The Bee's faulty campaign on teacher layoffs

The Bee's editorial position is strange. Jan.27. here.here They  assert that the lay off priority process for teachers is wrong. They  argue that students have a constitutional right to quality education. At the same time they  accept without push back the massive lay off of teachers. These lay offs increase class size and degrade the rights of the students. The Bee should address the bigger picture, how can we stop these massive layoffs? Its the state budget. Governor Brown’s central argument that the money is not there is inaccurate.  The money is there if the state is willing to collect the revenue.  Here is a list of sources for at $26 billion dollars. http://choosingdemocracy.blogspot.com/2011/01/california-budget-crisis-sources-of.html
It is a major mistake to make deep, immediate budget cuts in the middle of recession. This will make the recession worse. Instead,  we need to build the promise of California.
  That promise is a good education for all, a good  job for all,  the opportunity to have  a rewarding career, and the chance for a life that is more than simply the workplace.  The austerity paradigm underlying the tax and budget cut mania, which the Bee  accepts,   does not promote good jobs nor  rewarding   careers for teachers, police, firefighters, nurses.    It will make the recession worse.

Possible tax vote in California

An important piece from Dan Walters.
Prop.25 may actually help.

Dan Walters: Vote margin on taxes key factor

PUBLISHED WEDNESDAY, JAN. 12, 2011 in Sacramento Bee.

A key factor in Gov. Jerry Brown's plan to balance the state budget is whether he and fellow Democrats could do it by themselves, or whether the votes of at least a few Republican legislators would be required.

Politicians and stakeholders are consulting attorneys, but at the moment, no one appears to know for certain – in part because the sections of the state constitution involved have never been legally tested.

….Republicans who voted for the temporary taxes two years ago were hammered by anti-tax groups and radio talkers. So far, GOP leaders have shunned an election to extend them.

If that holds, Brown and his chief legislative partner, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, leave open the possibility of moving ahead without a supermajority vote.

"We'll look at every and any way we have at our disposal to save California," Steinberg says.

There are two potential pathways for placing taxes on the ballot in June with a simple majority legislative vote and Brown's signature.

One would be a section of the state constitution that allows the Legislature to propose amendments to previously approved statutory initiatives. In theory, therefore, the additional taxes could be framed as amendments to a previous tax measure, such as Steinberg's own Proposition 63, which imposed an income tax surcharge on the rich for mental health programs.

Under this theory, the amendment would be passed in the Legislature's special session on the budget and after a 90-day wait would be placed on a special election ballot.

The second potential pathway would be Proposition 25, enacted by voters last November. It reduces the legislative vote on budgets from two-thirds to a simple majority and also applies the lower vote margin to measures needed to implement the budget, called trailer bills in Capitol jargon.

While the constitution requires a two-thirds vote to enact new taxes directly, would Proposition 25 allow taxes to be placed before voters with a simple majority vote as a budget implementation measure?

Lawyers inside and outside of government are hurriedly seeking an answer. And since the legal picture is cloudy, were Democrats to move on their own, court battles would surely follow.

edited for space. Read the entire piece at the Sac Bee.  here.http://www.sacbee.com/2011/01/12/3317494/dan-walters-vote-margin-on-taxes.html

FAIR USE NOTICE: THIS SITE CONTAINS COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL THE USE OF WHICH HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE COPYRIGHT OWNER. WE ARE MAKING SUCH MATERIAL AVAILABLE IN OUR EFFORTS TO ADVANCE UNDERSTANDING OF ENVIRONMENTAL, POLITICAL, HUMAN RIGHTS, ECONOMIC, DEMOCRACY, SCIENTIFIC, AND SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES, ETC. WE BELIEVE THIS CONSTITUTES A 'FAIR USE' OF ANY SUCH COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 107 OF THE US COPYRIGHT LAW. IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THE MATERIAL ON THIS SITE IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. FOR MORE INFORMATION GO TO: HTTP://WWW.LAW.CORNELL.EDU/USCODE/17/107.SHTML. IF YOU WISH TO USE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL FROM THIS SITE FOR PURPOSES OF YOUR OWN THAT GO BEYOND 'FAIR USE,' YOU MUST OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM THE COPYRIGHT OWNER.

If any publisher or owner of a copyrighted product believes we have violated your copyright, please contact me and we will usually remove the article, except under the guidelines of fair use above.  We will then post material about the contested issue  from alternative sources.

Bee editorial board bargains against the teachers

Today's Sacramento Bee editorial calls for an infusion of new leadership to keep Natomas Unified from failing.  As described yesterday in the post below - Natomas is not failing.  It is under funded as are almost all schools districts in the state.  The Bee editorial board calls for "civic leaders"  to let Natomas Unified teaches know that they should settle and take a 7.9 % pay cut to balance the budget.
However, California school budgets are all in crisis and they will continue in crisis for several years as a consequence of the economic collapse of the housing market and the financial heist of Wall Street. ( See "the Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One" in the archives of this blog.)
I would like to see the "civic leaders", including the Bee editorial board insist that the state adequately fund our schools.  Poll after poll show that the tax payers want their schools adequately funded, but the legislature has refused, and has been unable to fund the schools in this crisis. The Robles-Wong suite against California on school funding makes these points well.
This kind of crisis will engulf more and more school districts.  Those unwilling to take on the corporate elite- like the Sacramento Bee editorial board- will continue to call for the teaches to take the pay cut.  The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission chaired by Phil Angelides will soon make their report showing who really caused the crisis and who profited from the economic crisis. The Bee calls for new leadership but does not call upon the financial insiders to be held accountable and to pay for the crisis they have created.  The students will have a reduced education and the Bee will castigate the teachers. That is our future for the next few years.

This blog is no longer on Sacramento Connect

This blog is no longer connected to Sacramento Connect, the blog roll of the Sacramento Bee.  Here is an explanation of why.

I attended an interesting talk on Sept. 23 by Barry Lynn, author of Cornered: The New Monopoly Capitalism and the Economics of Destruction. (2010)  He discussed many roles of monopolies in our society.

Among the most dangerous   roles is the monopoly, or the quasi monopoly on information.  In a republic, the citizens need several sources of information from multiple viewpoints in order to make citizens decisions.  Adding sources of information is precisely the purpose of this blog.

The Sacramento Bee is a near monopoly that gathers information in order to make a profit.  The purpose of the Bee is to make a profit.  To be on Sacramento Connect, you get listed by the Bee and they place ads on your blog.  They receive money from these ads.

The BEE often gathers public data, or uses public data, and publishes it, then claims the right of copyright for their publication of public information.  The Bee also copies and posts items such as photos of public officials and YouTube videos from campaigns ads.   As with any monopoly, their goal is more profit and/or more power.  Gaining power is a route to more profit.

During the week of September 21, Sacramento Connect objected to some of the choices I made to post on my blog.  They asserted that the posts were covered by copyright ( of others- the Washington Post).  The Sacramento Connect editor  asserted  a very narrow view of copyright.  They claimed that less than 95 characters in a line of script would violate copyright.   I have written several books.  Typical rules are less than 250 or 500 consecutive words ( not characters) to violate copyright.  The Bee may be using this narrow definition due to some of the past problems of  one or two of its writers. I also seems that the BEE would have a narrow definition because since they added ads to my blog, then there was a profit for publication ( a profit to the BEE). Many writers freely give permission to post their work in non profit sites,  But the Bee's ads made this blog a ( very small) profit site.  Thus, the criteria for copyright would change. 

The Sacramento Connect  editor asked me to remove the posts and I said no.  I pointed out that this was my blog, not the Sacramento Bee’s. 

The Sacramento Connect editor ( the Sacramento BEE), by using a very narrow view of copyright was asserting a right to determine what I posted.  That is not acceptable.  For an excellent discussion of copyright, I recommend the Creative Commons.  www.creativecommons.org.  I do not contest the Bee’s right to make a decision for their paper, they are private property.  They are organized to make a profit.  My blog is not intended to make a profit.  However, I do not accept their right to make decisions for me or for the public at large.  Their interests and concerns are different than my non profit, pro public concerns.

There are a number of good books on the declining role of newspapers and the rise of the blogs.   As a private monopoly, the Bee seeks to use its power to limit discussion to areas where it can make a profit.  That is why they place ads on Sacramento Connect.  That is why they establish an internal loop for communication called the Sacramento Connect.  This is a closed loop of communication as contrasted with an open internet.

The web offers a more open, public venue-  at least at present.   There are excellent discussions of these issues at Personal Democracy.  ( see the link on the left).

In this blog and elsewhere  I  will continue to argue for open sources of information and dialogue.   Open sources  are essential for a democracy.  We should all  oppose any monopoly of power in information.

You can well see the effect of monopoly of power in the reduced pages of the Bee in the last few years  and the reduced number of employees.  They are contracting to make more profit.  I chose to subscribe to the New York Times home delivery in order to contend against the Bee’s reduction in quality and quantity of news.  And, I read a number of blogs and I host three blogs.  The goal of this work is spread more information, and more diverse viewpoints through an open internet.   

The role of copyright in this dispute needs significant further discussion.  For now, let me say that we follow the following guidelines for Fair Use as determined by U.S. law.

FAIR USE NOTICE: THIS SITE CONTAINS COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL THE USE OF WHICH HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE COPYRIGHT OWNER. WE ARE MAKING SUCH MATERIAL AVAILABLE IN OUR EFFORTS TO ADVANCE UNDERSTANDING OF ENVIRONMENTAL, POLITICAL, HUMAN RIGHTS, ECONOMIC, DEMOCRACY, SCIENTIFIC, AND SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES, ETC. WE BELIEVE THIS CONSTITUTES A 'FAIR USE' OF ANY SUCH COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 107 OF THE US COPYRIGHT LAW. IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THE MATERIAL ON THIS SITE IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. FOR MORE INFORMATION GO TO: HTTP://WWW.LAW.CORNELL.EDU/USCODE/17/107.SHTML. IF YOU WISH TO USE COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL FROM THIS SITE FOR PURPOSES OF YOUR OWN THAT GO BEYOND 'FAIR USE,' YOU MUST OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM THE COPYRIGHT OWNER.

If any publisher or owner of a copyrighted product believes we have violated your copyright, please contact me and we will usually remove the article, except under the guidelines of fair use above.  We will then post material about the contested issue  from alternative sources.

See the posts below on Charter schools and Waiting for Superman.

Assembly hopeful Roger Dickinson urges county to sue Wall Street

The BEE had an article on May 6, 2010 about a press conference held by Roger Dickinson for Assembly.  This is a response to the article.

The point of view of this article is strange.  Wall street caused the current economic crisis. For evidence see 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown, by Johnson and Kwak.   Or, you can watch the current Economic Crisis Investigation on CSPAN co- Chaired by  Phil Angelides.  This crisis almost brought the world economy to its knees.  Locally, the crisis produced unemployment, a severe reduction  in tax receipts, cuts in Sheriff patrols, closing health clinics, clinics for the mentally disabled, Child Protective Services, and others. 

 Dickinson criticized the Wall Street role in the crisis.   You bring out spokespersons for the rating agencies – that is spokespersons for Wall Street, to claim that Dickenson’s threat to sue might hurt Sacramento’s credit rating.  Excuse me!

Sacramento is borrowing $134 million and paying interest on it because of the economic crisis.  Now  the debt officer claims that criticizing Casino Capitalism on Wall Street is the problem!  No, the problem is the economic crisis.  And, the pain will last for several years. 

No one disputes that Sacramento  county's revenues are drastically down. There has been a  nearly 30 percent drop in sales tax for Sacramento County over the past five years. Property tax funds an even larger share of county budgets, and plummeting real estate values have meant even less income for counties to pay their bills.

During the current fiscal year, Sacramento's assessed property values dropped by 6.4 percent, and the outlook is for a continued decline into next year. And, the  ongoing budget-crisis impacts from the state also caused by the financial recession, which cut funding for counties, yet still requires them to provide costly programs. The reality is that almost all of California's counties are facing significant budget shortfalls resulting in cuts in programs, services and staffing. 

We need to look for ways to Make Wall Street Pay .  One possibility is to charge a 2% tax on all sales of derivatives and CDO’s.  I pay almost 8% sales tax when I buy anything in the county.  That pays for police, fire, utilities, and services.  But, when the Wall Street Casino sells billions in mortgage backed derivatives, they pay less than 1% tax.  If they would have to pay a tax on their sales, it would slow down the casino.  And, it would provide funds for the police protection, health clinics, Child Protective Services, and the many services which we are losing.

Race to the Top and the Sacramento Bee

Race to the Top

There was a well-written piece by Laurel Rosenhall of the Sacramento Bee of Jan.11, on the role of the CTA and Ed Voice in passing the current California Race to the Top bill.  Here: http://www.sacbee.com/education/story/2452085.html

                The conflict is far more than CTA vs. EdVoice and their  corporate sponsors.  There are a number of reasons to be opposed to the Race to the Top  proposals including dissent from people who know testing and its limits well. Nichols and Berliner (2007) and Bracey's, Education Hell: Rhetoric vs. Reality, among others deal with these issues. There are significant substantive reasons to oppose RTTT.

To accuse resistance as a CTA conflict is to miss state the issues. All you have to do is read the comments on the  U.S. Department of Education  RTTT web pages to see the many controversies.  

Mike Rose in  Why School, expresses some  core ideas related to NCLB and RTTT.

“For some time now, our national discussion of education has been dominated by a language of test scores and economic competitiveness.   To be sure, a major goal of American education is to prepare the young to make a living. But parents send their children to school for many other reasons as well: intellectual, social, civic, ethical and aesthetic.  Historically, these justifications for schooling have held more importance.  Not today.

…

It matters a great deal how we collectively talk about education, for that discussion both reflects and, in turn, affects policy decisions about what gets taught and tested, about funding, about what we expect schooling will contribute to our lives. It matters as well, how we think about intelligence, how narrowly or broadly we define it.  Our beliefs about intelligence affect everything from the way we organize school and work to how we treat each other.  And, it surely matters how we think about opportunity. “

Mike Rose.  Why School.  Reclaiming Education for All of Us. (2009)

The Race to the Top debate in the California legislature has great import since most observers expect the guidelines and projects of RTTT to become the Obama Administration’s proposals for the re- authorization of No Child Left Behind or ESEA.   Based upon our experiences over the last eight years, Teachers have many good reasons to oppose the California  bill that accepts a whole series of corporate myths. See, http://www.choosingdemocracy.blogspot.com

            In the California conflict an interesting position was created about the role of parent empowerment.  While we are all in favor of more parent participation, I am trying to understand how parent participation became a campaign strategy in support of Race to the Top.   Senator Gloria Romero, Chair of the Senate Education Committee and the leading candidate for State Superintendent of Public Instruction, wrote provisions in SBX 5.1 ( the RTTT bill) that expanded parent rights beyond anything required by Race to the Top. 

            There was a significant mobilization of parents in the Los Angeles School District in November insisting upon more access to charter schools and lifting the limit on charters.  I would like to know more about this effort.  From outside, it appears that the parents were frustrated with lack of improvement in Los Angeles Unified- there has been a 20 year struggle to break up the bureaucratic district.

            It seems that the educational advocates of Ed Voice- who claim to be a civil rights effort, somehow converted or directed this parent effort into an anti union effort that became identified in the Sacramento legislature as anti CTA.  They were able to use RTTT to pass legislation that could not have otherwise been passed in the legislature.  One controversial issue passed was that parents by petition could insist upon closing down a consistently poorly performing school.

            This parent mobilization appears similar to the famous parent mobilization in  Ninth  Street Elementary in Los Angeles,  California used by Ron Unz to pass Prop. 227.  A legitimate parent concern was framed in a manner to gain political power.  In Prop. 227, the conflict was about language policy and bilingualism; in Race to the Top the conflict appears to be parent mobilization for improved schools transferred into an anti union campaign. 

            I am not certain about this.  What is the advantage of ED Voice to frame the battle over RTTT in this manner?  One advantage I can see is that by shaping the conflict and the message as anti union they gained a firm right wing populist base and an echo chamber on talk radio.   In a similar manner, in the Prop. 227 case, rather than seeking a resolution to the problems of a program in a school, the Unz campaign gained a right wing anti immigrant populist base and an echo chamber on talk radio.   So, they gained a hard right base to attack the union.  What is the purpose of this?  The purpose of strengthening the Republican Right is well documented on the English for the Children web site. http://www.onenation.org/news.html

            I would like to understand the purpose of the parent mobilizations in the Los Angeles case- a mobilization that influenced Senator Romero and allowed her to successfully author legislation for dramatic reform of failing schools.  I suspect that the parents wanted better education conditions for their kids.  I doubt if they started out with a union bashing goal.

            The economic crisis and the decline of support for public schools have  produced more severe conditions in many schools, particularly those that are failing.  Arne Duncan, Al Sharpton,  Newt Gingrich,  and others are promoting Race to the Top as a solution to the current conditions.  The RTTT proposals do not respond to the real issues of school reform, they serve as a substitute.  Well, if they are a substitute, what is the goal of offering them as a substitute rather than dealing with the real issues, which include poverty? 

            Where do these policy proposals come from?   The Race to the Top proposals come from legislators and lobbyists whose own self interest guide their recommendations, not the interests of students in schools.

 Lets look at a parallel field.  The U.S.  is  presently engaged in a national debate on health care.  Imagine that as a part of the debate the politicians and the lobbyists were allowed to decide on the procedures for health care and the medicines to be used to treat the ill.  It does not happen.  Doctors and nurses, and health administrators make the major decisions- and unfortunately the insurance companies.

Why then in schools do we allow politicians, lobbyists, and other “experts” who are not teachers and have not worked in classrooms for over ten years, and who have not taught children, to make the basic decisions about schooling.

School reform and the Bee editorial writers

What kind of a public debate can we have on the vital issues of the day in  California?  A lot depends on the media, which determines how these issues are framed for most people.

In their editorial of Dec.13, 2009, the Bee Editorial Board complains about the Assembly’s handling of the proposed changes to California law to meet the demands of Race to the Top. here

They complain of “those in the educational establishment”.   What could be more establishment than the control of the editorial pages of the region’s only major newspaper?   The Bee editorial writers seek to substitute their own view of Race to the Top for the positions of those who work in schools.  Until reformers engage teachers in reform and provide the needed resources, schools will not improve.

            One difference between the Bee’s “establishment” and the educational “establishment” is that teachers actually work with children.  They see the consequences of 8 years of NCLB cram down of rote memory and tests.  It has not worked.   Race to the Top is just NCLB accelerated.  It is a make work project for educational consultants- and legislative consultants.  Even if California were to receive some of the money ( at best a 1 in 7 possibility)  according to testimony in last week’s legislative hearings, the money should be  used for consultants – not spent on educating kids. See post below. 

            The Bee editors are correct that “large constituencies of poor and minority children stuck in chronically low-performing schools.  These kids and their parents deserve better.”  This is after 8 years of NCLB.  Accelerating the Race will not change this.  It is time to listen to the teachers – not  to the BEE  establishment.