For More Information go to www.marinrecall.com
See the Marin IJ stories Adams claims polling looks good for me.
Saturday, September 7, 2013
City of San Rafael PDA Study Group video from Sept 6, 2013
Full unedited video of the City of San Rafael Civic Center PDA study group on Sept 6, 2013
Council decided to recommend withdrawal of the PDA 3-2
See Marin IJ article HERE
The Common Core’s fundamental trouble
See the Article in the Washington Post :The Common Core’s fundamental trouble
There’s a lot being said and written about the Common Core State Standards these days, not all of it accurate. Here’s a smart piece about the initiative by the editors of Rethinking Schools, a nonprofit organization that publishes a magazine of the same name that balances classroom practice and educational theory, while also addressing key policy issues. Writers include teachers, parents and researchers, You can see who is on the editorial board here.By the editors of Rethinking SchoolsIt isn’t easy to find common ground on the Common Core. Already hailed as the “next big thing” in education reform, the Common Core State Standards are being rushed into classrooms in nearly every district in the country. Although these “world-class” standards raise substantive questions about curriculum choices and instructional practices, such educational concerns are likely to prove less significant than the role the Common Core is playing in the larger landscape of our polarized education reform politics.
We know there have been many positive claims made for the Common Core:
- That it represents a tighter set of smarter standards focused on developing critical learning skills instead of mastering fragmented bits of knowledge.
- That it requires more progressive, student-centered teaching with strong elements of collaborative and reflective learning.
- That it equalizes the playing field by raising expectations for all children, especially those suffering the worst effects of the “drill and kill” test prep norms of the recent past.
We’d like to believe these claims and efforts can trump the more political uses of the Common Core project. But we can’t.
For starters, the misnamed “Common Core State Standards” are not state standards. They’re national standards, created by Gates-funded consultants for the National Governors Association (NGA). They were designed, in part, to circumvent federal restrictions on the adoption of a national curriculum, hence the insertion of the word “state” in the brand name. States were coerced into adopting the Common Core by requirements attached to the federal Race to the Top grants and, later, the No Child Left Behind waivers. (This is one reason many conservative groups opposed to any federal role in education policy oppose the Common Core.)
Written mostly by academics and assessment experts—many with ties to testing companies—the Common Core standards have never been fully implemented and tested in real schools anywhere. Of the 135 members on the official Common Core review panels convened by Achieve Inc., the consulting firm that has directed the Common Core project for the NGA, few were classroom teachers or current administrators. Parents were entirely missing. K–12 educators were mostly brought in after the fact to tweak and endorse the standards—and lend legitimacy to the results.
The standards are tied to assessments that are still in development and that must be given on computers many schools don’t have. So far, there is no research or experience to justify the extravagant claims being made for the ability of these standards to ensure that every child will graduate from high school “college and career ready.” By all accounts, the new Common Core tests will be considerably harder than current state assessments, leading to sharp drops in scores and proficiency rates.
We have seen this show before. The entire country just finished a decade-long experiment in standards-based, test-driven school reform called No Child Left Behind. NCLB required states to adopt “rigorous” curriculum standards and test students annually to gauge progress towards reaching them. Under threat of losing federal funds, all 50 states adopted or revised their standards and began testing every student, every year in every grade from 3–8 and again in high school. (Before NCLB, only 19 states tested all kids every year, after NCLB all 50 did.)
By any measure, NCLB was a dismal failure in both raising academic performance and narrowing gaps in opportunity and outcomes. But by very publicly measuring the test results against benchmarks no real schools have ever met, NCLB did succeed in creating a narrative of failure that shaped a decade of attempts to “fix” schools while blaming those who work in them. By the time the first decade of NCLB was over, more than half the schools in the nation were on the lists of “failing schools” and the rest were poised to follow.
In reality, NCLB’s test scores reflected the inequality that exists all around our schools. The disaggregated scores put the spotlight on longstanding gaps in outcomes and opportunity among student subgroups. But NCLB used these gaps to label schools as failures without providing the resources or support needed to eliminate them.
The engine for this potential disaster, as it was for NCLB, will be the tests, in this case the “next generation” Common Core tests being developed by two federally funded, multi-state consortia at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Although reasonable people, including many thoughtful educators we respect, have found things of value in the Common Core standards, there is no credible defense to be made of the high-stakes uses planned for these new tests.
The same heavy-handed, top-down policies that forced adoption of the standards require use of the Common Core tests to evaluate educators. This inaccurate and unreliable practice will distort the assessments before they’re even in place and make Common Core implementation part of the assault on the teaching profession instead of a renewal of it. The costs of the tests, which have multiple pieces throughout the year plus the computer platforms needed to administer and score them, will be enormous and will come at the expense of more important things. The plunging scores will be used as an excuse to close more public schools and open more privatized charters and voucher schools, especially in poor communities of color. If, as proposed, the Common Core’s “college and career ready” performance level becomes the standard for high school graduation, it will push more kids out of high school than it will prepare for college.
This is not just cynical speculation. It is a reasonable projection based on the history of the NCLB decade, the dismantling of public education in the nation’s urban centers, and the appalling growth of the inequality and concentrated poverty that remains the central problem in public education.
Nor are we exaggerating the potential for disaster. Consider this description from Charlotte Danielson, a highly regarded mainstream authority on teacher evaluation and a strong supporter of the Common Core:
I do worry somewhat about the assessments—I’m concerned that we may be headed for a train wreck there. The test items I’ve seen that have been released so far are extremely challenging. If I had to take a test that was entirely comprised of items like that, I’m not sure that I would pass it—and I’ve got a bunch of degrees. So I do worry that in some schools we’ll have 80 percent or some large number of students failing. That’s what I mean by train wreck.Reports from the first wave of Common Core testing are already confirming these fears. This spring students, parents, and teachers in New York schools responded to administration of new Common Core tests developed by Pearson Inc. with a general outcry against their length, difficulty, and inappropriate content. Pearson included corporate logos and promotional material in reading passages. Students reported feeling overstressed and underprepared—meeting the tests with shock, anger, tears, and anxiety. Administrators requested guidelines for handling tests students had vomited on. Teachers and principals complained about the disruptive nature of the testing process and many parents encouraged their children to opt out.
Common Core has become part of the corporate reform project now stalking our schools. Unless we dismantle and defeat this larger effort, Common Core implementation will become another stage in the demise of public education. As schools struggle with these new mandates, we should defend our students, our schools, our communities, and ourselves by telling the truth about the Common Core. This means pushing back against implementation timelines and plans that set schools up to fail, resisting the stakes and priority attached to the tests, and exposing the truth about the commercial and political interests shaping and benefiting from this false panacea for the problems our schools face.
Rethinking Schools has always been skeptical of standards imposed from above. Too many standards projects have been efforts to move decisions about teaching and learning away from classrooms, educators, and school communities, only to put them in the hands of distant bureaucracies. Standards have often codified sanitized versions of history, politics, and culture that reinforce official myths while leaving out the voices, concerns, and realities of our students and communities. Whatever positive role standards might play in truly collaborative conversations about what our schools should teach and children should learn has been repeatedly undermined by bad process, suspect political agendas, and commercial interests.
Unfortunately there’s been too little honest conversation and too little democracy in the development of the Common Core. We see consultants and corporate entrepreneurs where there should be parents and teachers, and more high-stakes testing where there should be none. Until that changes, it will be hard to distinguish the “next big thing” from the last one.
–
You may also be interested in this: Why Common Core tests won’t be the ‘game-changers’ Arne Duncan promised
Friday, September 6, 2013
The Specials-Gangsters
Lyrics to Gangsters :
Bernie Rhodes knows Don't Argue
Why must you record my phone calls?
Are you planning a bootleg LP?
Said you've been threatened by gangsters
Now it's you, that's threatening me
Can't fight corruption with con tricks
They use the law to commit crime
And I dread, dread to think what the future will bring
When we're living in gangster time
Don't call me scar face
Can't interrupt while I'm talking
Or they'll confiscate all your guitars
and catch 22 says if I sing the truth
they won't make me an overnight star
Don't offer us legal protection
They use the law to commit crime
I dread to think what the future will bring
When we're living in gangster time
Bernie Rhodes knows Don't Argue
Diane Nyad: Talks about Extreme Swimming
Diane Nyad, extreme swimmer just finished her record breaking swim from
Cuba to Key West, Florida.
Tracking devices implanted in Student ID cards in Texas
Government microchips school children - 1984 is Here
School children are being lined up by Big Brother Government to be microchipped like farm animals for their "safety
"Won't somebody please think of the children?" The eternal call by Big Brother lackeys to grow a 1984 State.
Students and some parents at two San Antonio, Texas schools are in revolt over a program that forces kids to wear RFID tracking name tags which are used to pinpoint their location on campus as well as outside school premises.
Northside Independent School District plans to track students next year on two of its campuses using technology implanted in their student identification cards in a trial that could eventually include all 112 of its schools and all of its nearly 100,000 students.
RFID Tracking of Students in Texas
Thanks to government subsidies now schools are being encouraged to RFID track students to receive payouts. The RFID chips are implanted in the student IDs and do not shut off as is the case with RFID technology. This is a major concern as students locations and personal information are now available to anyone with a scanner.
Northside's deputy superintendent of administration, Brian Woods, who will take over as superintendent in July, defended the use of RFID chips at Tuesday's meeting, comparing it to security cameras.
The RFID tag continues to send a signal event after students have left school premises. With a smart phone you can use the option to use your locator but this chip can’t be turned off. So Big Brother will be able to track you 24 hours a day.
Texas Students Treated Like Cattle with Mandatory RFID Tags
Similar programs where students are tracked both inside and outside school are already in operation across the country.
Children in nine Austin schools are being forced to carry around GPS tracking devices everywhere they go under the justification of preventing truancy. The kids are also assigned a “mentor” with whom they much check in several times a day.
Such a system is hardly much different from prisoners who are mandated to wear a GPS ankle bracelet and regularly check in with parole officers.
The school district plans to send letters to parents whose students are getting the the RFID-tagged ID cards.
They say officials understand that students could leave the card somewhere, throwing off the system. They cost $15 each, and if lost, a student will have to pay for a new one.
Read more: (My San Antonio)
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Dan Walters: Steinberg's bills show his visions for California
 |
| Darrell Steinberg is the architect for SB-1 that gives the State broad powers of eminent domain. |
See Article: Dan Walters: Steinberg's bills show his visions for California
Published: Monday, Aug. 26, 2013 - 12:00 am | Page 3A
Five years ago, Darrell Steinberg carried into law a sweeping revision of California's local land-use rules, aimed at creating what the legislation called "sustainable communities."
His legislation, Senate Bill 375, is still reverberating as all 58 counties and more than 400 cities, plus regional planning bodies, revise their land-use policies to emphasize high-density, infill and transit-oriented development and, inferentially, discourage traditional single-family housing and automotive travel.
This year, Steinberg, the president pro tem of the Senate, is once again attempting to alter Californians' lifestyles, this time through a new form of redevelopment and an overhaul of the California Environmental Quality Act.
When Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature abolished local government redevelopment agencies two years ago, their overt motive was financial.
The agencies were skimming off about $5 billion a year from local property taxes and the state was on the hook for about $2 billion of that diversion, which otherwise would have gone to schools.
"We take from redevelopment and we put $1 billion into schools. That's a good thing," Brown said, later adding, "It's just a matter of making hard choices."
From the broader perspective of public policy, however, the problem with redevelopment in California was that it had evolved from a program to reduce urban blight into a tool for local politicians to practice crony capitalism.
Quite a few proposals to resurrect redevelopment have been floated in the Capitol, and Steinberg's version, Senate Bill 1, is the most prominent.
It would rename redevelopment agencies as "Sustainable Communities Investment Authorities" and focus their activities on high-density, transit-oriented housing, low-income housing, and "clean manufacturing," such as solar panels and trolley cars, with "prevailing wage" workers.
The new agencies could issue bonds, levy sales taxes and seize land under eminent domain, but the old requirement to define blight in areas earmarked for redevelopment would be eliminated, thus vastly expanding their reach.
Steinberg has paired the bill, rhetorically at least, with his version of CEQA reform, which also would give special treatment to public or private projects that meet similar criteria of political correctness.
Steinberg holds visions of how Californians should be living their lives and wants state law and taxation to achieve those visions in ways that would discourage politically incorrect, albeit more traditional, lifestyles.
They are visions that may be shared by most of his fellow Democrats in the Legislature, but whether they're embraced by most other Californians – who may harbor more individualistic concepts of work, housing and transportation – is very uncertain.
Editor's Note: This powerful bill places every property in Marin within 1/2 mile of 101 highway in danger of loss by eminent domain. It is unheard of government power.
We must act now to save our private property rights.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/26/5680375/dan-walters-steinbergs-bills-show.html#storylink=cpy
His legislation, Senate Bill 375, is still reverberating as all 58 counties and more than 400 cities, plus regional planning bodies, revise their land-use policies to emphasize high-density, infill and transit-oriented development and, inferentially, discourage traditional single-family housing and automotive travel.
This year, Steinberg, the president pro tem of the Senate, is once again attempting to alter Californians' lifestyles, this time through a new form of redevelopment and an overhaul of the California Environmental Quality Act.
When Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature abolished local government redevelopment agencies two years ago, their overt motive was financial.
The agencies were skimming off about $5 billion a year from local property taxes and the state was on the hook for about $2 billion of that diversion, which otherwise would have gone to schools.
"We take from redevelopment and we put $1 billion into schools. That's a good thing," Brown said, later adding, "It's just a matter of making hard choices."
From the broader perspective of public policy, however, the problem with redevelopment in California was that it had evolved from a program to reduce urban blight into a tool for local politicians to practice crony capitalism.
Quite a few proposals to resurrect redevelopment have been floated in the Capitol, and Steinberg's version, Senate Bill 1, is the most prominent.
It would rename redevelopment agencies as "Sustainable Communities Investment Authorities" and focus their activities on high-density, transit-oriented housing, low-income housing, and "clean manufacturing," such as solar panels and trolley cars, with "prevailing wage" workers.
The new agencies could issue bonds, levy sales taxes and seize land under eminent domain, but the old requirement to define blight in areas earmarked for redevelopment would be eliminated, thus vastly expanding their reach.
Steinberg has paired the bill, rhetorically at least, with his version of CEQA reform, which also would give special treatment to public or private projects that meet similar criteria of political correctness.
Steinberg holds visions of how Californians should be living their lives and wants state law and taxation to achieve those visions in ways that would discourage politically incorrect, albeit more traditional, lifestyles.
They are visions that may be shared by most of his fellow Democrats in the Legislature, but whether they're embraced by most other Californians – who may harbor more individualistic concepts of work, housing and transportation – is very uncertain.
Editor's Note: This powerful bill places every property in Marin within 1/2 mile of 101 highway in danger of loss by eminent domain. It is unheard of government power.
We must act now to save our private property rights.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/26/5680375/dan-walters-steinbergs-bills-show.html#storylink=cpy
How Terra Linda Will Change as a Priority Development Area
See Quiet and Safe San Rafael Blog :
How Terra Linda Will Change as a Priority Development Area
This picture is taken from the hill with Autodesk’s “coppertop” building across to the twin Autodesk “hot-tub” buildings and 101. Mt Tam can be seen on the right. Note this is an example of how the buildings might look.
The Civic Center PDA places multiple 5-story mixed use residential buildings with ground floor commercial either side of highway 101. The Station Area Plan calls for 620 new housing units. The above image is an architects impression of how this might look.
How Terra Linda Will Change as a Priority Development Area
 |
| Civic Center will change from suburban low rise to 5 story urban mid-rise |
The Civic Center PDA places multiple 5-story mixed use residential buildings with ground floor commercial either side of highway 101. The Station Area Plan calls for 620 new housing units. The above image is an architects impression of how this might look.
Here is the likely impact:
Traffic:
- 1,000+ cars will be added to 101
- freeway interchanges will be flooded with more traffic pushing them beyond capacity unless substantial new funding can be found for highway enhancements.
- Plan Bay Area offers 50%+ of $10m divided between 5+ other Priority Development Areas in Marin for each 4 year period for development, this might double in the next 4 year period. There are other demands on this funding.
- The cost of enhancing Freitas 101 interchange alone to handle the traffic from 620 new high density houses is $14m (this figure is likely obsolete, a more accurate figure would be higher). Other roads and interchanges would need to be enhanced. Plan Bay Area makes no guarantees or commitments that any funding will be provided.
- surface streets, already coping with 4 x hourly SMART train crossing closures will become more congested
-parking will flood onto McInnis Parkway and into adjacent neighborhoods
- if developments are built by a non-profit, then the new affordable low income residents are largely tax exempt based on the
Welfare Exemption.
Important: The exact split of the new buildings between market rate, affordable, low income and whether they are built by a non profit is unclear. Consider though the experience of Marinwood Plaza. Initially residents were told plans were for 20% of units to be low income, after a series of community meetings (ostensibly to achieve community support, but it is unclear that this was achieved) the plan was switched to 90%+ low income. There is considerable pressure to develop low income and affordable units from non profit developers, ABAG (via RHNA numbers) and social equity advocates.
- new classrooms ($400,000+) and potentially schools ($50,000,000+) may be needed
- the burden will be placed on existing taxpayers – you
- your property taxes could go up by hundreds of dollars. Exact amounts remain undisclosed. Consider that based on the welfare exemption each unit of the 61 non-profit developed low income Pilgrim Park apartments in San Rafael contributes $4.90 into the high school district annually. Meanwhile the owner of a $690,000 three bedroom home assessed at $232,522 (assessed value limited by prop 13) bought in 1979 contributes $548.93 – over 100 times that to the high school district.
- if taxes are not raised then the quality of your children’s school will be reduced, single family home values are sensitive to changes in school quality
- Marin Municipal Water District has only planned to add capacity for 271 new multi-family units for the entire county of Marin between 2015 and 2035 (Source: Marin Municipal Water District 2010 Urban Water Management Plan , see tables with forecasts starting on page 22)
- Between 2015 and 2035 the water district assume that each single family home will have 5.7% less water delivered annually, and multi family homes will have 9% less water delivered. Considerable belt tightening is planned already even before substantial amounts of high density housing is added.
- Marinwood is already adding 82 units, multiple other affordable housing developments are already planned county-wide adding over 1,000 new housing units requiring water hook ups
- Civic Center will add 620 new housing units
Result: More frequent water rationing. During rationing if you use the same amount of water as you do now your water bill could go from $100 to $500 in a month.
The station area plan proposes that these offices be rezoned to 5 storys high density residential with ground floor retail. Again this is an example of how the buildings might look.
At this meeting the city council will be deciding on the future of the Terra Linda / Civic Center Priority Development Area and the associated 5 story development proposed by the Station Area Plan.
- freeway interchanges will be flooded with more traffic pushing them beyond capacity unless substantial new funding can be found for highway enhancements.
- Plan Bay Area offers 50%+ of $10m divided between 5+ other Priority Development Areas in Marin for each 4 year period for development, this might double in the next 4 year period. There are other demands on this funding.
- The cost of enhancing Freitas 101 interchange alone to handle the traffic from 620 new high density houses is $14m (this figure is likely obsolete, a more accurate figure would be higher). Other roads and interchanges would need to be enhanced. Plan Bay Area makes no guarantees or commitments that any funding will be provided.
- surface streets, already coping with 4 x hourly SMART train crossing closures will become more congested
-parking will flood onto McInnis Parkway and into adjacent neighborhoods
Schools:
- 1,100+ more school students (Bridge Housing estimates 1.8 students per unit)- if developments are built by a non-profit, then the new affordable low income residents are largely tax exempt based on the
Welfare Exemption.
Important: The exact split of the new buildings between market rate, affordable, low income and whether they are built by a non profit is unclear. Consider though the experience of Marinwood Plaza. Initially residents were told plans were for 20% of units to be low income, after a series of community meetings (ostensibly to achieve community support, but it is unclear that this was achieved) the plan was switched to 90%+ low income. There is considerable pressure to develop low income and affordable units from non profit developers, ABAG (via RHNA numbers) and social equity advocates.
- new classrooms ($400,000+) and potentially schools ($50,000,000+) may be needed
- the burden will be placed on existing taxpayers – you
- your property taxes could go up by hundreds of dollars. Exact amounts remain undisclosed. Consider that based on the welfare exemption each unit of the 61 non-profit developed low income Pilgrim Park apartments in San Rafael contributes $4.90 into the high school district annually. Meanwhile the owner of a $690,000 three bedroom home assessed at $232,522 (assessed value limited by prop 13) bought in 1979 contributes $548.93 – over 100 times that to the high school district.
- if taxes are not raised then the quality of your children’s school will be reduced, single family home values are sensitive to changes in school quality
Water:
- we are already in a drought- Marin Municipal Water District has only planned to add capacity for 271 new multi-family units for the entire county of Marin between 2015 and 2035 (Source: Marin Municipal Water District 2010 Urban Water Management Plan , see tables with forecasts starting on page 22)
- Between 2015 and 2035 the water district assume that each single family home will have 5.7% less water delivered annually, and multi family homes will have 9% less water delivered. Considerable belt tightening is planned already even before substantial amounts of high density housing is added.
- Marinwood is already adding 82 units, multiple other affordable housing developments are already planned county-wide adding over 1,000 new housing units requiring water hook ups
- Civic Center will add 620 new housing units
Result: More frequent water rationing. During rationing if you use the same amount of water as you do now your water bill could go from $100 to $500 in a month.
 |
| 1 Mcinnis Parkway taken from the Christmas tree lot. |
What Can You Do?
Attend the San Rafael City Council meeting:
Monday September 16th at City Hall at 7 pm.
1,400 5th Ave, San Rafael.
At this meeting the city council will be deciding on the future of the Terra Linda / Civic Center Priority Development Area and the associated 5 story development proposed by the Station Area Plan.
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Cliff Edwards sings "If I had you"
I really like this song - a 1928 composition by "Irving King" (Jimmy Campbell and Reg Connelly) with Ted Shapiro.
Good for ukulele or guitar. The words and chords are below if anyone wants to use them; they'll probably get jumbled up ,
F F7
I could show the world how to smile
Bb Bbm
I could be glad all of the while
F Am7 Gm7
I could change the grey skies to blue
C7 F Dm Gm7 C7
If I had you
F F7
I could leave the old days behind
Bb Bbm
Leave all my pals, I'd never mind
F Am7 Gm7
I could start my life anew
C7 F Bb F F7
If I had you
Am E7
I could climb a snow-capped mountain
Am E7
Sail the mighty ocean wide
Am E7
I could cross the burning desert
Am Gm7 C7
If I had you by my side
F F7
I could be a king, dear, uncrowned
Bb Bbm
Humble or poor, rich or renowned
F Am7 Gm7
There is nothin' I couldn't do
C7 F Dm Gm7 C7
If I had you
instrumental/ whistle to 2nd verse then repeat bridge and verse 3
Good for ukulele or guitar. The words and chords are below if anyone wants to use them; they'll probably get jumbled up ,
F F7
I could show the world how to smile
Bb Bbm
I could be glad all of the while
F Am7 Gm7
I could change the grey skies to blue
C7 F Dm Gm7 C7
If I had you
F F7
I could leave the old days behind
Bb Bbm
Leave all my pals, I'd never mind
F Am7 Gm7
I could start my life anew
C7 F Bb F F7
If I had you
Am E7
I could climb a snow-capped mountain
Am E7
Sail the mighty ocean wide
Am E7
I could cross the burning desert
Am Gm7 C7
If I had you by my side
F F7
I could be a king, dear, uncrowned
Bb Bbm
Humble or poor, rich or renowned
F Am7 Gm7
There is nothin' I couldn't do
C7 F Dm Gm7 C7
If I had you
instrumental/ whistle to 2nd verse then repeat bridge and verse 3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)