by Jack
What gets me is so few students are connecting the dots on this story. We recently reported that the UC Regents gambled away about $15B on Wall Street and now Prop 30 will go to replace that bad bet. This was the money Gov. Brown told them would keep their tuition cost down and give them back $250 in tuition rebate. They should be outraged over this deception and what those liberal democrats in Sacramento have done to them.
I believe the money will be keeping tuition costs down because that debt had to be paid no matter what. One more travesty of the Bush/Obama looting of the country with bank bailouts and TARP.
One of great myths in California is that education has no money. Bull. We spend BILLIONS on education. Yet our schools still have no supplies, no sports or music programs, and no extra-curricular activities. We offer endless AP classes but fewer and fewer ROP classes that actually prepare students for work.
Where does the money go? Administration. Each of our school districts have administrative offices and the county also has administration. Why? Look at what the people who work at the Glenn County office of Education make. A ridiculous sum since each of the districts in the county have their own administrators and staff.
Chico has the most overstaffed administration anywhere. The fact that a bond passed in Chico after they wasted the last one is a travesty.
We need to fund our schools with the money we already have. And if I have to hear about Prop 13, when during the height of the housing bubble we were laying off teachers I’m going to vomit.
Lobbyist are all ready lining up benevolent politicians during their break after elections. The scent of free money for special interests has already escaped the open doors of General funds, and politicians are pouncing on it like a bum on a ham sandwich as the new spending demands are coming in from lobbyist. No veteran in our state Capital expect the Democrat lawmakers to keep a hold on spending to current levels, which is one important part of Browns misrepresentation regarding fiscal restraints. Already University of Calif. officials made it perfectly clear they want MORE money, and have threatened tuition hikes if they do not get it otherwise. Even Social service advocates are making it know they want to restore dental care for low income adults in Medi-CAL. These are just a couple of demands, and it is foolish not to expect anyone from accepting Browns budget cuts without a fight. If any Elected has a district with a major portion of entitlement voters, what do you think they will do, it sure as heck won’t be a campaign of fiscal restraint with slogans like we are all in this together, you can bet your next tax increase on that!. All this smoke and mirror drama coming from Brown office is nothing more than a tale of two budgets, both built on the sands in an hour glass. California fiscal picture is in trouble way to deep, and the now the entitled just voted out what was left of common sense in Government and replacing them with those willing to buy their votes with more tax dollars
Chico has the most overstaffed administration anywhere. The fact that a bond passed in Chico after they wasted the last one is a travesty.
Absolutely. And it passed by a wide margin. Even after the voters were lied to about how the money from the last bond would be used.
I guess people just figured it would pass because it was “for the children” and CUSD sent out all those expensive glossy mailings telling us what a wonderful job they were doing. Who knows how much that cost the taxpayers.
And all those who were running for the school board supported it.
Hardly anyone was talking about the bond measure before the election.
Except Harold raised a stink about it.
I sure wish he would have run for school board.
I even had a snapping campaign slogan for him:
“No on E. Yes on Ey!”
I should be a political consultant, I tells ya! 🙂
OK, everybody calm down and take a deep breath. The President has the economy and the additional $16 trillion of debt he created well in hand —
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-consults-msnbc-host-al-sharpton-and-other-civil-rights-leaders-fiscal-talks_663493.html
Pie, with another 4 years of a lameduck Obammie and with the DemoNcrats™ in Colliefornia (as Ahnode calls it) with their 2/3rds majority the battle cry of DemoNcrats™ is now “LET THE LOOTING BEGIN!”
When I heard that Chico voted for another school Bond I was sure it was something different, Who would vote a second bond when they are still paying for the first one.
I feel so much better now. I didn’t know Al Sharpton was an econ. expert.
I mostly agree with Princess. The problem is that the UC system made these risky deals in the first place. That debt had to be paid. I’m not happy that some of our Prop 30 funds are going for that purpose, even if it is only 4%. But I don’t see why you think we should be outraged about Prop 30, instead of the risky deals and Wall Street.
Chris… I didn’t say you should be mad at Prop 30, I said you should be made at the people who wasted your money that caused Prop 30 and the people who lied about it.
We should all be mad at the politicians who raise money FOR you then misdirect it.
Nobody said anything about almost $15B loss over bad investments that prop. 30 was going to cover BEFORE it passed now did they?
If you think $15B is 4% of $50B, you need a math tutor. But, the $50B is only what Prop 30 should raise over the coming years. The UC system was NOT earmarked for the whole $50B, they will be getting about 20% of that or roughly $10B by my estimation and the UC regents blew thru almost 15B…students are still screwed, even with backfill money. That is what you should be mad about…you should be livid over wasteful Sacramento politics.
I read in the ER today, that a meeting is going to be held to determine how to spend Prop. E money?
How did E read on teh ballot? Wasn’t there language in the ballot that told voters what it was?
“If you think $15B is 4% of $50B, you need a math tutor. But, the $50B is only what Prop 30 should raise over the coming years.”
Jack, I was going by the numbers you reported in this article:
http://www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/2012/11/prop-30-money-will-be-use.html
You said: “Of the $250 million UC expects to receive from Prop. 30, some $10 million a year will go to swaps payments unless the deals are ended.”
$10 million is 4% of $250 million. However, I did miss the part where it said “a year,” so I was wrong. Sorry about that.
“I read in the ER today, that a meeting is going to be held to determine how to spend Prop. E money?
How did E read on teh ballot? Wasn’t there language in the ballot that told voters what it was?”
It doesn’t really matter what the voters think the money will go for or what was written on the ballot.
They can spend the money any way they please and the taxpayers can do nothing.
Just look at the last bond measure. They were supposed to build a highschool with that money.
I have no illusions on this one. That money is not going for anything worthwhile. Why break their perfect record for misspending?
Joseph, yes I know, the last bond measure was supposed to go for a high school. I mentioned that previously.
My point was there is supposed to be a “big” meeting to discuss how to spend it, the langusge on Prop. E, should have spelled that out, whether the money is spent as stated is another issue. Maybe E should have read “vote for sending more money, we will figure it out later”
Students don’t know how to be angry about this. They have no idea about who wears the black hat.
Parents in Texas are getting angry. Wonder what’s in Calif’s. curriculum.
Another article worth reading.
Parents have the right to know what their children are learning in school. Note this curriculum goes all the way back to the 1960s and those students are todays voters.
========
Was The Boston Tea Party Terrorism? Texas Schools Are Teaching Just That (And More)
In less than a month (December 16th), we will mark the 239th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. This well-known protest against taxation without representation is almost universally recognized as the moment that sparked the American Revolution.
In many Texas public schools, the Boston Tea Party is now being taught as an example of an act of terrorism.
Heres an excerpt from a Texas school systems World History / Social Studies lesson plan. It purports to be helping teachers become more efficient, but many people are upset with the content of the lesson and the lack of parental review. In this specific instance, teachers are instructed to read the story to their classes as if it were a news report that had just happened within the past hour:
News report: New Act of Terrorism
A local militia, believed to be a terrorist organization, attacked the property of private citizens today at our nations busiest port. Although no one was injured in the attack, a large quantity of merchandise, considered to be valuable to its owners and loathsome to the perpetrators, was destroyed. The terrorists, dressed in disguise and apparently intoxicated, were able to escape into the night with the help of local citizens who harbor these fugitives and conceal their identities from the authorities. It is believed that the terrorist attack was a response to the policies enacted by the occupying countrys government. Even stronger policies are anticipated by the local citizens.
Later in the curriculum, teachers are instructed to reveal to students that the event described above the historic Boston Tea Party.
Cont:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/was-the-boston-tea-party-terrorism-texas-schools-are-teaching-just-that-and-more/
The article displays some interesting follow-up questions to that lesson plan:
“Does this event in the news report meet the criteria of a terrorist attack? Why or why not?”
“Do you think that in the eyes of the British that the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist activity? Why or why not? Were the colonists justified in taking this action due to their beliefs? Is anyone ever justified in committing these types of activities? What drives people to do this type of activity? These are things that we will explore further.”
The article starts out by saying that “the Boston Tea Party is now being taught as an example of an act of terrorism,” but that seems misleading to me. The questions ask students to consider the event and come up with their own opinions. Of course, some teachers could try to influence students’ opinions in a certain direction, but that could go either way: a teacher could pressure students into arguing that it was not a terrorist attack, giving bad grades to those who take that stance regardless of how well argued, just as easily as a teacher could pressure students into believing it was one.
However, if taught in a way that respects students’ different points of view, I think this could be a marvelous lesson plan. It grabs students’ attention and encourages them to think critically about a historical event in a way that a more dry lesson plan might not necessarily do. It connects the past to present concerns over terrorism, and prompts students to think about issues such as what constitutes terrorism. Is destruction of property terror? By the FBI’s definition, it is, but what do our students think? These are important issues. What’s wrong with asking students to consider them?
I do find the accusations of lack of transparency troubling, though. Parents have a right to know what their children are being taught, and that information should not be hidden from them.
But I’m glad you brought up the state of education in Texas. The state’s GOP has totally politicized education and they are poised to do more. Their platform this year advocated the removal of teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills and critical thinking skills,” claiming that they focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the students fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
You read that right: according to Texas Republicans, education should NEVER challenged fixed beliefs or make people question authority. Interesting lesson plans like the Boston Tea Party one discussed above would be outlawed because they prompt students to think critically about an issue from different perspectives.
This wouldn’t be the first time Texas Republicans have tried to dumb down the curriculum:
“Historians on Tuesday criticized proposed revisions to the Texas social studies curriculum, saying that many of the changes are historically inaccurate and that they would affect textbooks and classrooms far beyond the state’s borders.
The changes, which were preliminarily approved last week by the Texas board of education and are expected to be given final approval in May, will reach deeply into Texas history classrooms, defining what textbooks must include and what teachers must cover. The curriculum plays down the role of Thomas Jefferson among the founding fathers, questions the separation of church and state, and claims that the U.S. government was infiltrated by Communists during the Cold War.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031700560.html
They’ve also been aggressively anti-science, trying to downplay the scientific consensus on issues such as evolution and climate change. These changes to curriculum are not without consequences for the rest of the country, as Gail Collins explains in “How Texas Inflicts Bad Textbooks on Us:”
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jun/21/how-texas-inflicts-bad-textbooks-on-us/?pagination=false
So Chris…are you saying that the leftists in California have NOT politicized education? lol
Chris, I posted the article because of the Boston Tea Party comparison to a terrorist attack and because of the parents complaints they were not able to access their childs in class study plan.
The Boston Tea Party revolt seems to be a real stretch to todays acts of terrorism. Why not use the Weather Underground, SLA, the race riots in LA or SEIUs take over of LAX as an act of terrorism. An equal argument could be made for all. Even the Fort Hoods work place violence doesnt meet the terrorist attack standards for this administration, yet the Tea Party Revolt is planted in these kids minds may. I believe it is a huge stretch and has possible ulterior motives. A better lesson plan would have used multiple choices challenging students to compare and evaluate the cause and motives driving the action.
Parental rights does not or should not end at the school yard. Parents until their child turns 18 or attends college has a legal right to their child information including what is going on inside the classroom. (Abortions are the unbelievable exception.)
I agree critical thinking skills should be taught in every grade beginning with kindergarten. But to do that alternative not selective theories needs to be presented to the students. Denying the possible existence of an opposing theory stifles critical thinking instead of encouraging it. Evolution is a theory, not a fact just like Intelligent Design is. To promote critical thinking both should be taught.
As to what is going on in the Texas textbook controversy, my understanding is the committee had been in control of liberals for decades until recently when some conservatives were elected. The controversy has been over the shift in power and bringing a balance to the curriculum instead of the monopoly of biased information that has prevailed since the 1960s. Again, I find this a good and desirable change that the students would benefit from just like the critical skills component.
Peggy: “Why not use the Weather Underground, SLA, the race riots in LA or SEIUs take over of LAX as an act of terrorism.”
…Because the main purpose is to teach kids about the Boston Tea Party? This is a history class, right? The “terrorist” debate seems to me a way to frame the subject, not the main purpose. I think the examples you list would be great to bring up in the context of this unit, to contrast with the Boston Tea Party. (For all we know, some teachers are already doing this.) I am all for kids learning about current events and connecting them to history. But it seems to me the main subject here is the Boston Tea Party. Unfortunately, recent history is rarely taught in history classes. There is usually too much to cover in too short of a time.
“Denying the possible existence of an opposing theory stifles critical thinking instead of encouraging it. Evolution is a theory, not a fact just like Intelligent Design is. To promote critical thinking both should be taught.”
But the two theories do not have an equal scientific basis. In fact, I’m not even sure Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory, because unlike others, it is not falsifiable. I am not opposed to the idea of a God, but that is a spiritual belief, not science.
Evolution, on the other hand, is one of the best supported theories in science. It is the basis of virtually every scientific field today, including biology, pharmacology, psychology, and anthropology. Students who go into these fields will not be prepared if their time in school is spent equally on the theory of evolution and the idea of intelligent design.
However, I do believe science teachers should make it clear that they mean no disrespect to students’ or parents’ religious beliefs in their teachings of the scientific consensus.
“As to what is going on in the Texas textbook controversy, my understanding is the committee had been in control of liberals for decades until recently when some conservatives were elected. The controversy has been over the shift in power and bringing a balance to the curriculum instead of the monopoly of biased information that has prevailed since the 1960s. Again, I find this a good and desirable change that the students would benefit from just like the critical skills component.”
Can you specify what “biased information” you are talking about? The historians in the articles I cited named specific errors in the new curriculum that they took issue with. The controversy seems to me to be about students learning things that are historically inaccurate, not a shift in power.
Here are a couple of articles and information from Wikipedia that addresses some of my argument. Dont have time right now for more with a house full showing up shortly for a turkey dinner.
Chris: I am all for kids learning about current events and connecting them to history. But it seems to me the main subject here is the Boston Tea Party. Unfortunately, recent history is rarely taught in history classes.
I believe the use of, News report: New Act of Terrorism was intended to make the lesson tie in to current events. I dont remember this verbiage being used on a wide scale prior to the first bombing of the World Trade Center.
Chris: The controversy seems to me to be about students learning things that are historically inaccurate, not a shift in power.
The controversy exist because individual groups do not agree with what is accurate. If they did agree there would be no controversy and words like concur, compliant, etc. would have been used. See Wikipedia.
Hope you have a wonderful day. Bye for now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textbook
Textbook bias on controversial topics
In cases of history, science, current events, and political textbooks, the writer might be biased towards one way or another. Topics such as actions of a country, presidential actions, and scientific theories are common potential biases.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/17/AR2010031700560.html
The changes, which were preliminarily approved last week by the Texas board of education and are expected to be given final approval in May, will reach deeply into Texas history classrooms, defining what textbooks must include and what teachers must cover. The curriculum plays down the role of Thomas Jefferson among the founding fathers, questions the separation of church and state, and claims that the U.S. government was infiltrated by Communists during the Cold War.
Each subject in Texas’s curriculum is revised every 10 years, and the basic social studies framework was introduced by a panel of teachers last year. But the elected state board of education, which is comprised of 10 Republicans and five Democrats, has made more than 100 amendments to the curriculum since January.
Discussions ranged from whether President Reagan should get more attention (yes), whether hip-hop should be included as part of lessons on American culture (no), and whether President of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis’s inaugural address should be studied alongside Abraham Lincoln’s (yes).
Of particular contention was the requirement that lessons on McCarthyism note that “the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government.”
The Venona papers document communication between the Soviet Union and its spies. Historians dispute the extent to which transcripts show Soviet involvement in American government.
Also contentious were changes that asserted Christian faith of the founding fathers. Historians say the founding fathers had a variety of approaches to religion and faith; some, like Jefferson, were quite secular.
Some textbook authors expressed discomfort with the state board’s changes, and it is unclear how readily historians will go along with some of the proposals.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?_r=0
The vote was 10 to 5 along party lines, with all the Republicans on the board voting for it.
The board, whose members are elected, has influence beyond Texas because the state is one of the largest buyers of textbooks. In the digital age, however, that influence has diminished as technological advances have made it possible for publishers to tailor books to individual states.
In recent years, board members have been locked in an ideological battle between a bloc of conservatives who question Darwins theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principles, and a handful of Democrats and moderate Republicans who have fought to preserve the teaching of Darwinism and the separation of church and state.
Since January, Republicans on the board have passed more than 100 amendments to the 120-page curriculum standards affecting history, sociology and economics courses from elementary to high school. The standards were proposed by a panel of teachers.
We are adding balance, said Dr. Don McLeroy, the leader of the conservative faction on the board, after the vote. History has already been skewed. Academia is skewed too far to the left.
Battles over what to put in science and history books have taken place for years in the 20 states where state boards must adopt textbooks, most notably in California and Texas. But rarely in recent history has a group of conservative board members left such a mark on a social studies curriculum.
Efforts by Hispanic board members to include more Latino figures as role models for the states large Hispanic population were consistently defeated, prompting one member, Mary Helen Berlanga, to storm out of a meeting late Thursday night, saying, They can just pretend this is a white America and Hispanics dont exist.
They are going overboard, they are not experts, they are not historians, she said. They are rewriting history, not only of Texas but of the United States and the world.
The curriculum standards will now be published in a state register, opening them up for 30 days of public comment. A final vote will be taken in May, but given the Republican dominance of the board, it is unlikely that many changes will be made.
The standards, reviewed every decade, serve as a template for textbook publishers, who must come before the board next year with drafts of their books. The boards makeup will have changed by then because Dr. McLeroy lost in a primary this month to a more moderate Republican, and two others one Democrat and one conservative Republican announced they were not seeking re-election.
There are seven members of the conservative bloc on the board, but they are often joined by one of the other three Republicans on crucial votes. There were no historians, sociologists or economists consulted at the meetings, though some members of the conservative bloc held themselves out as experts on certain topics.
The conservative members maintain that they are trying to correct what they see as a liberal bias among the teachers who proposed the curriculum. To that end, they made dozens of minor changes aimed at calling into question, among other things, concepts like the separation of church and state and the secular nature of the American Revolution.
I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state, said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.
They also included a plank to ensure that students learn about the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.
Dr. McLeroy, a dentist by training, pushed through a change to the teaching of the civil rights movement to ensure that students study the violent philosophy of the Black Panthers in addition to the nonviolent approach of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He also made sure that textbooks would mention the votes in Congress on civil rights legislation, which Republicans supported.
Republicans need a little credit for that, he said. I think its going to surprise some students.
Mr. Bradley won approval for an amendment saying students should study the unintended consequences of the Great Society legislation, affirmative action and Title IX legislation. He also won approval for an amendment stressing that Germans and Italians as well as Japanese were interned in the United States during World War II, to counter the idea that the internment of Japanese was motivated by racism.
Other changes seem aimed at tamping down criticism of the right. Conservatives passed one amendment, for instance, requiring that the history of McCarthyism include how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government. The Venona papers were transcripts of some 3,000 communications between the Soviet Union and its agents in the United States.
Mavis B. Knight, a Democrat from Dallas, introduced an amendment requiring that students study the reasons the founding fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others.