<p>Regarding the exit exam: You are mistaken when you state, no accommodations are made for them. Go to the cahsee website: <a href=“http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/hs/documents/cahseeqa2004.pdf[/url]”>http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/hs/documents/cahseeqa2004.pdf</a>
Special accommodations and test variations are available for special education students as well as English learners. In addition, school districts/schools are required to provide additional instruction to assist those who did not pass the exam. The exam is taken in 10th grade with 2 more years to re-take. It is inappropriate to hand out diplomas to students who do not meet a basic 10th grade level of achievement in English and Math. </p>
<p>Neither these issues, by the way, are about teacher competence or qualifications, or salaries, or degree of commitment, or unionization. </p>
<p>On the contrary the teachers unions are fighting very hard to do away with the exit exam and other methods of assessment. Left solely in the hands of the teachers unions, we would still be practicing social promotion, and the failed whole language approach to teaching that did away with phonics.</p>
<p>“and the failed whole language approach to teaching that did away with phonics.”</p>
<p>Teachers behind the shift? Hardly. Take a look at the administration first.</p>
<p>I should add that it is no more fair to call the whole language approach failed than to call phonics failed. What drove folks to look for alternatives to phonics was the failure, for some students, of that approach. That the whole language approach was not the panacea some hoped does not mean it did not have value. In fact, most good teachers use a mix of phonics and whole language.</p>
<p>In that case, that is true of CA but not of MA.
Whether students who do not meet certain standards should be given diplomas is not about teachers’ comptence or qualifications. It is about state mandates. Our state obviously mandates different things from CA.</p>
<p>Two years ago, our school failed to meet its AYP goal in one category. It turned out that 2 (TWO) Asian-American students had performed less well than students in the previous cohort of Asian-American students. They were recent immigrants. Should their failure to do well be imputed to the school, the teachers, the curriculum?</p>
<p>Let me be clear: I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m not a teacher, my kids are no longer in k-12. But I live in a district with a very strong teachers’ union. Some of the worse and some of the best teachers have belonged to the union. My son’s best teacher was union rep. I don’t see our union as an obstacle to achievement. When my son had a teacher who did not seem up to the task (although quite dedicated) I had no trouble getting her transferred to a class where her talents were better suited. But YMMV.</p>
<p>For those of you who are not familiar with the California Proposition Process. roughly - Any citizen or group - can gather petitions or pay to have petitions gathered to get an idea for a law or policy before the general public for a vote.</p>
<p>A while ago, when California was at the top of the educational feeding chain, people, concerned about higher taxes resulting from real property inflation, passed a proposition that restricted the real property tax system. This caused a shift in revenue sources and California relys more heavily on income and taxes relating to the economy and less on real property taxes. To an extent this has caused us to have boom and bust years.</p>
<p>Since we reduced our reliance on real property taxes, for what ever reasons, there has been a decline in our educational excellence.</p>
<p>The Props 74, 75, and 76 are a cheap shot at our schools, and the people who are most effective at defending them…the teachers unions.</p>
<p>Unions are out spent by corporations as it is, but without them, our democracy is in trouble. Vote Yes on 74, 75, 76.</p>
<p>I just heard that there were 40 television stations that pulled pro proposition ads because they turned out to be gregiously inaccurate.</p>
<p>Many state newspapers are taking positions against these props. The Sacramento Bee referred to 75 as, “politics at its worst” They urge you to vote no… Vote no on prop 74, 75 and 76</p>
<p>The California education system is one of the WORST in the United States. It is time to make some changes.</p>
<p>Proposition 74 requires 5 years before tenure and provides administrators the means to dismiss teachers with 2 consecutive poor annual reviews. Right now, bad teachers cant be fired. They are just shuffled around to other grades and schools to the detriment of more children. </p>
<p>Proposition 75 gives union members the right to decide where their OWN money goes. Currently the coercive unions make it very difficult for their members to opt out with lots of tedious red tape. If a member opts out, the union keeps their money anyway AND the teacher loses their liability insurance. Prop 75 requires the unions to get written permission from members before using their money on political campaigns. As it is right now, people are being forced to pay for political ideologies they dont believe in. Prop 75 returns the power to the people.</p>
<p>Proposition 76 would require the state stay within budget and put an end to unlimited spending in our state. The ads misrepresent the truth by accusing Arnold of taking away 2 billion dollars from the schools. Truth is, he originally set aside 5 billion, but due to the deficit and overspending, was only able to actually give 3 billion. So, although they didnt get the 5 billion, the schools ended up with 3 billion MORE dollars than they previously had. Yet these deceptive ads would have people believe Arnold took money away from the schools. Prop 76 would actually free up more money for the schools.</p>
<p>If you want to accept our failing educational system as it is, then dont vote. But if you want some real changes toward reform, then these props are good for California.</p>
<p>That of course is a lie, there is a process in place that can and has been used by competent administrators.</p>
<p>
Let the union members decide, we can vote out bad leadership, change policy if we want. When ever Republicans act responisbly toward education we support them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This of course is just a plain, cheating on your kids, type LIE.</p>
<p>Major Newspapers have found these props to be bad ideas and suggest to their readers that they VOTE NO on Props 74,75,76</p>
<p>The quotes of Arnold promising to pay back the two billion dollars was on the news and in the press, as well as on the Governor’s website. He has looked for ways to get around giving children the funding that voters promised with prop 98 and that is the truth. California schools have dropped in success and the amount of money we give schools for our children is only a fraction of what states that respect education provide. </p>
<p>Any intelligent person will realize that when you underfund a program as important as education that program will falter. If the governor is successful at silencing the nurses, teachers and firefighters the only voices left will be the big businessmen who can afford to pay $10,000 to eat with the Governor. He may not be the best governor money can buy, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t being bought.</p>
<p>This Governor, when he announced his candicacy on national television, promised not to spend his time taking other peoples money and almost immediately after being elected started fundraising. He is the worst of Gray Davis on steroids. $10,000 breakfasts and $100,000 dinners. He promised to not violate prop 98 and then after he reached an agreement to postpone 2 billion dollars from education budget…he reneged on paying the moneyback as promised…He is a terrible actor and a worse politician. Incidentally, I heard he signed on to do two more movies…obviously even he knows his re-election chances are slim. </p>