IT IS NOT COMMON FOR AN ARTICLE TO APPEAR THAT VALIDATES WHAT A TEACHER SAYS. WE HOPE THAT someday EVERYTHING ON OUR SITE WILL BE VALIDATED REGULARLY. WE ARE HOPING THAT THE MEDIA REALIZES THAT THEIR AVOIDANCE OF PUBLISHING ARTICLES ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN OUR SCHOOLS IS CONTRIBUTING TO THE DISMAL EDUCATION'S AVAILABLE TO OUR CHILDREN. READ THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE TO CONFIRM THAT DR NOLTE SPEAKS ACCURATELY ABOUT HER READING PROGRAM. OF COURSE ANY TEACHER WHO POINTED OUT THE WORTHLESSNESS OF THIS PROGRAM WOULD BE HARASSED, SINCE THE ADMINISTRATORS WERE HOPING NOT TO HAVE THE TRUE NATURE OF THEIR PROGRAM DISCOVERED. NAPTA

San Diego City Schools (SDCS) Admits It Misled the Public

On February 20, 2004, the Bersin Administration finally admitted in writing to its own Board of Education and principals that the so-called “Blueprint” was nothing more than a “mechanism for harnessing, organizing, and directing resources to support a systemwide focus on instructional improvement initiatives” aka “how to circumvent California State Academic Standards.”

In other words, the “Blueprint” has never really been about educational reform; it’s never really been about children. The so-called “Blueprint For Student Success” has only been about funding the bureaucrats!

Labeled a “Memorandum” and signed by Alan Bersin and Mary Hopper (Chief Academic Officer), this letter focused on “Instructional Improvement Strategies 2004-2005.” In actuality it was a “coversheet” to yet another document dated February 23, 2004, and entitled “Site-Based Budgeting: Tentative Allocations of Discretionary Restricted and Unrestricted Funds 2004-2005, Information Packet for Principals.”

It is this second document that will now become the new “marching orders” for how school sites may and may not use monies the district claims it will make available in the upcoming school year (2004-2005). In other words, these two documents are really the nucleus of “Blueprint II.”

Do you see any mention of children or educational reform?

The cornerstone of these two documents is the insistence by this administration that “peer coaches”, “staff developers”, as well as “site literacy and math administrators” remain on the payroll, despite the so-called current budget crisis. With 186 schools under the control of SDCS, it’s reasonable to assume several school sites will “require” more than just one “peer coach” or “literacy administrator. It’s also reasonable to extrapolate that this program will now cost San Diego city classrooms $12,000,000 (200 X $60,000), not counting overhead and retirement costs, which could easily add another $1-2 million to the total unjustified costs of “Blueprint II”.

Question: Why does SDCS need to spend $12-14 million for administrators and so-called “peer coaches” in a time of budget shortfall, especially when the state of California already has its own educational “Blueprint” in place, aka California State Academic Content Standards. These state standards are what all students will eventually be tested against through the high school exit exam. Why should SDCS spend $12-14 million trying to circumvent those very same state standards?

Top

READING PROGRAM