See all posts about Buzz Woolley.
See all posts about Scott Himelstein.
See all posts about San Diegans 4 Great Schools.
R.B. “Buzz” Woolley Jr., a financial mainstay of the Voice of San Diego ...
I notice that Buzz Woolley is a supporter of SD4GS and he's on the board of directors of Voice of San Diego. What's up with having 4 unelected board members, Buzz? What are you thinking? Here's what Voice of San Diego says about him: "Buzz Woolley
Buzz is a 40-year San Diego resident, a retired venture capitalist and entrepreneur. He is the president of the Girard Foundation which has provided millions of dollars for K-12 programs in San Diego County over the past 18 years." Did some of that money go to Ed Brand's school districts, Buzz? Did you and Ed become pals?
From CMC to Entrepreneurship: Business Opportunities in the 1990s RALPH "BUZZ" WOOLLEY, JR.
Claremont McKenna College
February 12, 1987
Following January visits by Julie Dillon and Al Osborne, the Athenaeum's 1987 series on entrepreneurship continues on Thursday evening, February 12, when "Buzz" Woolley '59, trustee and the father of Michelle Woolley '90, addresses the subject, "From CMC to Entrepreneurship: Business Opportunities in the 1990s." After working for IBM, Mr. Woolley started a series of businesses, ranging from information processing to real estate development. For the past 12 years, he has headed Girard Capital, a San Diego-based venture capital company that provides financing and management assistance to other entrepreneurs. Girard has aided early stage companies in such fields as computer peripherals, artificial intelligence, advertising, banking, ceramic packaging, and electronic components.
In addition to his business activities, "Buzz" Woolley is on the steering committee for the Technology and Entrepreneurship program at the University of California, San Diego, where he also teaches a course, "How to Start a Business." From the Athenaeum's inception, "Buzz" Woolley has been one of its most generous benefactors, and it is consequently a special privilege for us to have him share his insights with us.
San Diego News Shoot-Out
Dirk Smillie
06.08.09
Forbes.com
The Voice was launched in 2005 by a group of investors led by philanthropist Buzz Woolley (father of Forbes Los Angeles bureau chief Scott Woolley) and Neil Morgan, a former San Diego Union-Tribune columnist and editor who had been fired by the paper a year earlier. Its pitches to donors resemble those made by public television during pledgeweek. A $10,000 contribution gains you membership in the "Editor's Circle." That sum might cover the Voice's costs of web hosting and e-mail blasts for a year. Donate $1,000 and buy a journalist a new laptop and software.
The Voice, underwritten by 850 individuals and nonprofit benefactors like the Knight Foundation, focuses on in-depth, investigative coverage of local government, education and housing...
With a $1 million budget, the Voice's 12-member staff work out of a 1,400-square-foot office on the site of a former U.S. Navy base. Chief executive Scott Lewis says the Voice's public policy coverage has no connection to profits or page counts. "We only write about things we know we can report on uniquely and authoritatively." The Voice averages 78,000 unique visitors a month...
Our main founder, Buzz Woolley, was the son of a reporter.
Dec 9, 2010
The Meeting Man Goes Public
By EMILY ALPERT
voiceofsandiego.org
Twenty-two years ago, millionaire William Lynch opened his newspaper and was glued to the tale of a former rocker with a black beard and a briefcase, trying to sway skeptical congressmen to spend more on drug rehabilitation, hoping to do some good with his sociology degree.
As the story told it, what Scott Himelstein was good at was persuasion. He could translate the idea of salvation into dollars-and-cents for lawmakers, could listen and speak bureaucrat with ease. And he cared, saying simply, "We're here to do something about the waste of life."
Lynch himself wasn't keen on drug rehabilitation. But the more Lynch read, the more he was keen on Himelstein. He put down his paper and phoned the reporter, asking to meet the idealist over dinner.
They did. "He looked like a yeti," Lynch said recently. "But he was a very impressive young man."...
Scott Himelstein
Age: 52...
Director of USD’s Center for Education Policy and Law. Organizes San Diegans 4 Great Schools, a new group seeking changes to how San Diego Unified schools are run...
Went from New Wave rocker to social services advocate and consultant. Led the William D. Lynch Foundation for Children. Ran San Diego Reads, a literacy campaign under former Superintendent Alan Bersin. Became acting State Secretary of Education under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Showing posts with label . Himelstein (Scott Himelstein). Show all posts
Showing posts with label . Himelstein (Scott Himelstein). Show all posts
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Saturday, December 11, 2010
San Diegans 4 Great Schools would only need one elected board member on their side to control schools
If they succeed in getting four appointed members added to the San Diego Unified School District board, SD4GS would only need one vote from an elected member to have a majority.
Dec 10, 2010
Encroaching on Our Right to Vote
By Guest Blogger Doug Porter
Voice of San Diego
I find it quite curious that any mention of gun control anywhere leads to a chorus of cries that our freedoms are in grave danger. Yet when a private group openly espouses encroaching on our right to vote...[crickets].
We hear a lot these days about the failings of our education system. Everywhere you look, fingers are pointed at the supposed culprits behind this crisis: lack of funding, the unions, the special interests, television, the internet, poverty, parents, teachers, immigration and, perhaps, the meddling federal government.
Education reform has become a fashionable forum for philanthropists who are so sure they can transfer their success in business to education that they are willing to bet your children's lives on it. Diane Ravitch calls them the "Billionaire Boys Club" in her best-selling book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System.
Now there is a move afoot, inspired by these well-meaning types asking the citizens of San Diego, via an upcoming initiative, to sacrifice your right to vote for school board members in the name of reform. Perhaps you've seen their (paid) signature collectors recently, asking for your support to "save our schools."
By 2020 just about one-half of students nationwide will be attending public schools clustered in 20 large urban districts. The research into large city school districts reveals widespread poverty, chronic academic underachievement, dropouts, crime, unstable school boards, reform policy churn, and high superintendent turnover. The typical tenure of a superintendent in the largest large city districts is two to three years. In San Diego, we've had four superintendents since 1996.
Reliance on test scores, charter schools and an ever increasing expectation for school system employees to do more with less are all parts of the currently fashionable "reform" picture. At the root of all this local push is the notion that such reforms can only be accomplished by a strong leader, one like Alan Bersin, who directed San Diego's system from 1998-2005.
Bersin's tenure ended here once the majority that backed him on the school board was defeated at the ballet box. Despite, for example, spending $720,000 to defeat Board member Frances Zimmerman in 2000, the pro-Bersin, pro-business interests were unable to persuade the public to buy into their approach.
Now these same groups are back in the game, hailing a self-financed study of San Diego schools that selectively uses data purporting to show that a "crisis" is at hand. Calling themselves San Diegans 4 Great Schools, their solution to this "emergency" is to appoint an additional four members to the school board.
Other major urban areas have tried this route, either going with hybrid appointed/elected school boards, or by having the mayor take control of the schools. Like charter schools, these attempts at governance reform have produced mixed results, and certainly nothing that would qualify as a game changer or a silver bullet for school performance.
There is no simple cure for the ills that plague our schools. But if the problem is worst in our largest districts, then one understandable policy proposal would be to divide them into smaller districts, as Harvard University economist Caroline M. Hoxby has pointed out. Her research indicates that smaller districts foster more choice for parents, with the resulting competition leading to significantly improved school performance. Given that parents greatly value neighborhood schools, smaller districts would seem to be a better choice. San Diego Unified is already taking steps in this direction on the administrative level by breaking local schools into eight clusters.
We've tried the "we need some appointed experts" approach in the not-so-distant past right here in San Diego with the city's employee pension plans. And I don't think that process has worked out too well for the taxpayer. We certainly need to question the motives of any group that claims to have "the" solution to a problem this complex. If it's too good to be true, it probably is.
As Winston Churchill said on the eve of the cold war, "Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect... Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Faced with the choice of giving up my right to vote or more local control, I'll take local control every time.
Doug Porter is a regular blogger for OBRag.org and a San Diego Unified parent. He is guest blogging about why he opposes a campaign to change how the San Diego Unified school board is selected...Doug Porter is a 1968 graduate from Point Loma High School and has a daughter that attends the San Diego School for Creative and Performing Arts. He blogs regularly for OBRag.org. You can contact Doug directly at dougporter506@gmail.com.
COMMENTS
"sinister" "suspicion" "behind closed doors" "martians will suck out my brains"
Come on, folks- this is just paranoia. I understand people disagree with this organization, and I understand why. As I pointed out, I'm not in complete alignment with them either. Fair enough.
But they are trying to bring options and they are trying to improve schools in a manner they believe match the needs of employers. And, as business types (myself included) we make decisions based on sound management and business principles. (OK, in my case maybe not so sound) Leadership is not defined as appeasing everybody or taking polls and deciding a course of action that is popular. Margaret Thatcher told us that "Consensus is a lack of leadership".
It's absolutely clear that the labor-controlled board is acting in the best interest of union, often at the expense of the students and teachers. Remember the PLA?
This is a group that believes (and I agree) that our schools suffer from poor and biased leadership, and have strong and legitimate suggestions for changes they believe would help *students*.
DIsagree all you wish- that's good citizenship. But to use terms like "sinister" "suspicion" "behind closed doors" "martians will suck out my brains" to defend a weak argument belies the dedication to status quo that continues to cripple our schools. One cannot ask to "bring all players to the table" from one side of a keyboard, but on the other side criticize and besmirch the efforts of those players who do.
In short: Bring all players to the table, but don't change anything, OK?
Now, cue those conspiracy theorists that believe there is big bucks awaiting for these sinister and suspicious business types- wait for it- they'll arrive anytime.
Paul M. Bowers
Response to Paul Bowers from Maura Larkins:
You say "it's absolutely clear that the labor-controlled board is acting in the best interest of union," and at the same time you say it's paranoia to think that businessmen trying to pack the board with unelected members might have mixed motives.
Is that the best you can do to defend SD4GS's motives? To say that it's paranoid to question those motives? You're not much of a supporter of public discussion of public entities, are you?
You know that the "businessmen" you are defending have a spokesman, Scott Himelstein, who attended yacht parties with superintendent Ed Brand, and got Brand to interfere with a teacher hiring panel on behalf of his wife. You are either being disingenuous or you are kidding yourself if you still think that those "businessmen" have wholly pure motives.
At least we know what the union's goals are.
Democracy is far from perfect, but voters clearly chose union-connected board members. So you want to weaken democracy in the governance of schools? What do you plan to teach students about democracy? That businessmen should undermine it in order to help students? That the goals of these businessmen are so pure and paramount that they outweigh our democratic tradition?
It's simply wrong to assume that businessmen care more about education than teachers do. Both groups have mixed motives, neither group can be trusted to run schools alone. And who should decide what mixture of businessmen and union supporters should be on the board? The voters should continue to decide--not an appointed panel.
Maura Larkins
I agree and disagree when I hear that businesses need employees that can come out of school ready to work. Are you talking about high school grads?Than if that's the case Wal-Mart, Target and others always need a low-wage work force to be competitive. Businesses after all have the bottom line in mind, all the time. Or is business leaders talking about college grads (I doubt it)?
Mr. Bowers, do you remember when you were 18 and out of school? Yea, most people don't like hiring someone right out of high school, you know why? They don't have life experience and know the expectations for what the real world is like. I think you need to give teenagers a break (that's what they still are). You know and I know to make it in our county you need a college education, you can't survive on a high school diploma anymore. This goes back to loosing our manufacturing base, overseas jobs and oh, I could go on and on.
I would NOT want my child to work for someone who is going to hire them out of high school, instead, like all of us we want them to go to college and get a real job. I'm very suspicious of someone ready to hire my son right out of high school.
I think we can agree our children (city of san diego) need a great education, we just disagree on how to get there.
Peace,
Roberto
(Robert Hampton)
Dec 10, 2010
Encroaching on Our Right to Vote
By Guest Blogger Doug Porter
Voice of San Diego
I find it quite curious that any mention of gun control anywhere leads to a chorus of cries that our freedoms are in grave danger. Yet when a private group openly espouses encroaching on our right to vote...[crickets].
We hear a lot these days about the failings of our education system. Everywhere you look, fingers are pointed at the supposed culprits behind this crisis: lack of funding, the unions, the special interests, television, the internet, poverty, parents, teachers, immigration and, perhaps, the meddling federal government.
Education reform has become a fashionable forum for philanthropists who are so sure they can transfer their success in business to education that they are willing to bet your children's lives on it. Diane Ravitch calls them the "Billionaire Boys Club" in her best-selling book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System.
Now there is a move afoot, inspired by these well-meaning types asking the citizens of San Diego, via an upcoming initiative, to sacrifice your right to vote for school board members in the name of reform. Perhaps you've seen their (paid) signature collectors recently, asking for your support to "save our schools."
By 2020 just about one-half of students nationwide will be attending public schools clustered in 20 large urban districts. The research into large city school districts reveals widespread poverty, chronic academic underachievement, dropouts, crime, unstable school boards, reform policy churn, and high superintendent turnover. The typical tenure of a superintendent in the largest large city districts is two to three years. In San Diego, we've had four superintendents since 1996.
Reliance on test scores, charter schools and an ever increasing expectation for school system employees to do more with less are all parts of the currently fashionable "reform" picture. At the root of all this local push is the notion that such reforms can only be accomplished by a strong leader, one like Alan Bersin, who directed San Diego's system from 1998-2005.
Bersin's tenure ended here once the majority that backed him on the school board was defeated at the ballet box. Despite, for example, spending $720,000 to defeat Board member Frances Zimmerman in 2000, the pro-Bersin, pro-business interests were unable to persuade the public to buy into their approach.
Now these same groups are back in the game, hailing a self-financed study of San Diego schools that selectively uses data purporting to show that a "crisis" is at hand. Calling themselves San Diegans 4 Great Schools, their solution to this "emergency" is to appoint an additional four members to the school board.
Other major urban areas have tried this route, either going with hybrid appointed/elected school boards, or by having the mayor take control of the schools. Like charter schools, these attempts at governance reform have produced mixed results, and certainly nothing that would qualify as a game changer or a silver bullet for school performance.
There is no simple cure for the ills that plague our schools. But if the problem is worst in our largest districts, then one understandable policy proposal would be to divide them into smaller districts, as Harvard University economist Caroline M. Hoxby has pointed out. Her research indicates that smaller districts foster more choice for parents, with the resulting competition leading to significantly improved school performance. Given that parents greatly value neighborhood schools, smaller districts would seem to be a better choice. San Diego Unified is already taking steps in this direction on the administrative level by breaking local schools into eight clusters.
We've tried the "we need some appointed experts" approach in the not-so-distant past right here in San Diego with the city's employee pension plans. And I don't think that process has worked out too well for the taxpayer. We certainly need to question the motives of any group that claims to have "the" solution to a problem this complex. If it's too good to be true, it probably is.
As Winston Churchill said on the eve of the cold war, "Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect... Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Faced with the choice of giving up my right to vote or more local control, I'll take local control every time.
Doug Porter is a regular blogger for OBRag.org and a San Diego Unified parent. He is guest blogging about why he opposes a campaign to change how the San Diego Unified school board is selected...Doug Porter is a 1968 graduate from Point Loma High School and has a daughter that attends the San Diego School for Creative and Performing Arts. He blogs regularly for OBRag.org. You can contact Doug directly at dougporter506@gmail.com.
COMMENTS
"sinister" "suspicion" "behind closed doors" "martians will suck out my brains"
Come on, folks- this is just paranoia. I understand people disagree with this organization, and I understand why. As I pointed out, I'm not in complete alignment with them either. Fair enough.
But they are trying to bring options and they are trying to improve schools in a manner they believe match the needs of employers. And, as business types (myself included) we make decisions based on sound management and business principles. (OK, in my case maybe not so sound) Leadership is not defined as appeasing everybody or taking polls and deciding a course of action that is popular. Margaret Thatcher told us that "Consensus is a lack of leadership".
It's absolutely clear that the labor-controlled board is acting in the best interest of union, often at the expense of the students and teachers. Remember the PLA?
This is a group that believes (and I agree) that our schools suffer from poor and biased leadership, and have strong and legitimate suggestions for changes they believe would help *students*.
DIsagree all you wish- that's good citizenship. But to use terms like "sinister" "suspicion" "behind closed doors" "martians will suck out my brains" to defend a weak argument belies the dedication to status quo that continues to cripple our schools. One cannot ask to "bring all players to the table" from one side of a keyboard, but on the other side criticize and besmirch the efforts of those players who do.
In short: Bring all players to the table, but don't change anything, OK?
Now, cue those conspiracy theorists that believe there is big bucks awaiting for these sinister and suspicious business types- wait for it- they'll arrive anytime.
Paul M. Bowers
Response to Paul Bowers from Maura Larkins:
You say "it's absolutely clear that the labor-controlled board is acting in the best interest of union," and at the same time you say it's paranoia to think that businessmen trying to pack the board with unelected members might have mixed motives.
Is that the best you can do to defend SD4GS's motives? To say that it's paranoid to question those motives? You're not much of a supporter of public discussion of public entities, are you?
You know that the "businessmen" you are defending have a spokesman, Scott Himelstein, who attended yacht parties with superintendent Ed Brand, and got Brand to interfere with a teacher hiring panel on behalf of his wife. You are either being disingenuous or you are kidding yourself if you still think that those "businessmen" have wholly pure motives.
At least we know what the union's goals are.
Democracy is far from perfect, but voters clearly chose union-connected board members. So you want to weaken democracy in the governance of schools? What do you plan to teach students about democracy? That businessmen should undermine it in order to help students? That the goals of these businessmen are so pure and paramount that they outweigh our democratic tradition?
It's simply wrong to assume that businessmen care more about education than teachers do. Both groups have mixed motives, neither group can be trusted to run schools alone. And who should decide what mixture of businessmen and union supporters should be on the board? The voters should continue to decide--not an appointed panel.
Maura Larkins
I agree and disagree when I hear that businesses need employees that can come out of school ready to work. Are you talking about high school grads?Than if that's the case Wal-Mart, Target and others always need a low-wage work force to be competitive. Businesses after all have the bottom line in mind, all the time. Or is business leaders talking about college grads (I doubt it)?
Mr. Bowers, do you remember when you were 18 and out of school? Yea, most people don't like hiring someone right out of high school, you know why? They don't have life experience and know the expectations for what the real world is like. I think you need to give teenagers a break (that's what they still are). You know and I know to make it in our county you need a college education, you can't survive on a high school diploma anymore. This goes back to loosing our manufacturing base, overseas jobs and oh, I could go on and on.
I would NOT want my child to work for someone who is going to hire them out of high school, instead, like all of us we want them to go to college and get a real job. I'm very suspicious of someone ready to hire my son right out of high school.
I think we can agree our children (city of san diego) need a great education, we just disagree on how to get there.
Peace,
Roberto
(Robert Hampton)
Friday, December 10, 2010
Fact & Fiction About San Diego School Reform (or maybe just fiction, eh, Scott Himelstein?)
Which part of democracy does San Diegans 4 Great Schools not understand? Apparently the part where representatives are elected by the people.
More on Ed Brand.
Fact & Fiction About San Diego School Reform
by Scott Himelstein, guest blogger
Voice of San Diego
Dec. 9, 2010
...• The five-member elected board would be expanded, with four independent members appointed by a nominating commission comprised of educational leaders and parents....
More on Ed Brand.
COMMENTS
Sounds fishy Scott. You say you're for teachers but it smells like big business which doesn't like unions at all and is part of the current anti-teacher fever in our country. Also the fact that people will be appointed is very undemocratic in itself, who are they accountable to? How can you say that they would not be influenced by special interest? I'm sure you have some quick response to this but I (we) are very weary of a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Roberto
There is nothing undemocratic about what we are trying to do. Propositions are a long-time and permanent part of the democratic process. None of the proposed reforms will happen unless the people of San Diego vote for them in a democratic election! Sorry that you are so weary of an open proposal that voting members of the public can decide for themselves on.
Scott Himelstein
I agree that schools need to be involved in continuous improvement. Electing School Board members by districts may be a good idea, although I am not sure than building in district vs. district "special interest legislating" is any better than what we have now. I would welcome financial contributions by well-intentioned philanthropists to support public education.
But my wife and I would never, ever, in a million years support having appointed members serve on the School Board. We will gladly tell the paid signature solicitors that, if they ask us to sign a petition, and if the petition drive succeeds we will gladly vote against the initiative. To say that adding appointed members is not "anti-democtratic" simply points how deceptive those mounting this campaign are willing to be.
Fryefan
I have criticized the teachers union severely, but that doesn't mean I think that its power should be transferred to unelected board members. Here's what I'd like to know: once San Diegans 4 Great Schools disenfranchises the teachers union, what specific reforms will it try to get implemented?...
I think San Diegans 4 Great Schools are well-meaning people who think democracy isn't working. Why do they think that? Because voters elected board members who are loyal to the teachers union. Anybody who knows me knows that I am deeply disappointed in the teachers union, but I have seen that administrators and others who are hostile to the teachers union are also guilty of putting their own interests ahead of children. There is a lot of money involved in education, money that goes to expensive programs that achieve nothing, and to lawyers who help schools keep financial documents secret. Have you ever tried to get public financial records from San Diego County Office of Education? Apparently SDCOE's rule is that if they don't want you to have public documents, the only way you'll get them is by going to court to enforce the law. (That's what it took to get SDCOE documents about the MiraCosta College scandal.) I continue to believe that democracy is our best bet.
Why aren't San Diegans 4 Great Schools trying to educate voters instead of disenfranchising them? SDRGS should be campaigning to make schools transparent. The public should know that most administrators and board members behave as though their main goal is to promote their own careers, not educate children. It's not just the teachers that are trying to make their jobs as easy and lucrative as possible.
Maura Larkins
Still googling, but I was googling for Mr. Lynch and this old history popped up.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061029/news_2m29brand.html
Lee Hazer
Good work, Leecal!
The connection between Scott Himelstein and Ed Brand is significant. It's beginning to look like this is a conflict between right-wing superintendents and the teachers union. Ed Brand is one of the most notorious superintendents in the county, and has been closely connected to the secretive SDCOE-JPA. The JPA allows superintendents to choose the lawyers they like, and then spends millions in tax dollars protecting those superintendents in court. The JPA also protects the superintendents from the media by refusing to turn over documents to the San Diego Union-Tribune and Voice of San Diego. It's all starting to make sense to me.
I take back what I said about SD4GS being well-meaning people. I think you're right that is a raw power grab.
Maura Larkins
...Mr. Himelstein’s group would only have to work on getting one elected board member in place to have a majority. By electing the board members within districts the plan would atomize politics and make it easier to sway elections. Again, moneyed elites would easily buy a candidate within a district...
Scott Mullin
It is true that Himmelstein is a hired gun. He has been one for years. The reason is that he has been paid through donations (tax deductable) to folks that are exempt from full disclosure. USD is one such place. And Mr. Himmelstein is not starving. I bet he will never supply anyone with his tax data. As to the merits of the proposal, one should look at the motives surrounding it. Hiding a dilution of the power of the voters behind the "obvious" merits of separate area elections is no cooincidence. The standard political strategy for getting what you want is to disquise it within a popular cause. If the motives for district elections was pure (like one I got on the ballot years ago) then ther would be two petitions, one for district elections, and the other for appointments of board members. Guess which one might pass? The fact that the district is now suffering from a labor board takeover (conducted fairly, but misguided) which will preside over the worst cuts of valuable educational programs in history is also likely to make this new skirmish go to ballot. A disgruntled public is just the ticket for this kind of ploy. If the public continues to see the decimation of our local schools by the current board, with no temporary concessions by labor to help balance the budgets, I see this misguided anti-democratic end run as gaining traction. I only hope that the public starts to pay attention to what is needed to make our schools great instead of taking sides in a battle that will DESTROY public education. Taking control of your schools is done by voting for the RIGHT people, not diluting power of those you were foolish enough to support. You get what you vote for! Don't blame anyone but the person you see in the mirror. Don't let the paidgunslinger fool you. This isn't about better education at all, it is about where your educational dollars are spent and who controls your schools. Taking them back is a great rallying cry, but giving them away is worse.
...Because the backers are funneling money to the 'reform' group based at USD – a private institution – the money trail is covered. I am not an expert in the rules governing contributions to private organizations housed on the grounds of private institutions. I base my understanding of the hidden money trails on what John de Beck has been writing about the USD based group over the past year or so. I don't remember vilifying anyone anywhere. If I have I apologize. I work for change every day with the students I teach. Teachers are eminently qualified to effect change in the public schools. And we are a part of change every day. Many, if not all, of the 'reforms' that the well funded group at USD hope to put in place through their end run around democracy have been tried and shown to be ineffective throughout the United States. As Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."...
Scott Mullin
More on Ed Brand.
Fact & Fiction About San Diego School Reform
by Scott Himelstein, guest blogger
Voice of San Diego
Dec. 9, 2010
...• The five-member elected board would be expanded, with four independent members appointed by a nominating commission comprised of educational leaders and parents....
More on Ed Brand.
COMMENTS
Sounds fishy Scott. You say you're for teachers but it smells like big business which doesn't like unions at all and is part of the current anti-teacher fever in our country. Also the fact that people will be appointed is very undemocratic in itself, who are they accountable to? How can you say that they would not be influenced by special interest? I'm sure you have some quick response to this but I (we) are very weary of a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Roberto
There is nothing undemocratic about what we are trying to do. Propositions are a long-time and permanent part of the democratic process. None of the proposed reforms will happen unless the people of San Diego vote for them in a democratic election! Sorry that you are so weary of an open proposal that voting members of the public can decide for themselves on.
Scott Himelstein
I agree that schools need to be involved in continuous improvement. Electing School Board members by districts may be a good idea, although I am not sure than building in district vs. district "special interest legislating" is any better than what we have now. I would welcome financial contributions by well-intentioned philanthropists to support public education.
But my wife and I would never, ever, in a million years support having appointed members serve on the School Board. We will gladly tell the paid signature solicitors that, if they ask us to sign a petition, and if the petition drive succeeds we will gladly vote against the initiative. To say that adding appointed members is not "anti-democtratic" simply points how deceptive those mounting this campaign are willing to be.
Fryefan
I have criticized the teachers union severely, but that doesn't mean I think that its power should be transferred to unelected board members. Here's what I'd like to know: once San Diegans 4 Great Schools disenfranchises the teachers union, what specific reforms will it try to get implemented?...
I think San Diegans 4 Great Schools are well-meaning people who think democracy isn't working. Why do they think that? Because voters elected board members who are loyal to the teachers union. Anybody who knows me knows that I am deeply disappointed in the teachers union, but I have seen that administrators and others who are hostile to the teachers union are also guilty of putting their own interests ahead of children. There is a lot of money involved in education, money that goes to expensive programs that achieve nothing, and to lawyers who help schools keep financial documents secret. Have you ever tried to get public financial records from San Diego County Office of Education? Apparently SDCOE's rule is that if they don't want you to have public documents, the only way you'll get them is by going to court to enforce the law. (That's what it took to get SDCOE documents about the MiraCosta College scandal.) I continue to believe that democracy is our best bet.
Why aren't San Diegans 4 Great Schools trying to educate voters instead of disenfranchising them? SDRGS should be campaigning to make schools transparent. The public should know that most administrators and board members behave as though their main goal is to promote their own careers, not educate children. It's not just the teachers that are trying to make their jobs as easy and lucrative as possible.
Maura Larkins
Still googling, but I was googling for Mr. Lynch and this old history popped up.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061029/news_2m29brand.html
Lee Hazer
Good work, Leecal!
The connection between Scott Himelstein and Ed Brand is significant. It's beginning to look like this is a conflict between right-wing superintendents and the teachers union. Ed Brand is one of the most notorious superintendents in the county, and has been closely connected to the secretive SDCOE-JPA. The JPA allows superintendents to choose the lawyers they like, and then spends millions in tax dollars protecting those superintendents in court. The JPA also protects the superintendents from the media by refusing to turn over documents to the San Diego Union-Tribune and Voice of San Diego. It's all starting to make sense to me.
I take back what I said about SD4GS being well-meaning people. I think you're right that is a raw power grab.
Maura Larkins
...Mr. Himelstein’s group would only have to work on getting one elected board member in place to have a majority. By electing the board members within districts the plan would atomize politics and make it easier to sway elections. Again, moneyed elites would easily buy a candidate within a district...
Scott Mullin
It is true that Himmelstein is a hired gun. He has been one for years. The reason is that he has been paid through donations (tax deductable) to folks that are exempt from full disclosure. USD is one such place. And Mr. Himmelstein is not starving. I bet he will never supply anyone with his tax data. As to the merits of the proposal, one should look at the motives surrounding it. Hiding a dilution of the power of the voters behind the "obvious" merits of separate area elections is no cooincidence. The standard political strategy for getting what you want is to disquise it within a popular cause. If the motives for district elections was pure (like one I got on the ballot years ago) then ther would be two petitions, one for district elections, and the other for appointments of board members. Guess which one might pass? The fact that the district is now suffering from a labor board takeover (conducted fairly, but misguided) which will preside over the worst cuts of valuable educational programs in history is also likely to make this new skirmish go to ballot. A disgruntled public is just the ticket for this kind of ploy. If the public continues to see the decimation of our local schools by the current board, with no temporary concessions by labor to help balance the budgets, I see this misguided anti-democratic end run as gaining traction. I only hope that the public starts to pay attention to what is needed to make our schools great instead of taking sides in a battle that will DESTROY public education. Taking control of your schools is done by voting for the RIGHT people, not diluting power of those you were foolish enough to support. You get what you vote for! Don't blame anyone but the person you see in the mirror. Don't let the paidgunslinger fool you. This isn't about better education at all, it is about where your educational dollars are spent and who controls your schools. Taking them back is a great rallying cry, but giving them away is worse.
...Because the backers are funneling money to the 'reform' group based at USD – a private institution – the money trail is covered. I am not an expert in the rules governing contributions to private organizations housed on the grounds of private institutions. I base my understanding of the hidden money trails on what John de Beck has been writing about the USD based group over the past year or so. I don't remember vilifying anyone anywhere. If I have I apologize. I work for change every day with the students I teach. Teachers are eminently qualified to effect change in the public schools. And we are a part of change every day. Many, if not all, of the 'reforms' that the well funded group at USD hope to put in place through their end run around democracy have been tried and shown to be ineffective throughout the United States. As Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."...
Scott Mullin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)