Dear Parents in Washington State,
What the new president promises and what we will witness is a high standard of ethics and transparency in government. That all parties will work together for the greater good of the citizens of this country.
That is what we expect to witness. We support all the senators and representatives who also hold in their hearts and in their actions that high standard of ethics and transparency in government.
House Bill 1329 (Commerce and Labor Committee) will take public testimony at 10 am on January 27, 2009 in Olympia in the John L. O'Brien Building.
It is an SEIU bill. Service Employees International Union. The SEIU named the bill "collective bargaining". In my research and opinion it is not collective bargaining. It is not a bill for parents nor for the protection of their children in licensed day care.
From my research and read...through these types of bills... SEIU has amassed great amounts of taxpayer money which in turn is contributed to elected officials and the two parties to put pressure on them to vote the way SEIU wants.
The Family Home Child Care Provider bill that SEIU got passed in 2006 resulted in only about 2000 out of 10,000 in-home and family day care providers voting that they wanted SEIU in their lives. But because of the bill that passed.... SEIU is in their lives whether they like it or not.
SEIU has dumped tremendous amounts of taxpayer dollars back to the two parties; and the most recent go around was to the Democratic party. They dumped millions into Barack Obama's campaign. I suspect the new president will demonstrate integrity; and will not consider himself "bought" by SEIU; and if that is so I will be jumping around with delight. I didn't vote for President Obama but every ethical and transparent step he takes my heart will soar with the possibilities of what this country can honorably achieve.
I am not a scholar of the whole history of unions, but from my read in many cases the original intent of unions has changed so much I have to reflect on what is really going on.
The new president says we all will work together for the common good Democrats, Republicans and Independents.
I'll be testifying tomorrow and visiting around the Capitol to see how this legislative session is beginning.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Saturday, October 4, 2008
In Memory of Gabriel Tobin - Breaking News
See the Tacoma Tribune news story in their paper today regarding the 11.8 million dollar jury verdict below for 2 year old Gabriel Tobin who drowned in July 2004 in Lake Tapps.
I will blog more about the failures by the child care licensing agency and the Attorney General's Office in this case.
This is a thank you to the jury who were reasonable and prudent in their review, analysis and assessment of the case.
As a former child care licensor, now an activist for parents and the public I testified at this trial.
I thank the citizens who sat on this jury and were the reasonable judges to hear this case.
The failures in licensing that led to Gabriel Tobin's death started from the beginning in 2001.
The Attorney General's Office in my opinion is the biggest failure in this case. Myself, licensors and the supervisors were taught again and again over the years how to license properly.
Now the Attorney General's Office in opposition to the training they gave me and others brought this to court to support the the managers who oversaw the poor and improper licensing of this day care home.
I made a public disclosure request to find out how much taxpayer money they put into defending these state bureaucrats. Mary Kay Quinlan was the supervisor out of Pierce County and the jury found her at fault in this case.
Christine Gregoire was Attorney General and under her watch other children died. The Attorney General's Office in my opinion has been used as a public defender lawyer to suppport DSHS management personnel from being held accountable for their failures.
The Attorney General's Office is required to serve the citizens of the state of Washington not entrenched bureaucratic managers.
I will be writing more details in the future. I'm buried with some other social justice work at the moment.
Please leave any questions you'd like me to clarify about the state's role in this matter.
I will blog more about the failures by the child care licensing agency and the Attorney General's Office in this case.
This is a thank you to the jury who were reasonable and prudent in their review, analysis and assessment of the case.
As a former child care licensor, now an activist for parents and the public I testified at this trial.
I thank the citizens who sat on this jury and were the reasonable judges to hear this case.
The failures in licensing that led to Gabriel Tobin's death started from the beginning in 2001.
The Attorney General's Office in my opinion is the biggest failure in this case. Myself, licensors and the supervisors were taught again and again over the years how to license properly.
Now the Attorney General's Office in opposition to the training they gave me and others brought this to court to support the the managers who oversaw the poor and improper licensing of this day care home.
I made a public disclosure request to find out how much taxpayer money they put into defending these state bureaucrats. Mary Kay Quinlan was the supervisor out of Pierce County and the jury found her at fault in this case.
Christine Gregoire was Attorney General and under her watch other children died. The Attorney General's Office in my opinion has been used as a public defender lawyer to suppport DSHS management personnel from being held accountable for their failures.
The Attorney General's Office is required to serve the citizens of the state of Washington not entrenched bureaucratic managers.
I will be writing more details in the future. I'm buried with some other social justice work at the moment.
Please leave any questions you'd like me to clarify about the state's role in this matter.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Why is the Teacher's Union actively supporting misconduct?
From the Yakima Herald.com Online News.
Published on Sunday, September 14, 2008
Teacher-student sex: WEA makes an unwise move
Yakima Herald-Republic
"It's not good for teachers to have sex with students in high school under any circumstances. On that we can all agree.
But in seeking to clarify a law making it a crime for a teacher to have sex with an 18-year-old, the Washington Education Association appears to be doing a better job of further confusing the issue.
The union has filed a "friend of the court" brief in a case involving a Grays Harbor County teacher accused of having sex with an 18-year-old female student. The defense challenged the statute, saying a student who is 18 is considered an adult, therefore a teacher can't be charged with sexual misconduct with a minor.
WEA's contention is that the law is vague and should be clarified as to whether the intent is to cover all students or just students who are minors. Yet filing a brief on behalf of a defendant at least gives the appearance of not only taking sides, but playing a game of semantics.
The law is vague. But why doesn't WEA move to clarify it in the Legislature, rather than taking sides in a lawsuit to protect a teacher accused of serious misconduct?
The defense appealed a Grays Harbor Superior Court ruling last year that the law was clear and a student can be a victim of the crime even if he or she is 18. Oral arguments in that case were heard Tuesday by a state appeals court.
To further muddy the legal waters, last month a Benton County Superior Court judge said the law is too vague as to what constitutes a minor in such situations and dismissed the charge against a former Richland High School music teacher accused of having sex with an 18-year-old student.
Such conflicting court interpretations alone signal the need for a legislative remedy. But let's make no mistake what the issue is that should be clarified: No teacher should have sexual contact with any student of any age through high school. Period, no exceptions. Teachers at that level simply are in a position to impose too much influence on impressionable students.
Beyond high school it's different, and the legal age of 18 is a legitimate plateau to be treated as an adult.
A spokesman for WEA said the union does not condone teachers having inappropriate sexual relationships with students of any age.
"Filing this brief should not be construed to mean that anybody within WEA condones inappropriate sexual conduct with students," Rich Wood, a spokesman for the union told the Tri-City Herald. "... It would be an insult to suggest our 81,000 members would condone that kind of behavior. They don't."
Blog note: They might want to take a survey on that as the Seattle Times a few years ago went to court and had 159 cases of sexual misconduct by coaches in the school districts (Seattle area if I remember right) unsealed.
Back to the Yakima article: "But WEA officials, by intervening in the case, appear to be revealing a bias and rush to protect a teacher under fire rather than using common sense. The union could have come out strongly for clarification of the law without becoming part of the court proceedings.
Any teacher guilty of that kind of sexual misconduct with any student should be banned from the teaching profession. It really doesn't matter if the student involved is 17 years and 11 months old or 18. And conviction should be treated as a criminal offense.
The law should be clarified to reflect that. On that we can agree with the teachers union."
Another website states students are covered under the law to be protected:
"Last year, Hirschfelder's attorney Rob Hill argued that the case should be dismissed because the girl was not a minor. Hill questioned the state law, which says, in part, that a person is guilty of first-degree sexual misconduct with a minor if "the person is a school employee who has ... sexual intercourse with a registered student of the school who is at least 16 years old and not married to the employee ..."
Superior Court Judge David Foscue ruled that there "is no ambiguity in the text of the statute."
Hill appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, Division 2 in Tacoma to be heard on Tuesday."
Published on Sunday, September 14, 2008
Teacher-student sex: WEA makes an unwise move
Yakima Herald-Republic
"It's not good for teachers to have sex with students in high school under any circumstances. On that we can all agree.
But in seeking to clarify a law making it a crime for a teacher to have sex with an 18-year-old, the Washington Education Association appears to be doing a better job of further confusing the issue.
The union has filed a "friend of the court" brief in a case involving a Grays Harbor County teacher accused of having sex with an 18-year-old female student. The defense challenged the statute, saying a student who is 18 is considered an adult, therefore a teacher can't be charged with sexual misconduct with a minor.
WEA's contention is that the law is vague and should be clarified as to whether the intent is to cover all students or just students who are minors. Yet filing a brief on behalf of a defendant at least gives the appearance of not only taking sides, but playing a game of semantics.
The law is vague. But why doesn't WEA move to clarify it in the Legislature, rather than taking sides in a lawsuit to protect a teacher accused of serious misconduct?
The defense appealed a Grays Harbor Superior Court ruling last year that the law was clear and a student can be a victim of the crime even if he or she is 18. Oral arguments in that case were heard Tuesday by a state appeals court.
To further muddy the legal waters, last month a Benton County Superior Court judge said the law is too vague as to what constitutes a minor in such situations and dismissed the charge against a former Richland High School music teacher accused of having sex with an 18-year-old student.
Such conflicting court interpretations alone signal the need for a legislative remedy. But let's make no mistake what the issue is that should be clarified: No teacher should have sexual contact with any student of any age through high school. Period, no exceptions. Teachers at that level simply are in a position to impose too much influence on impressionable students.
Beyond high school it's different, and the legal age of 18 is a legitimate plateau to be treated as an adult.
A spokesman for WEA said the union does not condone teachers having inappropriate sexual relationships with students of any age.
"Filing this brief should not be construed to mean that anybody within WEA condones inappropriate sexual conduct with students," Rich Wood, a spokesman for the union told the Tri-City Herald. "... It would be an insult to suggest our 81,000 members would condone that kind of behavior. They don't."
Blog note: They might want to take a survey on that as the Seattle Times a few years ago went to court and had 159 cases of sexual misconduct by coaches in the school districts (Seattle area if I remember right) unsealed.
Back to the Yakima article: "But WEA officials, by intervening in the case, appear to be revealing a bias and rush to protect a teacher under fire rather than using common sense. The union could have come out strongly for clarification of the law without becoming part of the court proceedings.
Any teacher guilty of that kind of sexual misconduct with any student should be banned from the teaching profession. It really doesn't matter if the student involved is 17 years and 11 months old or 18. And conviction should be treated as a criminal offense.
The law should be clarified to reflect that. On that we can agree with the teachers union."
Another website states students are covered under the law to be protected:
"Last year, Hirschfelder's attorney Rob Hill argued that the case should be dismissed because the girl was not a minor. Hill questioned the state law, which says, in part, that a person is guilty of first-degree sexual misconduct with a minor if "the person is a school employee who has ... sexual intercourse with a registered student of the school who is at least 16 years old and not married to the employee ..."
Superior Court Judge David Foscue ruled that there "is no ambiguity in the text of the statute."
Hill appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, Division 2 in Tacoma to be heard on Tuesday."
Saturday, September 13, 2008
The WASL and children's learning in our public education system
The Columbian newspaper in August had an article about the WASL (Washington's Assessment of Student Learning) and reportedly reporting on how well the kids did. As it turns out the real issue is on how well the adults did.
I googled the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to see what I could research on this subject.
For "Writing", the OSPI on-line example had the 10th grade kids respond to this question:
"If your home was threatened by fire and you could safely retrieve one or two items before you leave for a secure place what you choose?" (and why?)
There goes all the fire safety training to keep our kids safe.
The ones OSPI liked least were the kids who directly answered the immediate question.
The first one wrote: "If my house were threatened by fire I would try and put the fire out and save everything but since you won't let me."
Another wrote she'd grab the cell phone to call people and a book to read to take her mind off what happened to her home.
The writings OSPI liked best were greater in length, descriptive and sentimental about the importance of various items to their families.
As a 10th grade kid who experienced a fire in her house I would have written very pragmatically myself: “I would call the fire department, grab nothing, and get everyone out. As the Fire Marshall tells us a house can fill with black smoke and be consumed by fire withing 90 seconds."
The adult who wrote this question needs to go to "critical thinking school" and the taxpayers/parents would absolutely be right to assess the public education system continues to fail our kids.
I googled the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to see what I could research on this subject.
For "Writing", the OSPI on-line example had the 10th grade kids respond to this question:
"If your home was threatened by fire and you could safely retrieve one or two items before you leave for a secure place what you choose?" (and why?)
There goes all the fire safety training to keep our kids safe.
The ones OSPI liked least were the kids who directly answered the immediate question.
The first one wrote: "If my house were threatened by fire I would try and put the fire out and save everything but since you won't let me."
Another wrote she'd grab the cell phone to call people and a book to read to take her mind off what happened to her home.
The writings OSPI liked best were greater in length, descriptive and sentimental about the importance of various items to their families.
As a 10th grade kid who experienced a fire in her house I would have written very pragmatically myself: “I would call the fire department, grab nothing, and get everyone out. As the Fire Marshall tells us a house can fill with black smoke and be consumed by fire withing 90 seconds."
The adult who wrote this question needs to go to "critical thinking school" and the taxpayers/parents would absolutely be right to assess the public education system continues to fail our kids.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Washing the Dishes
Someone wrote that democracy is like washing the dishes.
Having just finished reading, "Freedom for the Thought We Hate, A Biography of the First Amendment" by Anthony Lewis that phrase came back to my mind.
Democracy is never an "accomplished" goal. We must never stop washing the dishes.
Having just finished reading, "Freedom for the Thought We Hate, A Biography of the First Amendment" by Anthony Lewis that phrase came back to my mind.
Democracy is never an "accomplished" goal. We must never stop washing the dishes.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
The Moment the Decoding Works for a Child
Today the five year old just turned six year old in my life had that joyful moment of realizing that decoding works.
I created a "secret codebook" for his older brother when he was six and the younger one immediately wanted one.
Today he brought it to the table and went through the phonemes, you know, like -at, -up, -it and with concentration he added the consonant sounds at the beginning. "b, b, b"....."at"......bat! The look of excitement on his face realizing he read a word by himself, heart warming to witness.
But he wasn't satisfied with reading the word "right", he wanted the definition, he used it in a sentence and he would remark on other words he thought sounded similar to the word he was working on.
He loved having a conversation about the English language.
I created a "secret codebook" for his older brother when he was six and the younger one immediately wanted one.
Today he brought it to the table and went through the phonemes, you know, like -at, -up, -it and with concentration he added the consonant sounds at the beginning. "b, b, b"....."at"......bat! The look of excitement on his face realizing he read a word by himself, heart warming to witness.
But he wasn't satisfied with reading the word "right", he wanted the definition, he used it in a sentence and he would remark on other words he thought sounded similar to the word he was working on.
He loved having a conversation about the English language.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Excerpts from Illiteracy Article by Ronald Nash
Found on the internet from:
The Three Kinds of Illiteracy
Ronald Nash
Just five percent of seventeen-year-old high school students can read well enough to understand and use information found in technical materials, literary essays, and historical documents."[2] Imagine then how hopeless it is to get the other 95 percent to read Plato or Dante -- or the Bible. "Barely six percent of them," Finn continues, "can solve multi-step math problems and use basic algebra."[3] We're not talking difficult math here but rather something as elementary as calculating simple interest on a loan.
Illiteracy this extensive is virtually unprecedented in America's history. Eighty years ago, in 1910, only 2.2 percent of American children between the ages of ten and fourteen could neither read nor write. It is important to remember that the illiteracy of 1910 reflected for the most part children who never had the advantage of schooling. The illiterates of today, however, are not people who never went to school; they are, for the most part, individuals who have spent eight to twelve years in public schools.
Clearly incompetence of this magnitude is not the result of accident. A large part of the blame rests with the educational establishment itself, the very people and institutions entrusted with the task of educating America's children.
There is a growing body of evidence that suggests that many of our public school teachers are themselves woefully under-educated. In 1983, for example, school teachers in Houston, Texas were required to take a competency test. More than 60 percent of the teachers failed the reading part of the test. Forty-six percent failed the math section while 26 percent could not pass the writing exam. As if this weren't bad enough, 763 of the more than 3,000 teachers taking the test cheated.
The Three Kinds of Illiteracy
Ronald Nash
Just five percent of seventeen-year-old high school students can read well enough to understand and use information found in technical materials, literary essays, and historical documents."[2] Imagine then how hopeless it is to get the other 95 percent to read Plato or Dante -- or the Bible. "Barely six percent of them," Finn continues, "can solve multi-step math problems and use basic algebra."[3] We're not talking difficult math here but rather something as elementary as calculating simple interest on a loan.
Illiteracy this extensive is virtually unprecedented in America's history. Eighty years ago, in 1910, only 2.2 percent of American children between the ages of ten and fourteen could neither read nor write. It is important to remember that the illiteracy of 1910 reflected for the most part children who never had the advantage of schooling. The illiterates of today, however, are not people who never went to school; they are, for the most part, individuals who have spent eight to twelve years in public schools.
Clearly incompetence of this magnitude is not the result of accident. A large part of the blame rests with the educational establishment itself, the very people and institutions entrusted with the task of educating America's children.
There is a growing body of evidence that suggests that many of our public school teachers are themselves woefully under-educated. In 1983, for example, school teachers in Houston, Texas were required to take a competency test. More than 60 percent of the teachers failed the reading part of the test. Forty-six percent failed the math section while 26 percent could not pass the writing exam. As if this weren't bad enough, 763 of the more than 3,000 teachers taking the test cheated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)