Special Ed Leadership Team
April 25, 2012
The Special Ed Leadership is a collaborative team consisting of special education staff and administrators with the purpose of looking at the wide spectrum of shared interests and seeking a way to discuss and solve some of those concerns. The interests were generated at our first meeting on March 14th. One example of a shared interest is ongoing professional development.
We met today and categorized over 30 common interests into four broad categories. The four categories are communication, procedures/programs, building capacity/training and staffing/workload. The group will meet again on May 9th in order to look at the category of procedures/programs. We will pick an issue and start to work on it.
For questions or concerns, you may contact:
John Bartfield, Director of Special Education
Karen Gansky, Elementary RSP
Tom Haycock, Middle School SDC
Michelle Morris, Speech and Language Pathologist
Heather Olsen, Principal of Sunnybrae School
Emily Posk, Elementary SDC
Barbara Riley, Middle School RSP
Malia Scheifele, Psychologist
Jackie Tinghitella, Pre-K SDC
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Monday, April 16, 2012
The Truth about the Deceptive “Stop Special Interest Money Now Act”: It is nothing more than a corporate power grab.
“…dripping with cynicism” – Sacramento Bee
“…a phony veneer of fairness…one-sided and biased” – Long Beach Press Telegram
“…would harm their union opponents more than it would harm business interests” – OC Register
The Facts: A ballot measure that claims to be about stopping special interest money in politics will appear on the November 2012 ballot. In reality, the initiative is yet another attempt to deceive voters into passing a law that would change the rules to benefit wealthy corporate interests at the expense of middle class workers and their unions. It is nothing more than a corporate power grab.
What the initiative claims to do: The deceptive “Stop Special Interest Money Now Act” purports to be a “simple, fair and balanced solution…limiting both corporate and union political giving.” The initiative’s proponents claim that the measure bans both corporate and union contributions to candidates, prohibits campaign contributions from government contractors, prohibits corporations and unions from collecting political funds from employees and members via voluntary payroll deduction, and makes all employee political contributions by any other means strictly voluntary, requiring annual written consent. Sounds fair and balanced, right?
Take a closer look – this measure creates a loophole that allows corporations to make unlimited campaign contributions: In fact, a giant loophole in this initiative will allow corporations to continue to make unlimited political expenditures supporting or opposing candidates, without restrictions, and unlimited contributions to ballot measures – while silencing unions.
- The measure says it will stop corporations and unions from collecting political funds through payroll deductions -- but corporations almost never use payroll deductions to collect funds to support or oppose candidates or ballot measures…they use their corporate profits..
- Unions, on the other hand, depend almost entirely on payroll deductions to collect union dues, a portion of which may be used for political purposes. There is no other practical way for unions to collect the funding needed to compete with the better-funded corporate interests. This measure makes it illegal to use payroll deductions to collect funding for any political contributions and expenditures, even if union members specifically authorize those deductions in writing. That means corporations will be able to take control of the initiative process in California, placing whatever self-serving measures they want to on the ballot, and spending millions to convince voters to support them, while labor organizations will be helpless to fight back.
- This measure does absolutely nothing to stop independent expenditures by corporations. These are the committees that work like the federal Super PACs that blanket the airwaves with negative ads just before an election. These committees don’t give directly to candidates, so they can both receive and spend unlimited amounts of money to conduct “shadow” campaigns to elect their friends or defeat their enemies. What it does do is to make it virtually impossible for labor organizations to collect the funds to fight the independent expenditure campaigns and fight for what’s important to middle class Californians.
But doesn’t the initiative “allow” employees to make voluntary contributions?
Employees can already make voluntary contributions to political campaigns under existing law today. The Constitution guarantees everyone that right. This measure does nothing to change that…but it does add a new requirement that even voluntary contributions from employees must be accompanied by written permission to use the funds. And payroll deductions are made illegal, even if written permission is given by the employee.
Who are the backers of the initiative?
The sponsors of this measure are lawyers who work for the firm that represents the California Republican Party. The primary financial supporters are millionaires associated with the extreme right-wing Lincoln Club of Orange County. Right-wing, anti-worker extremists including Grover Norquist have sponsored similar measures in dozens of states in the past. They also tried passing similar measures twice before in California; voters in California rejected those measures both times (1998 and 2005).
What is the true motive behind the initiative?
There is only one simple answer to that question: it’s a corporate power grab. Unions fight for fair wages and benefits, for workplace safety, for smaller class size in our schools, for better health care for our children and senior citizens, and to keep our communities safe with adequate police and fire protection. Most of these battles occur in city council or county supervisor chambers, in school board rooms, in the state Legislature or through initiatives on the ballot. If unions that represent working people with middle class values are eliminated from the political arena, large corporations and business interests will have free rein to do whatever they want to grow their profits.
The Sacramento Bee sums up the true motives of the initiative’s backers in Dan Morain’s column, “‘Reform’ initiative wears a soiled white hat” (12/22/11)
The latest initiative to qualify for the 2012 ballot is thick with the earnest rhetoric of white-hat-wearing good government reformers. It's also dripping with cynicism.
This may come as a shock, but the "Stop Special Interest Money Now Act" won't do anything of the kind – at least not in any way that is balanced….
The initiative is the brainchild of Orange County Republicans, was written by a partner in the law firm that represents the California Republican Party, and is being bankrolled by wealthy Republicans.
The initiative would bar unions from using automatic withdrawals from members' paychecks to raise money for political activity. Instead, labor would need to persuade members to write checks or make transfers from their bank accounts, an obstacle that would be difficult to overcome.
The initiative would bar direct contributions to officeholders and candidates by corporations and unions, assuming labor could raise money. But money players spend far more on initiatives and independent campaigns than on direct candidate donations.
Take a look at three corporations: cigarette maker Altria, Chevron and AT&T. They spent a combined $19.4 million on California politics in 2010 and 2011, according to data compiled by the private ElectionTrack website.
Those corporations gave $2.7 million to candidates. The other $16.7 million went to ballot measures, independent expenditures and political parties.
Altria, in particular, gives modestly to politicians, partly because many officeholders view tobacco money as politically toxic.
Altria has spent no less than $51.8 million on California campaigns since 2000. Of that, $48.3 million went to ballot measures, independent campaigns and parties, with the remaining $3.5 million going to candidates and incumbents.
The same is true for labor. The California Teachers Association has spent at least $7.4 million since 2010 on campaigns, according to ElectionTrack. Of that, $6.9 million went to ballot measures and independent campaigns.
Newport Beach attorney Michael Capaldi, one of the main proponents of the measure, told me he adheres to the libertarian philosophy and opposes regulation and government interference.
To my simple mind, there is an inconsistency between that view and any effort to further regulate campaign money. It's especially odd, given recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions – hailed by conservatives – striking down limits on campaign spending.
"In a perfect world, this wouldn't be needed," Capaldi told me. "But it is so far beyond debate that special interests control Sacramento."
There are interests and then there are interests. On its website, Capaldi's law firm makes note of his clout: "As an opinion leader and chairman emeritus of the Lincoln Club of Orange County, he has had a major influence in Orange County, Sacramento, and Washington, D.C." That hardly sounds like Mr. Smith.
"Stop Special Interest Money Now Act" would stop labor money. But don't expect it to stop corporate money. Corporations wouldn't be able to give directly to candidates. But they could spend freely on independent campaigns and initiatives, soiling this white hat with oil and leaving it with cigarette burns.
This may come as a shock, but the "Stop Special Interest Money Now Act" won't do anything of the kind – at least not in any way that is balanced….
The initiative is the brainchild of Orange County Republicans, was written by a partner in the law firm that represents the California Republican Party, and is being bankrolled by wealthy Republicans.
The initiative would bar unions from using automatic withdrawals from members' paychecks to raise money for political activity. Instead, labor would need to persuade members to write checks or make transfers from their bank accounts, an obstacle that would be difficult to overcome.
The initiative would bar direct contributions to officeholders and candidates by corporations and unions, assuming labor could raise money. But money players spend far more on initiatives and independent campaigns than on direct candidate donations.
Take a look at three corporations: cigarette maker Altria, Chevron and AT&T. They spent a combined $19.4 million on California politics in 2010 and 2011, according to data compiled by the private ElectionTrack website.
Those corporations gave $2.7 million to candidates. The other $16.7 million went to ballot measures, independent expenditures and political parties.
Altria, in particular, gives modestly to politicians, partly because many officeholders view tobacco money as politically toxic.
Altria has spent no less than $51.8 million on California campaigns since 2000. Of that, $48.3 million went to ballot measures, independent campaigns and parties, with the remaining $3.5 million going to candidates and incumbents.
The same is true for labor. The California Teachers Association has spent at least $7.4 million since 2010 on campaigns, according to ElectionTrack. Of that, $6.9 million went to ballot measures and independent campaigns.
Newport Beach attorney Michael Capaldi, one of the main proponents of the measure, told me he adheres to the libertarian philosophy and opposes regulation and government interference.
To my simple mind, there is an inconsistency between that view and any effort to further regulate campaign money. It's especially odd, given recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions – hailed by conservatives – striking down limits on campaign spending.
"In a perfect world, this wouldn't be needed," Capaldi told me. "But it is so far beyond debate that special interests control Sacramento."
There are interests and then there are interests. On its website, Capaldi's law firm makes note of his clout: "As an opinion leader and chairman emeritus of the Lincoln Club of Orange County, he has had a major influence in Orange County, Sacramento, and Washington, D.C." That hardly sounds like Mr. Smith.
"Stop Special Interest Money Now Act" would stop labor money. But don't expect it to stop corporate money. Corporations wouldn't be able to give directly to candidates. But they could spend freely on independent campaigns and initiatives, soiling this white hat with oil and leaving it with cigarette burns.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Article by Diane Ravitch: In Defense of Facing Reality
I recently wrote two review articles for the New York Review of Books about the teaching profession. The first was a review of Pasi Sahlberg's Finnish Lessons, about the exceptional school system of Finland, which owes much to the high professionalism of its teachers.
The second of the two articles was a review of Wendy Kopp's A Chance to Make History, and it focused on her organization, Teach for America.
I expressed my admiration for the young people who agree to teach for two years, with only five weeks of training. But I worried that TFA was now seen -- and promoting itself -- as the answer to the serious problems of American education. Even by naming her book A Chance to Make History, Wendy Kopp reinforced the idea that TFA was the very mechanism that American society could rely upon to lift up the children of poverty and close the achievement gaps between different racial and ethnic groups.
Wendy Kopp responded to my review of her book with a blog called "In Defense of Optimism." She wrote that:
If it were true that we now know how to break the cycle of poverty, poverty would be declining. But poverty is growing in the United States; child poverty is more than 20 percent and rising. Among the world's advanced nations, we are number one in child poverty. It's facile to blame schools and teachers, but more realistic to recognize that poverty is a reflection of economic conditions. Schools cannot create jobs, provide homes for the homeless, or change the economy.
Kopp is right that TFA has become a training ground for leaders. Some of its alumni have moved into high-level positions, like Michelle Rhee, former chancellor of the public schools of the District of Columbia, who now works closely with the nation's most conservative governors to strip teachers of due process rights and to promote charter schools, vouchers, and for-profit education corporations. Another TFA alum, John White, Commissioner of Education in Louisiana, advances the same hard-right agenda for Governor Bobby Jindal.
In my reviews, I contrasted the five-year preparation of teachers in Finland with the American hodge-podge approach to the recruitment and training of teachers. In the U.S., states offer many ways to become a teacher, and our non-system has produced low standards for entry and a revolving door, with 40-50 percent leaving in their first five years of teaching. Finnish teachers are highly respected and seldom leave their profession.
Kopp dismisses Finland as a model because less than 4 percent of its children are poor. But that's part of the story of their success and should not be waved aside as unimportant. Teacher professionalism is also part of Finnish success. In this country, our public school teachers are constantly criticized and disrespected, and few are recognized for their dedication and hard work despite budget cuts, growing class sizes, and a hostile media. So long as the attacks on teachers continue, so long as the politicians continue defunding the schools, and so long as our society continues to tolerate high levels of child poverty and intense racial segregation, we will continue to have low-performing students and "failing" schools.
We will have to learn to hold two ideas in our heads at the same time: We must both reduce poverty and improve our schools. We cannot fix our schools without strengthening the teaching profession and addressing the social conditions that shape their outcomes.
The second of the two articles was a review of Wendy Kopp's A Chance to Make History, and it focused on her organization, Teach for America.
I expressed my admiration for the young people who agree to teach for two years, with only five weeks of training. But I worried that TFA was now seen -- and promoting itself -- as the answer to the serious problems of American education. Even by naming her book A Chance to Make History, Wendy Kopp reinforced the idea that TFA was the very mechanism that American society could rely upon to lift up the children of poverty and close the achievement gaps between different racial and ethnic groups.
Wendy Kopp responded to my review of her book with a blog called "In Defense of Optimism." She wrote that:
... over the last twenty years we in the United States have discovered that we don't have to wait to fix poverty to dramatically improve educational outcomes for underprivileged students. In fact, there's strong evidence that one of the most effective ways to break the cycle of poverty is to expand the mission of public schools in low-income communities and put enormous energy into providing children with the extra time and support they need to reach their potential.Now I certainly agree with Kopp that schools are enormously important, and that it's vital to have talented educators working in them. We both want to see the day when every child has access to an excellent education. She believes that the teachers and the leaders produced by TFA have figured this out. I disagree. I think that the lesson of Finland and other high-performing nations is that we must improve the teaching profession, so that career educators receive the respect and working conditions they need to succeed, and we must also reduce poverty.
If it were true that we now know how to break the cycle of poverty, poverty would be declining. But poverty is growing in the United States; child poverty is more than 20 percent and rising. Among the world's advanced nations, we are number one in child poverty. It's facile to blame schools and teachers, but more realistic to recognize that poverty is a reflection of economic conditions. Schools cannot create jobs, provide homes for the homeless, or change the economy.
Kopp is right that TFA has become a training ground for leaders. Some of its alumni have moved into high-level positions, like Michelle Rhee, former chancellor of the public schools of the District of Columbia, who now works closely with the nation's most conservative governors to strip teachers of due process rights and to promote charter schools, vouchers, and for-profit education corporations. Another TFA alum, John White, Commissioner of Education in Louisiana, advances the same hard-right agenda for Governor Bobby Jindal.
In my reviews, I contrasted the five-year preparation of teachers in Finland with the American hodge-podge approach to the recruitment and training of teachers. In the U.S., states offer many ways to become a teacher, and our non-system has produced low standards for entry and a revolving door, with 40-50 percent leaving in their first five years of teaching. Finnish teachers are highly respected and seldom leave their profession.
Kopp dismisses Finland as a model because less than 4 percent of its children are poor. But that's part of the story of their success and should not be waved aside as unimportant. Teacher professionalism is also part of Finnish success. In this country, our public school teachers are constantly criticized and disrespected, and few are recognized for their dedication and hard work despite budget cuts, growing class sizes, and a hostile media. So long as the attacks on teachers continue, so long as the politicians continue defunding the schools, and so long as our society continues to tolerate high levels of child poverty and intense racial segregation, we will continue to have low-performing students and "failing" schools.
We will have to learn to hold two ideas in our heads at the same time: We must both reduce poverty and improve our schools. We cannot fix our schools without strengthening the teaching profession and addressing the social conditions that shape their outcomes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)