Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
ParticipantJust to clarify, a school “district” is the employer of teachers and administrators. The majority of teachers work for ONE district for the entirety of their teaching career. WITHIN that district (especially if a large urban district) student performance benchmarks in any given school can vary year to year and decade to decade. Already employed teachers don’t bid to work in a particular district …. they’re already employed there. Each school district in CA has school sites with varying student performance data, often wildly varying. If teachers want to change their school assignment within their district (their employer’s worksites), they attempt to bid for a new worksite (school) in the spring before the new academic year begins. Those bids are granted on the basis of number of openings in the bid-upon school and in order of seniority of the bidder (teacher).
OTOH, public school “principals” are unrepresented (CAR, correct me if I’m wrong here). They can and will be transferred from school site to school site at the whim of their employing district. Principals, although “supervisors” of a school site, have very little (if any) decision making capacity as it relates to curriculum or facilities. For instance they CAN decide which direction and how parent traffic should flow in the mornings and afternoons in the front parking lot of their site and issue a parent bulletin to that effect but they CAN’T decide if a local scout group will be allowed to use the school cafeteria after school for regular meetings. Principals can’t use ANY stationary for parent announcements/bulletins which does not identify both their school site AND the district to which that school site belongs.
Practically speaking, “public schools” are NOT entities in and of themselves. They are “worksites” and “learning sites” within a particular district. Public school districts are “subdivisions” within the State of CA, just as cities and counties are. When I see Piggs here complaining about particular school sites, they often should be complaining about District decisions. The vast majority of complaints parents have about a particular school should be taken to their District superintendent’s office. Yes, CA public school administrators’ and teachers’ hands really ARE tied and there are very good reasons for that.
I can’t understand where the complaints in the article re: union rules keeping “bad teachers” in the lowest performing schools are coming from when a good portion of the teachers in those schools don’t even have tenure yet! These newbies have to start somewhere. As soon as they are able to successfully bid on a slightly better-performing school assignment, some will transfer out. Some will stay on longer to obtain student-loan forgiveness on their remaining balance before attempting to move on.
see: http://www.tcli.ed.gov/CBSWebApp/tcli/TCLIPubSchoolSearch.jsp
Any long-tenured teachers teaching in underperforming schools are doing it primarily because they want to give back to their community and make a difference in their student’s lives. Very often, they themselves graduated from the same or nearby school in the same district, have a lot of family living in the immediate area, have residential rentals in the immediate area or all three. Their (now “underperforming”) school assignment has always been “home” to them. They know their way around and “know” from whence their students came and what their daily lives are like.
You can’t blame these teachers for low student performance. Most of them taught at that same (or nearby) school when the student performance at that school was much higher. Public school teachers have no control over the following:
– a school attendance area slowly changing from a primarily SFR area to multifamily area (ex: North Park SD);
– hundreds of new construction units in a school attendance area set aside for low-income tenants; (ex: any number of newer areas in both North and South SD County);
– a proliferation of social services for homeless families moving into a school attendance area (ex: Southcrest SD [from dtn and East Village]);
– the exit of large corporations and defense contractors in a school district attendance areas leaving many previously well-employed parents unemployed; (ex: Solar Turbines, Gen Dyn, Rohr, etc)
– the construction of high property-tax subdivisions (w/ HOA/MR) in an established school district attendance area, overloading the schools and causing the parents of the newer students to realize they must work several jobs between them to pay 3-10 times the property tax (incl HOA) than the parents of students residing in the established areas.
– soaring property values in a school attendance area, causing families with children to either move in with well-established relatives or to a nearby rental apartment in order to remain in the area, where in past decades, parents of minor children were buying single family homes in the area. (ex: Pt Loma HS and feeder schools)
– the construction or conversion of hundreds of units of military housing in a given attendance area, causing some schools to have disproportionate numbers of “temporary” students of ~2 years attendance duration who are often enrolling and withdrawing at different times of the school year in groups and who may not be present for the CAHSEES and other academic performance measuring testing after attending a particular school most of the school year as a “stat.”
I could go on here, but suffice to say, many public HS’s in SD County which were considered “excellent” in 1974, 1984, 1994 or 2004 and are now considered just “average” or “mediocre” in 2014 may end up again to be “high performing” in 2024, all depending upon the whims of local politicians and military decisions from on high.
Public school teachers must work with the raw material that is before them and that “raw material” is each student along with whatever “baggage” they can’t help but bring to the classroom every day. We can’t blame public school teachers just because certain groups of students do better than others and there are currently less of those better-performing groups in attendance at their school assignment.
ParticipantI just saw this comment in the first page of the 1142 comments on the article (above):
workerbee
is a trusted commenter Florida YesterdayThe California Charter Schools Association, a trade group that lobbies state legislators and produces public relations campaigns for its members, is one of Vergara’s main partners in the school privatization movement. David Welch, the wealthy founder of Vergara, has no background in education or teaching, so we can only guess about why he’s putting so much money and effort into eliminating teacher tenure.
LOL, who wouldda thunk it?
Participant…. Further, Judge Treu said, the least effective teachers are disproportionately assigned to schools filled with low-income and minority students. The situation violates those students’ constitutional right to an equal education, he determined….
(emphasis added)
This is SO not the way the union rules are written folks. The teachers with the most seniority get their bids for their next school assignments considered first by order of length of tenure. School assignments year to year have nothing to do with “perceived competency.”
How this plays out in the real world is that the teachers with the most seniority are often found teaching in the schools where they perceive to be the easiest to teach in. These are the schools where nearly every child has eaten breakfast at home and completed their homework the night before. In other words, schools where most of the students have stable homes with parent/guardians in residence who can regularly afford to buy a variety of groceries and have the time to see to it that their kids complete the work required of them.
If anything, the schools with the highest percentage of students eligible for free breakfast, lunch and/or whose students have the most parents who didn’t complete college and thus may need to work two jobs
have the newest (and therefore typically the youngest) teachers whose attitudes haven’t yet been “jaded” by the travails resulting from longevity on the job whilst punching a school timeclock for 25+ years. Why is this so? Because a public school teacher with less than 15 years tenure is unlikely to receive the school assignment of their choice due to union rules allowing too many of their more tenured brethren to grab the coveted classroom assignments in the perceived “easy schools to teach in.”
That’s the way the “system” works.
And using the word “minorities” in describing who is getting an “inferior” public education in CA (due to incompetent teachers?) doesn’t make any sense in real life as there really are no “minorities” or “minority groups” in CA, especially in the K-12 age groups.
I don’t see this decision holding up under appeal as the “facts” cited here (if they are truly part of the ruling) don’t comport with CA education law as it applies to the intricacies of how seniority is dealt with in collective bargaining agreements.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]children are such tender sprouts. they vibrate with emotion and long for acceptance. to know someone is there and fighting for you. so important.
i made some pad thai ina box for my boys who are very large last night. put a big steaming plate of it infront of the 18 year old.
“my pa loves me” he said, reflexively.
elliot couldnt even walk into his da’ds house without getting a big pile of shit from his stepmother. bullshit.[/quote]
I’ve been “swamped” this past month and haven’t read this whole thread or Rodger’s manifesto, scaredy. But you just touched on the elephant in the room here. Rodger had divorced parents (from a young age?). It is not at all uncommon for children of divorced or single parents to be raised with one parent’s values in one household and another parent’s values in another household which are diametrically opposed to one another. (The same condition applies to children whose parents never married.) Sometimes kids of single parents must even go to churches with vastly different teachings every other weekend with each parent. Compound that confusion with one or both parents’ values being influenced by a subsequent spouse.
I believe that often the sole reason (or biggest reason) parents end up divorcing is due to both of them not seeing eye-to-eye on how to raise children. Children pick up on this very early (even while their warring parents still live “together”) and quickly learn how to play one parent against the other to get what they want.
Add to this phenomenon that in CA (and many other states), each parent typically gets 50% custody timeshare in a domestic court in the absence of their pending or current mental health or substance abuse rehab stint or their pending or current incarceration stint (either parent). Even in the presence of any or all three conditions (above), said affected parent losing child custody temporarily is free to come back to court after their release and prove themselves fit to eventually take back their entire 50% custody timeshare (or <50% if they desire less).
The moral here is, no matter how young one is when they are contemplating marriage and/or having children, one needs to pick the other parent of their future children very, very carefully ... or choose to drop their plans for marriage/having kids with a potentially unsuitable (for them) individual and wait to find another, more suitable co-parent if they still have time (women). If a prospective parent is running out of time and desires children, then choosing to adopt or use in-vitro fertilization where the father's identity is unknown to them is highly preferable to subjecting themselves to a long sentence of having to raise their kids with another parent whose values are diametrically opposed to their own.
I don't think we can blame Rodger's parents individually for his current mental illness anymore than we can blame the Colorado theatre shooter's parents (located here in SD and presumably still "together") for his mental illness. Each divorced or otherwise single parent likely does the best he/she can with their children during their respective child custody timeshares but have absolutely no control over what goes on with their kid(s) at the other parent’s house. Ex: if kids are lavished with material goods and complete freedom to come and go as they please while with one parent, they will often just end up “choosing” not to visit the parent of less means and/or who gives them less freedom as soon as they are old enough to legally do so. If the parent who is overly generous and lenient with the kids is ALSO the payor of child support (most likely scenario), then that parent will often push their kids to choose in court which parent they want to spend the most time with (or ALL their time with) as soon as they are old enough to be credible to the court or their court-appointed social worker.
I’ve seen a lot of domestic child custody cases in my day and have come to the conclusion that, in CA, whichever parent has the most earning power/assets eventually wins the kids hearts and minds over the other parent and that parent is usually the pay(OR) of child support. This unfortunate result is why the CA legislation on child support being solely tied to percentages of custody timeshare for each parent needs to be repealed or in the alternative, lined out and rewritten.
I believe the above consequences are ALSO why millions of “warring parents” in CA just end up turning indifferent to one another for the duration of child-rearing and move into separate rooms of the house until the last of their kids graduate from HS. This way, the family remains intact and the lesser-earning or non-earning parent will still have unfettered regular contact with their kids.
“Rodger” was no doubt a product of this “system.” It all works out okay IF the parents can continually, successfully and cohesively co-parent though the balance of their children’s minorities but I believe the families who can do this through all of their inevitable life changes are a distinct minority. This feat also requires each of the parents to prioritize security over all else and have the financial wherewithal to continue to live close in proximity to one another for a long duration to make it easier on their kid(s) to frequently move from home to home.
ParticipantI just found a moment to check the docket to learn that Krowe (thru Sevilla) filed her Petition for Review on Friday, May 9.
In the interim, I consulted CRC 8.264 (b) Finality of Decision.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=eight&linkid=rule8_264
Subd. (b)(1) DOES state that a CA court of appeal decision is not final until the 30th day after their opinion is released. Thus an appellant has 10 days beyond that date to file their Petition for Review (in this case, 5/14/14).
I erred previously in this thread in that I counted the deadline for the filing of Pet Review to be 10 days from when the opinion was filed, NOT ten days from its finality (5/4) for filing of the Petition for Review.
Sorry for the confusion, folks … I haven’t worked on a state appeal since 2010 and a was a bit rusty off the top of my head on all the technicalities.
I believe Justice McDonald’s dissent at the 4th/1 DCA set up Krowe’s issue of proving “intent to commit a crime” as a matter of first impression which the CA Supreme Court may very well decide to entertain.
Stay tuned, folks. The “fat lady” has not yet planned what she will sing for an encore here. And it’s going to be interesting to find out.
Participant[quote=flu][quote=scaredyclassic]If $100 a mo. Gets you this upset maybe it’s time to sell just because the investment is too irritating.[/quote]
That is a good point too….
But 5% return cash on cash wouldn’t be *that* bad considering a CD is what, 1%? Which brings back it back to the original point.
$100 to jeopardize a nice steady, stable tenant…. Imho not worth it.[/quote]
This is just a data point but jumbo CD’s thru online banks are paying ~2.3% for 5 years and require no maintenance or worry whatsoever. Up to $250K per named owner per bank, of course, in order to fall under the FDIC limits. You can always ladder them thru various banks.
I understand that rentals offer the possibility of higher cash flow and potential appreciation. But there are so many variables that can easily derail those best-case scenarios that, for many people, it doesn’t make sense to go thru the motions and put up with the headaches.
ParticipantI understand. I have had vertigo to varying degrees almost all my life. I have never been able to ride twisting or quickly-dropping amusement-park rides because of it. However, I CAN stay at 8000 sf at a hotel but need an entire day to get acclimated at that level. It’s better if I spend one day at 5000 ft, then the second day (24 hrs) at ~8000 feet before going up higher. I DO take Dramamine or meclizine before ascending higher and then can stay at 11,000 – 12,000 feet all day. Never tried to camp up there, though. We always descended to 7000-8000 feet for the night.
Congrats on your new addition to the family! If you don’t mind my asking, where in SD County did you end up buying in this time?
ParticipantLA, I take it you’re now trying to buy a cosmetic fixer in SD County?
Did you sell your house in Denver?
If so, you didn’t stay there very long. I thought you liked Colo.
Participant[quote=livinincali][quote=bearishgurl]This was in the news this morning:
I’m wondering if CO’s Medicaid expenses have risen substantially yet due to its recent legalization of recreational MJ (incl “edibles”) …[/quote]
CO Medicaid expenses rose substantially due to Obamacare. It would be impossible to know what small percentage increase could be attributed to the legalization of weed. Although it won’t surprise me if the anti weed lobby doesn’t try to put together some kind of report attributing the rise in Medicaid expenses as being directly related to the legalization of weed. With the report totally ignoring all the new Obamacare signups. That’s how things are done these days unfortunately.[/quote]
I feel the “weed (sales) taxes” are high enough in CO that the state can use their (large) share to help fund indigent healthcare (incl migrant workers and all those who were otherwise ineligible to sign up for expanded Medicaid) if they so choose. This may have to be legislated but it is doable.
Look what eventually happened to cigarette taxes after Big Tobacco was sued with multiple class action suits for wrongful death/disability. In recent years, taxes on tobacco products have gone thru the stratosphere so they can be used to fund cancer research and other public health-related projects throughout the country.
What I DO worry about, though, is the small (w/1-16K permanent residents) CO mountain towns, nearly all quite “bucolic” (and there are many) which are between 7500 and 10000 feet in altitude (and often surrounded by much higher, narrow roads). I’ve noticed online that some of these towns, however small, seem to now have 1-6 MJ “dispenaries” located in their midst (a disproportionate amount for such a small population). Obviously, they are there to cater to the tourists. Tourists ALREADY don’t understand the drastic change altitude can wreak on their body under normal circumstances. Add in partaking of a couple of premium joints and a super-duper brownie to the mix and then getting into a river raft, jeep or hot-air balloon within 36 hrs of arriving and these towns could have a very sick tourist on their hands …. with no hospitals within an hour (longer in the winter).
I hope CO’s search and rescue teams are being heavily trained in treating altitude sickness and severe nausea and lightheadedness which could last for days ….
Example: typical Texan flatlander college student who just arrived by plane with a group from home for a ski vacation at 11000 feet the evening before and had to sleep with a wet washcloth over his sinuses so he could run heat in his room:
“Come on, ya’ll … Dude, yo, just look at those double-black diamonds!” Then, 6 sec later and 20-50 feet down (on his back with one ski which came to rest 100 yards below him) and now COMMITTED, “COME ON, YA’LL, I DID IT, COME ON!”
The above scenario happened routinely LONG BEFORE POT was legalized and is just the tip of the iceberg that search and rescue teams have deal with every day there. Often, the S&R is the ONLY medical choice available, even for someone who keels over with a heart attack on the sidewalk standing in the middle of town.
Take this same scenario with same 20-yo Texan 1st or 2nd-time skier who has already partaken of 2 fortified joints and one super brownie and insert catastrophe … not only for him but every skier unlucky enough to be in his path.
I just don’t think its a good thing that there are so many dispensaries in the CO Rockies. Most of these towns (referred to in CO legalese as “home-rule municipalities”):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_and_towns_in_Colorado
… are used to relying on volunteer fire depts and the like and for the most part do not have the resources to deal with the fallout of this new legislation and will likely wind up having to use the bulk of their share of the new pot taxes to beef up their S&R teams. But despite the high sales taxes they are collecting from pot sales, these towns won’t even break even because a substantial portion of the boomers (65%+?) with the desire AND the funds to retire in these not-so-cheap hamlets will be turned off by the aroma of pot wafting in the street everywhere on their house-hunting trips when they were originally looking for “fresh air and solitude” to retire in.
In sum, I don’t think CO’s “pot-legalization experiment” is going to end well for them, partly due to 5/8 of the state being moderately or extremely rugged and not always easy to reach. This saga will be interesting to follow from here on out.
ParticipantThis was in the news this morning:
I’m wondering if CO’s Medicaid expenses have risen substantially yet due to its recent legalization of recreational MJ (incl “edibles”) …
Participantbrian, not ALL women “lack the confidence of men” and “ruminate over minor issues.” A LOT of women who came of working age in a “man’s world,” attempting for years to penetrate a “glass ceiling” are VERY confident. But the bulk of these women are likely “retired” by now.
Rowe is around 53-54 by now. She’s not exactly in the age group I’m referring to above but close … I don’t think either of your comments pertain to her. I think she became a more than a little batshit crazy taking constant care of her profoundly developmentally-disabled daughter without too much help from her spouse all the while holding down a FT job and became burned out and resentful of this.
I’m not making excuses for her and I’m no psychiatrist but on the whole, her actions in this case strike me as having germinated from a combination of untreated severe depression, boredom and her fantastical delusions stemming from untreated borderline or bipolar personality disorder.
I don’t know if her actions were based entirely (or at all) on “revenge” as there are SO MANY available properties in this county that could have served she and her family’s needs. I think the people who ended up getting their offer accepted on a home that Rowe bid on were just “handy victims” for this sordid exercise and she had met them and knew a few things about them and where they lived. And since they didn’t really know her, maybe she felt they would never suspect her.
Still, there is no excuse for pulling all these stunts in an effort to (indirectly) harm or scare another person.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]Sevilla has until Monday (the 14th) to file a Petition for Review:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/7260.htm?title=eight&linkid=rule8_500
Don’t discount this step. He’s “comfortable” doing so.[/quote]
Sorry, I erred here and was using the wrong language. I was using the “10-day filing rule” above a for Petition for Review but the Petition for Rehearing comes before the Petition for Review.
http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=eight&linkid=rule8_268
A losing party in a CA Appellate District must petition the same court to “re-hear” the case PRIOR to proceeding to a Petition for Review. They have 15 days to do so. If the 13th, 14th and/or 15th day falls on a Sat, Sun or holiday, the Petition is due to the court on the last business day prior to the deadline weekend day or holiday. In this case, the 4th DCA rendered their opinion on 4/4/14. 15 days from that is 4/19/14 (Sat). Sevilla/Rowe filed their Petition for Rehearing on 4/18 (Fri).
The Court’s Denial of their Petition for Rehearing was on 4/24/14 and they only have 10 days to Petition the Supreme Court for review. Thus, their Petition for Review is due 5/4 (Sun) and can be filed no later than 5/2 (Fri).
I apologize for any confusion this may have caused.
ParticipantRowe Petition for Rehearing denied last week:
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=41&doc_id=2044572&doc_no=D063847
2 out of 3, Justice McDonald in favor of review (the lone dissenter in the opn).
Sevilla has until Friday (5/2) to petition the Supreme Court for review of the appellate court’s decision to reverse the trial court’s decision to throw the People’s case out. Don’t think for a minute that he won’t go there.
Rowe must have had the funds thus far to keep Sevilla going.
Onward and upward, folks . . .
Participantpatb, I’ve now had a chance to look over this thread.
[quote=livinincali][quote=patb]it’s littered with pending litigation….[/quote]It might be tough to get title insurance if there’s pending litigation issues. It’s kind of like trying to buy home owners insurance and announcing you plan to set fire to the house.
There’s always the saying no risk, no reward but this is starting to look like if it’s too good to be true it’s probably not true. You probably aren’t the lucky one that’s going to get a $480K house for $300K.[/quote]
livinincali, there is no “lucky one” in this transaction. In a situation like this, it will sell for whatever the market will bear – all cash. Whatever the heirs/executor THINK they need from the sale is immaterial.
The probate court will, if they haven’t already done so, issue an order to sell real property. The actual sale (usually but not always) must be approved by the court, who will look over an offer/counter offers agreed to by the executor and the buyer and decide if the estate can actually perform and if so, approve the sale. Since I don’t have much experience in probate matters, I am uncertain if a preliminary title report is customarily made available to the court in the application for order. In any case, the estate can transmit to you a quitclaim deed at closing (and usually do in CA), and, as long as you have an up-to-the minute preliminary title report on the day of closing (showing all of the exceptions on the time and date it was prepared), including any lender(s) demands and an up-to-the-minute tax bill from the estate’s attorney (you might even be able to get an updated tax bill from the county assessor the day of closing or day before closing yourself) giving you a very close ballpark figure of the total of encumbrances owed, you can use your earnest money (NOT before closing, PLEASE) plus more cash to close and this (HELOC?) lender and the tax assessor will be satisfied in escrow (or by the atty handling the details of the sale, depending on your jurisdiction).
If the estate’s lawyer in your case has to go back to court to get different sale terms approved (by the same buyer – you) due to your contractor/engineer findings or preliminary title report findings, then so be it. Then he will have knowledge of these findings, can’t fix them and will have to disclose them to every prospective buyer after you. They are what they are and probate sale properties are usually “as-is.” The $100K (HELOC?) is presumably there and that can’t be changed. The outstanding tax bill can’t be changed (taxing authorities don’t have to place liens for delinquent taxes – they are always first in priority by operation of law). If there are no lis pendens on title, then the $100K mortgage and back taxes might be the only title exceptions (except for already-established public and private easements).
The estate’s creditors and squabbling heirs MUST deal with the executor/administrator who has a lawyer. None of them could individually place a lis pendens on title here unless they had a separate civil suit with the decedent/former owner and filed it prior to his/her death and those lis pendens have not yet been removed. If any of those pending civil cases were not properly dismissed, they should be (a decedent can’t be a party to suit) and likewise, those lis pendens should have been released. Those otherwise aggrieved family members/business partners of the decedent (who were NOT heirs but feel they should be) must now file a creditor’s claim on the decedent’s estate in order to pursue any monies they feel the decedent owed them. Whatever liquid assets are left in the estate at the time of final distribution (incl the proceeds from the sale of this real property) will be divided up among legitimate, court-approved creditors first and then any heirs. Whatever each creditor/heir ends up receiving is exactly what they get and they can’t come back after the probate is closed and place any liens against the decedent.
You might just be hearing a lot of talk from the estate’s RE broker and “background noise” from the estate attorney about how much money they need to satisfy all the players but this “noise” may not have anything to do with the actual condition of the title. It may be in better condition than you think. You don’t CARE whether all the estate’s creditors and heirs are satisfied and it is none of your business.
PLEASE DO NOT PERFORM YOUR OWN TITLE SEARCH HERE!!
You already know you will not be able to secure an insurance binder until at least some of the needed work is done. This is not an issue that would hold up the sale unless you are seeking a purchase-money mortgage. If the property is not located in the woods (fire danger) and you are okay with this temporary problem and can work fast to get the property approved for a binder for your take-out loan transaction (and hope that a bitter former relative/tenant doesn’t try to set the place on fire after you and/or your workers go home for the day), then it is doable. Put up a 6′ high chain link workfence with a locked gate around the structure after you get clear title and possession of the property to prevent any more vandalism from happening. New owner-occupiers who begin rehab at the time of closing and professional flippers do this all the time, especially if the sidewalk out front is heavily trafficked.
Good luck and DON’T GET IN A HURRY! (It’s not like the masses are lining up flush with cash to deal with this mess.) Before passing “Go” again, I urge you to walk straight to into a local attorney’s office who is VERY experienced in real property transactions and title abstracting if you really want to be successful in getting this property.
Examples:
http://www.vsb.org/site/regulation/upl-guidelines-for-real-estate-settlement-agents
-
AuthorPosts
