Observer wrote on Apr 8, 2008 11:39 PM:By examining the contractor's response carefully, one notes "they've just cleared the wire" of leaving the district enough funds to finish by the skin of their teeth This does not answer the some 40 points of construction that are omitted,left out, or are unclear for several reasons. Many are elements which are needed for operation of the school. What of those "unexpected things" which have happened continually? Don't "take the bait"!

It is about time to admit it wrote on Apr 9, 2008 12:24 AM:It is about time that the Board Majority finally realizes that they have to get off the Disneyland Express and admit that they don't have enough E-tickets left to spend on it. There just isn't enough money in the coffers, Jerry McCloud has been saying this for years, to pay for this White Elephant Trailer Park Campus. Herrera, Hubbard, and Lilly have had ample opportunities to build this school at other sites and earlier, but they waited until the very end of the bond money to do this school because they know that it isn't really isn't going to be a true magnet, just a dressed up comprehensive school. Kudos to Dr. Guffanti and Mr. Gibson for holding the line and saying that if there isn't money to build it, don't build it and let's look at different alternatives to housing it. Keep beating the drum because eventually reason will prevail.

was this an emergency meeting or regular meeting? wrote on Apr 9, 2008 8:05 AM:I thought the meeting was scheduled for Thursday?

HUH? wrote on Apr 9, 2008 8:40 AM:113 teachers get to keep their jobs? Obviously the cuts the state needs to make are warranted as the funds are not needed. Unfortunately while the teachers keep their jobs and the Union keeps their dues the kids suffer because classroom spending will have to be cut. What's new, as long as the "Protected teachers" keep their jobs whether needed or not is all that matters. This is proof there is no budget crisis and all the doom and gloom was scare tactics. Arnie, Cut more!!!

Sam wrote on Apr 9, 2008 8:51 AM:The only one who deserves to stay on the VUSD board is Guffantti. He is the only one that has not one time or another didn't change his mind. Gibson voted for the location to begin with, knowing it was a bad decision. Now he is going to run for the Oceanside City Council. What a joke and it is on us. What happens when there is no more money? They keep spending with no money to do it. I wish I could do it. We have to stop these government agencies, districts, and especially schools,etc.,from spend monies we do not have on crap we don't need. It is going to come back to need government tax us more that we do not have. Stop Now.

HEARD A RUMOR wrote on Apr 9, 2008 8:52 AM:I was told that a mistake was made by someone in the administration and six junior teachers were not pink slipped by the requred deadline. This resulted in them having to "rehire" all the teachers that were senior to them. HMMMMM, maybe the cuts should come at the top.

Randy wrote on Apr 9, 2008 9:05 AM:How about, "Vista teachers decide to fire trustees?"

Too Bad wrote on Apr 9, 2008 9:23 AM:The Junior teachers were probably better performers. That is the problem they have to go by senority versus who performs better. Got to love Unions. Enablers of sub par performance.

TaxPayer wrote on Apr 9, 2008 9:45 AM:Build to schools at Lincoln campus as Gibson and Dr G has said for years. We already own the land. We could build real buildings not trailers. Stop the overcrowding! Build now! build at Lincoln!

Union Member wrote on Apr 9, 2008 12:30 PM:Woot! Congratulations teachers! As to you nay sayers who hate unions...have you ever worked for a union?
what is it exactly that you hate about them? That teachers with more seniority are chosen instead of teachers with less seniority? How do you know for sure that the teachers with less seniority perform better than those with tenure? You sit here and complain all day about how horrible unions are, but you don't do anything about it.

To Randy wrote on Apr 9, 2008 12:39 PM:If VTA should fire trustees, it should be the ones that they backed: Herrera, Hubbard, and Lilly. Hello?!?

To Too Bad wrote on Apr 9, 2008 12:45 PM:The people who work at the district office have worked hard to find places to cut in order to save classrooms from being overcrowded. They and Dr. Bales are to be commended and not criticized for the saving of teacher's jobs!

Reardon wrote on Apr 9, 2008 1:19 PM:Happens every time – budget scare tactics, followed by warnings of firings, followed by increased blood pressure everywhere and teacher/student demands for tax increases, followed by admission that no one needs to be fired. Then comes a plea for more money for schools, and a new bond issue, and the scars from the previous scare bristle, and everyone throws more money at schools. That is followed by another scare, another threat to fire...meanwhile our teachers are the best paid in the nation, and our students rank 48th. Hello! Hello! Anyone there?

Umm.. wrote on Apr 9, 2008 1:35 PM:Gee, now they can go on and build their 'magnet' schools for the 'special kids' instead of giving everyone a fair shot at the same resources, but more importantly, no news about canning teachers will cloud their spending money otherwise.

Guffanti needs to go wrote on Apr 9, 2008 2:00 PM:Well Sam you say the only one who deserves to stay on the Board is Guffanti but I think he is the only one who should be canned!!! Fist we all know he was behind the McLeod lawsuit against VUSD. The suit was not about Porp. O problems whatsoever but rather about STALLING, STALLING, STALLING. Gufantti knew very well that if he stalled the construction with frivolous lawsuits than the cost of construction would go up to where VUSD could not afford to build this school. Bring in the lawsuit by the city of Oceanside headed by Guffanti’s allies at the Oceanside city counsel and the end result is no school.

Guffanti is all about control and not about doing the right thing for the students.

If people only knew what Guffanti's agenda is all about....

Common sense please wrote on Apr 9, 2008 2:02 PM:TaxPayer- how about using Guajome Park site for a REAL high school instead of a non performing charter school at our expense.

Ted wrote on Apr 9, 2008 3:09 PM:So, let me see if I'm understanding this...113 teachers re-instated at, let's say $50,000 (to use a round number)per teacher (figure insurance and other costs too, right?). That comes to more than $5.5 million. "...by trimming from other parts of the budget". Now, that is some "trimming". Anyone want to break it down for us and let us know where that chunk of change is coming from?

Jane wrote on Apr 9, 2008 6:49 PM:In regards to the complaint about reinstating the teachers (from Ted). I wonder if he realizes that the children of Vista have not gone away and still need a teacher in their classroom. Last I heard, students don't teach themselves. The numbers are fairly stable in Vista, therefore, the number of teachers will need to be about what VUSD has now. So, as clever as it seems to claim that the district could cut teachers from the budget, it is ridiculous. Unless the district closes down, there will still be a need for teachers. And, they need to be paid a fair wage.

Secondly, I have no idea where "Reardon" got the stat that VUSD teachers are some of the highest in the US. What a joke. They are the second lowest in the county.

Lastly, it is now very clear to me why VUSD is so divided - look at these posts. Extreme, ignorant and silly opinions. Get educated.

Reardon wrote on Apr 9, 2008 7:15 PM:Jane: I did not address Vista teachers at all, if you would read my post. I stated, accurately, that California teachers are the highest paid in the nation (the NEA website says they are #2, but a later NRA Bulletin places them #1). I also correctly stated that California students test results on the federal National Report Card site shows our students are #48. (49th in 4th grade reading, 49th in 8th grade reading, 49th in 4th grade math, and 46th in 8th grade math.)

to Guffanti needs wrote on Apr 9, 2008 7:25 PM:The cost of construction has come down since the recession started. Maybe Guffanti is doing us taxpayers a favor.

To Guffanti needs to go wrote on Apr 9, 2008 8:04 PM:Truth be told, Guffanti has built more school in VUSD while sitting on the board than any other Board member past or present. And that FACT can be PROVEN in the records! Now, where is your proof that Guffanti was behind the McLeod lawsuit, and that the Oceanside lawsuit was brought by Guffanti allies. What about the suit brought by the county? Was that Guffanti's allies too? And, what about CalTrans not being consulted about opening a school along a major highway? The McLeod suit is the only reason CalTrans was brought in when they were. Otherwise they would have waited until VUSD applied for their Occupancy Permit, and CalTrans would have denied it due to the many violations and failures to address critical safety issues (most of the mitigation plans still remain to be planned, approved, and performed. And there is NO Cost estimate yet!). No, I'd say Guffanti's agenda seems to be right on the money: Safe Schools, Quality Education, Responsible Administrations, and preserving the Public Trust! Exactly what a School Board Member's charter should be. Not like those of the Union backed trio who spend all their time trying to figure ways to spend the public's money to aid special interests, hire more union members, and keep their own agendas in the forefront of our children's education. Improve the quality of education and I will again support the schools, including building more. But, until that day comes, our children are only being hurt by those who want to spend money irresponsibly on special projects and special interests.

NCT wants special ed blogs hidden in the closet wrote on Apr 9, 2008 8:05 PM:Hum,, so where are my posts about special ed? Is the North County Times so protective of the right wing mentality that all special ed students are a waste of funds?

So why the biased here North County Times why are you silent about this important subject and the fact that these cuts VUSD is planning will effect special education students? I see… NCT also wants to keep special ed conversations hidden in the closet and supports the hush, hush mentality right?

Lets just cut back and shut people up that try to complain.

To Jane wrote on Apr 9, 2008 8:27 PM:The "California Educator" (CTA Magazine) recently showed CA teachers rank #3 in the nation in real dollars (actual pay); though when cost of living is factored in they are ranked #25 (can we say average?). Now, VUSD average pay is around $60K, which actually puts them in the top 15% in the State, even though near the bottom for the county. Granted, VUSD also has some very senior "teachers" who swing this average pay upward. But, then again there are also a very high number of new teachers as well, offsetting these senior teachers (very few in the middle, statistically speaking that is).
As for VUSD enrollment numbers being stable: There has been quite a drop over the last 5 years from VUSD’s peak of over 28,000 to the present 23,000. In fact, the trend seems to be indicating about a 6% drop each year. Now, factor in the recent run-up in housing costs in the area, followed shortly thereafter with the more recent real estate bust, add to that the looming economic crisis that is predicted to impact CA worse than the rest of the US, plus the large number of businesses leaving CA, and you find that young families weren't able to afford to buy in Vista, and even more are choosing to leave CA all together. Finally, factor in the well known and well publicized poor performance of CA's public schools, and VUSD's exceedingly high number of failing, sanctioned schools, and you see even more parents choosing to stay away from VUSD. Sorry to have to burst your bubble but the economic, demographic, and census data just don't support you claim of stability in numbers of students. So, eventually VUSD will be forced to cut teachers, either due to budget reasons, declining enrollment, or both.

Special Ed. wrote on Apr 9, 2008 8:38 PM:VUSD, and all School Districts in CA, receive Categorical Funds (special money legally bound) for Special Ed. Each District is allowed to add additional funds as they see fit, on top of the normal split of District Budget funding, to Special Ed. programs, and other programs. When budgets get tight, as they are now, these "Extra" monies are quite often the first thing to go. It has Nothing to do with attitudes toward Special Ed. or any other program that gets cut. It is simply doing the "Fair" and equitable thing with regard to managing the budget. If you had 4 children and one of them was a special child, for whom you'd been spending extra large sums of you income on without any negative impact on the quality of life for your other three children, would you continue to spend that extra money when hit with a job loss, even though it were to impact the quality of life of the other three? No, the Special Ed. children are not being hurt any more than any other child at VUSD. All are suffering equally at the hands of those whose interest is other than Quality Education for ALL Children.

Rumor Control wrote on Apr 9, 2008 8:58 PM:VUSD did not "forget" to send out those Pink Slips. That was a strategic maneuver to allow the District to cut other services. Loosing teachers, even though it may cause some students to have to be in slightly larger classes, has very little impact on the general public's perception of financial need. Many people can remember days spent in classrooms with far more students than typically seen today. However, cut other programs like music, sports, fieldtrips, special education, busses, and other items of direct interest to various groups and you find you can impact a greater number of parents, and thus a larger portion of the public's perception regarding funding for schools. No, there was no “forgetting” involved here: it was just business.

How twisted wrote on Apr 9, 2008 10:14 PM:Sorry the federal government gives millions of dollars to the state of California for Special Education. The state of California commingle the special education money into the general fund and then disburses what ever they see fit. Many of our California congressional representatives don’t even know that the state is doing this. (see minutes of U.S. Congress on Education.) Or the fact that the state of California is the largest recipients of federal funds for special education.

In additions California was placed on a “pilot program 2005” by the U.S. Department of Education. Under this pilot program California now receives even more millions of dollars in addition to the regular allotment, which was the highest in the nation.

The bottom like is that the federal money for special educational purposes is supposed to be separate and entirely a, “categorical fund.” This means that the money is supposed to be ONLY for the purposes of provisional entitlements for special educational services.

The state of California has failed to enforce any laws because they are in violation themselves!!!! Nevertheless, the special education monies are entirely SEPARATE and NEVER part of the regular ADA. In fact some of the money is paid directly though Medical. Sorry there is no such thing as extra money and if you have any doubts contact the San Francisco Office for Civil Rights for clarification.

North County Times I am quite shocked by some of the ignorant postings on this site particularly with the dissemination of wrong and flawed information like the “Special Ed.[-] wrote on Apr 9, 2008 8:38 PM:”

Stopping Misinformation wrote on Apr 10, 2008 5:26 AM:Ted - The 113 teachers would have been eliminated by getting rid of elementary class size reduction, which is mostly paid for by the state. VUSD puts less than $800,000 into the salaries of those teachers, which comes out to about $7000 per teacher. Sounds like a bargain to me, and it means a better education for those young students.

To How Twisted wrote on Apr 10, 2008 5:48 AM:The only reason why VUSD and other Districts "comingle" Federal Special Ed. funds with the general fund is because of the "mainstreaming" of Special Ed. students. In reality the Categorical funds earmarked for Special Ed. are closely monitored and spent on Special Ed. as directed by law. But, since advocates for mainstreaming forced CA to comingle Special Ed. students into regular classrooms it is only reasonable that some f the monies "earmarked" for these students be spent to support the classrooms they are in.

As for the "Extra" money spoken of earlier, that would be the money spent above and beyond the legal requirements as directed by the Federal and State Special Ed. funding, that is coming directly out of the General Fund. Again, there are ADA funds that must be used to meet certain Ed. Code requirements. After those requirements are met the remaining funds can be spent on other program (music, art, sports, etc.). If a District desires to spend some of that money on Special Ed. it is their choice. However, when times are tight, the reduction of these monies to Special Ed. is NOT stealing from Special Ed. Rather, it is simply a budget cut no different than those hitting the rest of the student population.
As for the State already being in violation, if you have solid proof you need not wait for the State or Federal Government to prosecute. You have every right to file a suit against the District or the state for violation of ANY law that is negatively impacting you, your child, or your community. So, don't be crying foul on the Government's failure to prosecute when you could do so yourself: Government of the People, by the People, and for the People - YOU are the Government! Now take some responsibility if you really believe VUSD is violating the law in some manner! But remember, the money the District must spend defending itself could have been spent on your child instead. It’s your choice.

Rumor Control wrote on Apr 10, 2008 6:01 AM:What did I say! Seems these last blogs support my statement about impacting a larger portion or vocal community members: cuts to Special Ed. instead of cutting a few teachers.

Lies and Statistics wrote on Apr 10, 2008 10:21 AM:Lies with statistics. Many of you are very good at that. "CA is the largest recipient of special ed funds" means nothing. CA also pays the most into the Fed. Do you have meaningful stats, like per student? Or do you just want to complain that education is too expensive? Let's just take the shortcut and make the schools directly into prisons. Then we can use $40,000 per child instead of $7K and change. As a "guard" I could make $200,000 instead of $50,000 as a teacher. Keep cutting education and the public can spend more on that later. Stop being so short-sited and selfish.

Reardon wrote on Apr 10, 2008 10:40 AM:Special Education has the same relationship to Education that the Special Olympics have to the Olympics – which is to say, NONE! Special Ed is a social program, pure and simple, and needs to be under the Department of Health and Welfare. No child should be placed in a classroom in which they cannot compete on a level playing field, but “education” has accepted Special Ed, along with transportation, food services, sports, and a myriad of other non-academic services so as to increase its size, “span of control” – and therefore increase the salaries to manage the mess.

Ken wrote on Apr 10, 2008 11:11 AM:Does anyone look at the real fact. Every teacher without tenure receives a "pink slip" stating they may not be rehired for the next year. So without the budget mess those teachers would still have receive "pink slips." Teacher have a tremenously difficult job. They are required to teach whoever walks through the door. They do not get to select student unlike a chef selects the meat or vegetables for his menu. Teacher do the best they can with what they are given to work with. Look at the teacher in Baltimore who was assaulted, what kind of student do you think she was working with. One that wanted to learn or one that had no interest in learning. Anyone who goes to school to be a teacher and is willing to spend their days around kids should get your respect instead of your critizism. Most parents go crazy when they have to be around there own kids for an extended period of time.

Randy wrote on Apr 10, 2008 12:07 PM:Reardon, how can you disrespect VUSD while you simultaneously support the OUSD bond extension?

To Reardon wrote on Apr 10, 2008 12:39 PM:You said California ranks 48th in the nation in student performance, do you realize that California ranks 46th in the nation in the amount of money per student and after the recent budget cuts we will go to 48th in the nation in school funding. Hmmm, maybe there is a causal correlation between school funding and performance. Oh well lets cut more money from schools and see if the student performance increases? Cutting school funding just doesn't make sense.

To Rumor Control and Ted wrote on Apr 10, 2008 1:55 PM:You are right, the district didn't forget to sent out RIF's. What they did was mis-classify teachers into various education codes (i.e., long-term temporary vs. probationary vs. tenured.)

What is difficult to comprehend is the continued persistence of the board to build new schools simply because bond money was available. What should have occurred was the improvement of existing facilities with minimizing the impact of additional debt service on the organization. Bonds are not free money.

Also, Ted made reference to an estimate of $5.5M that would have to be shaved elsewhere to retain the 113 teachers. The district is probably dipping into reserves to keep the positions. Several districts (such as Garden Grove) are doing just that. They value the intimacy of smaller class size and the impact it has on learning in the critical early years.

What I find frustrating is that naysayers have a way of referring back to the "hey day" when class sizes were larger; however, what is often forgotten is that teachers back then taught whatever they wanted and didn't have to adhere to specific standards.

Today, teachers are teaching more and teaching it earlier than in the past. Children are learning things that a third grader would learn in the 1980's in first and second grade now.

Times have changed. Most of all, you might be the perfect parent and have well prepared children who enter Kindergarten. But let's face it, there are more parents who aren't very involved with their childrens' education compared to you -- the exception. Until this becomes the norm, things will never change.

to all wrote on Apr 10, 2008 3:11 PM:Califorina teachers are the top paid in USA. Number 1 out of 50. Yet the results are 48 out of 50 states. Money is not the problem it is the UNION!

Reardon wrote on Apr 10, 2008 3:55 PM:To To Reardon: I don’t know where you get your information, but the U.S, Census Bureau (http://ftp2.census.gov/govs/school/05f33pub.pdf ) reports California at $8,067, and Mass. at $11,267. That makes California 27th in spending, but still 48th in testing. – testing lower than their spending, while Mass. tests at number one while spending at number six – or testing HIGHER than their spending. That is what I want for California – to get more bang for the buck, not less!

Ted wrote on Apr 10, 2008 5:27 PM:You've misunderstood my point. The district claimed that they would have to cut these teaching positions due to lack of funds. Suddenly they "find" the money to reinstate the teachers?

Ted wrote on Apr 10, 2008 5:31 PM:Why is California so behind in academic performance?
Have a look at the performance maps of schools in CA.
Where are the "problem schools"?

foolednomore wrote on Apr 10, 2008 5:33 PM: This is my third attempt in two days to get past the pro-Guffanti/Gibson censor at NCTimes.

In the post yesterday at 8:04 PM by "To Guffanti needs to go" the censor allowed "To Guffanti" to make the following absurd claim: "Guffanti has built more school in VUSD while sitting on the board than any other Board member past or present."

I have written two comments asking "To Guffanti" to back up this claim by naming one thing Guffanti has done to get a school bond passed. I do not believe there is a shred of evidence that Guffanti has ever supported a school bond in any way. But maybe I am wrong. Censor why don' you give "To Guffanti" a chance to enlighten me?

Without the financing provided by a successful school bond, I cannot understand how a school could be built in VUSD. I am sure “To Guffanti” could answer this challenge if you would allow it to be posted.

The censor continues to allow insults (i.e. union puppets) and abuse of the three rational VUSD school boards but not even tame criticism of the two reality-challenged ones. How partisan is the censorship of this comment board?

Floyd wrote on Apr 10, 2008 5:53 PM:The article says 13 "educators" are still on the layoff list, yet no educators are shown! Instead seven assistant principals, three psychologists, a special education supervisor and two speech therapists are listed. If they're not teaching, they're not educating! Call them "overhead" but don't call them "educators".

Reardon wrote on Apr 10, 2008 6:56 PM:Ted asks: Why is California so behind in academic performance?

The answer is the entry test for teachers, CBEST. California teachers have a 100% passing rate – an indication that it is REALLY easy! The State with the best student scores, Massachusetts, passes Caucasian incoming teachers at a 76% rate, Latino incoming teachers at a 47% rate, and Black incoming teachers at a 46% rate…and that passing rate is from a 10 year study! California passes anyone who can fog a mirror! Google The Teacher Who Couldn't Read...a true story, right here in North County.

fooled no more wrote on Apr 10, 2008 7:49 PM:Fourth attmpt to get past censor

If I say I do not like the way Guffanti and Gibson support public ed, will you let that in?

Reardon wrote on Apr 10, 2008 7:58 PM:To To Reardon: There is later information from the Census Bureau as of April1, 2008 regarding the per pupil expenditures of California on “education.” California stands #25. I have just downloaded the 134 page pdf file, and on page 23 you will see that California spends $10,264 per pupil. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/education/011747.html

To foolednomore wrote on Apr 10, 2008 8:55 PM:Guffanti was on the board back in the early 1990's and built quite a few school without utilizing a local Bond (Check the records). As for how this can be done: Simple the State passes a bond like Prop 1A passed back in 2000, and the District applies for matching funds out of both the general fund and developers' fees. They can also barrow small amounts to make up some of the difference. Now, let us look at the time period just prior to the passage of Prop O. There was plenty of money in the State Bond under Hardship Funds to build schools, before LAUSD "Raped" the funding by taking the state to court. VUSD fully qualified for Hardship Funds, but Board Members like Hubbard refused to apply for them, calling Hardship Funds "Welfare." We could have built the new High School (a full comprehensive high school on the Stacco Property) with those Hardship Funds and have eliminated overcrowding at the High Schools back in 2001/02. But, the anti-school (I'm using your logic here) Board member David Hubbard lobbied against such. Additionally, at that time we had a far chunk of change in the form of Builders' fees that could have been used to expand some of our existing schools by applying for Modernization Funds contained in Prop 1A. Under this program the District puts up 20% and the State matches the funding with 80%. The school being modernized must be at least 15 years old, or must have more than 80% of its classrooms constructed as trailers or modulars (the majority of our schools met those criteria at that time). VUSD could have used these Modernization Funds to enlarge the existing grades schools from 600 student schools to 800 student schools, by utilizing two story modular classrooms (effectively used by Capistrano Unified in South Orange County). This method of increasing the school capacity provides for all needed facilities and actually enable the total area of playing field per student to remain the same, by removing at least one or two of the current gopher pads used by the old modular buildings. This enlarging of the existing school also allow the operating costs of the District to be nearly 80% lower than adding a new school (less duplication of administration, no additional grounds keeping, and maintenance personnel, and minimal increase in electricity -in fact often times these new modulars are more energy efficient and cost less than the buildings being replaced). Mike Vail and Dave Cowels were both briefed on these options/opportunities but argued against them as in their words “we want more, smaller, local community schools so that parents can take greater pride in their schools and be more closely connected with the teachers, staff and each other.” Clearly, these District leaders had No financial management skills, and saw the taxpayer as a deep well of endless funding opportunity. There concern was never for the student or the teacher, but rather for the construction of more schools so that the District could enlarge its number of employees and thus enlarge the size of the Union and Union Dues. Now, have your been educated or are you going to remain the fool?

Vista Teacher wrote on Apr 10, 2008 9:29 PM:Reply to: "To Rumor Control and Ted"
(Apr 10, 2008 1:55 PM:)

Although Teachers today are required (i.e. removal of academic freedom) to teach more things, and some things earlier, the quality of the education today is far below that provided during what you reference as the Hey Day. Back then the dropout rates were less than 2% as opposed to the current 30% state wide (50% in LAUSD, and near 60% in VUSD's Hispanic Community). Also, if you've taken a look at the Universities and Colleges around the state you'd know that today more than 70% of freshmen from CA Public Schools are required to take remedial English and Math, and many have little or no understanding of anything scientific. Back in the Hey Day of CA's Education system CA was #1 in the Nation, and the US was #1 in the World. Today CA is #48 in the Nation and the US is #16 in the World. Another frightening statistic is that more than 60% of all Graduate Students in the US are foreign students, as US Students don't have the grades needed to enter graduate school. Furthermore, more than 80% of all professors in the fields of science and math must be hired from outside the Country as again the pool of qualified Americans is too small to meet the demand. Maybe teachers today are good, but the lack of academic freedom is prohibiting them from teaching what needs to be taught! Maybe their hands have been tied by the bureaucrats and do-gooders trying to make one-size fit all!
(Note: Statistics are from the CA Educator Magazine published by the CTA)

To Floyd wrote on Apr 10, 2008 9:32 PM:They are all "Certificated" employees and thus members of the VTA. Therefore, they have a teaching certificate and in theory could teach. But, you are right in that they are overhead.

To fooled no more wrote on Apr 10, 2008 10:04 PM:So, what you are saying is that you don't like people who handle the public's money responsibly? Rather, you'd prefer that when it comes to education those in charge of the money spend it any way they feel, even if it does not improve the quality of education. OK, now I get it!

Note to fooled no more wrote on Apr 11, 2008 12:13 AM:Censorship of comments concerning the work of publicly elected officials while in their official capacity is prohibited by the 1st amendment, and is often used by newspapers to justify their own editorials. However, when you begin to comment on the personal lives of these individuals, especially when said area of insult does not directly apply to their performance in public office, you are treading on thin ice. NCT's editing of such material is however their right as a private corporation. Even if it should call into question their own declairation of 1st Amendment Rights!

foolednomore wrote on Apr 11, 2008 6:14 PM:Comment censor, what was wrong with my last post? I answered another post. There was no insult. There was not even the sarcasm of the pro Guffanti/Gibson group. Are you really biased? Or are you being intimidated by the G/G group? Do they call en masse and complain if a critical post is allowed? Come on what is the story behind your censorship? Is there an appeal process for your unequal enforcement of posting etiquette?

foolednomore wrote on Apr 11, 2008 6:16 PM:Here is my original post again. Paragraph by paragraph. Maybe comment censor will let some part of it through.

A “screen-nameless” person posted on this board at 8:55 PM on April 10. He called himself “To foolednomore.” He attempted to defend the absurd statement found in a post at 8:04 PM on April 9 which was: "Guffanti has built more school in VUSD while sitting on the board than any other Board member past or present."

foolednomore wrote on Apr 11, 2008 6:22 PM:Screen-nameless of April 10 makes a poor attempt to defend Guffanti's abysmal record “building” schools. Nameless asserts that VUSD could build schools without passing a bond with the apparent implication that Guffanti’s lack of support did not matter. Nameless says: “Simple the State passes a bond like Prop 1A passed back in 2000, and the District applies for matching funds out of both the general fund and developers' fees”

This statement is wrong on so many levels.

First Prop 1A in March of 2000 had to do with Indian Gambling not state school bonds. Google it yourself. See which side of this argument uses correct information and which side does not.

foolednomore wrote on Apr 11, 2008 6:24 PM:Second he says “the state passes a bond”. Are state bonds passed at every election? Is there a large amount of state construction money sitting around waiting to be applied for? How does a bond get passed? Don’t people need to support the bond? Don’t supporters need to try to convince others to also support the state bond? Can any supporter of Guffanti document one time that he has supported a state or local bond?

foolednomore wrote on Apr 11, 2008 6:28 PM:
When my wife and I on numerous occasions have been at the pro-bond phone banks, we saw many school board members and school board candidates. Every time someone of significance showed up to help there was always an excited buzz among the volunteers. Not once did we hear about Guffanti (or Gibson for that matter) doing anything to help. Again I ask can any Guffanti supporter document one time that Guffanti has supported by written or oral statement the passage of any public school bond at any level of government?

foolednomore wrote on Apr 11, 2008 6:29 PM:Has Guffanti ever indicated he personally voted for any state or local school construction bond?

foolednomore wrote on Apr 11, 2008 6:30 PM:Assuming a state bond passes, without a district coming up with its own money “matching funds” the state will not provide any assistance to a district. Matching funds taken from the General Fund mean less money used to buy textbooks, supplies for the classroom and pay for the running of the district.

I know of no school district that has more money then it needs in its General Fund. Lack of money in the General Fund of a district is always the great limiter on what can be accomplished. Which textbook would “nameless” like VUSD to give up to find “matching funds” for new schools?

foolednomore wrote on Apr 11, 2008 6:32 PM:Fourth misleading part of that statement is the reference to “developer fees” Can nameless tell us one time that Guffanti has supported developer fees? Has he ever supported increasing developer fees even to keep up with the value of the fees lost to inflation?

foolednomore wrote on Apr 11, 2008 6:37 PM:Without General Fund money being available or developer fees where does the money come from to match state bond money? Remember matching fees are in MILLONS of dollars. Are there enough developer fees from new home construction in Vista to match funds for even one new school let alone the at least six built already with Prop O funds?

foolednomore wrote on Apr 11, 2008 6:40 PM:Screen nameless also says “They can also barrow (sic) small amounts to make up some of the difference.” The borrowing he is referring to is something with the misleading acronym of COPS. Cops stands for Certificates of Participation, it is a tool used to borrow against the General Fund. The money must be paid back from the General Fund of the district. Less money in the General fund means less money to educate our children. It also means “plus interest.” Not only is the borrowed money taken out of the General Fund (over a number of years) but the interest is as well. For many years after a COPS is used by a school board a district’s General Fund has less money due to the drain from COPS which gets FIRST PRIORITY over all other General Fund spending.

To fooled no more wrote on Apr 12, 2008 2:52 PM:So I got the Prop #, or the year of passage wrong. Either way, there was money from a state wide bond available that VUSD refused to apply for. Using your logic it would have to be the Majority, and not G&G who were against building schols, since they rufused to apply for these funds. They did finally apply for the Hardship Funds that were used for the completion of Madison Middle School. But, had they acted earlier they could have obtained those funds earlier and completed much more. Also, they never applied for ANY Modernization Funds (80/20). With the money on the Coffers at the end of the 1990's there was enough to build out plenty of schools. True, today those funds are no longer available, since the Board Majority squandered them away years ago. However, if VUSD had planned properly over the years, raised the Developer Fees to their Maximum and kept them there (it would not take G&G to do this, only a 3 person majority is required for raising these fees. So, even if G$G had been against them, the failure of the trio to make the attempt shows them too to be against building schools – using your logic), they could have built many schools over time and not faced the serious overcrowding they did in the late 90's and early 2000's. And yes, COPS have been used in the past, and could have been used in the late 90's, but were not considered. It was not G&G who opposed these solutions; it was the Sr. Administration, backed by the Union Trio. They all wanted a Bond and a Major Building Program.

To fooled no more wrote on Apr 12, 2008 3:04 PM:School Districts need now more than ever to show responsibility to the taxpayer. Squandering funds frivolously as CA Districts have done for many years has hurt not only the districts' reputations, but the children they are supposed to be teaching. G&G have for years been calling on VUSD to show the public what they are getting for their money. Requiring responsibility is NOT being against Education, against Teachers, or against Building Schools. Rather, it is expecting people to follow the laws when putting contracts out to bid; Following the laws when doing EIRs; and considering all options before spending wildly! AS I stated before, we could have enlarged our schools to accommodate the children we had in our schools many years ago. But, the Majority and Sr. Administration was against the options available, even when G&G presented them (and yes they did do exactly that - I was there). So, why should someone support the passage of a bond when there are other options that have not been considered? And, how can asking for these options to be considered be called anti-education? Being against a bond when other options are available is being responsive to your electorate and the general public, and is the ethical thing to do. It took a bond failing for VUSD to finally consider the Hardship Funds, even though they qualified before that. But, by the time they filed for those funds they were only able to get enough for Madison before LAUSD sued the state for teh remainder of those funds. So, who was at fault for this delay? Shouldn't you be against that person and calling on that person to step down? Yes, he too is still on the Board today.

To Foolednomore wrote on Apr 12, 2008 3:08 PM:Had COPS been used in the early to mid 1990s to build much needed schools back then, they could have been paid for by now. And we could have had our 3rd High School. Yes, I know how COPS work, and how they could have been applied. I also know that the use of them would have been very minimal as we had a good reserve in the Developer Fees fund. But, today all these areas of funding are broke, as is the District. It was not the minority who caused these failures in the Financial arena of the District.

Samuel to Foolednomore wrote on Apr 12, 2008 3:10 PM:It is obvious that you have formed a different opinion about Dr. Guffanti and Mr. Gibson than most of us have. If you will take your own advice and check the data you will find that in 2004 Dr. Guffanti received more votes than any other candidate did. And, in 2006 Mr. Gibson also was the top vote recipient. Why did this happen? In my opinion the taxpayers are paying attention to which Trustees have consistently voted against the waste of THEIR funds and are rewarding them with their support. If you will research their voting records you will find that their votes reflected their belief that the District did not have enough money to complete the construction program that was promised to the taxpayers. This is why Mr. Gibson included the clause in Resolution 02-29 regarding applying proceeds from the disposal of surplus property to reduce the bond debt. They both knew before Prop O went to the voters that there would not be enough money. They continued their efforts to protect the taxpayers and expedite the relief of the overcrowding at the two high schools by consistently asking for a cost comparison between the Melrose and Lincoln locations for the high schools but their requests were always denied by the three person Board majority. Also, both Trustees have consistently voted in favor of programs to improve the academic standards of the District. I know that Mr. Gibson was the driving force in changing to English Immersion instead of the failing bi-lingual curriculum that the VTA supports. We learned recently that the Board’s vote to end bi-lingual instruction has been ignored by some teachers. No, Mr. or Mrs. Foolednomore, in my opinion because of the current national economic situation the taxpayers aren’t buying the same old rhetoric that used to work in the past. To their credit they are looking at the facts and ignoring the innuendoes and half-truths.

Prop 1A wrote on Apr 12, 2008 3:18 PM:The prop 1A being spoken of was for $9.2 billion and passed in 1998. VUSD used Hardship Funding out of this Prop to Complete Madison, only after they failed to pass a local Bond in 2000. David Hubbard was quoted many times in the NCT as being against the application for Hardship Funds. Other than $30 Million for Madison, VUSD did not apply for any of the available funds contained in Prop 1A, even though they were eligible. So, had VUSD applied for Modernization Funds back in 1998 to build out their older schools, VUSD could have ended MTYR before 2000. They could have also applied for the Hardship Funds to complete Madison as early as 1998, and also applied for those same funds for building the 3rd High School. Funny thing about Hardship Funds is that you have to have your Builders Fees at Maximum, and your Building Reserve at Minimum. VUSD had to do some very quick spending of their Building Reserve to get their money for Madison, as this Fund had been growing over the years in anticipation of passing a Bond and using them together to get the building done. But, the squandering of these funds is part of the reason why VUSD misjudged the real costs for the projects listed on Prop. O.

teacher4truth wrote on Apr 12, 2008 6:08 PM:TO REARDON:

I will say it again: THE CBEST IS NO LONGER "THE TEST" IT IS THE CSET, WITH AN ADDITIONAL WRITING SECTION IF YOU CHOOSE TO SKIP THE CBEST. You make all these negative comments and claim to have to have so many "facts", but you are SERIOUSLY misinformed on many things!

according to what? wrote on Apr 13, 2008 11:19 AM:What national standards based test are people using to calculate how CA students rank compared to students of other states? From what I know, each state uses their own test. Some tests are not as challenging as CA's test. Gee, I wonder why...

Vista Watchdog wrote on Apr 13, 2008 9:12 PM:Time for an old-timer to chime in:
One Major reason Prop O has been depleted without completing all the projects is actually alluded to by foolednomore. You see, the last State Wide School bond to pass was in 1998 (Prop 1A). Shortly after that bond passed there were many Local Bonds in 2000 that failed. So, during a Special Election Prop 39 was placed on the ballot lowering the threshold for School Bond Passage to 55%. District after District around CA passed local Bonds immediately following the passage of Prop 39, and no need for a State Wide Bond was seen to exist. So, Prop O was calculated based on the belief that there would be a State Wide Bond passed that could then be used to augment Prop O. Of course, the money never arrived. When you really delve into the funding of Building Schools you find that the Teachers' Union did no service by pushing for Prop 39! In fact, it has hurt far more than it has helped. Now for the real question to foolednomore: "How did schools get built before CA began to pass School Bonds back in the 1960's?" By the way, how long have you been living in CA, or VUSD for that matter? Shouldn't those coming in and causing the overcrowding be required to pay for the Impact they are having on the system? Isn't that part of the EIR required by all builders building new houses/apartments in the area? So, why don't we require these builders to foot the full costs of their impacts upon local services, including schools? Why do we continue to expect those that are already here to have to pay, and pay, and pay, every time someone wants to move in? I'm not against them coming; I just want them to pay for what I have had to pay for. Maybe they should have to buy-in to the infrastructure already in place, as well as pay for the impact they are having on it.