A recession? A depression? The disparaging financial news released this week makes us all pause and question what our financial future really, truly looks like.
Living here in California, we know we are in serious trouble. I believe that we do not fully understand the full extent of what kind of impact our $14 billion dollar budget deficit will have on us as residents in California. The next few months our legislature will be discussing our budget and wrestling with some tough decisions. I am concerned that budget cuts will directly impact programs that are traditionally considered "women's issues" or those that affect women and families the most. Especially the one continually named as a high priority by women -- our California educational system.
In Dubai, people get free housing, free medical care, AND $5,000 per month. The people of Dubai share in the country's oil wealth.
In Alaska, people not only do not pay state taxes, the state government writes every state resident a check every year. The people of the state of Alaska share in the state's oil wealth.
In my post on Sunday I argued that the cuts, if allowed to happen, would have a reckless and destructive impact on California's economy. The LA Times article points out that there is another potential catastrophe that these cuts might cause. If teachers are fired and class sizes increase, it is going to be more difficult than ever to meet the unreasonable mandates of the odious No Child Left Behind law.
Rialto Unified has made some recent academic gains, and its superintendent worries that deep cuts could stall progress. The district scored a 661 on California's latest Academic Performance Index, below the state's target of 800; the API measures schools and districts on student scores in math, English and other subjects.
While the state API is a different metric than NCLB, if a district is having trouble meeting the API target, it is likely to have trouble meeting the much more onerous NCLB targets. As most educators - and anyone who has been a student - knows, the larger the classes, the more difficult it becomes to learn and achieve.
Among the penalties for missing NCLB targets include "replacing staff" or a takeover by "a private education firm." Either outcome involves less schools, less local control, less parental involvement, and an even deeper economic hit to thousands of working Californians.
Arnold's proposed budget cuts could therefore touch off a cascade of events that delivers a crippling blow to our public education system. The always excellent California Budget Project has put together a detailed list of the impact of those cuts, including a district-by-district list of cuts. Most district will lose at minimum $500 per student, with some rural districts going well above $1,000 per student. Those are staggering numbers.
This was supposed to be the year of education. Perhaps it still can be - it can either be the year we saved education, or the year we destroyed it. Sometimes our choices really are that stark.
"I don't think it was fair at all," said Kearney-Brown. "All they care about is my name on an unaltered loyalty oath. They don't care if I meant it, and it didn't seem connected to the spirit of the oath. Nothing else mattered. My teaching didn't matter. Nothing."
A veteran public school math teacher who specializes in helping struggling students, Kearney-Brown, 50, had signed the oath before - but had modified it each time....
Each time, when asked to "swear (or affirm)" that she would "support and defend" the U.S. and state Constitutions "against all enemies, foreign and domestic," Kearney-Brown inserted revisions: She wrote "nonviolently" in front of the word "support," crossed out "swear," and circled "affirm." All were to conform with her Quaker beliefs, she said.
The school districts always accepted her modifications, Kearney-Brown said.
But Cal State East Bay wouldn't, and she was fired on Thursday.
Unless we believe that Quakers are somehow America's biggest threat, this should be seen as a totally ridiculous and anachronistic injustice. The loyalty oath - sometimes called the "Levering Oath" after the Republican legislator who rammed it through the state legislature in 1949-50 - was a particularly pernicious and pointless instance of McCarthyite hysteria. Republican Governor Earl Warren had initially opposed the oath, but when UC President Robert Sproul imposed the oath and fired 31 tenured professors who refused to sign it on grounds of academic freedom, Warren decided to support the oath to secure his 1950 reelection bid.
In short, the oath was created to further the political ambitions of Levering, Warren and Sproul. It did nothing to help California or the nation fight the Cold War, created deep and lasting divisions at UC, and is today seen as a rather silly piece of paper that folks sign as part of the usual fat packet of paper public workers have to sign upon accepting employment.
It's been 59 years since the oath was created and 19 years since the Berlin Wall fell. Must we lose more qualified, dedicated, longtime teachers to this relic of the past? I know California legislators have better things to do, but if any of you politicians who are reading this site - and I know you're out there - want to write a law to repeal this waste of paper, it would be welcome.
