In recent weeks there has been a lot of community discussion around whether the district should save or phase out a general education program at Dr. William R. Cobb Elementary School in order to expand a Montessori program at the school (Background is here, here and here). Of course, with the January 8 enrollment deadline approaching, the uncertainty surrounding both programs at this school has created concerns that families who would otherwise request GE or to continue at Montessori for K will be scared away from doing so. In response to my request for guidance for families considering enrolling in either Cobb GE or Cobb Montessori, the Educational Placement Center has created a FAQ:

When will SFUSD make decisions about whether the General Education and Montessori programs will be available next year and their locations? The Board of Education plans to discuss this topic at a general public meeting on January 12 in order to reach a decision about where each program will be placed. 
What happens if I put one of these programs on my application and SFUSD decides to end the program or change the location?  Will I be able to change my application? If one of the Cobb programs is eliminated or re-located in January, the Educational Placement Center will contact the families affected by mail and telephone to inform them and to clarify their options.   Those families will have an opportunity to amend or revise their school or program choices on the enrollment applications prior to conducting the Round 1 assignments so families will not lose the opportunity to fully participate in the Round 1 assignment lottery. 
Must my child have been schooled in a Montessori program previously in order to attend the SFUSD Montessori program? The program is especially designed for multi-aged classrooms starting with children at ages 3 and 4.  Entry at an older age is possible for a few students if there are spaces but this is very limited. The Cobb pre-K Montessori program is reserved for 60% of students who are low-income.  District administrators are in conversation with Montessori experts to determine if there is a way to phase in more new students to the program after pre-school. 
Why didn’t the district resolve these issues earlier? Last winter, it was our understanding that Cobb school community members were united in their desire to have the Montessori program expand, we have since learned that this is not the case and are in the process of carefully weighing other options.

I don’t understand why the Board of Education would ever call an emergency public meeting of the Manhasset School Board to address allegations that they knowingly violated the Taylor Law in 2005.  Announcing an 8PM meeting with 9 hours notice to address issues from 2005 smacks of desperation.  Their attempt at damage control caused the BOE to sink deeper into the quicksand of incompetence, arrogance and malfeasance.  The prepared statement read by Cindy Cardinal, a labor attorney and the Board President, was reminiscent of Bill Clinton 1998.  Her response to the allegation was, “No”.  That’s it.  She was asked to elaborate on her statement, “I also believed that the decision to outsource would withstand a potential legal challenge and that we would ultimately prevail in court.” The question from the audience was, “Why was the public not informed that a legal challenge even existed and the legal expenses could reduce or negate the cost savings?  And why was it not disclosed that voting for Proposition No. 3 involved firing the MESPA union drivers without bargaining to impasse?”  Her response was that she was unaware of any litigation issues and anyone can sue you for anything.  That response is curious given the contents of the original Improper Practice Charge filed by Conrad Lower on behalf of MESPA on July 15, 2005.  On page 4 of that document, item 28 provides details on the 12 meetings held with the district between January and April 2005 (1/21/2005, 2/10/2005, 2/11/2005, 2/16/2005, 2/18/2005, 3/2/2005, 3/7/2005, 3/9/2005, 3/31/2005, 4/5/2005, 4/13/2005 and 4/20/2005.  The vote to outsource was held in May 2005.  On page 5 of the Improper Practice Charge, item 29, Conrad Lower (MESPA) expressed to Mr. Mountanos (Ingerman Smith) on several occasions before the District’s decision to subcontract that the position of MESPA was that the District was required to negotiate the decision to subcontract, and that any decision to subcontract without bargaining to impasse would violate the act.  In sections 36 and 37, Conrad Lower references the Taylor Law.  It does not seem reasonable that over the course of twelve meetings with Conrad Lower the union suing and the Taylor Law never came up?  The Improper Practice Charge seems to contradict Cindy Cardinal’s claim of no prior knowledge.

Given this new information, I find it curious that the BOE is claiming they had no knowledge of  violating the Taylor Law and they failed to advise the public that Proposition No. 3 had a built in litigation expense that was never disclosed to the public.

Other meeting highlights were Cindy Cardinal refusing to answer questions, using privilege as a shield.  Equally comical was Bill Shine’s sudden onset of hearing loss when a member of the public suggested the BOE file an insurance claim against their Errors and Omissions Policy.

The theme of the night was accountability.  Apparently, accountability is a  word unfamiliar to the Board of Education and the Administration.

Cindy Cardinal elected to BOE 5/15/2003

Larry Belinsky and Aline Khatchadourian elected to BOE 5/18/2004

Transportation Outsourcing Introduced 10/13/2004

Powerpoint presentation on Outsourcing by SPLC 10/13/2004

MESPA met with Administration in 2005 on  1/21, 2/10, 2/11, 2/16, 2/18

MESPA met with Administration in 2005 on 3/2, 3/7, 3/9, 3/31, 4/5

William Shine named interim Superintendent 4/11/2005

MESPA met with Administration 4/13/2005, 4/20/2005

Transportation Outsourcing Information 5/12/2005

Huntington Coach Presentation

Huntington Coach Responds to Residents

Faq

Huntington Coach, hiring practices

Board Column on Outsourcing

Dr. Gavin Transportation Presentation

Transportation Bids

William Shine in Manhasset Press Promoting Outsourcing 5/13/2005

Ballot Items for 5/17/2005

Pat Aitken elected to BOE 5/17/2005

Proposition No. 3 – Bus Outsourcing Passes 5/17/2005

“Save Manhasset Buses” Attempts to Force a Re-Vote on Bus Outsourcing 6/14/2005

MESPA Improper Practice Charge 7/15/2005

District Loses lawsuit Brought by Baumann Bus Company 8/3/2005

Huntington Bid Anulled, Forced by Judge to Reopen Bidding 8/3/2005

Bus Outsourcing Savings Lower by $212K due to Baumann Settlement 8/18/2005

Transportation Guide 2005/2006 9/1/2005

Cindy Cardinal re-elected, Carlo Prinzo elected to BOE 5/16/2006

PERB Decision of Administrative Law Judge 10/16/2006

Board of Education Statement Regarding Transportation Outsourcing Litigation 10/25/2006

Charles Cardillo becomes Superintendent 11/08/2005

Q&A/Information Regarding Outsourcing Litigation 12/18/2006

Larry Belinsky and Aline Khatchadourian re-elected to BOE 5/15/2007

Board Reaches Accord with 1 MESPA Employee 1/31/2008

New York State Appellate Court Finds PERB Order Unreasonable 4/28/2009

New York State Appellate Decision 4/28/2009

Board Statement Denying Violation of Taylor Law 12/14/2009

]]> http://evwg.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/wine-tasting-weekend-preview-for-alphabet-city-wine-co-december-11th-2009/ Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:45:00 +0000 evwgnyc http://evwg.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/wine-tasting-weekend-preview-for-alphabet-city-wine-co-december-11th-2009/

It’s cold out there and it is cozy at our shop. COme on in tonight and warm up with some great wines from Long island:

Today, KQED Public Radio’s highly-respected Forum program did a segment on the Cobb Elementary GE-Montessori clash. I had the privilege of being a guest on the program, along with Chronicle reporter Jill Tucker and several parents from each program: Listen here .

It was an interesting experience and I think the discussion was substantive; touching on the many facets of this complex issue.

I received this email tonight, from a parent who wasn’t able to speak at Tuesday night’s board meeting (the video of the meeting is here; the CAC for Special Education item starts about two hours in).  I think it’s worth posting here (with the parent’s permission, and edits to keep it anonymous), because it sums up where we aren’t (and need to be) in special education:

I am the parent of two children at ______ Elementary and have been involved in Special Ed either through Resource or Speech or both for the last eight years.  My children have always been in general ed with a push out/pull in model and are examples of the 80% of  Special Ed children who are invisible on the playgrounds around the district.

Even though children like mine comprise 80% of the Special Ed population they comprise very little of the conversation about meeting the needs of Special Ed children.  My children go to one of the premier  elementary schools in the district but I would argue that the RSP services rank along with probably the most mediocre.  I like many parents in this district have had to go outside of the district to get proper remediation for my  children. 

My youngest child has a Specific Learning Disability and has been referred by Resource at my school to Slingerland Summer school for the last two summers yet she has never seen this method used in her resource work.  Why would we recommend an intervention that they (the professionals) at the district do not practice ourselves?  I think the answer is that the resource teacher knows what the child needs but is not trained to work with the child in the needed methodology. Between 4 and 6 kids every year from [school] get referred to Slingerland every summer ( 3 hours a day for six weeks at a cost of between $1000-$2000 per kid–and this is inexpensive for this type of work–$90 per hour is going rate) yet we do not have the RSP teacher trained in the method for use year round with all her clients.

 That we do not have a trained reading specialist available to each site seems almost criminal as one in five children nationwide experience some level of difficulty in acquiring reading skills.  It should not be by sheer accident of birth that a child is born into a family that can afford to pay for proper remediation so the child has the opportunity to learn to read.  All children with normal cognitive abilities can be taught to read given the attention  and most importantly proper teaching methodologies.

This brings me to the Board’s response to the CAC Report last night.  I felt in listening to the interaction between the Board and the Committee representatives that the commissioners . . .  lacked awareness in the issues facing the CAC committee and parents of disabled children in the district.  Please note:

• There were comments made about the level of outreach and representation that the committee makes to African American and Latino Families.  The committee is comprised of volunteers with no funding (even for photocopies!) to make outreach to a population that due to “confidentiality” issues are isolated. I am not a member of the CAC but attend meetings regularly ( as I noted I have had kids in Spec Ed for 8 yrs and was not aware of the committee until last year or PAC for that matter!) and I would invite [Commissioners] to take the time to attend a meeting to see the diversity and meet the parents.  My name is [not Latino] and my children are Latina–representative of the diversity and mixed heritage of families in our city–do not judge by surname or the skin color of the parent representing the child.
• The issue is probably less of race than of resources.  If African American and Latino families are over represented in Special Ed, I would argue that they are also the least able to pay for the expensive remediation or services needed to keep their kids out of Special Ed. For the 80% of Special Ed  kids  who are in resource (also over represented by these groups) a really hard look at how we are implementing RTI in grades K-2 and if these K-2 teachers are trained to spot and act on early signs of at risk for reading failure would be of incredible value to those students (frankly  of life changing value).  This does not even speak to the at risk kids who are unidentified in our district…low third grade reading scores speak for them….
• I would argue that critique of CAC representation should be more about disability than race.  A better representation would be well rounded in having experience in the programs for Special Ed rather than focusing on race.  I have no experience with Inclusion or Special Day classes and would not be able to speak on that experience…regardless of race you need representation based on exposure to programs.

For all the talk about “Social Justice” last night I can only say that I felt that the basic needs of the children are being left out of the conversation.  I believe that what every parent wants in this district (and hopes they get for their tax dollars) is a system that gives every child the same opportunity to a good education to prepare themselves for their responsibilities as adults in the community.  This free education should be available to every child regardless of race, economic status or disability.  We need to see that we do not stray from that path.

Just as the euro looked as though it was showing some signs of rebounding following the battering it received in the wake of the downgrade of Greece’s credit ratings, S&P placed Spain on credit watch negative from neutral, which helped drag EUR/USD all the way down again. Expect more to come as sovereign risk concerns / fiscal deficit remain in focus. EUR/USD was helped by the usual sovereign demand, preventing a test of technical support around 1.4625 but another push lower is likely over the short term.

Despite a tough budget from Ireland yesterday, it alongside the likes of Latvia, Ireland, Hungary and Portugal will remain on the ratings agencies’ hit lists. Eurozone periphery bond spreads have widened sharply against bunds but even larger countries in Europe such as Italy have seen an increase in funding costs. Added to these concerns are the lingering uncertainties about Dubai as reflected in the continued rise in CDS.

In contrast, growth worries are receding quickly in Australia where another robust jobs report was released. Employment rose 31.2k in November, with an upward revision to the previous month, to 27.2k from 24.5k initially. The details looked good too, with much of the jobs increase coming from full time hires (30.8k). The jobless rate fell to 5.7% compared to 5.8% in October. Taken together with the hawkish slant to the RBNZ statement, the data will help keep the AUD and NZD resilient to any sell off in risk trades.

The decision by the RBNZ to leave interest rates unchanged at 2.5% came as no surprise. However, Governor Bollard did shift away from the earlier pledge not to hike interest rates until H2 10 and stated that a hike could come around the middle of 2010. The RBNZ also upgraded its growth forecasts. A rate hike could come even earlier in my view, a factor likely to keep the NZD well supported.

Markets will digest more interest rate decisions today, in the UK and Switzerland. No change is likely from both the BoE and SNB but the issue of QE will remain at the forefront, especially given the split decision by the BoE MPC at the last meeting. As for the SNB the usual concerns about CHF strength are likely to be expressed but the tone of the SNB’s comments are likely to remain dovish, expressing little urgency to begin implementing an exit strategy.

The US data slate is light but does include weekly jobless claims and October trade data. There will be more interest than usual on the claims data given the surprise in last week’s payrolls report. Claims have been on an improving trend declining at a more rapid pace than previous recessions and markets will eye the numbers to determine whether they point to further improvement in payrolls or whether they suggest the November data was merely an aberration.

The Board of  Education and school administration continue to display their arrogance and incompetence .   The PERB order was handed down July 23, 2009, yet the BOE and the administration waited three months before they took any type of action.  To-date the BOE has failed to mail any information on Proposition No. 1 to Manhasset residents as they have done every other time in the past (see previous notices from 2005).  Now with 6 days before the vote , the BOE is claiming they don’t have time to do a thorough financial analysis of insourcing vs. outsourcing and present their findings to the public.  Instead the public is presented with an ill-prepared confusing 15 page slide show which is nothing more than rehashed past budget numbers.  It wasn’t until December 3, 2009 that the public learned from the district hired transportation expert that school buses had a useful life of 15 years.  That same night were made aware the $850K required to fix the bus garage was merely a band-aid and the real number was actually closer to $6M.  And just so we are clear, this information was not in any BOE presentation, it came out during a Q & A session.  How are taxpayers going to make an informed decision when the BOE and the administration is willfully hiding information and only offering it up under direct questioning?  They have not fulfilled their duties as Board members and should immediately resign.  The Board can spend $600K on a law firm to defend its ridiculous actions, it can hire a transportation consultant, yet it can’t hire someone to crunch the numbers?  I’m not one for conspiracy theory, but,  if  I didn’t know better I would say the BOE is trying to push this vote through without the public’s knowledge.  For shame.

Consider some of these possible options:

• Lease buses rather than buy
• don’t spend $850K on temporarily renovating the bus garage
  • share a garage with another district
  • outsource the repair work
  • lease a bay from a private company
• 50 drivers and 56 buses
  • do we need 6 extra brand new buses in a brand new fleet as spares
  • can we buy those spare buses over time rather than day one
  • is it cheaper to lease or rent spare buses from private companies as needed

Why have none of these options been explored and shared with the public?  Where is the public outrage at this BOE culture of ignorance, incompetence and waste.  Queue the clown music, the Board is getting ready to blindly waste more taxpayer money without considering and analyzing any alternatives.  doot-doot doodle-oodle oot doot do do…

No financial model is perfect. And this one is no exception. The data was provided by the Manhasset Board of Education and the Manhasset School District Administration. The model attempts to tackle several issues: long-term cost of owning and maintaining buses, accruing for new bus purchases in 15 years, rising wage and benefit costs, historical run rates on costs, short-term and long-term garage renovations. The model also attempts to take into account past ($600K) and future litigation expense, union back wages and interest ($8 – 16M), and reported costs savings from outsourcing ($6M). The assumptions in the model are the most conservative approaches possible. The $2.5 million MESPA payment under outsourcing is projected in every year. An accrual of $1.7M for 5 years was added to purchase buses in 2024 for $8M. The $8M price tag for buses was calculated by growing $5.4M (current bus purchase) by 3% annually for 15 years, 563K is $8M divided by 15. The BOE transportation expert stated that it would take $6M to properly renovate the garage and that $850K was a short-term solution. It was assumed that in 2 years the garage renovations would be necessary and that a 10 year bond would be issued to fund the renovation. Therefore, debt service at 4.4% was added to the model.

15 Year Projections
15 Year raw numbers PV/FV
15 Year Graph Future Value Comparison
15 Year Graph Net Present Value Comparison

Although imperfect, this model still serves a valid purpose. It is our best guess using the information provided by the BOE. It allows tax payers to consider all of the potential future costs, assign values to them and provides a basis for an informed decision.

Tonight’s meeting was another long one . . . items get backed up late in the year because of meeting cancellations during the holidays; we had our long-scheduled report from the CAC for Special Education, a great discusion about the group’s longstanding recommendations to the district, and a presentation from Special Education director Clare Davies about inclusive practices in the school district (as a way of commemorating National Inclusive Schools Week). It was gratifying to hear Commissioners request that the Superintendent and staff finally answer the long list of recommendations the CAC has been making for as long as I’ve been paying attention. We need to close the loop – either commit to implementing recommendations, describing how and when we’re going to get there, or definitively say we’re not going to implement particular recommendations, and describe why.

Still, I’m sorry to say that the important discussions of special education and inclusive schools were overshadowed by the big topic of the night: the continuing turmoil at Cobb Elementary School over the fate of the Montessori and General Education programs. Supporters of continuing a General Education (GE) program at Cobb mobilized again to show the school board how strongly they feel about keeping Cobb the way it is; there was also a contingent of families from the Montessori program. GE supporters wore orange stickers; Montessori supporters wore yellow baseball hats with red stickers (“Oh no!” one board member whispered to me when she saw the color-differentiated groupings. “This is supposed to be one school!”).

For the most part, comments were respectful, but anger definitely spilled over. It’s  clear that the GE supporters feel disrespected; and that they view the Montessori program as an alien presence rather than a welcoming or workable option for their students. From the Montessori side, there is clearly bewilderment at the backlash — the Montessori supporters view their program as so good and so necessary that it’s hard for them to understand that the GE families and staff view them as insensitive interlopers.

I don’t subscribe to that view, and I stand by what I told the Chronicle this week: public Montessori in San Francisco was conceived with the best of intentions – to offer a high-quality, high-impact curriculum that has a good track record with a African-American students in other urban districts AND represents a significant opportunity to increase diversity at a racially-isolated site. But I acknowledge that the community outreach and inclusiveness of the Montessori program at Cobb has been deeply flawed — and I’m not sure there is a way to go back and do it over, because of all the anger, bitterness and misinformation swirling around on all sides.

So here are our options, as I see them:

• Continue with the plan that was originally approved by the district’s Program Placement Committee last spring, which calls for gradually phasing out GE at Cobb and gradually expanding Montessori to encompass Pre-K through 5th grades. I need to be clear about several important aspects of this option: first, NO child currently enrolled in Cobb GE would be displaced from his or her school – so today’s kindergarteners in Cobb’s GE classrooms would be able to continue on at the school through the 5th grade. Second, opportunities to transfer IN to Montessori would be limited after the primary grades, and the expectation is (based on the existing waiting list for Pre-K and K Montessori at Cobb) that space would be very limited anyway. So children who are currently at Cobb would probably not be able to transition to Montessori after Kindergarten, but their younger siblings could be given priority in the program for Pre-K or K. This option would also require GE teachers at Cobb to either become Montessori-certified (a rigorous, expensive and time-consuming process), or gradually be consolidated out of Cobb to find openings at other schools, based on their seniority. (Some have questioned whether an all-Montessori Cobb would continue as an inclusion school, and I have been assured in the past that inclusion and Montessori fit together beautifully; in addition I would strongly argue in favor of retaining the Slingerland-themed Special Day Class at the school, with the caveat that the SDC students be fully integrated into the school community and school events).
• Figure out a way to accommodate both programs at the school, something both sides tell me is impossible because of space needs and overall rancor between the two groups.
• Move Montessori to some other site, at an as-yet unknown cost to the school district and leaving Cobb back where it was before the Montessori program was placed there: an underenrolled and racially-isolated program struggling to fill its classrooms. It’s also important to be honest about Cobb’s track record in student achievement: African-American students at the school have generally outperformed the district-wide average for African-American achievement, but the school has lagged in moving African-American students from basic to proficient , compared to the same measurement for all students at the school and African-American students district-wide. It has an API of 700 (in 2008-09 there was a 30-point drop after several consecutive years of API gains) and the school is in Year 2 of Program Improvement.
• Move Cobb’s GE students and teachers to another site. This could keep them together as a group but would no doubt introduce great inconvenience, hardship and stress to families that are already struggling.
• Close the Montessori program because we can’t convince African-American families that it is a high-quality option with a good track record for their children and because we believe it’s not equitable to put resources into programs that attract middle- and upper-middle class families of any race (which Montessori undoubtedly does, even if Maria Montessori never intended to build an “elite” educational model). I call this the “here we go again” option, and in my opinion, going for it is like throwing in the towel on the whole idea of innovation in this district.
• A fifth option? I’m open to ideas.

The administration is expected to come back to us with a recommendation in January, and at that time we’ll have a full discussion of the various options. Until then, I’m left feeling

• Sad – because it feels like the road to hell is paved with good intentions; 
• Angry - because I feel there has been manipulation and bad behavior on both sides, making a bad situation much worse; and
• Frustrated - because there are no good choices here. I remain convinced that this district should continue to implement a public Montessori program, but it’s crazy-making that we are having these basic discussions about community engagement that should have been the starting point three years ago.

Other actions from tonight:

• The Board unanimously passed a resolution requiring all teachers to obtain appropriate certification to teach English Learners by next year;
• We unanimously passed a resolution (authored by yours truly) supporting The New Day For Learning initiative in our district and calling for the Initiative Director to put together a plan for expanding community schools in our district;
• We unanimously passed a resolution in support of the 2010 Census — which is key for California and for San Francisco County, both historically undercounted areas;
• We also unanimously passed legislative principles for the Board, which also clarify the role of the Rules, Policy and Legislation Committee in adhering to those principles when it takes positions on legislation on behalf of the entire Board of Education.

Proposition No. 1 Unanimously approved by the Board of Education. While this proposition resulted from the PERB order, nothing in the order indicated this course of action or this timeline. See previous post

Manhasset School District Board Minutes October 22, 2009 (Prop. 1 – pg 3, item 2)

Proposition No. 1 (Bus and Equipment Purchase)
VOTE: Ms. Cardinal, Mr. Prinzo, Ms. Aitken, Mr. Belinsky, Mrs. Khatchadourian – YES
MOTION APPROVED 5-0

In the Board of Education public presentations, Dr. Shine, Assistant to the Superintendent, only presented order number 4 from the PERB Order.

Below are all 6 orders:

1. Cease and desist, no more outsourcing of MESPA jobs
2. Restore all outsourced transportation to MESPA
3. Reinstate unit members with differential back wages and benefits plus 9% interest
4. In the event taxpayers disapprove the bus purchase, provide comparable work or pay displaced unit members differential back wages and benefits plus 9% interest, until unit work becomes available.
5. If restoring unit members is delayed by outsourced contract obligations, pay differential back wages and benefits plus 9% interest until work is restored
6. Negotiate in good faith

The order is pretty clear,  re-instate jobs, pay unit members back pay and benefits plus 9% interest, negotiate in good faith.  The order does not set a date for compliance or indicate that the BOE should create a ballot proposition.  In this order there is no mention of 18 vs 39 members, the language states, “unit employees”.

No financial model is perfect.  And this one is no exception.  This analysis was prepared by the Manhasset School District Citizens Advisory Committee for Finance. The data was provided by the Manhasset Board of Education and the Manhasset School District Administration. The model attempts to tackle several issues: long-term cost of owning and maintaining buses, accruing for new bus purchases in 15 years, rising wage and benefit costs, historical run rates on costs, short term and long-term garage renovations. The model does not take into account past ($600K) or future litigation expense, union back wages and interest ($8 – 16M), and reported costs savings from outsourcing ($6M). Those numbers add up as follows, Outsourcing cost = cost saving – past litigation – future litigation – back wages – interest on back wages. In addition to what is on the spreadsheet outsourcing year 1 costs = 6M – 600K – ~400K – ~12M – ~2M = -9M. The model attempts to take the most conservative approach possible. The $2.5 million MESPA payment under outsourcing is projected in every year. An accrual of $563K per year was added to purchase buses in 2024 for $8M. The $8M price tag for buses was calculated by growing $5.4M (current bus purchase) by 3% annually for 15 years, 563K is $8M divided by 15. The BOE transportation expert stated that it would take $6M to properly renovate the garage and that $850K was a short-term solution. It was assumed that in 2 years the garage renovations would be necessary and that a 5 year bond would be issued to fund the renovation. Therefore, debt service at 4.4% was added to the model.
10 year financial analysis Manhasset School District Proposition No. 1

Although imperfect, this model still serves a valid purpose.  It is our best guess using the information provided by the BOE. It allows tax payers to consider all of the potential future costs, assign values to them and provides a basis for an informed decision.

Avrete sentito che un emendamento introdotto in Senato alla recente finanziaria prevede la messa in vendita di quei beni confiscati alle mafie che non si riescono a destinare entro 3 o 6 mesi. Un tale sciagurato emendamento rischia di compromettere seriamente quella che in Italia è uno degli strumenti più efficaci per il contrasto (sociale e non) alla criminalità organizzata: la Legge 109/96.
Vi chiediamo dunque di firmare l’appello lanciato da “Libera”, per far sentire ancora una volta la voce di quella società civile che crede nell’antimafia e che ancora (nonostante tutto) crede nei valori dello Stato.

http://www.libera.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/1780

After he attended “Classical High school”, Salvatore (Toto) Patera, graduated to the University of Rome “La Sapienza” in Sociology, Communication and media. During his university years, developed a passion for social research by participating in initiatives and research activities including: Group C.E.I.R.S., Prof. M. Canevacci, (Dissolvenze – Short Film-1997), Prof. D. De Masi (Group Rashomonpixel: “I capi senza tribù. Il caso Undo.net” – 2000). Until 2007, he collaborated regularly with the Chair of Sociology of Tourism, prof. V. Nocifora, Dept. Ri.S.Me.S,  where he graduated (Final Essay published: S. Patera, Salento. Scenari della diversità,Amaltea, Melpignano, 2007) participating in and coordinating various research and intervention projects focused on local development, private social, economy of culture. As a member of the Esopo Group (2002) “L‘organizzazione dell’impresa turistica. Il STL di Montepulciano“; (2004) ” Il Salento e le sue specificità territoriali“; (2005) “Il Stl dei Monti Picentini“; (2006)”Analisi di un sistema turistico in potenza: Il Nord del Molise”. Since 2004, studied  research’ methodologies and techniques and data analysis, attending, among others, courses in “Multivariate statistical analysis package with SPAD 4.5 and SPADT” and “Techniques of content analysis: software LEXICO3 and TALTAC” at the Data Processing Center University “La Sapienza” of Rome. In 2005, under the scientific supervision of prof. N. Stamen and E. Nocifora, conducts research for the Osservatorio Metropolitano Romano.

In the Roman period, he started to be interested in processes of empowerment and cultural co-productions, animating and promoting networks of collaboration on many projects. From 2002 to 2006 is member of IRSEA (Rome) and from 2006 to 2008 runs the Jocanda B&B art (Bed and Breakfast with a Laboratory of Contemporary Art) – www.myspace.com/jocanda. Meanwhile, in academic field, he followed, with a fellow, Master II liv. Bisogni sociali e progettazione dell’abitare (Ateneo Federato Spazio e Società) University “La Sapienza” of Rome. Stage in 2006 at the Municipality of Rome (Mun. XIX) U.O. 4 – Sector Local Sustainable and Participatory Development, he leaded a research with a interdisciplinary team related to the preliminary study for the integral development project for Contratto di Quartiere “Quartaccio-Torresina” Roma.

Also in 2006, he wes selected in an international call to participate in the Workshop of participatory design “Bajo el mismo techo” in La Habana (Cuba). The workshop was directed by Facultad de Arquitectura “ISPJAE” La Habana, Grupo para el Desarrollo Integral de la Capital, Heritage Comunidad Sociedad Civil y Medio Ambiente and Politecnico of Milan. It was produced preliminary study and some projects within the Plan Integral of  Cayo Hueso and Barrio Chino. In publication, an essay of collected writings on the work made into the workshop: (2009) S. Patera, El equivocal de la participation, from a Cuban Diary, in A. Nufrio (eds). Since 2008 is member of the Laboratorio di Cooperazione allo Sviluppo“at the Politecnico di Milano (Di.AP – Faculty of Architecture). The experiences of fieldwork and ethnographic dimension in the study of local processes for Community Empowerment, moving reflection and action on issues of design-evaluation of participation and local development.

Toto Patera, is currently involved as project consultant, with several national and EU funds for social and private stakeholders in the ambit of economy of culture. He imporved this field of study by participating in courses and specialized seminars such as “Introduction to participatory design, IFOC, Bari, 2008,” S-Gis, Sistema de Informacion Territorial (Oficina del Historiador – Havana, Cuba) Università Roma 3, Rome, 2008, 2 courses of “Project Planning”, ITech Incubator – BICLazio – Euro Info Center, Rome, 2007. In 2007 obtained a contract from ISTAT – City of Rome as a detector for investigations EU/SILC-07: Living conditions of families. Also in 2007, he collaborated with Prof. N. Leotta, (UniMiB), for the Soundscape World Project- and as a speaker at the Seminar of Studies “Paesaggi Sonori e progettazione urbana“, organized by Professor Salvatore Colazzo, arrives at the Dept. of Pedagogical, Psychological, Educational Sciences, University of Salento, where he currently works within the interdisciplinary team “Il Connettivo” that arose around the teachings of that teacher. In 2007, gets a supplementary contract teaching in “Pedagogy of New Media and Communication” Faculty of Social, Politics, Territorial Sciences, University of Salento. For a.a. 2008-09 he’s Temporary Professor in “Didattica della Comunicazione e del Lavoro di Gruppo“, University of Salento.

The fertile dialogue between pedagogy and sociology in the frame of the research-intervention approach, results in numerous activities on issues of joint planning and co-evaluation of interventions. Among others: “The collaborative experience of writing a newspaper” (PON Scuola F1) Galatina (Le) 2008, Project Progetto SUD-EST, PON 2000-2006 – Asse III,   (Università del Salento, Accademia di Belle Arti, Conservatorio T. Schipa, Lecce), with a social research on the Balance; CO.IN.FO. (Torino) Social Research entitled “Governance dei servizi: nuove tecnologie dell’informazione e della comunicazione” (GAL – Gargano, Foggia). Carries out regular teaching activities and courses for Master of all levels. Since 2009, is member of Ampiamente (Salentini Trainers Association) and co-founding member of the Company Spin-Off “EspérO (Div Assessment Center) – University of Salento. In 2009 with Salvatore Colazzo published, Verso un’ecologia della partecipazione, Amaltea, Melpignano, 2009.

Before opting for sociology and pedagogy, as tools for co-designers and co-evaluate changes through a new society citizenship, participated actively in the political life of his country, Veglie, co-founded the Sinistra Giovanile in 1996 and became President of Consulta Comunale “Giovani” e “Cultura” in 1997.

Folk’n'roll enthusiast, he plays guitar, harp and, if everything goes well, the violin. He has played with numerous bands and musicians in various exhibitions in Italy (including Final ArezzoWave Basilicata 2007, Emergency 2007, Estate Romana 2005). Between the groups (Mililtia, Allegra Brigada Bodhran, Sjrah, Scijiati Band – sociologisalentini, Terra pi Ciciri, John Goodman Experience. In his young path of writing, he was editor of “Officina” and “La terra dei Ceci”. He has published for AR (Association of Architects, Rome and Prov.) and currently collaborates with the magazines Amaltea and Oikos sostenibile. Patera Toto speaks fluent English and Spanish.

(CFD.net.au – Contract for Difference, Share, Forex, ETFs, Commodities Traders) –

The resources group’s iron ore production rose to 30.1 million tonnes in the three months ended September 30, from 29.8 million tonnes the same period in 2008.

The result was helped by the start of operations at its three pellet plants in Samarco, Brazil, in July.

However, production also was 11 per cent higher from the end of the June quarter of this year, reflecting an improved performance at its Western Australia iron ore operations.

Petroleum production was also stronger, with the group’s total output up 18 per cent to 41.21 million barrels of oil equivalent (boe) from a year ago and up 10 per cent from the end of June.

“Production hit an all time high due to the successful delivery of projects in the deepwater of Gulf of Mexico (in the US) and Western Australia over the past two years,” the company said in a statement on Wednesday

“Operational performance was steady and benefited from the absence of weather related interruptions.

“This was partly offset by natural field decline.”

Crude oil, condensate and natural gas liquids output rose 30 per cent from a year ago and was up 15 per cent quarter-on-quarter to 24.670 million barrels.

Natural gas production was up four per cent from a year ago an up two per cent quarter-on-quarter to 99.24 billion cubic feet.

BHP Billiton said it had noted increasingly positive economic news over the past three month for most economies around the world, particularly commodities hungry China.

“Chinese economic growth continues to be robust on the back of strong domestic focused consumption and infrastructure based stimulus spending,” it added.

“China’s re-stock of commodities is essentially complete and there is now evidence of higher than normal stockpiles across the supply chain.

“We continue to look for Chinese imports to more closely reflect real demand over the remainder of 2009 calendar year.”

BHP Billion also said were signs of stabilisation in developed country economies, in terms of positive data for industrial production and consumer confidence.

“However, unemployment in key developed economies, such as the US, Japan and Europe, continues to lag and may trend higher in the near term,” it said.

“We are starting to see some positive impact of re-stocking of pipelines, particularly in steel making raw materials, after a period where demand essentially disappeared.”

Source: BHP boasts of record iron ore output | Business Breaking News | News.com.au

En este artículo anterior ya os hacíamos un resumen de las modificaciones de la Ley de Tráfico, Circulación de Vehículos a Motor y Seguridad Vial y en el mismo se decía que sería aprobada a primeros de 2010.

Pues bien, con fecha 24 de noviembre de 2009 se ha publicado en el BOE la Ley 18/2009, de 23 de noviembre, por la que se modifica el texto articulado de la Ley sobre Tráfico, Circulación de Vehículos a Motor y Seguridad Vial, aprobado por el Real Decreto Legislativo 339/1990, de 2 de marzo, en materia sancionadora.

En la Disposición final séptima se habla de los plazos de la entrada en vigor que transcribimos textualmente.

Disposición final séptima. Entrada en vigor.

La presente Ley entrará en vigor a los seis meses de su publicación en el «Boletín Oficial del Estado», salvo los artículos 9.bis 2, 59 bis, 77 y 78, que entrarán en vigor en el plazo de 1 año, y los efectos de esta Ley que sean favorables para el infractor, que entrarán en vigor el día siguiente al de su publicación en el «Boletín Oficial del Estado».

Rennetta and Curt gave their guests the SURPRISE of a lifetime. What was supposed to be a reception celebration for a couple who went away to Hawaii to get married turned into an impromptu Wedding Ceremony.

While guests enjoyed cocktails and appetizers the Wedding March sounded over the speakers. Everyone stood in amazement as they watched a gorgeous Rennetta enter the room ready to marry the man of her dreams. We all toasted the happy couple as they kissed for the first time as man and wife.

{Photos courtesy of Choice Imaging}

{VENDORS: Lighting * Media Solutions, , Flowers * Shadowbrook Floral,  Rentals * Walker-Lewis Rents, Its My Party, Expo Party Rentals & Classic Party Rentals,  DJ * C and H Productions, Ceremony & Reception * Fort Washington Country Club, Photographer * Choice Imaging, Cake * Caroline’s Creations, Dessert Bar * Chiffonos, Officiant * Randey Porter}

At tonight’s Budget & Business Services Committee, we got an update on the cost of busing. Some background: in June 2008, the Board passed a resolution asking the Superintendent to find $1 million in cuts to general education transportation.  Last December, the staff returned with three possible options. However, at the first meeting in January 2009, the Board decided we should make transportation cuts in concert with implementing our new student assignment system.

That was then. Now we know that the new student assignment system won’t be in place until January 2011 at the earliest, (when students will begin to enroll for the 2011-12 school year). In addition, the state’s budget situation and the district’s budget outlook have worsened.

Here are the cost breakdowns given to the committee this evening:

• General education transportation – $5.6 million for 50 buses, transporting 4,400 students on 118 morning routes and 148 afternoon routes. The vast majority of those routes serve elementary schools — 61 in all. An additional 7 middle schools and 6 high schools are also served by bus routes.
• Special education transportation – $15.8 million for 134 buses, transporting 1,590 special education students to and from their homes, on routes serving 57 elementary schools, 15 middle schools, 12 high schools, 18 child development centers, and 8 non-public schools. The total number of trips, morning and afternoon combined, comes to 725. In addition, 175 additional students are transported to and from therapy appointments according to services described in their IEPs.

I want to make two points about these numbers:

• First, the special ed transportation cost figure is nothing short of staggering. According to Deputy Superintendent Myong Leigh, staff research indicates that we are spending four to five times more than other districts to transport students with disabilities.  Why is our system so inefficient? I am convinced it’s because we have for too long pursued a very rigid program model (many more thoughts on that here) that virtually ensures that students will have to be bused long distances to receive appropriate services. I am hopeful that our planned review of our special education programs will help us increase efficiency and improve services, but I am worried it can’t happen soon enough. The waste is sickening.
• Second, anyone who reads this post must understand that our general ed transportation costs are not frivolous “social engineering.” It’s true that our general education transportation system is inefficient, but that’s because it hasn’t been re-thought in years. Most of the current bus routes to elementary schools are relics of various desegregation plans attempted over the years. And I can virtually guarantee that there will be some transportation routes under whatever student assignment plan we ultimately adopt – because transportation is a great strategy to encourage families to try a school they would otherwise shun. Galileo High School’s bus is a case in point:  in 2004, after protests from Chinese-American parents (led by disgraced former Supervisor Ed Jew) in the Richmond and Sunset whose children were assigned to Galileo, the district added the bus as a sweetener.  (Commissioner Wynns reminded me tonight that the bus was supposed to be a one-year deal, but no one ever wanted to brave the wrath of parents to end it, so the bus continues.)  Six years later, Galileo is thriving and attracts many west side parents, and I’m willing to bet that bus or no bus, the school will remain popular.

Those two points made, it’s clear we need to take another look at transportation, sooner rather than later. Though the committee couldn’t make a formal recommendation on an informational item, it seems obvious that we no longer have the luxury of waiting for student assignment to be done before reconfiguring our busing strategy.