegger and others emphasized that the bill does not guarantee the state any federal funding and urged legislators to approve other legislation, including repealing the state's charter school cap, to give California a better chance to get education dollars.
Federal officials have emphasized that the funding program, known as Race to the Top, is competitive and that only a few states will get funding.
Race to the Top funding will be awarded in two stages and it is unclear if California legislators will finish their work in time to meet the first deadline.
Federal officials have not finalized the deadline but expect that it will be sometime this winter.
States that apply but do not receive funding during the first round will get a detailed response from the federal government and can try again.
jason.song@latimes.com
jason.felch@latimes.com
Why are unproven and unsupported claims allowed on editorial page of the North County Times?
ANTI public education blogger and Jim Gibson supporter Samuel at 12:33 wrote the following in the comment section of the NCTimes following the article about our third VUSD high school being almost finished:
"I continue to be amazed that the NC Times will print unproven and unsupported claims by some individuals against duly elected VUSD Board members"
Samuel, I could not agree more, but I would add these same kind of unsubstantiated charges are also allowed to be made against the good teachers of the VUSD.
This constant barrage of lies and unsubstantiated charges against the duly elected PRO-public education board members and teachers of VUSD are not just allowed in this comment section but also in the Forum and Perspective pieces PUBLISHED on the editorial page of this newspaper.
Let's discuss the recent Joan Brubaker "Forum" piece, "Vista Teachers Seek Total Control"
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/article_ca1b424c-156c-52d7-8169-d3eb741bc3be.html?mode=story
I will list three statements taken from her embarassing rant that are made without "facts in evidence". They are in your words, "unproven and unsupported".
None of these statements could have made it onto the editorial page of any other newspaper in San Diego County nor one suspects in any other newspaper in our entire state.
(1)" four members of the board are bought and paid by VTA"
(2)"The 'throttle hold' VTA has on the guiding staff of Vista Unified has denied the superintendent to use one of the engines to success she was using"
(3)"Efforts are now under way by VTA to shuffle or "buy out" the deputy superintendent"
Let's first point out how ridiculous her (1) point was.
The first, (1)"four members of the board are bought and paid by the VTA" is a "unproven and unsupported" libel and slander against duly elected board members.
This weird paranoia fantasy is also contrary to facts and evidence on the ground in our district.
The teachers have had no contract in over two years.
The teachers have had no salary increase in even longer.
The teachers took a salary cut this year of one paid day to keep K-3 class size reduction.
The Vista Teachers Association was not consulted in any way when our VUSD superintendent, Joyce Bales, was hired or when her contract was extended just before last year's election.
If the teachers have "bought and paid for" four school board members, they sure are not getting their money's worth.
The second (2) "the 'throttle hold' VTA has on the guiding staff of Vista Unified has denied the superintendent to use one of the engines to success she was using," is factually incorrect.
SSC parents are the ones who did not want to spend the SSC money on the very expensive Lindamood Bell reading program not the teachers.
Teachers teach with whatever is provided to them.
Last year they were given and told to use LMB they did. This year they are using something else that they are given and told to use.
Teachers do not have a dog in this fight. So why were "unproven and unsupported claims" allowed to be made against the good teachers of VUSD?
Now for the third "unproven and unsupported" charge made a week ago by Joan Brubaker. (3)"Efforts are now under way by VTA to shuffle or "buy out" the deputy superintendent,"
This charge is made up out of whole cloth. It comes out of left field and it makes no sense on the face of it.
When Brubaker said,"efforts are underway by the VTA...", she does not seem to realize that the VTA is an organization not a person. Real newspapers would demand to have evidence of the people who are doing these "efforts" before publishing such a ludicrous charge.
Here are the questions that the editors of this newspaper should have required Joan Brubaker to answer before publishing her "Forum" charge about "efforts underway by the VTA"
(a)Who in the VTA is doing these "efforts"?
(b)What exactly did they do? What do these efforts consist of?
(c)When did they do these "efforts"?
(d)Where did these "efforts" take place?
(e)How are they doing these "efforts"?
(f)Why are they engaging in these "efforts"?
So yes, Samuel I absolutely agree with you. Why are unproven, unsupported and unsubstantiated charges against duly elected board members and the good teachers of the Vista Teachers Association allowed to be published in this newspaper?
"I continue to be amazed that the NC Times will print unproven and unsupported claims by some individuals against duly elected VUSD Board members"
Samuel, I could not agree more, but I would add these same kind of unsubstantiated charges are also allowed to be made against the good teachers of the VUSD.
This constant barrage of lies and unsubstantiated charges against the duly elected PRO-public education board members and teachers of VUSD are not just allowed in this comment section but also in the Forum and Perspective pieces PUBLISHED on the editorial page of this newspaper.
Let's discuss the recent Joan Brubaker "Forum" piece, "Vista Teachers Seek Total Control"
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/article_ca1b424c-156c-52d7-8169-d3eb741bc3be.html?mode=story
I will list three statements taken from her embarassing rant that are made without "facts in evidence". They are in your words, "unproven and unsupported".
None of these statements could have made it onto the editorial page of any other newspaper in San Diego County nor one suspects in any other newspaper in our entire state.
(1)" four members of the board are bought and paid by VTA"
(2)"The 'throttle hold' VTA has on the guiding staff of Vista Unified has denied the superintendent to use one of the engines to success she was using"
(3)"Efforts are now under way by VTA to shuffle or "buy out" the deputy superintendent"
Let's first point out how ridiculous her (1) point was.
The first, (1)"four members of the board are bought and paid by the VTA" is a "unproven and unsupported" libel and slander against duly elected board members.
This weird paranoia fantasy is also contrary to facts and evidence on the ground in our district.
The teachers have had no contract in over two years.
The teachers have had no salary increase in even longer.
The teachers took a salary cut this year of one paid day to keep K-3 class size reduction.
The Vista Teachers Association was not consulted in any way when our VUSD superintendent, Joyce Bales, was hired or when her contract was extended just before last year's election.
If the teachers have "bought and paid for" four school board members, they sure are not getting their money's worth.
The second (2) "the 'throttle hold' VTA has on the guiding staff of Vista Unified has denied the superintendent to use one of the engines to success she was using," is factually incorrect.
SSC parents are the ones who did not want to spend the SSC money on the very expensive Lindamood Bell reading program not the teachers.
Teachers teach with whatever is provided to them.
Last year they were given and told to use LMB they did. This year they are using something else that they are given and told to use.
Teachers do not have a dog in this fight. So why were "unproven and unsupported claims" allowed to be made against the good teachers of VUSD?
Now for the third "unproven and unsupported" charge made a week ago by Joan Brubaker. (3)"Efforts are now under way by VTA to shuffle or "buy out" the deputy superintendent,"
This charge is made up out of whole cloth. It comes out of left field and it makes no sense on the face of it.
When Brubaker said,"efforts are underway by the VTA...", she does not seem to realize that the VTA is an organization not a person. Real newspapers would demand to have evidence of the people who are doing these "efforts" before publishing such a ludicrous charge.
Here are the questions that the editors of this newspaper should have required Joan Brubaker to answer before publishing her "Forum" charge about "efforts underway by the VTA"
(a)Who in the VTA is doing these "efforts"?
(b)What exactly did they do? What do these efforts consist of?
(c)When did they do these "efforts"?
(d)Where did these "efforts" take place?
(e)How are they doing these "efforts"?
(f)Why are they engaging in these "efforts"?
So yes, Samuel I absolutely agree with you. Why are unproven, unsupported and unsubstantiated charges against duly elected board members and the good teachers of the Vista Teachers Association allowed to be published in this newspaper?
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
How Jim Gibson turned a cheap 50 million dollar high school into an expensive 100 million dollar high school
The three rational school board members were ready to build the high school first right after Prop O passed. They selected the last cheap level 50 acre site in the district--the Kawano site behind Strawberry Hill but in order to purchase that CHEAP level land California State law REQUIRED four trustees to support the purchase.
Jim Gibson, of Carrie Prejean Day Fame, and his crony in taxpayer money waste, Dr. Stephen Guffanti, rejected all attempts to get them to support the CHEAP LEVEL Site. Had they agreed to vote for that site the high school would have been started in 2002 and finished by 2004 or 2005 at the latest.
It was estimated to cost 50 million dollars had it been started in 2002. That's right. HALF of the cost of the current but secondary site that Jim Gibson and Stephen Guffanti forced the district to build on. Today we have a late and expensive 100 million dollar high school. In 2002 we could have had a cheap and quickly built 50 million dollar high school on the CHEAP, LEVEL, FULLY GRADED Kawano site.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_efa639a2-178f-5d28-b828-013f70909c1b.html
"The school board will vote Thursday on a contract amendment that would push the cost of the Mission Vista High School's campus to more than $95 million. That's nearly double the $50 million the school was expected to cost in 2002"
Think about it! 50 million dollars! Get your heads around that colossal waste. As far as I can determine it is the largest waste of taxpayer money in the history of VUSD.
With 50 million dollars more, we can only speculate on how much nicer all the other new schools built with Prop O money and the new high school could have been.
50 MILLION DOLLARS burned up and thrown away! Blame JIM GIBSON, the last of the hate filled ANTI public education trustees left on our board. He is up for re-election 13 months from now. Hopefully the VUSD community will retire him as we did his co-conspirator in massive taxpayer waste, Dr. Stephen Guffanti, in last November's election.
For those who have forgotten Jim Gibson ran his 2002 re-election campaign AGAINST the cheap level site. He posted numerous (inaccurate) signs all over town saying STOP THE 10,000 car mega high school. The high school he was talking about was the one we could have built on the CHEAP, LEVEL FULLY GRADED 50 acre Kawano site that could have opened in 2005 at the latest. He never told taxpayers that the cost of stopping the high school was going to be 50 million dollars.
He still has not apologized to the taxpayers of VUSD or to the high school students from 2005-2009 that had to remain in OVERCROWDED high schools.
So Jim Gibson, when will you apologize to the taxpayers and high school students of VUSD?
Jim Gibson, of Carrie Prejean Day Fame, and his crony in taxpayer money waste, Dr. Stephen Guffanti, rejected all attempts to get them to support the CHEAP LEVEL Site. Had they agreed to vote for that site the high school would have been started in 2002 and finished by 2004 or 2005 at the latest.
It was estimated to cost 50 million dollars had it been started in 2002. That's right. HALF of the cost of the current but secondary site that Jim Gibson and Stephen Guffanti forced the district to build on. Today we have a late and expensive 100 million dollar high school. In 2002 we could have had a cheap and quickly built 50 million dollar high school on the CHEAP, LEVEL, FULLY GRADED Kawano site.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_efa639a2-178f-5d28-b828-013f70909c1b.html
"The school board will vote Thursday on a contract amendment that would push the cost of the Mission Vista High School's campus to more than $95 million. That's nearly double the $50 million the school was expected to cost in 2002"
Think about it! 50 million dollars! Get your heads around that colossal waste. As far as I can determine it is the largest waste of taxpayer money in the history of VUSD.
With 50 million dollars more, we can only speculate on how much nicer all the other new schools built with Prop O money and the new high school could have been.
50 MILLION DOLLARS burned up and thrown away! Blame JIM GIBSON, the last of the hate filled ANTI public education trustees left on our board. He is up for re-election 13 months from now. Hopefully the VUSD community will retire him as we did his co-conspirator in massive taxpayer waste, Dr. Stephen Guffanti, in last November's election.
For those who have forgotten Jim Gibson ran his 2002 re-election campaign AGAINST the cheap level site. He posted numerous (inaccurate) signs all over town saying STOP THE 10,000 car mega high school. The high school he was talking about was the one we could have built on the CHEAP, LEVEL FULLY GRADED 50 acre Kawano site that could have opened in 2005 at the latest. He never told taxpayers that the cost of stopping the high school was going to be 50 million dollars.
He still has not apologized to the taxpayers of VUSD or to the high school students from 2005-2009 that had to remain in OVERCROWDED high schools.
So Jim Gibson, when will you apologize to the taxpayers and high school students of VUSD?
Jim Gibson's STOP the 10,000 car mega high school that cost taxpayers 50 million dollars
In his 2002 school board campaign, Jim Gibson ran a deceptive campaign against the CHEAP, LEVEL fully graded Kawano site behind Strawberry Hill. He put up signs all over town against this cheap site saying "STOP the 10,000 car mega high school."
He did stop it and it cost the taxpayers as much as 50 million dollars.
The cheap level Kawano site could have been used to build a 50 million dollar high school that would have been completed by at least the fall of 2005 if not the fall of 2004.
Read about JIM GIBSON's political campaign to stop VUSD from using the cheap level site to build a 50 million dollar high school here:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2002/10/30/export21822.txt
Two VUSD candidates attack magnet high school site
Tuesday, October 29, 2002
"Incumbent school board Trustee Jim Gibson and the candidate he endorses ---- Steve Bradford ---- said this week that they oppose putting the campus, which would accommodate two magnet high schools, on the property the district is studying on East Vista Way between Mason Road and Osborne Street in an area called Strawberry Hill."
As I wrote in my previous post, California State law required the support of at least FOUR school board members to obtain the cheap level Jay Kawano site behind Strawberry Hill. With only THREE pro public education board members, the two ANTI fact based public education board members JIM GIBSoN and Dr. STEPHEN GUFFANTI held the purchase of the land and building of the third high school hostage to their own grand political ambitions. They cost the VUSD taxpayers 50 million dollars.
When will Gibson and Guffanti apologize?
He did stop it and it cost the taxpayers as much as 50 million dollars.
The cheap level Kawano site could have been used to build a 50 million dollar high school that would have been completed by at least the fall of 2005 if not the fall of 2004.
Read about JIM GIBSON's political campaign to stop VUSD from using the cheap level site to build a 50 million dollar high school here:
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2002/10/30/export21822.txt
Two VUSD candidates attack magnet high school site
Tuesday, October 29, 2002
"Incumbent school board Trustee Jim Gibson and the candidate he endorses ---- Steve Bradford ---- said this week that they oppose putting the campus, which would accommodate two magnet high schools, on the property the district is studying on East Vista Way between Mason Road and Osborne Street in an area called Strawberry Hill."
As I wrote in my previous post, California State law required the support of at least FOUR school board members to obtain the cheap level Jay Kawano site behind Strawberry Hill. With only THREE pro public education board members, the two ANTI fact based public education board members JIM GIBSoN and Dr. STEPHEN GUFFANTI held the purchase of the land and building of the third high school hostage to their own grand political ambitions. They cost the VUSD taxpayers 50 million dollars.
When will Gibson and Guffanti apologize?
Jim Gibson's Four Paragraphs of Infamy indicting him for wasting 50 million dollars of VUSD taxpayer money
Below are four paragraphs of infamy that INDICT Jim Gibson and his henchman in taxpayer waste, Dr. Stephen Guffanti as the two people responsible for why we have a long delayed 100 million dollar high school instead of a 50 million dollar high school that could have been finished more than five years ago.
The 50 million dollar high school could have been started on the cheap, level, fully graded, Kawano property behind Strawberry Hill almost as soon as the the school bond Prop O passed.
That 50 million dollar high school could have been finished by the fall of 2005 at the latest.
Now we have a 100 million dollar high school at TWICE the cost thanks to JIM GIBSON and DR. STEPHEN GUFFANTI.
Now for the FOUR PARAGRAPHS OF INFAMY THAT JIM GIBSON CAN NOT RUN AWAY FROM NO MATTER HOW HARD HE TRIES.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_675be210-95ff-5b76-bda0-4f74980ce7aa.html
"Vista still searching for home of magnet high schools"
By: DAVID STERRETT published on Saturday, August 9, 2003 11:14 PM PDT
(1)The Strawberry Hills site is unacceptable," Gibson said. "That's not the only site out there, and there are other possible sites that they could look at."
(2)Board members Jim Gibson and Stephen Guffanti said they refuse to support condemning the Kawano property
(3)Don Petros, chairman of a citizen committee overseeing the spending of the bond proceeds, said he was disappointed the board refused to go forward on the Strawberry Hills site, which is now a berry farm owned by Jay Kawano.
(4)"The Kawano site would have worked, but it didn't because of the political realities on the school board," Petros said.
In case our ANTI friends did not understand number (4) I will explain slowly. What Petros meant was there were ONLY three school board members whose first priority was to save taxpayer money and build the new high school ASAP to relieve overcrowding, but it took FOUR to acquire the cheap level Kawano property. Without Gibson and Guffanti, no 50 million dollar high school at the primary site. Instead years of delays finding another site, which when found, was 18 times as expensive. The secondary site was also hilly and NOT graded. Final costs for grading and other extra work needed at the secondary site pushed the cost to close to 100 million dollars.
When will Jim Gibson and Dr. Stephen Guffanti apologize for this massive waste of taxpayer money?
The 50 million dollar high school could have been started on the cheap, level, fully graded, Kawano property behind Strawberry Hill almost as soon as the the school bond Prop O passed.
That 50 million dollar high school could have been finished by the fall of 2005 at the latest.
Now we have a 100 million dollar high school at TWICE the cost thanks to JIM GIBSON and DR. STEPHEN GUFFANTI.
Now for the FOUR PARAGRAPHS OF INFAMY THAT JIM GIBSON CAN NOT RUN AWAY FROM NO MATTER HOW HARD HE TRIES.
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_675be210-95ff-5b76-bda0-4f74980ce7aa.html
"Vista still searching for home of magnet high schools"
By: DAVID STERRETT published on Saturday, August 9, 2003 11:14 PM PDT
(1)The Strawberry Hills site is unacceptable," Gibson said. "That's not the only site out there, and there are other possible sites that they could look at."
(2)Board members Jim Gibson and Stephen Guffanti said they refuse to support condemning the Kawano property
(3)Don Petros, chairman of a citizen committee overseeing the spending of the bond proceeds, said he was disappointed the board refused to go forward on the Strawberry Hills site, which is now a berry farm owned by Jay Kawano.
(4)"The Kawano site would have worked, but it didn't because of the political realities on the school board," Petros said.
In case our ANTI friends did not understand number (4) I will explain slowly. What Petros meant was there were ONLY three school board members whose first priority was to save taxpayer money and build the new high school ASAP to relieve overcrowding, but it took FOUR to acquire the cheap level Kawano property. Without Gibson and Guffanti, no 50 million dollar high school at the primary site. Instead years of delays finding another site, which when found, was 18 times as expensive. The secondary site was also hilly and NOT graded. Final costs for grading and other extra work needed at the secondary site pushed the cost to close to 100 million dollars.
When will Jim Gibson and Dr. Stephen Guffanti apologize for this massive waste of taxpayer money?
Is Cheerleading too dangerous?
When I was a teacher at Lincoln Middle School one of my eighth grade female students showed up after missing a couple of days of school with casts on both arms. I asked her how she could have broken both arms at once. She blamed herself. She was in gymnastics and cheer leading and knew how to do back flips. She decided to do a back flip to show off to her friends while she was in Wild Wood Park across the street from Lincoln but she did not check behind her well enough. Someone walked behind and got in her way. She landed awkwardly and broke both arms.
It was an impulsive decision. She paid the price with several months of recovery but luckily no permanent damage.
I am glad she did not land on her neck and that she recovered fully but cannot help to wonder if she had not been taught back flips would she have ever tried something dangerous like doing back flips on a park lawn?
Hard to know where to place the responsibility for her 'accident'. It seems like a good thing to have our children push their limits. On the other hand... the dangers of cheer leading and gymnastics are real and those dangers not just confined to adult supervised drills.
Here is a story in the LATimes that makes me wonder about middle school and high school cheer leading. Has it gone to far? Are the cheer leading and gymnastic coaches trained well enough?
latimes.com/sports/la-sp-cheerleading13-2009oct13,0,5303852.story
latimes.com
Cheerleaders take high-flying risks under untrained eyes
As stunts get more daring, injuries have multiplied -- prompting a new push for safety.
By Melissa Rohlin
October 13, 2009
Patty Phommanyvong, a cheerleader for Marshall High School in Los Angeles, was thrust into the air while performing a stunt at a football game two years ago. The next thing anyone knew, she was limp. Her heart had stopped beating.
Paramedics were called, but by the time they got her heart restarted, her brain had been deprived of oxygen for too long and she was in a coma. Experts say she may have been inadvertently struck in the chest on her descent from the stunt.
Confined to a nursing home, Phommanyvong, now 19, can't eat or speak. She communicates by blinking her eyes.
Her father, Say, a Laotian immigrant, said: "I didn't know that they were throwing her up in the air. That's for professionals. Why would the school allow that?"
Variations of Patty's story are all too familiar among cheerleaders. While her tragic circumstance wasn't because of anyone's mistake, there are many examples of even more experienced cheerleaders being seriously hurt in spectacular spills.
Jessica Smith of Sacramento City College broke her neck when she fell headfirst about 15 feet in 2006; Rechelle Sneath, a cheerleader for San Jose State, fell while practicing in 2004 and is paralyzed from the waist down. Yet daredevil stunts are routinely performed at youth, high school and college sporting events across the country.
And, according to experts and reporting by The Times, these stunts are often done without proper safety precautions or supervision.
"Right now, cheerleading is out of control," said Dr. Frederick Mueller, director of the National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research at the University of North Carolina. "Kids are practicing all over the place without mats. They practice when they want to, do what they want to, and some coaches aren't certified and don't know what they're doing."
Statistics confirm the danger. Cheerleading injuries resulting in emergency room visits have increased almost sixfold since 1980, to nearly 30,000 in 2008, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reported.
The exact number of serious injuries isn't known because there is no formal reporting system, but annual statistics tracked by Mueller's organization offer a snapshot of the situation.
Over 26 years, disabilities or deaths caused by head or spine trauma are almost double for female high school cheerleaders than for female players of all sports combined: 73 "catastrophic injuries" -- including two deaths -- from fall 1982 to spring 2008. Gymnasts were second, with nine injuries.
Cheerleading advocates say the percentage of debilitating injuries is low considering the participation numbers, which, by some estimates, is at least 3 million nationwide -- more than 400,000 at the high school level. But several reports say cheerleading accounts for a disproportionate percentage of major injuries when compared with other activities.
In college, the NCAA insurance program reported that as recently as 2005, about 25% of what it spent on student-athlete injuries was related to cheerleading. Football, with nearly 10 times as many participants, accounted for 57% of the money spent.
After several highly publicized injuries in cheerleading, the NCAA mandated more safety measures. However, there is little consistency in rules and protocol among dozens of cheerleading organizations nationwide.
For example, in California, as in most states, high school cheerleading is not recognized as a sport. As a result, regulation is left to individual school districts.
Experts attribute cheerleading's danger to three things: inadequate safety measures, improper training and the competitiveness of the activity. One television experiment showed that the sideline action might be more perilous than a powerful football tackle.
The Fox Sports show "Sport Science" examined a popular move called a basket toss, in which a "flyer" is launched into the air by her teammates. The UC Irvine cheer squad performed the move as scientists measured the speed and height reached by the woman. A crash dummy was then used to determine the effect of a fall. The impact was measured at 2,000 pounds, which was compared with the force of a hit by an NFL linebacker at 1,800 pounds.
Though many athletes throw a ball around, cheerleaders throw each other around. Even at youth levels -- there are teams for girls as young as 5 -- participants try to make their routines more spectacular than the next by adding spins, flips and twists regardless of the danger.
"Parents should attend practices and competitions," said Kristen Dostalik, cheer coach at Santiago High School in Corona. "They think they're signing their kids up for the cheerleading [that existed] when they were in high school, but it's changed."
As in the past, the activity still includes plenty of pompoms, megaphones and glitter. But today, routines also feature dynamic gymnastics and tumbling elements -- things that look easy on a video but are difficult for neophytes.
Los Angeles High counselor Julie Pelikhova, who took over the school's cheer squad two years ago when she was hired, is typical of many well-intentioned advisors who guide spirit squads across the Southland.
She is not paid for her time, has little cheerleading experience and agreed to take the position because the school required adult oversight.
"The girls learn from previous girls; I just supervise," Pelikhova said.
Asked if she worries when the girls attempt high-flying new tricks, Pelikhova said, laughing: "Of course. That's what emergency cards are for."
Former cheerleader Meagan Gibson, 19, said she and her teammates at Thousand Oaks High "pushed ourselves to do stunts we weren't ready to do" under the watch of a teacher whom school officials had asked to be the squad's advisor.
The teacher, who has since been replaced by a more experienced coach, "had a great attitude. She was nice," recalled Marissa Poling, 18, another former member of the team, "but she didn't know what to do."
Locally, some school districts have adopted "spirit rules" from organizations such as the National Federation of State High School Assns., which recommends that coaches pass a safety course offered by the American Assn. of Cheerleading Coaches and Administrators. It's the same program the NCAA recommends for its college cheer coaches and advisors.
However, becoming AACCA-certified isn't difficult. A prospective advisor must attend a three-hour lecture, then score 70% or higher on an open-book test.
The AACCA certification process is in itself dangerous, said Kimberly Archie, director of the Irvine-based National Cheer Safety Foundation, because "it gives people a false sense of security that taking the class makes them qualified" to instruct.
Archie, who founded the organization after her daughter was injured cheerleading, said participants at all levels should be guided by toughened safety procedures.
As for coaches, she believes any whose team performs above-the-shoulder stunts should have a USA Gymnastics certification for tumbling, CPR and first-aid certifications, a background check and advanced cheerleading training.
Jim Lord, executive director of AACCA, thinks current safety measures are adequate.
"No amount of rules is going to protect someone if they're not following proper progressions," he said. "Rules are there to provide a framework, but a qualified coach is the most important thing."
Health and industry experts would like to see spring-loaded surfaces, mats and other safety equipment become mandatory for all competitions, game performances and practices.
The holdup? That courts might view any mandate for safety equipment as an acknowledgment of danger, opening the door to liability claims.
"That's why there's so many football lawsuits," Archie said. Football's "advice to the cheer industry was not to get involved with safety equipment, because with that comes liability."
At a recent practice at Palisades Charter High School, cheerleader Tasha Harper, 17, was fortunate to walk away with nothing more than a "hurt booty" after leaping off a teammate's shoulders and crashing onto a tile floor -- while cushioned mats were piled in a corner a short distance away.
Asked why the mats weren't used, coach Latina Reffells said, "I don't want the girls to get used to stunting over mats because there aren't any mats at games."
Archie doesn't think the surface is the only problem.
"If a girl falls and hits her head from 10 feet high, she's going to sustain a catastrophic injury," she said. "There should be no above-the-shoulder stunting on sidelines."
That advice comes too late for Say Phommanyvong, who said he didn't know the statistics or the danger when his daughter became a cheerleader.
He thought cheerleaders danced, "carried pompoms and kicked their feet in the air."
Now he knows better.
The family has sued the Los Angeles Unified School District for negligence, claiming that a lack of proper medical equipment and immediate care contributed to Patty's condition. Insurance has covered most of the medical bills, but "we're struggling," the father said.
Say fled Laos in 1981, in the aftermath of civil war. He eventually settled in California, meeting his wife in an English class, and lives in Chinatown, where the couple works long hours for a clothing manufacturer.
Patty was popular in school, a success story. And her younger sister is now begging to try out for the cheer squad.
No chance, her father says: "I only have two daughters."
melissa.rohlin@latimes.com
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
It was an impulsive decision. She paid the price with several months of recovery but luckily no permanent damage.
I am glad she did not land on her neck and that she recovered fully but cannot help to wonder if she had not been taught back flips would she have ever tried something dangerous like doing back flips on a park lawn?
Hard to know where to place the responsibility for her 'accident'. It seems like a good thing to have our children push their limits. On the other hand... the dangers of cheer leading and gymnastics are real and those dangers not just confined to adult supervised drills.
Here is a story in the LATimes that makes me wonder about middle school and high school cheer leading. Has it gone to far? Are the cheer leading and gymnastic coaches trained well enough?
latimes.com/sports/la-sp-cheerleading13-2009oct13,0,5303852.story
latimes.com
Cheerleaders take high-flying risks under untrained eyes
As stunts get more daring, injuries have multiplied -- prompting a new push for safety.
By Melissa Rohlin
October 13, 2009
Patty Phommanyvong, a cheerleader for Marshall High School in Los Angeles, was thrust into the air while performing a stunt at a football game two years ago. The next thing anyone knew, she was limp. Her heart had stopped beating.
Paramedics were called, but by the time they got her heart restarted, her brain had been deprived of oxygen for too long and she was in a coma. Experts say she may have been inadvertently struck in the chest on her descent from the stunt.
Confined to a nursing home, Phommanyvong, now 19, can't eat or speak. She communicates by blinking her eyes.
Her father, Say, a Laotian immigrant, said: "I didn't know that they were throwing her up in the air. That's for professionals. Why would the school allow that?"
Variations of Patty's story are all too familiar among cheerleaders. While her tragic circumstance wasn't because of anyone's mistake, there are many examples of even more experienced cheerleaders being seriously hurt in spectacular spills.
Jessica Smith of Sacramento City College broke her neck when she fell headfirst about 15 feet in 2006; Rechelle Sneath, a cheerleader for San Jose State, fell while practicing in 2004 and is paralyzed from the waist down. Yet daredevil stunts are routinely performed at youth, high school and college sporting events across the country.
And, according to experts and reporting by The Times, these stunts are often done without proper safety precautions or supervision.
"Right now, cheerleading is out of control," said Dr. Frederick Mueller, director of the National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research at the University of North Carolina. "Kids are practicing all over the place without mats. They practice when they want to, do what they want to, and some coaches aren't certified and don't know what they're doing."
Statistics confirm the danger. Cheerleading injuries resulting in emergency room visits have increased almost sixfold since 1980, to nearly 30,000 in 2008, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission reported.
The exact number of serious injuries isn't known because there is no formal reporting system, but annual statistics tracked by Mueller's organization offer a snapshot of the situation.
Over 26 years, disabilities or deaths caused by head or spine trauma are almost double for female high school cheerleaders than for female players of all sports combined: 73 "catastrophic injuries" -- including two deaths -- from fall 1982 to spring 2008. Gymnasts were second, with nine injuries.
Cheerleading advocates say the percentage of debilitating injuries is low considering the participation numbers, which, by some estimates, is at least 3 million nationwide -- more than 400,000 at the high school level. But several reports say cheerleading accounts for a disproportionate percentage of major injuries when compared with other activities.
In college, the NCAA insurance program reported that as recently as 2005, about 25% of what it spent on student-athlete injuries was related to cheerleading. Football, with nearly 10 times as many participants, accounted for 57% of the money spent.
After several highly publicized injuries in cheerleading, the NCAA mandated more safety measures. However, there is little consistency in rules and protocol among dozens of cheerleading organizations nationwide.
For example, in California, as in most states, high school cheerleading is not recognized as a sport. As a result, regulation is left to individual school districts.
Experts attribute cheerleading's danger to three things: inadequate safety measures, improper training and the competitiveness of the activity. One television experiment showed that the sideline action might be more perilous than a powerful football tackle.
The Fox Sports show "Sport Science" examined a popular move called a basket toss, in which a "flyer" is launched into the air by her teammates. The UC Irvine cheer squad performed the move as scientists measured the speed and height reached by the woman. A crash dummy was then used to determine the effect of a fall. The impact was measured at 2,000 pounds, which was compared with the force of a hit by an NFL linebacker at 1,800 pounds.
Though many athletes throw a ball around, cheerleaders throw each other around. Even at youth levels -- there are teams for girls as young as 5 -- participants try to make their routines more spectacular than the next by adding spins, flips and twists regardless of the danger.
"Parents should attend practices and competitions," said Kristen Dostalik, cheer coach at Santiago High School in Corona. "They think they're signing their kids up for the cheerleading [that existed] when they were in high school, but it's changed."
As in the past, the activity still includes plenty of pompoms, megaphones and glitter. But today, routines also feature dynamic gymnastics and tumbling elements -- things that look easy on a video but are difficult for neophytes.
Los Angeles High counselor Julie Pelikhova, who took over the school's cheer squad two years ago when she was hired, is typical of many well-intentioned advisors who guide spirit squads across the Southland.
She is not paid for her time, has little cheerleading experience and agreed to take the position because the school required adult oversight.
"The girls learn from previous girls; I just supervise," Pelikhova said.
Asked if she worries when the girls attempt high-flying new tricks, Pelikhova said, laughing: "Of course. That's what emergency cards are for."
Former cheerleader Meagan Gibson, 19, said she and her teammates at Thousand Oaks High "pushed ourselves to do stunts we weren't ready to do" under the watch of a teacher whom school officials had asked to be the squad's advisor.
The teacher, who has since been replaced by a more experienced coach, "had a great attitude. She was nice," recalled Marissa Poling, 18, another former member of the team, "but she didn't know what to do."
Locally, some school districts have adopted "spirit rules" from organizations such as the National Federation of State High School Assns., which recommends that coaches pass a safety course offered by the American Assn. of Cheerleading Coaches and Administrators. It's the same program the NCAA recommends for its college cheer coaches and advisors.
However, becoming AACCA-certified isn't difficult. A prospective advisor must attend a three-hour lecture, then score 70% or higher on an open-book test.
The AACCA certification process is in itself dangerous, said Kimberly Archie, director of the Irvine-based National Cheer Safety Foundation, because "it gives people a false sense of security that taking the class makes them qualified" to instruct.
Archie, who founded the organization after her daughter was injured cheerleading, said participants at all levels should be guided by toughened safety procedures.
As for coaches, she believes any whose team performs above-the-shoulder stunts should have a USA Gymnastics certification for tumbling, CPR and first-aid certifications, a background check and advanced cheerleading training.
Jim Lord, executive director of AACCA, thinks current safety measures are adequate.
"No amount of rules is going to protect someone if they're not following proper progressions," he said. "Rules are there to provide a framework, but a qualified coach is the most important thing."
Health and industry experts would like to see spring-loaded surfaces, mats and other safety equipment become mandatory for all competitions, game performances and practices.
The holdup? That courts might view any mandate for safety equipment as an acknowledgment of danger, opening the door to liability claims.
"That's why there's so many football lawsuits," Archie said. Football's "advice to the cheer industry was not to get involved with safety equipment, because with that comes liability."
At a recent practice at Palisades Charter High School, cheerleader Tasha Harper, 17, was fortunate to walk away with nothing more than a "hurt booty" after leaping off a teammate's shoulders and crashing onto a tile floor -- while cushioned mats were piled in a corner a short distance away.
Asked why the mats weren't used, coach Latina Reffells said, "I don't want the girls to get used to stunting over mats because there aren't any mats at games."
Archie doesn't think the surface is the only problem.
"If a girl falls and hits her head from 10 feet high, she's going to sustain a catastrophic injury," she said. "There should be no above-the-shoulder stunting on sidelines."
That advice comes too late for Say Phommanyvong, who said he didn't know the statistics or the danger when his daughter became a cheerleader.
He thought cheerleaders danced, "carried pompoms and kicked their feet in the air."
Now he knows better.
The family has sued the Los Angeles Unified School District for negligence, claiming that a lack of proper medical equipment and immediate care contributed to Patty's condition. Insurance has covered most of the medical bills, but "we're struggling," the father said.
Say fled Laos in 1981, in the aftermath of civil war. He eventually settled in California, meeting his wife in an English class, and lives in Chinatown, where the couple works long hours for a clothing manufacturer.
Patty was popular in school, a success story. And her younger sister is now begging to try out for the cheer squad.
No chance, her father says: "I only have two daughters."
melissa.rohlin@latimes.com
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
Monday, October 12, 2009
The Obama Stimulus means millions more for VUSD
Our ANTI friends like to say that VUSD is in desperate budget straits but as usual they are wrong. Obama and the democrats in Congress rode to the rescue with the Stimulus that meant millions for our local school district.
Local Congressman Brian Bilbray and Darrel Issa voted against the stimulus as did every other Republican in Congress.
Read NewYork Times article: "House Passes Stimulus Plan With No G.O.P. Votes"
"WASHINGTON — Without a single Republican vote, President Obama won House approval on Wednesday for an $819 billion economic recovery plan..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29obama.html
Read about how the Stimulus increase our local VUSD revenues from 198 million to 220 million from today's North County Times below:
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_6de085f2-7678-5284-be1e-87d79e0446e8.html
VISTA: School officials to update 2008-09 budget
STACY BRANDT - sbrandt@nctimes.com Posted: Monday, October 12, 2009 5:30 pm
VISTA ----School officials in Vista will present budget updates Thursday that show the district brought in more money than expected during the last school year.
When Vista Unified School District officials last updated its 2008-09 budget in February, they expected to bring in $198 million and spend $210 million. Now, they're expecting to bring in $220 million and spend $215 million, according to a budget adjustment set to be approved Thursday.
The additional income is mostly federal stimulus money.
The district's regular school board meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m. Thursday at Foothill Oak Elementary School, 1370 Oak Drive.
Also at the meeting, the board will vote on a revision of how to spend its federal stimulus money. District officials are recommending using some of it to pay for professional development, a middle school math coach and technological improvements.
Local Congressman Brian Bilbray and Darrel Issa voted against the stimulus as did every other Republican in Congress.
Read NewYork Times article: "House Passes Stimulus Plan With No G.O.P. Votes"
"WASHINGTON — Without a single Republican vote, President Obama won House approval on Wednesday for an $819 billion economic recovery plan..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29obama.html
Read about how the Stimulus increase our local VUSD revenues from 198 million to 220 million from today's North County Times below:
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/vista/article_6de085f2-7678-5284-be1e-87d79e0446e8.html
VISTA: School officials to update 2008-09 budget
STACY BRANDT - sbrandt@nctimes.com Posted: Monday, October 12, 2009 5:30 pm
VISTA ----School officials in Vista will present budget updates Thursday that show the district brought in more money than expected during the last school year.
When Vista Unified School District officials last updated its 2008-09 budget in February, they expected to bring in $198 million and spend $210 million. Now, they're expecting to bring in $220 million and spend $215 million, according to a budget adjustment set to be approved Thursday.
The additional income is mostly federal stimulus money.
The district's regular school board meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m. Thursday at Foothill Oak Elementary School, 1370 Oak Drive.
Also at the meeting, the board will vote on a revision of how to spend its federal stimulus money. District officials are recommending using some of it to pay for professional development, a middle school math coach and technological improvements.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Mark Wyland transfers taxpayer money to TurboTax and Chevron, his corporate masters
Mark Wyland our local California State Senator is the assistant Senate Republican leader for policy development. Wyland was one of three senators selected by Senate Minority leader, Republican Dennis Hollingsworth's leadership team. Because Wyland has such an important leadership position with State Senate Republicans, he must take a great deal of blame for the dysfunction in the State Senate. The Republicans have refused to pass any bills unless, the taxpayers of California are punished on behalf of a major Republican donor, Intuit makers of TurboTax.
Our Republican Senate 'friends' want all taxpayers to buy TurboTax to make more money for their corporate masters, Intuit. Even the arch conservative LATimes whose new editorial board reflects the extreme conservative tilt of the Chicago Times which now owns the LATIMES, even that editorial board CONDEMNS Wyland and his bought and paid for Republican allies. Read more below:
latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-readyreturn11-2009oct11,0,7180432.story
latimes.com
Editorial
GOP shill game
A ploy to kill the ReadyReturn program to boost a private firm shames Republican legislators.
October 11, 2009
California's Republican state senators claim they act the way they do -- blocking budget votes, demanding health and education cuts, opening tax loopholes for downtrodden classes such as yacht owners -- because they want to protect their constituents from overbearing and ineffective government. They're becoming progressively less believable, especially after GOP senators last month held more than 20 mostly worthy bills hostage in order to try killing a program that old-school Republicans would have championed.
The senators refused to vote on Democrats' bills in an effort to eliminate ReadyReturn, a service of the Franchise Tax Board. Instead of just combing tax returns for mistakes, the board came up with the program to actually help some taxpayers, Tax officials complete returns for simple filers -- those whose income is mostly from wages -- allowing them to just sign it and send it in (with a check). Filers, if they prefer, can still figure their taxes themselves.
So let's get this straight: ReadyReturn saves taxpayers time and headaches. The board has shown that it pays for itself with increased compliance. It reduces errors. It lowers the state's costs for processing returns. Republicans oppose all that?
Yes, they do -- because in this case efficient and responsive government means fewer sales of TurboTax, software that helps filers prepare their tax returns and that, presumably, more Californians would buy if the Franchise Tax Board were as inefficient and messed up as so many other state programs. Intuit is the company that makes TurboTax, and perhaps you can guess what else it does: It gives lots of money to GOP lawmakers.
This new breed of elected California Republican has become almost unrecognizable. Think through the philosophy these senators are supposedly espousing and here's what you get: Government shouldn't try to do its job better because that would deny some entrepreneurs the chance to make money by correcting government's flubs. It shouldn't reduce regulatory burdens because that would devastate the market for fixers, expediters, lawyers and lobbyists. It should roll back improvements to the Department of Motor Vehicles because Internet license renewals and shorter waits in line could lead fewer people to join the Auto Club to cut through the morass.
Republicans, of course, deny that they're trying to help Intuit; they say they're merely protecting taxpayers. But that makes no sense. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. And for Intuit, whose product doesn't do much for the mostly low-income taxpayers who get their taxes done for free with ReadyReturn, shame doesn't even begin to describe it.
Here is an earlier article from George Skelton who covers Sacramento as his beat and who is NO friend of liberals, progressives or Democrats. See Skelton's article below:
latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap17-2009sep17,0,1524376.column
latimes.com
CAPITOL JOURNAL
GOP's 'leverage' is tantamount to extortion
Senate Republicans are abusing the two-thirds vote requirement for passage of many bills to try to get Democrats to cave in on unrelated demands.
George Skelton Capitol Journal September 17, 2009 From Sacramento
In his former life, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger starred in the action-thriller "Collateral Damage." Last week, he had only a bit role in the collateral damage inflicted by fellow Republicans in the state Senate.
In the flick, victims included his wife and son. In the Senate, they include millions of battered wives, children, home-buyers, taxpayers. . . .
On screen, Schwarzenegger played "Gordon Brewer," a Los Angeles firefighter who saw his family blown up by terrorists and was out for revenge.
In Sacramento, the closest thing to a Gordy Brewer is Democratic state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, who witnessed a favorite bill being snuffed by Senate Republicans.
"This is the pro-business, the fiscally responsible party -- or at least that's what they keep telling us," Lockyer says. "And it's getting annoying. It's irresponsible and it's ridiculous."
The bill advocated by Lockyer was little-noticed and noncontroversial, but vital. It would have given the treasurer more wiggle room to renegotiate so-called letters of credit that are about to expire with banks. Without the legislation, he says, the state could end up paying banks an extra $850 million over the next two years.
"It got all botched up with a temper tantrum," Lockyer says. "What's pretty clear now is this: Senate Republicans will abandon domestic violence victims, cops, firefighters and taxpayers to do the bidding of corporate interests."
Republicans say it's more about an internal spat with Democrats.
"In order for us to achieve bipartisan agreements . . . we have to establish and maintain a level of trust that a deal is a deal," Senate Republican leader Dennis Hollingsworth of Murrieta said in a written statement. "It's not one, two or three items that we're negotiating over. It's one big item: trust."
Hollingsworth contended that "the Democratic leadership did not uphold their previous budget agreements."
But the minority leader wasn't available to discuss exactly which agreements he thought had been broken, and his staff said it didn't know.
Whatever the beef, there could be wide, unintended damage to noncombatants. The Republican weapon was blatant abuse of the two-thirds majority vote requirement for passage of many bills.
The two-thirds rule is not used merely to protect taxpayers from politicians trying to reach deeper into their pockets. It's used by special interests -- mainly big business -- to game the system; a tool handy for legislative leverage, or extortion. If you don't give us what we want, we'll withhold the votes needed for the two-thirds.
It's about buying and selling. Last Friday, at the all-night windup of this year's regular legislative session, Democrats weren't in a buying mood.
This is what happened, according to Democrats, and Republicans aren't exactly denying it: The Senate GOP blocked more than 20 bills requiring a two-thirds vote because Democrats wouldn't cave on three unrelated demands.
One demand was the elimination of a program, called ReadyReturn, that allows low-income earners to have the state do their tax returns free. Intuit wants these people to buy its software product, TurboTax. Since 2005, the company has donated to the political coffers of three-fourths of the Senate, The Times reported Tuesday.
Another GOP insistence was that a big corporate tax break enacted as part of the February budget deal be tweaked to help more businesses, especially Chevron.
The third demand was that Republican Sen. Roy Ashburn of Bakersfield be made the lead author of a bill to provide $10,000 tax credits for people buying newly constructed homes. In February, after he agreed to vote for a tax increase, Democrats gave Ashburn a bill setting aside $100 million for such credits. But because of state accounting rules, only $70 million has been claimed. The new bill would allow the other $30 million to be used for tax credits.
Here, I suspect, we get into pure partisanship as well as pride. The author of the new housing credit bill is Democratic Assemblywoman Anna Caballero of Salinas, who intends next year to run for an open Senate seat now held by a Republican. The GOP would rather that she not be the successful sponsor of a popular bill.
The housing credit bill was one of the Republican victims.
Other casualties included bills to keep dozens of domestic-violence shelters from closing, to help cities and counties borrow while the state raids their treasuries, to distribute federal money to counties for swine flu treatment, and to implement a new hospital fee that would qualify the state for $2 billion in federal money.
No problem, Hollingsworth asserted. Assuming that the governor soon calls a special session on water, "that will be the time to take up all these measures and fulfill the commitments made earlier in the year."
Ashburn candidly defends blocking the legislation: "This was an opportunity for Republicans to have some leverage." Concerning the merits of measures buried in the fallout: "The subject matter of bills at that point was secondary to what the [GOP] caucus had decided to do with them."
"I was embarrassed," says Sen. Abel Maldonado of Santa Maria, the only Republican to cross party lines and vote for the bills. "I said, 'I'm here to govern.' They wanted all three things or nothing.
"The two-thirds vote is a good tool when put in the hands of people who are reasonable, pragmatic and open-minded. But partisans use the two-thirds as a tool to hold up the Legislature."
Schwarzenegger's bit role was vowing to veto all bills until the Legislature passes water, prison and energy measures he likes. Republicans may have taken a cue from that.
In the movie, Schwarzenegger threw a firefighter's ax at the terrorist leader, and that solved the problem. Governing is trickier.
george.skelton@latimes.com
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
Our Republican Senate 'friends' want all taxpayers to buy TurboTax to make more money for their corporate masters, Intuit. Even the arch conservative LATimes whose new editorial board reflects the extreme conservative tilt of the Chicago Times which now owns the LATIMES, even that editorial board CONDEMNS Wyland and his bought and paid for Republican allies. Read more below:
latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-readyreturn11-2009oct11,0,7180432.story
latimes.com
Editorial
GOP shill game
A ploy to kill the ReadyReturn program to boost a private firm shames Republican legislators.
October 11, 2009
California's Republican state senators claim they act the way they do -- blocking budget votes, demanding health and education cuts, opening tax loopholes for downtrodden classes such as yacht owners -- because they want to protect their constituents from overbearing and ineffective government. They're becoming progressively less believable, especially after GOP senators last month held more than 20 mostly worthy bills hostage in order to try killing a program that old-school Republicans would have championed.
The senators refused to vote on Democrats' bills in an effort to eliminate ReadyReturn, a service of the Franchise Tax Board. Instead of just combing tax returns for mistakes, the board came up with the program to actually help some taxpayers, Tax officials complete returns for simple filers -- those whose income is mostly from wages -- allowing them to just sign it and send it in (with a check). Filers, if they prefer, can still figure their taxes themselves.
So let's get this straight: ReadyReturn saves taxpayers time and headaches. The board has shown that it pays for itself with increased compliance. It reduces errors. It lowers the state's costs for processing returns. Republicans oppose all that?
Yes, they do -- because in this case efficient and responsive government means fewer sales of TurboTax, software that helps filers prepare their tax returns and that, presumably, more Californians would buy if the Franchise Tax Board were as inefficient and messed up as so many other state programs. Intuit is the company that makes TurboTax, and perhaps you can guess what else it does: It gives lots of money to GOP lawmakers.
This new breed of elected California Republican has become almost unrecognizable. Think through the philosophy these senators are supposedly espousing and here's what you get: Government shouldn't try to do its job better because that would deny some entrepreneurs the chance to make money by correcting government's flubs. It shouldn't reduce regulatory burdens because that would devastate the market for fixers, expediters, lawyers and lobbyists. It should roll back improvements to the Department of Motor Vehicles because Internet license renewals and shorter waits in line could lead fewer people to join the Auto Club to cut through the morass.
Republicans, of course, deny that they're trying to help Intuit; they say they're merely protecting taxpayers. But that makes no sense. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. And for Intuit, whose product doesn't do much for the mostly low-income taxpayers who get their taxes done for free with ReadyReturn, shame doesn't even begin to describe it.
Here is an earlier article from George Skelton who covers Sacramento as his beat and who is NO friend of liberals, progressives or Democrats. See Skelton's article below:
latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap17-2009sep17,0,1524376.column
latimes.com
CAPITOL JOURNAL
GOP's 'leverage' is tantamount to extortion
Senate Republicans are abusing the two-thirds vote requirement for passage of many bills to try to get Democrats to cave in on unrelated demands.
George Skelton Capitol Journal September 17, 2009 From Sacramento
In his former life, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger starred in the action-thriller "Collateral Damage." Last week, he had only a bit role in the collateral damage inflicted by fellow Republicans in the state Senate.
In the flick, victims included his wife and son. In the Senate, they include millions of battered wives, children, home-buyers, taxpayers. . . .
On screen, Schwarzenegger played "Gordon Brewer," a Los Angeles firefighter who saw his family blown up by terrorists and was out for revenge.
In Sacramento, the closest thing to a Gordy Brewer is Democratic state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, who witnessed a favorite bill being snuffed by Senate Republicans.
"This is the pro-business, the fiscally responsible party -- or at least that's what they keep telling us," Lockyer says. "And it's getting annoying. It's irresponsible and it's ridiculous."
The bill advocated by Lockyer was little-noticed and noncontroversial, but vital. It would have given the treasurer more wiggle room to renegotiate so-called letters of credit that are about to expire with banks. Without the legislation, he says, the state could end up paying banks an extra $850 million over the next two years.
"It got all botched up with a temper tantrum," Lockyer says. "What's pretty clear now is this: Senate Republicans will abandon domestic violence victims, cops, firefighters and taxpayers to do the bidding of corporate interests."
Republicans say it's more about an internal spat with Democrats.
"In order for us to achieve bipartisan agreements . . . we have to establish and maintain a level of trust that a deal is a deal," Senate Republican leader Dennis Hollingsworth of Murrieta said in a written statement. "It's not one, two or three items that we're negotiating over. It's one big item: trust."
Hollingsworth contended that "the Democratic leadership did not uphold their previous budget agreements."
But the minority leader wasn't available to discuss exactly which agreements he thought had been broken, and his staff said it didn't know.
Whatever the beef, there could be wide, unintended damage to noncombatants. The Republican weapon was blatant abuse of the two-thirds majority vote requirement for passage of many bills.
The two-thirds rule is not used merely to protect taxpayers from politicians trying to reach deeper into their pockets. It's used by special interests -- mainly big business -- to game the system; a tool handy for legislative leverage, or extortion. If you don't give us what we want, we'll withhold the votes needed for the two-thirds.
It's about buying and selling. Last Friday, at the all-night windup of this year's regular legislative session, Democrats weren't in a buying mood.
This is what happened, according to Democrats, and Republicans aren't exactly denying it: The Senate GOP blocked more than 20 bills requiring a two-thirds vote because Democrats wouldn't cave on three unrelated demands.
One demand was the elimination of a program, called ReadyReturn, that allows low-income earners to have the state do their tax returns free. Intuit wants these people to buy its software product, TurboTax. Since 2005, the company has donated to the political coffers of three-fourths of the Senate, The Times reported Tuesday.
Another GOP insistence was that a big corporate tax break enacted as part of the February budget deal be tweaked to help more businesses, especially Chevron.
The third demand was that Republican Sen. Roy Ashburn of Bakersfield be made the lead author of a bill to provide $10,000 tax credits for people buying newly constructed homes. In February, after he agreed to vote for a tax increase, Democrats gave Ashburn a bill setting aside $100 million for such credits. But because of state accounting rules, only $70 million has been claimed. The new bill would allow the other $30 million to be used for tax credits.
Here, I suspect, we get into pure partisanship as well as pride. The author of the new housing credit bill is Democratic Assemblywoman Anna Caballero of Salinas, who intends next year to run for an open Senate seat now held by a Republican. The GOP would rather that she not be the successful sponsor of a popular bill.
The housing credit bill was one of the Republican victims.
Other casualties included bills to keep dozens of domestic-violence shelters from closing, to help cities and counties borrow while the state raids their treasuries, to distribute federal money to counties for swine flu treatment, and to implement a new hospital fee that would qualify the state for $2 billion in federal money.
No problem, Hollingsworth asserted. Assuming that the governor soon calls a special session on water, "that will be the time to take up all these measures and fulfill the commitments made earlier in the year."
Ashburn candidly defends blocking the legislation: "This was an opportunity for Republicans to have some leverage." Concerning the merits of measures buried in the fallout: "The subject matter of bills at that point was secondary to what the [GOP] caucus had decided to do with them."
"I was embarrassed," says Sen. Abel Maldonado of Santa Maria, the only Republican to cross party lines and vote for the bills. "I said, 'I'm here to govern.' They wanted all three things or nothing.
"The two-thirds vote is a good tool when put in the hands of people who are reasonable, pragmatic and open-minded. But partisans use the two-thirds as a tool to hold up the Legislature."
Schwarzenegger's bit role was vowing to veto all bills until the Legislature passes water, prison and energy measures he likes. Republicans may have taken a cue from that.
In the movie, Schwarzenegger threw a firefighter's ax at the terrorist leader, and that solved the problem. Governing is trickier.
george.skelton@latimes.com
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
Friday, October 9, 2009
Sweetwater reaches contract agreement--increased class size, no pay cuts
From the Voice of San Diego, San Diego's online news paper is news that Sweetwater Teachers and School Board has reached agreement on a new contract. VUSD has not had one of those "new contracts" in over two years. Maybe we will soon. Who knows?
http://voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2009/10/08/this_just_in/336teachers100809.prt
Sweetwater Teachers Reach Tentative Deal
Under a tentative deal struck this morning, Sweetwater teachers will trade larger student-to-teacher ratios for the promise not to cut salaries or give newly hired employees a different set of benefits than current employees.
The two sides had grappled over a contract since last June. Tensions had escalated in the South Bay district, with teachers cutting back on work beyond the school day, toting signs to protest and even calling for the ouster of Superintendent Jesus Gandara.
The agreement was reached around 12:30 a.m. today after a full day of bargaining in front of a "fact-finding" panel, a stage of bargaining that followed months of unsuccessful meetings. According to a press release from the school district, the agreement includes:
Staffing ratios of 30 students per teacher for this year, which have already been in place, compared to 28-to-one last year. That ratio will grow to 31-to-one for the next three school years.
No salary cuts for the next two school years.
Taking a controversial schedule from Montgomery High School out of the teachers contract. The school district had ended that schedule this year without negotiating, spurring the union to file legal charges that it had violated the contract. Sweetwater spokeswoman Lillian Leopold said that the union is now withdrawing those and other legal charges against the school district for failing to bargain. The two sides will create a committee of administrators and teachers to study schedules for Montgomery.
An increase in the number of "student contacts" -- the number of students a teacher interacts with -- from 176 to 182 for the next three years.
New hires will continue to get the same benefits that current employees do. The school district had earlier proposed giving a leaner set of benefits for new hires.
Teachers union President Alex Anguiano could not be reached this morning for comment. Anguiano posted a message on the Sweetwater Education Association website this morning announcing that its board would meet on Monday to review the tentative agreement and set a date for members to ratify the deal.
School board President Jim Cartmill called it "a mutually beneficial agreement" that would allow Sweetwater to handle budget cuts without layoffs or salary cuts. The higher ratios could be offset through retirements and not hiring more new teachers, he said.
Correction: The original version of this post stated that the agreement included no salary cuts for the next three school years. The error was due to a misunderstanding; the agreement covers last year and the next two years.
http://voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2009/10/08/this_just_in/336teachers100809.prt
Sweetwater Teachers Reach Tentative Deal
Under a tentative deal struck this morning, Sweetwater teachers will trade larger student-to-teacher ratios for the promise not to cut salaries or give newly hired employees a different set of benefits than current employees.
The two sides had grappled over a contract since last June. Tensions had escalated in the South Bay district, with teachers cutting back on work beyond the school day, toting signs to protest and even calling for the ouster of Superintendent Jesus Gandara.
The agreement was reached around 12:30 a.m. today after a full day of bargaining in front of a "fact-finding" panel, a stage of bargaining that followed months of unsuccessful meetings. According to a press release from the school district, the agreement includes:
Staffing ratios of 30 students per teacher for this year, which have already been in place, compared to 28-to-one last year. That ratio will grow to 31-to-one for the next three school years.
No salary cuts for the next two school years.
Taking a controversial schedule from Montgomery High School out of the teachers contract. The school district had ended that schedule this year without negotiating, spurring the union to file legal charges that it had violated the contract. Sweetwater spokeswoman Lillian Leopold said that the union is now withdrawing those and other legal charges against the school district for failing to bargain. The two sides will create a committee of administrators and teachers to study schedules for Montgomery.
An increase in the number of "student contacts" -- the number of students a teacher interacts with -- from 176 to 182 for the next three years.
New hires will continue to get the same benefits that current employees do. The school district had earlier proposed giving a leaner set of benefits for new hires.
Teachers union President Alex Anguiano could not be reached this morning for comment. Anguiano posted a message on the Sweetwater Education Association website this morning announcing that its board would meet on Monday to review the tentative agreement and set a date for members to ratify the deal.
School board President Jim Cartmill called it "a mutually beneficial agreement" that would allow Sweetwater to handle budget cuts without layoffs or salary cuts. The higher ratios could be offset through retirements and not hiring more new teachers, he said.
Correction: The original version of this post stated that the agreement included no salary cuts for the next three school years. The error was due to a misunderstanding; the agreement covers last year and the next two years.
Drop outs more likely to be jailed or pregnant
Good thing that VUSD is a model for drop out prevention in the state of California.
http://vistaschools.blogspot.com/2009/10/vusd-named-model-district-by-state-of.html
A study by Northeastern researchers finds that among male drop outs the rate of incarceration is over three times that of high school graduates. Similar statistics for teen pregnancy are seen among female high school drop outs compared to female graduates.
Read the review of the study at the New York Times here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/education/09dropout.html?em=&pagewanted=print
Here are a few paragraphs from the summary article:
October 9, 2009
Study Finds High Rate of Imprisonment Among Dropouts
By SAM DILLON
On any given day, about one in every 10 young male high school dropouts is in jail or juvenile detention, compared with one in 35 young male high school graduates, according to a new study of the effects of dropping out of school in an America where demand for low-skill workers is plunging.
The picture is even bleaker for African-Americans, with nearly one in four young black male dropouts incarcerated or otherwise institutionalized on an average day, the study said. That compares with about one in 14 young, male, white, Asian or Hispanic dropouts.
Researchers at Northeastern University used census and other government data to carry out the study, which tracks the employment, workplace, parenting and criminal justice experiences of young high school dropouts.
“We’re trying to show what it means to be a dropout in the 21st century United States,” said Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern, who headed a team of researchers that prepared the report. “It’s one of the country’s costliest problems. The unemployment, the incarceration rates — it’s scary.”
A coalition of civil rights and public education advocacy groups and a network of alternative schools in Chicago commissioned the report as part of a push for new educational opportunities for the nation’s 6.2 million high school dropouts.
“The dropout rate is driving the nation’s increasing prison population, and it’s a drag on America’s economic competitiveness,” said Marc H. Morial, the former New Orleans mayor who is president of the National Urban League, one of the groups in the coalition that commissioned the report. “This report makes it clear that every American pays a cost when a young person leaves school without a diploma.”
The report puts the collective cost to the nation over the working life of each high school dropout at $292,000. Mr. Sum said that figure took into account lost tax revenues, since dropouts earn less and therefore pay less in taxes than high school graduates. It also includes the costs of providing food stamps and other aid to dropouts and of incarcerating those who turn to crime.
Daniel J. Losen, a senior associate at the Civil Rights Project at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the study was consistent with other economic studies of the dropout crisis, though he said the methodology of its cost-benefit analysis “lacked transparency.”
“The report’s strength is that it reveals in clear terms that there’s a real crisis with the high numbers of young, especially minority males, who drop out of school and wind up incarcerated,” Mr. Losen said.
Previous studies have come up with estimates of the same order of magnitude on the social cost of low graduation rates. A 2007 study by Teachers College, Princeton and City University of New York researchers, for instance, estimated that society could save $209,000 in prison and other costs for every potential dropout who could be helped to complete high school.
The new report, in its analysis of 2008 unemployment rates, found that 54 percent of dropouts ages 16 to 24 were jobless, compared with 32 percent for high school graduates of the same age, and 13 percent for those with a college degree.
Again, the statistics were worse for young African-American dropouts, whose unemployment rate last year was 69 percent, compared with 54 percent for whites and 47 percent for Hispanics. The unemployment rate among young Hispanics was lower, the report said, because included in that category were many illegal immigrants, who compete successfully for jobs with native-born youths.
The unemployment rates cited for all groups have climbed several points in 2009 because of the recession, Mr. Sum said.
Young female dropouts were nine times more likely to have become single mothers than young women who went on to earn college degrees, the report said, citing census data for 2006 and 2007.
Read the rest of the article at the New York Times URL:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/education/09dropout.html?em
http://vistaschools.blogspot.com/2009/10/vusd-named-model-district-by-state-of.html
A study by Northeastern researchers finds that among male drop outs the rate of incarceration is over three times that of high school graduates. Similar statistics for teen pregnancy are seen among female high school drop outs compared to female graduates.
Read the review of the study at the New York Times here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/education/09dropout.html?em=&pagewanted=print
Here are a few paragraphs from the summary article:
October 9, 2009
Study Finds High Rate of Imprisonment Among Dropouts
By SAM DILLON
On any given day, about one in every 10 young male high school dropouts is in jail or juvenile detention, compared with one in 35 young male high school graduates, according to a new study of the effects of dropping out of school in an America where demand for low-skill workers is plunging.
The picture is even bleaker for African-Americans, with nearly one in four young black male dropouts incarcerated or otherwise institutionalized on an average day, the study said. That compares with about one in 14 young, male, white, Asian or Hispanic dropouts.
Researchers at Northeastern University used census and other government data to carry out the study, which tracks the employment, workplace, parenting and criminal justice experiences of young high school dropouts.
“We’re trying to show what it means to be a dropout in the 21st century United States,” said Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern, who headed a team of researchers that prepared the report. “It’s one of the country’s costliest problems. The unemployment, the incarceration rates — it’s scary.”
A coalition of civil rights and public education advocacy groups and a network of alternative schools in Chicago commissioned the report as part of a push for new educational opportunities for the nation’s 6.2 million high school dropouts.
“The dropout rate is driving the nation’s increasing prison population, and it’s a drag on America’s economic competitiveness,” said Marc H. Morial, the former New Orleans mayor who is president of the National Urban League, one of the groups in the coalition that commissioned the report. “This report makes it clear that every American pays a cost when a young person leaves school without a diploma.”
The report puts the collective cost to the nation over the working life of each high school dropout at $292,000. Mr. Sum said that figure took into account lost tax revenues, since dropouts earn less and therefore pay less in taxes than high school graduates. It also includes the costs of providing food stamps and other aid to dropouts and of incarcerating those who turn to crime.
Daniel J. Losen, a senior associate at the Civil Rights Project at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the study was consistent with other economic studies of the dropout crisis, though he said the methodology of its cost-benefit analysis “lacked transparency.”
“The report’s strength is that it reveals in clear terms that there’s a real crisis with the high numbers of young, especially minority males, who drop out of school and wind up incarcerated,” Mr. Losen said.
Previous studies have come up with estimates of the same order of magnitude on the social cost of low graduation rates. A 2007 study by Teachers College, Princeton and City University of New York researchers, for instance, estimated that society could save $209,000 in prison and other costs for every potential dropout who could be helped to complete high school.
The new report, in its analysis of 2008 unemployment rates, found that 54 percent of dropouts ages 16 to 24 were jobless, compared with 32 percent for high school graduates of the same age, and 13 percent for those with a college degree.
Again, the statistics were worse for young African-American dropouts, whose unemployment rate last year was 69 percent, compared with 54 percent for whites and 47 percent for Hispanics. The unemployment rate among young Hispanics was lower, the report said, because included in that category were many illegal immigrants, who compete successfully for jobs with native-born youths.
The unemployment rates cited for all groups have climbed several points in 2009 because of the recession, Mr. Sum said.
Young female dropouts were nine times more likely to have become single mothers than young women who went on to earn college degrees, the report said, citing census data for 2006 and 2007.
Read the rest of the article at the New York Times URL:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/09/education/09dropout.html?em
PROOF, small class size equals life long increases in learning
Our ANTI friends are fond of saying that more money for schools does not equal a better outcome. They say it is 'just throwing money at the problem' which they see as public schools and public school teachers. We now have evidence from a recent study that spending more money on school increases test scores and life long learning.
We have already seen recent studies which have shown that public school students do as well or better than private and charter school students. Our public students achieve as much or more even though public schools must take everyone that comes whereas non-public schools 'cherry pick' their admissions. If we could also cherry pick only students that 'fit' our special criteria as the charter and private schools do, just think how high our scores would be. But even with that unfair advantage, charter and private schools cannot out score our students.
See:
In the latest research highlighted in this post today, we have evidence for spending money to reduce class size in the first few grades of school. Increased expenditures for class size reduction promotes greater life time learning for all students and better test scores for all. Low performing students scores and learning are particularly helped.
Our VUSD teachers all gave up a FULL DAY of pay this year to maintain class size reduction in our K-3 classes here in VUSD. We knew it helped our students and we put our money where our beliefs were. We were right. Our ANTIs will never give us credit for this, but we should feel proud of ourselves.
The new ground breaking research on class size reduction was published in the American Journal of Education by a University of Michigan researcher, Spyros Konstantopoulos, who is "a member of a committee for the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences that will make official recommendations on class size to the states."
This new research is not based on a small study of a few dozen students. No, it is based on the data from a colossal research study called Project Star that looked at over 11,000 students elementary and middle school students in Tennessee.
We can now definitely say that spending more money on schools makes a huge difference when that money is spent to reduce class size.
Read more below:
http://news.msu.edu/story/6948/
MSU research: Small classes have long-term benefit for all students
Contact: Andy Henion, University Relations, Office:
Published: Oct. 09, 2009
Spyros Konstantopoulos, associate professor of education, says several consecutive years of small classes in early elementary school benefit students of all achievement levels.
EAST LANSING, Mich. — Providing small classes for at least several consecutive grades starting in early elementary school gives students the best chance to succeed in later grades, according to groundbreaking new research from a Michigan State University scholar.
The research by Spyros Konstantopoulos, associate professor of education, is the first to examine the effects of class size over a sustained period and for all levels of students – from low- to high-achievers. The study appears in the American Journal of Education.
Konstantopoulos also is a member of a committee for the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences that will make official recommendations on class size to the states. He said the recommendations will mirror his research: that the best plan of attack is to provide small classes (13 to 17 students) for at least several years starting in kindergarten or first grade.
“For a long time states thought they could just do it in kindergarten or first grade for one year and get the benefits,” Konstantopoulos said. “I don’t believe that. I think you need at least a few years consecutively where all students, and especially low-achievers, receive the treatment, and then you see the benefits later.”
His research used data from the massive Project Star study in Tennessee that analyzed the effects of class size on more than 11,000 students in elementary and middle school. Konstantopoulos found that students who had been in small classes from kindergarten through third grade had substantially higher test scores in grades four through eight than students who had been in larger classes early on.
Students from all achievement levels benefited from small classes, the research found. But low-achievers benefited the most, which narrowed the achievement gap with high-achievers in science, reading and math, Konstantopoulos said.
Although the study didn’t evaluate classroom practices, Konstantopoulos said the reason for the narrowing gap likely is due to low-achieving students receiving more attention from teachers.
“This is especially important in poorer schools because teacher effectiveness matters more in schools with higher proportions of disadvantaged and low-performing students,” he said.
###
Michigan State University has been advancing knowledge and transforming lives through innovative teaching, research and outreach for more than 150 years. MSU is known internationally as a major public university with global reach and extraordinary impact. Its 17 degree-granting colleges attract scholars worldwide who are interested in combining education with practical problem solving.
We have already seen recent studies which have shown that public school students do as well or better than private and charter school students. Our public students achieve as much or more even though public schools must take everyone that comes whereas non-public schools 'cherry pick' their admissions. If we could also cherry pick only students that 'fit' our special criteria as the charter and private schools do, just think how high our scores would be. But even with that unfair advantage, charter and private schools cannot out score our students.
See:
In the latest research highlighted in this post today, we have evidence for spending money to reduce class size in the first few grades of school. Increased expenditures for class size reduction promotes greater life time learning for all students and better test scores for all. Low performing students scores and learning are particularly helped.
Our VUSD teachers all gave up a FULL DAY of pay this year to maintain class size reduction in our K-3 classes here in VUSD. We knew it helped our students and we put our money where our beliefs were. We were right. Our ANTIs will never give us credit for this, but we should feel proud of ourselves.
The new ground breaking research on class size reduction was published in the American Journal of Education by a University of Michigan researcher, Spyros Konstantopoulos, who is "a member of a committee for the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences that will make official recommendations on class size to the states."
This new research is not based on a small study of a few dozen students. No, it is based on the data from a colossal research study called Project Star that looked at over 11,000 students elementary and middle school students in Tennessee.
We can now definitely say that spending more money on schools makes a huge difference when that money is spent to reduce class size.
Read more below:
http://news.msu.edu/story/6948/
MSU research: Small classes have long-term benefit for all students
Contact: Andy Henion, University Relations, Office:
Published: Oct. 09, 2009
Spyros Konstantopoulos, associate professor of education, says several consecutive years of small classes in early elementary school benefit students of all achievement levels.
EAST LANSING, Mich. — Providing small classes for at least several consecutive grades starting in early elementary school gives students the best chance to succeed in later grades, according to groundbreaking new research from a Michigan State University scholar.
The research by Spyros Konstantopoulos, associate professor of education, is the first to examine the effects of class size over a sustained period and for all levels of students – from low- to high-achievers. The study appears in the American Journal of Education.
Konstantopoulos also is a member of a committee for the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences that will make official recommendations on class size to the states. He said the recommendations will mirror his research: that the best plan of attack is to provide small classes (13 to 17 students) for at least several years starting in kindergarten or first grade.
“For a long time states thought they could just do it in kindergarten or first grade for one year and get the benefits,” Konstantopoulos said. “I don’t believe that. I think you need at least a few years consecutively where all students, and especially low-achievers, receive the treatment, and then you see the benefits later.”
His research used data from the massive Project Star study in Tennessee that analyzed the effects of class size on more than 11,000 students in elementary and middle school. Konstantopoulos found that students who had been in small classes from kindergarten through third grade had substantially higher test scores in grades four through eight than students who had been in larger classes early on.
Students from all achievement levels benefited from small classes, the research found. But low-achievers benefited the most, which narrowed the achievement gap with high-achievers in science, reading and math, Konstantopoulos said.
Although the study didn’t evaluate classroom practices, Konstantopoulos said the reason for the narrowing gap likely is due to low-achieving students receiving more attention from teachers.
“This is especially important in poorer schools because teacher effectiveness matters more in schools with higher proportions of disadvantaged and low-performing students,” he said.
###
Michigan State University has been advancing knowledge and transforming lives through innovative teaching, research and outreach for more than 150 years. MSU is known internationally as a major public university with global reach and extraordinary impact. Its 17 degree-granting colleges attract scholars worldwide who are interested in combining education with practical problem solving.
North County Times editorial page has no standards
Joan Brubaker's Forum, "Vista Teachers Seek Total Control" could not have been published in any other newspaper in our county. In normal newspapers editorial content must be based on fact. Yes, there is opinion; but verifiable facts must be woven in. The facts must be included as evidence for the conclusions drawn by the editorial writer. This basic tenet of fact based editorial journalism is not being followed today in the North County Times.
Here are three Brubaker statements in her "Forum" that are made without "facts in evidence". None of these statements could have made it onto the editorial page of any other newspaper in our county and one suspects in our state.
(1)" four members of the board are bought and paid by VTA"
(2)"The 'throttle hold' VTA has on the guiding staff of Vista Unified has denied the superintendent to use one of the engines to success she was using"
(3)"Efforts are now under way by VTA to shuffle or "buy out" the deputy superintendent"
Each of these statement is written with no evidence or facts to back up the statement.
The first, (1)"four members of the board are bought and paid by the VTA" is a libel and slander against duly elected board members. It is also contrary to facts and evidence on the ground in our district. The teachers have had no contract in over two years. The teachers have had no salary increase in even longer. In fact the teachers took a salary cut this year of one paid day to keep K-3 class size reduction. The Vista Teachers Association was not consulted in any way with the original hiring of Joyce Bales or with the extension of her contract just before last year's election. There is no way the VTA leadership or membership as a whole would have been in favor of that contract extension for a superintendent who has a history in VUSD of unilateral, top down, 'my way or the highway' decisions. I can only guess that the VTA leadership and membership wishes it had some say in decisions by the board in our district.
The second (2) "the 'throttle hold' VTA has on the guiding staff of Vista Unified has denied the superintendent to use one of the engines to success she was using," is factually incorrect. It was the parents of the SSC who did not want to spend the money on LMB not the teachers. Teachers teach with whatever is provided to them. Last year they were given and told to use LMB they did. This year they are using something else that they are given and told to use. Teachers do not have a dog in this fight. So why were they allowed to be made the "bad guys" by the editor who approved this Forum? The NCTimes has rejected publising many other Forums, why did they publish this one?
The third (3)"Efforts are now under way by VTA to shuffle or "buy out" the deputy superintendent," is made up out of whole cloth. It came from left field and it makes no sense. First when Brubaker says,"efforts are underway by the VTA...", she does not seem to realize that the VTA is an organization not a person. Real newspapers would demand to have evidence before publishing such a ludicrous charge. A real newspaper with a real editorial standards would have forced Brubaker to back up this wild charge with the following information before publishing the charge in their newspaper. Here are the questions that should have been answered first:
(a)Who in the VTA is doing these "efforts"?
(b)What exactly did they do?
(c)When did they do these actions?
(d)Where did these "efforts" take place?
(e)How are they doing it?
(f)Why are they doing it?
Come on this is basic journalism 101. Where is the editorial fact checking?
These same six questions should have been asked about all of Brubaker's allegations, not just the third one. But these questions were not asked. No demand was placed on Brubaker to substantiate any of her allegations before the Forum piece was published.
Finally the whole notion of this Brubaker Forum that there is a great teacher plot to stop students from learning to read is such a HUH? How can anyone respond to such and nutty charge? What is the entire focus of school teachers? Teaching our students. That is our highest and first priority. This broad slander against every teacher in VUSD makes no sense on its face. It does not pass the smell test. Why was it allowed in Brubaker's forum?
How do you even rebut someone who believes such nonsense? We might as well argue with a tree as to provide impartial fact based rebuttal to someone who would write this way and a newspaper editorial staff that would allow it to be published. So the question remains, why is this newspaper publishing it? The only answer is a complete lack of all normal newspaper editorial standards. Apparently as long as the "Forum" agrees with the prejudice of the editorial staff, no normal newspaper standards are applied. Sad, sad end for once was a fine newspaper.
Brubaker's Forum can be found here:
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/article_ca1b424c-156c-52d7-8169-d3eb741bc3be.html?mode=story
Here are three Brubaker statements in her "Forum" that are made without "facts in evidence". None of these statements could have made it onto the editorial page of any other newspaper in our county and one suspects in our state.
(1)" four members of the board are bought and paid by VTA"
(2)"The 'throttle hold' VTA has on the guiding staff of Vista Unified has denied the superintendent to use one of the engines to success she was using"
(3)"Efforts are now under way by VTA to shuffle or "buy out" the deputy superintendent"
Each of these statement is written with no evidence or facts to back up the statement.
The first, (1)"four members of the board are bought and paid by the VTA" is a libel and slander against duly elected board members. It is also contrary to facts and evidence on the ground in our district. The teachers have had no contract in over two years. The teachers have had no salary increase in even longer. In fact the teachers took a salary cut this year of one paid day to keep K-3 class size reduction. The Vista Teachers Association was not consulted in any way with the original hiring of Joyce Bales or with the extension of her contract just before last year's election. There is no way the VTA leadership or membership as a whole would have been in favor of that contract extension for a superintendent who has a history in VUSD of unilateral, top down, 'my way or the highway' decisions. I can only guess that the VTA leadership and membership wishes it had some say in decisions by the board in our district.
The second (2) "the 'throttle hold' VTA has on the guiding staff of Vista Unified has denied the superintendent to use one of the engines to success she was using," is factually incorrect. It was the parents of the SSC who did not want to spend the money on LMB not the teachers. Teachers teach with whatever is provided to them. Last year they were given and told to use LMB they did. This year they are using something else that they are given and told to use. Teachers do not have a dog in this fight. So why were they allowed to be made the "bad guys" by the editor who approved this Forum? The NCTimes has rejected publising many other Forums, why did they publish this one?
The third (3)"Efforts are now under way by VTA to shuffle or "buy out" the deputy superintendent," is made up out of whole cloth. It came from left field and it makes no sense. First when Brubaker says,"efforts are underway by the VTA...", she does not seem to realize that the VTA is an organization not a person. Real newspapers would demand to have evidence before publishing such a ludicrous charge. A real newspaper with a real editorial standards would have forced Brubaker to back up this wild charge with the following information before publishing the charge in their newspaper. Here are the questions that should have been answered first:
(a)Who in the VTA is doing these "efforts"?
(b)What exactly did they do?
(c)When did they do these actions?
(d)Where did these "efforts" take place?
(e)How are they doing it?
(f)Why are they doing it?
Come on this is basic journalism 101. Where is the editorial fact checking?
These same six questions should have been asked about all of Brubaker's allegations, not just the third one. But these questions were not asked. No demand was placed on Brubaker to substantiate any of her allegations before the Forum piece was published.
Finally the whole notion of this Brubaker Forum that there is a great teacher plot to stop students from learning to read is such a HUH? How can anyone respond to such and nutty charge? What is the entire focus of school teachers? Teaching our students. That is our highest and first priority. This broad slander against every teacher in VUSD makes no sense on its face. It does not pass the smell test. Why was it allowed in Brubaker's forum?
How do you even rebut someone who believes such nonsense? We might as well argue with a tree as to provide impartial fact based rebuttal to someone who would write this way and a newspaper editorial staff that would allow it to be published. So the question remains, why is this newspaper publishing it? The only answer is a complete lack of all normal newspaper editorial standards. Apparently as long as the "Forum" agrees with the prejudice of the editorial staff, no normal newspaper standards are applied. Sad, sad end for once was a fine newspaper.
Brubaker's Forum can be found here:
http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/article_ca1b424c-156c-52d7-8169-d3eb741bc3be.html?mode=story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)