Update 3/5/08: This post now has 2,003 comments! However, it has exceeded the capacities of our server and has been truncated recently at about 1,529 posts. But one of our readers has stepped up to the plate and painstakingly copied all of the comments into three NEW posts:
- SAUSD-Mijares corruption thread, 2008 Comments
- SAUSD-Mijares corruption thread, 2007 Comments
- SAUSD-Mijares corruption thread, 2006 Comments
We have also started a NEW open SAUSD thread, which I hope our readers will post to regarding new SAUSD news and views.
You can also go to our home page and go to the right column. Click on “SAUSD Posts” and you can get links to ALL of our past SAUSD articles.
I must say, I am amazed at the stories that have been posted on this blog in the wake of Al Mijares’ exit from the Santa Ana Unified School District. I am posting this item merely to give SAUSD bloggers a place to post their comments. Post away my friends – we have an opportunity now to finally do away with the corruption left over from the Mijares regime. Change is at hand, but we must remain resolute.
I noted that someone affiliated with the SAUSD administration recently posted a threat on this site – alleging possible legal action against SAUSD employees who post anonymously on this site. That is despicable and a form of terrorism. Do not let fear restrain any of you from revealing the truth.
The final challenge we face in Santa Ana is to replace Mijares with someone competent. We won’t have another opportunity like this anytime soon. This process must be open and focused and whatever else happens we must keep Audrey Noji out of the Superintendent’s position. As a member of the Cerritos College faculty and a member of the teacher’s union at that campus I opposed her when she tried to get a job at our campus. If she goes after the SAUSD superintendent post I will do so again. I know we can do better!
All of my children are in the SAUSD system. For their sake and that of all schoolchildren in the district, I urge those who are rebelling against the last vestiges of Mijares’ broken empire to keep the information flowing and to do whatever it takes to ensure that our next superintendent will be up to the task. Mijares certainly was over his head throughout his doomed tenure.
http://www.presstelegram.com/ci_6079842?source=most_viewed
Here’s how they handle controversy in Dr. Barton’s LBSD/TALB – with an eye on due process, patience and assurances that it will work itself out in the best interests of all. Notice how the Superintendent voices confidence in the teacher’s union, rather than animosity. Interesting story at the link
Long Beach Board of Education president Jon Meyer on Wednesday said that it was premature to comment on McVarish’s situation. But he said he is confident that teachers can resolve the union controversy.
“I’ve got tremendous faith in our teachers,” he said.
LBUSD board member David Barton said he was surprised to learn of the internal dispute.
“I hope they can work it out,” said Barton, who also is president of the Santa Ana Educators Association, the teachers’ union of the Santa Ana Unified School District.
“I’ve been around unions long enough to know that there is always a great deal of passion involved and sometimes it boils over,” he added.
LBUSD board member Mary Stanton declined to comment. School board members Michael Ellis and Felton Williams could not be reached.
LBUSD Superintendent Chris Steinhauser said he will respect any decision the union makes on McVarish’s status.
“My role as a superintendent is to make sure (our) door is always open for the unions,” he said.
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/local/santaana/article_1720816.php
Santa Ana Unified studies construction needs
Officials hold series of meetings to gather community input on potential renovations.
By FERMIN LEAL
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
SANTA ANA
Santa Ana school under scrutiny over special ed
The state is looking into allegations the students were put in regular classrooms in violation of state education code.
By Seema Mehta, Times Staff Writer
June 8, 2007
The state Department of Education said Thursday it was investigating special-education instruction at a high school in Santa Ana, the latest controversy to dog the city’s beleaguered school district.
The probe was prompted by complaints from two teachers at Valley High who alleged that special-education students were shifted to regular classes because there was not enough room to offer them separate classes.
“Their education, because of this stupid move, has been totally destroyed this year,” said Tyrone Borelli, who along with his wife, Alice, teaches at Valley.
The Borellis’ complaint, filed with the state May 10, alleges that the district violated federal law and the state education code.
The Santa Ana Unified School District was shaken this year when it lost $2 million in state class-size reduction funding because it bungled its implementation of the program in kindergarten through third grade.
The state launched its probe of the Valley special-education program May 23, and a report is expected in late July, according to state education officials.
Principal Fred Gomeztrejo said Thursday afternoon he was unaware of the state investigation and referred questions to a district spokeswoman.
The district received a copy of the complaint May 31, Santa Ana district spokeswoman Angela Burrell said, and state officials visited the school this week.
“We anticipate [the California Department of Education] will issue a finding of full compliance with state and federal laws and regulations,” Burrell said.
The Borellis alleged that the problem was prompted by construction at Valley High School, which forced the 3,100 students to move for the current school year to Godinez Fundamental High School, which was built for 2,500 students and was to be empty until its fall opening.
To squeeze all the students into the school, district officials moved special-education students into regular classes, the complaint alleges.
Teachers were asked to get parents’ approvals of the moves in early September and felt ” ‘railroaded’ into having these parents [agree to the switch] without looking at the individual educational needs of each student,” the complaint states.
A special-education student’s placement should be based on the student’s abilities and needs, “not the availability of space or for administrative convenience,” the complaint says.
Barbara Glaeser, an associate professor of special education at Cal State Fullerton who trained Valley teachers for the mixed classrooms, said Thursday that the district’s former special-education director told her that the shift was prompted by a lack of classroom space.
Glaeser added, however, that she saw great successes in moving some special-education children into mainstream classrooms.
One boy who was taking an anatomy class told her, “I feel like I’m part of the school now.”
The program might have been more successful if the school had planned the shift for a year before implementing it instead of a month; had more thoughtfully scheduled the special-education students in specific classes based on their needs; and had provided more training to instructional aides, Glaeser said.
Documents show that district officials have long been aware of concerns about the program’s implementation.
School board member John Palacio raised the issue in an e-mail to Supt. Jane Russo in October and at board meetings.
“They were overcrowded, and they had to figure a way to put kids in classrooms, so what they did is got all the special-ed kids and placed them improperly in [traditional] classrooms. Everything was driven by economics,” he said Thursday.
http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-me-santaana8jun08,1,1486882.story?coll=la-news-learning
When the interests of a few overshadow the district
#1029
I’m hardpressed to think of any SAUSD administrator who has educational integrity. And that goes for board prez Richardson, Dr. Noji and Rosie Avila. It goes without saying Supt Russo, Lopez, Trigg and Bratcher are running empty on educational integrity.
The two SAUSD teachers that filed the complaint are oozing with educational integrity. Thank you for caring enough to risk the chance of getting one of Supt. Russo’s poisoned Valentines.
The one revelation that cannot
be overlooked is the following observation … “Barbara Glaeser, an associate professor of special education at Cal State Fullerton who trained Valley teachers for the mixed classrooms, said Thursday that the district’s former special-education director told her that the shift was prompted by a lack of classroom space.
Last year district administrators were scrambling to squeeze 3,000 students into a facility built to accommodate 2,500 students. District administrators knowingly and willingy compromised the academic lives of all Valley West students this past year. This plan, to cram students, was approved and sanctioned by Supt. Russo and then board president Audrey Noji.
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1723859.php
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Santa Ana Unified special-ed program under review
Two Valley High teachers contend special-ed students were improperly moved out of classes.
By FERMIN LEAL
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
SANTA ANA – Two Santa Ana Unified teachers have filed a complaint with the state Office of Education alleging that special-education students at their school were improperly moved into regular classes because of limited classroom space.
Tyrone and Alice Borelli, a husband and wife teaching at Valley High, said in the complaint that the district violated state and federal law when school officials transferred students to regular education classes without following outlined procedures, including the proper notification of parents.
State officials have asked Santa Ana Unified to provide a written response by Thursday detailing the special-education program at Valley High, as well as class schedules and other records of students in the program. The state is expected to issue a report in July.
Tyrone Borelli, who filed the complaint May 10 and has a pending lawsuit against the district on another issue, said Friday that he and his wife were advised by the teachers union not to comment on the case.
District spokeswoman Angela Burrell said she expects the state to find Santa Ana Unified in “complete compliance.”
Burrell said that some state officials had recently visited Valley High while on a routine inspection of other district special-education programs. The state inspectors found no federal or state laws broken, Burrell said.
This is the second time in the past few months that the state has probed programs in Santa Ana Unified, California’s fifth-largest district.
An audit of the district’s class-size reduction program showed that the district will lose $2 million in state funding because dozens of class sizes at several elementary schools weren’t limited to 20 students.
According to the complaint, the problem with the special-education students arose after Valley High students were temporarily moved this school year from their campus in western Santa Ana to the new Godinez Fundamental High site about a mile away.
The Valley High site is undergoing an extensive renovation. Godinez High, a campus completed one year ago, is slated to open to new students this fall after Valley High students return to their campus.
The Godinez High site, built for a capacity of 2,500 students, could not accommodate all the 3,100 students from Valley High, so district and school administrators combined special-education students with the other students, the complaint said.
David Barton, the teachers union president, said problems with the implementation of the special-education program at Valley High have existed in the past.
“There have previously been complaints with the state on how services at the school were being delivered,” Barton said.
In 2004, Tyrone Borelli and five other former and current counselors and teachers at Valley High sued the district alleging they were harassed, wrongfully removed from leadership positions or fired after they complained about high student-counselor ratios.
Tyrone Borelli said in the suit that he was stripped of his department chairman status after he spoke out in support of two fired counselors. That case is still pending.
Contact the writer: 714-445-6687 or fleal@ocregister.com
#1029
Yes, the Mijares regime nurtured and protected the liars, bigots, and integrity challenged educators.
Apparently Supt Russo’s is
providing the same protection; that’s why Richardson and Noji lobbied heavily to appoint Russo. Qualfications were not a primary consideration. They wanted a player who would continue the games of rewarding incompetent administrators and view the 60,000 students as revenue making units.
Russo, her cabinet, board pres Richardson, Dr. Noji and Rosie Avila are lousy stewards of the education of SAUSD students.
What’s education got to do with it?
SAUSD ignores the needs of students because “saving money” is more important than providing the best education possible for students.
I have been a teacher for over 30 years. The last 8 years have been in SAUSD. I have worked in CUSD, TUSD, and SVUSD. In all those districts, if a teacher believes a student needs to be evaluated for possible special education/RSP services, the child is evaluated within a few weeks. Here in SAUSD, the “process” can take YEARS and still the student may never be evaluated. I believe that SAUSD doesn’t want to provide the best for each student just to save money. They know that one way to avoid students getting additional services is to never allow an evaluation (MDA) in the first place. So, they stonewall teachers seeking student evaluations and put many obstacles/paperwork problems on the teachers hoping the teachers will give up and go away. They get away with it because they know the parents are generally uneducated/under-informed about their rights and the rights of their children. In other districts, with knowledgeable parents, the District would be pressured and/or sued for failure to identify students with special needs.
I have tried for years to be an advocate for the students and the parents to receive needed educational services. I have never been commended for seeking the best for the students…instead, I have been ignored/bullied by my principal and District officials “listen” but nothing changes.
We teachers blew it by giving up our salary increases a few years ago when SAUSD cowed us into believing that a possible takeover by “the state” would be catastrophic…NOT! This district needs to be disassembled and rebuilt from the TOP down.
Students and parents should be the ones served, not six-figure administrators who seek only to justify their positions.
#1034
Amen!
Comments at the Register site:
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1723859.php
The SAUSD is really bad school system. My brother is death since birth in 1992. He started attending school in 1995 Taft Elementry they had pur him with the mentally disabled never gave my mother her Parents Rights book till he was transffered to Irvine Venado JR where he was placed with other students in 2004. My brother Did not start Signing till he was in venado. He reading level was a kinder. The SAUSD is now paying bigtime my brother is required to have a one on one aid till he catches up what Venado required from them. Im glad they transffered him there becase he is learning a lot and now he has friends.
Phillip – Jun 09, 2007 12:42:27 PM
The board and top administrators don’t care about special needs students. They practice routine discrimination keeping special needs students away from the sites of priviledge that are known as fundamental schools. This kind of segregation is against the law, yet they get away with it year after year. The new facilities have the most accessible campuses, yet NO STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ARE ALLOWED TO ATTEND THOSE CAMPUSES. Mr. Bratcher’s choice to warehouse the students is just a slap in the face on top of all the other rights that have been ignored at the expense of special education students.
sad for the students – Jun 09, 2007 12:39:16 PM
The Universities look at the students Transcripts and see NO college transfer classes, Because the High Schools do not CARE that a Special Ed student takes these classes. The High Schools THINK that a student can not make it in College, and that is SAD, because they can if they get the support.
Fact – Jun 09, 2007 11:52:26 AM
The High Schools give NO support to Special ed students. The students who have learning disabilities, the teachers just want them to get by, and NOT attend a College. This hurts kids that want to go to College. Remember the kids who do have a learning disabilty CAN go to College. They just need the support from OUR Schools. THEY ARE NOT DUMB, they just learn differently.
Fact – Jun 09, 2007 11:28:06 AM
Sadly the Register did not print this story in today’s local section. SAUSD is the largest school district in the county and is under state scrunity, yet the Register reserves it resources reporting on CSUD and the recall of Rocco. Here’s hoping the new publisher is more even-handed about content.
Tommy Girl – Jun 09, 2007 09:52:33 AM
Sadly Valley High has a one size fits all program. There is absolutely no individualized educational program for the special education students. Some students do well in regular ed classes, but others are giving up because they are in classes without support. There are also issues of staff members that are suppose to be in these classes helping the special ed students but they sit in the back of the classroom doing nothing or never show up to class. No accountability no concern for the students. How sad to have a special ed student taking Algebra 2 or chemistry without help. Sad very sad.
concerned teacher – Jun 09, 2007 07:40:36 AM
The Borellis should be commended for taking such a stand on behalf of the kids. Everyone knows SAUSD did this move for budgetary reasons. One only has to look at the segregation of special education students at the other campuses. Treatment of special education students are 2 decades behind all the other districts surrounding Santa Ana.
God bless the teachers – Jun 09, 2007 06:54:36 AM
The state should just take over this piece of garbage district. SAUSD is its own SELPA yet its leaders openly discriminate against students who are disabled. Name ONE fundamental school that has students with disabilities. You wont be able to because of the bigots at the top. Dr Noji runs racist asian groups while segregating and punishing the disabled year after year. Its disgraceful.
More of the same – Jun 09, 2007 05:11:27 AM
At the upcoming board meeting, will the Board of Education members get angry at Russo for not informing them of this latest break from educational ethics like they did the last time the-you-know-what hit the fan from the media?
They are a bunch of fakers. There is no way possible that a competent BoE could be that disattached and uninformed. Noji and Richardson have got to be working on that pretense constantly. They both know what a disservice they’ve done to special needs students.
They need to reassure the public and the staff that special needs students do count and that they will personally see that special education teachers are heard, respected and supported.
Santa Ana has a terrible reputation in the area of special education. Mismanagment of special needs is deliberate and well-known.
Name another district that has top leadership as stingy and cruel towards the most vulnerable students who have teachers who can and do help despite being bullied for doing it.
Shameful.
Some say one of the reasons Noji plucked Jose Hernandez for the vacanted BoE seat is his professional familiarity with SAUSD’s persistant violation of special ed students rights.
Hernandez has been a disappoint-
ment, however the state’s investigation of special ed violations may prompt him not to be so guillable. He may even stop following Noji and Richardson and start asking the hard questions of Supt. Russo and her incompetent cabinet.
How many special ed students attend Segerstrom HS?
http://california.teachers.net/chatboard/topic6843/6.09.07.21.10.45.html
It is vitally important for teachers to stand up for the children
who are unable to speak for themselves regarding these educationissues. In many of the due process hearings that I conduct underthe IDEA, I learn that the teachers have been pressured, coerced or even threatened to tow the administration line in denying
services. In other cases I am sure it is happening, but proving
that is difficult if teachers succumb to these pressures.
Teachers should be aware that the Americans with Disabilities Act
prohibits the coercion, threatening, or intimidating of anyonethat is advocating on behalf of the disabled. If you are a
teacher that has experienced this, you should bring it to the
attention of your union, as well as your own attorney. Document
the behaviors of the administration extensively.
There was a case of an adaptive phys ed teacher who was retaliated
against who won $1M against her school district because of the
retaliation. The broken special education programs cannot be
corrected without the teachers on the front line taking action on
behalf of their kids.
Andrew Cuddy
http://www.andrewcuddybooks.com
Author and Attorney, Special Education
How many special education students at Segerstrom?
None. Don’t you know that having a learning disability is contagious? Ask Lewis Bratcher and Ms. Maher.
SAUSD has been segregating students based on ability and appearance and ethnicity for years. It is illegal and Noji should be stopped from doing it.
A couple of years ago, it was actually discussed in a serious way to make an entire campus of students who have disabilities under the guise of being able to better serve the population. That kind of thinking is backwards and illegal. Students deserve diverse and inclusive communities of all kinds of learners.
Warehousing students because they are just units of state and federal revenue is a vile stance that staffers have assumed over the years.
Hernandez made a success of himself. Maybe he will take a cause up for students with disabilities and with the ones who have yet to learn English. God knows that this district has not addressed these needy groups yet.
Sadly, the Register writer, Fermin Leal, reguritates Burrell’s PR crap.
It doesn’t take an educator to figure out the overcrowding conditions at Valley West could have been alleviated if Lynn Maher, Dr. Noji, Supt. Russo and Dr. Bratcher genuinely wanted a resolution to the problem. The following is an obvious option:
1.) Segerstrom could have accommodated, for the school year, all Valley West special ed students.
Of course, that means Ms. Maher would have to tolerate special ed students on *her campus.*
Leal should spend some shoe leather and find out why Lynn Maher does not want special ed students at Segerstrom and how many students, deemed undesirable by Ms. Maher, have exited Segertsrom. Someone also needs to inform Ms. Maher that Segerstrom is a public school and not her private domain. And finally, Audrey Noji needs to be exposed for cultivating the most aggregious acts of discrimination and segregation. Her manipulative methods of creating an atmosphere of retaliation must stop.
Noji’s board allies – Richardson, Avila and Hernandez must NOT be re-elected.
How many students have exited Segerstrom due to Maher’s heavy hand of weeding out students she considers “undesirable?”
“Retaliation is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Employers who engage in unlawful retaliation do grave damage, not only to the employees whom they victimize, but also to the general notion that employers should be guided in the operation of their businesses by ideals of fairness and responsible behavior. They give a bad name to employers everywhere.”
— James W. Johnston, Esq.
#1042
Retaliation is the last refuge for SAUSD in case you haven’t noticed.
I can’t help but wonder what it is going to take before something radical gets done in that district. There are hundreds of posts here about mistreatment of employees, dozens about special ed mistreatment, and even more about the various illicit goings on among administration at all levels for just about anything you can think of.
Yet it takes a few teachers from Washington Elementary to out fraud. Then two teachers from Valley to bring special ed students to light.
The district gives lip service to all these claims. Even when faced with a 2 million dollar penalty, it is still business as usual. Questionable promotions, ignore the law, spend money like a drunken sailor and even have the guts to talk about a bond measure to get more money to mismanage.
It has been said before and needs to be repeated. This district needs to be taken over by the state and until that happens these rats will continue with the subterfuge, misdirection and ongoing maltreatment both to the students and the employees.
Get out of your comfort zone and report these problems or just get out of the district for your own sanity.
http://www.eeoc.gov/types/retaliation.html
Regarding Retaliation – its ILLEGAL. Big Suprise that SAUSD uses retaliation to bury other illegal activities. Guidelines follow:
An employer may not fire, demote, harass or otherwise “retaliate”
against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination,
participating in a discrimination proceeding, or otherwise opposing
discrimination. The same laws that prohibit discrimination based on
race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, and disability, as
well as wage differences between men and women performing
substantially equal work, also prohibit retaliation against
individuals who oppose unlawful discrimination or participate in an
employment discrimination proceeding.
In addition to the protections against retaliation that are included
in all of the laws enforced by EEOC, the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) also protects individuals from coercion, intimidation,
threat, harassment, or interference in their exercise of their own
rights or their encouragement of someone else’s exercise of rights
granted by the ADA.
There are three main terms that are used to describe retaliation.
Retaliation occurs when an employer, employment agency, or labor
organization takes an adverse action against a covered individual
because he or she engaged in a protected activity. These three terms
are described below.
Adverse Action
An adverse action is an action taken to try to keep someone from
opposing a discriminatory practice, or from participating in an
employment discrimination proceeding. Examples of adverse actions
include:
employment actions such as termination, refusal to hire, and denial
of promotion,
other actions affecting employment such as threats, unjustified
negative evaluations, unjustified negative references, or increased
surveillance, and
any other action such as an assault or unfounded civil or criminal
charges that are likely to deter reasonable people from pursuing
their rights.
Adverse actions do not include petty slights and annoyances, such as
stray negative comments in an otherwise positive or neutral
evaluation, “snubbing” a colleague, or negative comments that are
justified by an employee’s poor work performance or history.
Even if the prior protected activity alleged wrongdoing by a
different employer, retaliatory adverse actions are unlawful. For
example, it is unlawful for a worker’s current employer to retaliate
against him for pursuing an EEO charge against a former employer.
Of course, employees are not excused from continuing to perform their
jobs or follow their company’s legitimate workplace rules just
because they have filed a complaint with the EEOC or opposed
discrimination.
For more information about adverse actions, see EEOC’s Compliance
Manual Section 8, Chapter II, Part D.
Covered Individuals
Covered individuals are people who have opposed unlawful practices,
participated in proceedings, or requested accommodations related to
employment discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion,
national origin, age, or disability. Individuals who have a close
association with someone who has engaged in such protected activity
also are covered individuals. For example, it is illegal to terminate
an employee because his spouse participated in employment
discrimination litigation.
Individuals who have brought attention to violations of law other
than employment discrimination are NOT covered individuals for
purposes of anti-discrimination retaliation laws. For
example,”whistleblowers” who raise ethical, financial, or other
concerns unrelated to employment discrimination are not protected by
the EEOC enforced laws.
Protected Activity
Protected activity includes:
Opposition to a practice believed to be unlawful discrimination
Opposition is informing an employer that you believe that he/she is
engaging in prohibited discrimination. Opposition is protected from
retaliation as long as it is based on a reasonable, good-faith belief
that the complained of practice violates anti-discrimination law; and
the manner of the opposition is reasonable.
Examples of protected opposition include:
Complaining to anyone about alleged discrimination against oneself or
others;
Threatening to file a charge of discrimination;
Picketing in opposition to discrimination; or
Refusing to obey an order reasonably believed to be discriminatory.
Examples of activities that are NOT protected opposition include:
Actions that interfere with job performance so as to render the
employee ineffective; or
Unlawful activities such as acts or threats of violence.
Participation in an employment discrimination proceeding.
Participation means taking part in an employment discrimination
proceeding. Participation is protected activity even if the
proceeding involved claims that ultimately were found to be invalid.
Examples of participation include:
Filing a charge of employment discrimination;
Cooperating with an internal investigation of alleged discriminatory
practices; or
Serving as a witness in an EEO investigation or litigation.
A protected activity can also include requesting a reasonable
accommodation based on religion or disability.
For more information about Protected Activities, see EEOC’s
Compliance Manual, Section 8, Chapter II, Part B – Opposition and
Part C – Participation.
Statistics
In Fiscal Year 2004, EEOC received 22,740 charges of retaliation
discrimination based on all statutes enforced by EEOC. The EEOC
resolved 24,751 retaliation charges in 2004, more than were filed
during the course of the Fiscal Year, and recovered more than $90
million in monetary benefits for charging parties and other aggrieved
individuals (not including monetary benefits obtained through
litigation).
I’m grateful the Washington and Valley teachers came forward to expose the discriminatory tactics of the district. Unfortunately the crusade of intimidation is in full force and the majority of teachers are scared.
District parajitos are chirping about the graduation shennigans in play.
There’s no hope until the wicked witch of the west is pryed from the BoE.
Asians Only Club. Exclusive.
http://leap.org/docs/2007_LDPHE_Brochure.pdf
Audrey Yamagata-Noji presently serves as the
Vice President, Student Services, at Mt. San
Antonio College, in Walnut, CA. She is also a
founding member and Past President of Asian
Pacific Americans in Higher Education (APAHE).
# 1045
Why are the teachers frightened?
Why are they not meeting up for happy hour once in a while and exchanging war stories and figuring out ways to get Jane Russo informed about what a bunch of snakes she has surrounding her? Jane seems sincere enough, but she really needs to get a grasp of reality.
People surrounding her were hired as toadies. Competence, good communication habits and integrity are not necessarily strong points for the snakes in suits she’s stuck dealing with.
It looks like it bums her out when she finds out that her cabinet and that mob of who-knows-what-their-jobs-are “administrator” fluffies tell her all sorts of fibs and coverups for problems they don’t know how to take care of. And especially the ones that they actually create. Face it -What a boat anchor HR must be around Russo’s neck!
The only ones who should be frightened are those mean spirited do-nothings that have thwarted good employees as a means of self-survival.
Russo lives in Santa Ana. Don’t you think that she’d love to have the accomplishment of turning SAUSD around for the betterment of the community and the teachers who work so hard to give the students the best education possible? Teachers have to keep telling her what the problems are so that she can fix them.
Board Member, John Palacio is very approachable. I know a number of people who call him regularly. Does anyone need his number? I’ll get it posted.
He gives it out freely and is committed to a much improved school system. He’s a good listener and he is working for all of us who care about a school district that is done hiding the problems for the selfish interests of a few cut-throats who like it in shambles because that fuels their personal agendas.
How many teachers and students have seen outstanding programs destroyed because a jealous aministrator couldn’t take credit for it? Look at all the principals touting “their” campuses as “their” own. What??? Taxpayers own the schools. Principals don’t get to decide what is best for the entire district – they need to look at the entire educational community and include all kinds of students with all kinds of abilities.
Who needs Palacio’s number? Let’s help Russo take care of business. She promised “Service & Support”. Let’s give and get that as a community to improve the entire system. SAUSD is not for sissies. Tell the teachers to grow a spine and fight for the kids
#1048
Lest we not forget Russo has worked in this district for over 20 years. She’s knows the SAUSD dance card intimately.
The BoE rammed down our throats that Russo was the only one to replace Mijares because she understood the district and community. That’s 100% pooh. Some believe Russo is merely Noji’s puppet and she is in over her head. Russo has been seated for less than six months as Supt. and the state has launched two investigations. Russo has alienated the teachers by issuing a threatening letter challening their right to free speech. Supt. Russo lied to the public when she announced her reasons for expanding the CSR investigation to include the high schools. Russo failed to address the overcrowded conditions at Valley West. And Russo did nothing while all Valley West special ed students were mainstreamed to suit the needs of the district.
SAUSD cannot afford to train a Superintendent. That may be Audrey’s dream, but it’s not about Audrey’s ambitions. It’s about the 55,000 students that need a competent and experienced Superintendent who has the qualifications suitable for SAUSD.
Finally, how many students are graduating with a bona fide certificate of graduation this year?
Here is an interesting exchange of information between posters at the California Teacher Chat board and Author/Attorney for SpEd, Andrew Cuddy. He tells teachers to maintain their moral stance and put up a fight for the students. But when there are flakes at the top who consistently employ retaliation (totally illegal, btw!) and coercion (imoral and wrong) to force teachers into illegal acts, it is no wonder that there is such a revolving door effect of teachers in SAUSD. Russo still thinks that there is nothing out of place with the numbers of educators dropping out of the ranks at SAUSD. HR won’t give her any accurate information either. Here is what Cuddy had to say about Special Ed practices and the teachers who want to do it right. The Bold text indicates Mr. Cuddy’s responses:
http://california.teachers.net/chatboard/topic6843/6.11.07.10.50.28.html
> Mr. Cuddy,
> I know a teacher who has done all that: Extensive documentation,
> has her own lawyer and has the union backing her. However, a
> corrupt school district has basically unlimited funds to use their
> own lawyers to keep this teacher back on her heels with harassment
> and bully tactics that are not only harmful but illegal as well.
Because SDs have a taxing base, they always have unlimited funds to
frivolously defend or bring actions. Parents of students with
disabilities (and their attorneys) are continually facing this
obstacle. For this reason, it is important that those who are
confronting this type of district to unite in their efforts. At IEP
meetings caring teachers should be supportive of the parent seeking a
FAPE for the child. A corrupt administration may make the ultimate
recommendation, but a parent who has the support of the teaching staff
is much more likely to prevail in the ultimate hearing if supported by
the teaching staff.
> She knows her rights. But to bring a lawsuit against the district
> for all the laws broken would cost an estimated $75,000 -with
> court fees and attorney costs. There is basically “no one home”
> at the ADA. There is no law enforcement for special education
> students who have had their rights run over by corrupt and inept
> school district officials.
Our system is designed in a way to allow those impacted by these
issues to be their own “enforcement” entity. It is also designed to
allow for attorney fee recoveries, as the attorneys act as “private
attorney generals” enforcing these civil rights. Unfortunately, there
are not enough lawyers doing this, and those that are doing it do not
have the deep pockets to pursue many cases that should be pursued. In
many cases, citizens spend a lot of time seeking legal representation,
and sometimes finding a sympathetic attorney is difficult but
possible. It does take a lot of work
So what exactly should she do? What
> kind of attorney is going to take this on contingency? The
> district has been in the news a number of times for fraud and
> mismanagement without serious consequences. The evil doing is
> allowed to happen because the community is fairly weak and
> impoverished.
It is not uncommon, as a special education attorney, that a parent
finds me after meeting with over ten other lawyers. Taking civil
rights type of litigation is “high risk” lawyering, as the corruption
often exists at the administrative level too. Many lawyers simply do
not want to take the risk with a case, can’t afford to take the risk,
or can occupy their time with fee generating work. I often encourage
lawyers to take on some of the risk in these type of things, for
example a retainer that is a percentage of the expected fees with the
rest taken on a contingent basis. This allows the risk to be shared
between the litigant and the attorney in some types of cases.
>
> You may have read how SAUSD was shortchanging the students in
> grades 1-3 by creating falsified rosters that claimed that class
> size was reduced to 20 students per class, all the while the
> teachers were being made to teach student numbers in excess of the
> 20 per class. And then the district has the nerve to claim they
> didnt know what was happening and it was only this year and only a
> few schools and blah blah blah….. meantime, teachers have had to
> sign those false rosters for the last 3 years under the threat of
> coercion and retaliation tactics.
If a teacher is signing and creating a false public record, that
teacher is committing a crime. If he/she is asked to do that, the
person asking him/her is committing a crime. These type of crimes
injure children, and individuals engaging in that conduct should not
be in the teaching profession, in my opinion. These crimes need to be
reported. Teachers who are confronted with coercive tactics to engage
in criminal activity should bring it to the attention of the union,
the state education department office of professionals (morals and
character office), and the local district attorney’s office. If the
creation of the document is intended to deprive someone of their civil
rights, for example their right to a FAPE, then it should also be
brought to the attention of the Attorney Generals Office.
The only thing that seems to sort of
> work is all the bad publicity that hits the news media from time
> to time.
Publicity causes pressure. A teachers union that is experiencing this
type of administration should be working together to document
everything! It is self-preservation. Don’t allow union members to
get sucked into the criminal activities of the administration.
Document it, report it if necessary.
>
> Several of us have already ordered your books. They come highly
> recommended and we are hopeful to pass on helpful information to
> parents. However, your advice really is pretty “ideal” and I am
> just not sure what realistically that teacher can do to make a
> difference in a system as rotten as SAUSD.
>
In one special ed matter that I was involved in, after a hearing, the
teaching staff were 100% behind the parent. The administrator and the
attorney for the SD were trying to railroad this high functioning
autistic kid out of the district to a special ed program which was
entirely inappropriate. (The administration just did not want to be
bothered with this boy.) The staff went to their union, which
supported them, and every time pressures were placed on them to do the
wrong thing, they followed up with a letter documenting what occurred.
I really believe the SD’s attorney was just a fee churner, who was
constantly encouraging the bad decision making of the administration,
as it guaranteed fees for him. (Strangely, I run into this type of
attorney routinely, and this type of conduct tarnishes all attorneys.)
The union brought in outside counsel to deal with the situation (a relatively big name firm) which caused both the SD’s attorney and the administration to back down – pretty quickly.
There is a going to be an explosion of litigation in the special education arena, particularly an explosion of claims attempting to hold individuals accountable. I am saying this based on my sense of
the terrain and my contacts with other attorneys across the country.
The recent changes to the regulations and the Arlington and Schafferdecisions guarantee that there will be more litigation, not less. The frustration of the situation is escalating the reaction of parents. Teaching staff should take the “moral high ground” and advocate for the child. Otherwise, they risk getting sucked into tidal wave of
litigation that I see on the horizon.
This is a great site for cross-talking on these issues, and I am
enjoying the input
of you all. Thanks.
Andrew Cuddy
http://www.andrewcuddybooks.com
Heard that the intermediate school with the lowest test scores in the county (Willard) is not offering summer school this year. Students are being told if they want to go they have to walk to either Lathrop or Sierra. Wonder whose idea this was? How is this “best for kids”?
#1051
It’s not about the kids! Once again the BoE caved in about students that failed the CASHEE. These students will walk into the sunset without a meaningless diploma. Thank you Richardson, Noji, Avila and Hernandez.
Leapin’ Lizards …. can someone confirm or deny that Richardson publicly slapped down board member Jose Hernandez.
Leapin’ Lizards –
He did indeed.
Fencing around Godinez High School and dirty politics bonding Santa Activists of all stripes. The glue holding them together: Intolerance of fraud, deception, corruption and gross mismanagment by “Leaders” who only have their selfish interests in mind:
http://o-juice.blogspot.com/2007/06/community-leaders-speak-out.html
http://o-juice.blogspot.com/2007/06/sausd-administrators-cant-stay-out-of.html
http://o-juice.blogspot.com/2007/06/santa-anas-first-budget-meeting-stirs.html
http://o-juice.blogspot.com/2007/06/sausds-rob-richardson-leads-charge.html
Richardson b*tch slapped Hernandez because Hernandez is a wealthy and well-spoken Mexican. Hernandez exposed Richardson for the fool he is.
#1054
What was said?
Just curious
Here’s a little cocktail talk. Counselors met with Drs Bratcher and Machado. One of the counselors challenged them on some issue and made those two extremely upset.
In a follow up meeting with the counselors, Superintendent Russo looked at some agenda that was generated and given to the attendees and said: We are not going to follow the agenda. I want to know what your issues are. We are going to talk about that.
The counselors were stunned but optimistic. Of couse they divulged a “few things” but not what the real problems are. They held back because of the constant practice of retaliation by district administration. Anyone who has taken a stand for students or legal practices against district staffers has paid dearly.
Anyways, if this is really true and Russo actually is interested in getting to the truth of the matter and is not just collecting information to punish messengers, then this district is in better hands than just a year ago. However, the jury is out. Trust will have to be built. Too many good teachers and parents have been totally burned by unrestrained revenge when Mijares was around.
Many of the counselors were also warm toward assistant superintendent Olasky.
Maybe Jane Russo was brought back because they thought she was weak and could be pushed around. Maybe she’s sorting out the liars and the inept. Those teachers who refused to sign illegal rosters did so because it was the moral thing to do. Just maybe Jane has morals that will challenge the status quo of SAUSD.
There was an article about up and coming women in Orange County months back and one of the people Russo most wanted to meet was Barrak Obama. Hardly a dyed in the wool lock-step conservative type. She could have said Rudy G. or Jesus 😉
Also the tales of angry responses by Bratcher, Machado, Richardson are interesting. Maybe it is not just business as usual.
Remember, this is just a second hand account, fwiw. Anyone else seeing things and want to report?
RE: #1058
One of the frustrations that we have exerienced at our school is that when we as a group or as an individual have wanted to meet with Jane Russo, she has always stated that Juan Lopez and Louis Bratcher will be in attendance. And therein lies the problem. We have always refused to meet with her when those are the terms. The level of trust is not there when it comes to Juan Lopez and Louis Bratcher. Jane, if she is going to encourage honest dialogue and get to the root of some of these problems, has to realize that those of us working with the bullying types of principals have difficulty enough even coming forth to meet with her. To include Lopez and Bratcher in meetings cancels all hope for honest dialogue.
Lopez and Bratcher have covered for so many unethical practices, that they are particularly dangerous to anyone who would try and inform the superintendent, so you are right to use extreme caution.
However, her insistence on having those two in attendance might be her way of gauging what they know and how they have addressed long standing problems?
Several of us have called to take advantage of Russo’s “open door policy” only to be told that there is a formal protocol – site principal, Bratcher, Assistant Superintendent Olasky and then Jane. A big hint to her should be that that system has never been functional and that people want to bypass it for a reason.
When she appoints an impartial ombudsman to collect truthful but possibly damaging information from employees in order to address those problems, maybe she’ll be taken seriously.
#1058 writes ….
“Just maybe Jane has morals that will challenge the status quo of SAUSD.”
Are you referencing the same Jane Russo who sent a threatening and intimidating letter to unions reps about the CSR fiasco?
Is this the same Jane Russo that was asking teachers to commit fraud?
Is this the same Jane Russo that lied to the BoE and public announcing regarding the 9th grade CSR troubles?
Is this the same Jane Russo that’s currently involved in the special ed controversy?
Is the same Jane Russo that’s overseeing the mere 500 student enrollment at Godinez?
Yep, Russo has the moral fortitutde to set things right. Listen up pal, she’s been supt. less that 6 months. I can hardly wait until spring test scores roll in and the district is placed in Year 3/Program Improvement. Hopefully the state will be directing Jane and the BoE as to what corrective course action to implement.
Must be nice living in fantasyland.
# 1058 & 1060
Possibly you have inadvertently outed the problem, or possibly you have outed the fail safe mechanism that Russo is using to; A) Avoid hearing the truth. B) Giving those that she herself are covering for a chance to prepare a defense. Or C) She is honest but just not competent enough to handle this job in the first place.
Personally, after 2 scams and some questionable promotions, I think she is in it as deep as the rest and owes them her job. I can’t forget she got her boot camp training under Mijares in the first place. In most other districts I’ve been associated with the superintendent has normally had an open door policy and didn’t need any hired guns sitting in to listen to problems. It is a tough call but the proof is in the last six months. The benefit of the doubt philosophy seems long past especially after that scathing memo she sent out to teachers not too long ago.
#1061
Most all of the scandalous behavior was in the works before she took over. How much did she know and when? Only she can answer that. She has a mob of practiced liars in place that she has to contend with. As with any new job assignment, there are usually issues with fellow staff that a new employee is not aware of until months if not years later. How is it that she is supposed to instinctively know who is feeding her a line and who isnt?
And look at the school board. What a mess of non-leaders. Yelling at community members. Telling teachers that when they get to the bargaining table to expect the same rude treatment they receive every time a contract needs to be negotiated -and this time teachers are going to help balance the mismanaged budget by paying hefty health care fees.Getting angry at the Superintendent when one of their cooked up frauds comes out in the news. Double crossing the city out of previously agreed upon land deals, for gawd’s sake!
As far as the roster fraud, ask elementary teachers at the fraud sites and they will tell you that scheme was cooked up and in action not just this year but at least two years before.
Who can be sure if Jane Russo is honest or even has what it takes to be an effective Superintendent? She’s been officially on the job for 6 months and she did get decent negotiations for employee pay and benefits despite Audrey’s arrogant threats.
Everyone in special education heard about the crummy treatment of the special education students at Valley all this year. That was cooked up during the planning of moving students from Valley to Godinez. It was not some afterthought. It was done with Bratcher’s full knowledge as well as members of the board.
As for the threats against the teacher’s union by Russo. Yes, that is a big disappointment. It is also disappointing that she does not have a huge open door policy with David Barton. He is a board of education member in his own Long Beach Unified, so he knows big district issues. He’s well versed in special education and advocacy, he is honest and he has vast knowledge of the SAUSD problems. Russo shows a lack of confidence to have not made it a priority to get to know the union president better.
One other thing about the union, though. If the union had been doing its job all along a lot of these problems would not have been allowed to develop to the levels we now see in the news. No one should blame David Barton for this year’s fiascos. However the past president and executive director have been more than complicit with extremely bad district policies and practices.
Sorry the union leaders got slapped around. But if the union as a whole had been doing the right things, maybe some of this could have been nipped in the bud a long time ago. Also the union immediately countered that they would involve union lawyers in response to Jane Russo’s attacking letters. Finally the union looks like an employee advocacy group.
#1062
It’s been tough to witness Bruce Carisle at Century being passed up for promotion to an assignment like a principalship at Valley, in favor of Juan Lopez doing a favor for his friend.
Sure, sure, we all know that a “committee” selected the new principal. A committee of district dupes for a rigged process of saving that guy’s skin again. Meanwhile, a highly respected, long-time administrator is passed over for a well deserved promotion.
At some point, Juan Lopez’ poor judgement and fibbing is going to cost the district lots of money, if it hasn’t already. Demoralizing to watch the shenanigans for sure.
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1725044.php
There was plenty of room at Segerstrom HS to accommodate the Valley HS special ed students. The district’s decision to intentionally overcrowd the Godinez facility was designed to benefit SAUSD admins. Their reckless disregard for adequately providing services and facilities is simple. Lynn Maher, Segerstrom principal, does not want any special ed students on the Segerstrom campus. For two years she has denied entrance of special ed students to Segerstrom. And her gal pal Audrey Noji, along with Rob Richardson, Rosie Avila, Supt. Russo and Dr. Brathcer have supported her zeal to keep the Segerstrom campus free of students Maher deems unsuitable.
Lemon Zest – Jun 11, 2007 08:45:45 AM
BRAVO to the brave and courageous teachers who filed the complaint on behalf of the students. As a former SAUSD teacher, I am well aware of the culture of intimidation that will befall this duo. My only regret is that their colleagues do not feel it’s safe to stand side-by side with Alice and Tyrone. The Borelli’s should be heralded for their act of courage. They are an exemplary example of what a teacher should be.
Folksy Local – Jun 11, 2007 11:23:38 AM
SAUSD is corrupt! All the Valley HS students have suffered. The teachers have to endure lots of mistreatment and negative vibrations. It goes back to Tony “The Snake” Espinosa. Plato
Plato – Jun 12, 2007 09:35:08 AM
Plato – Tony “The Snake” Espinosa sounds like a character outta The Sopranos. Was he the mastermind behind mainstreaming the special ed students? That sucks.
Diana – Jun 12, 2007 01:01:32 PM
Interesting article on another Superintendent
Outgoing Philadelphia schools Superintendent Paul Vallas, who will become Superintendent of New Orleans public schools, has this to say about the job: “The first two years you literally get to do just about anything you want. You’re a demolition expert,” said Vallas, who can spin the heads
of his audience with his incessant speech and ability to rattle off
details of his agenda.
“By year four, there’s a lot of people walking around pissed off
because you’re getting so much credit for it. And by year five, you’re chopped liver.
“It begins to come apart piece by piece, and it begins with
micromanagement. You begin to lose the flexibility.”
Read the full article at
http://tinyurl.com/2cdvm2
For anyone interested that reads the LA Times this story seems to be of some value as it pertains to corruption in SAUSD. The LA Times story is a 3 page outline of towing corruption by the city of Maywood. (Mon 6/18/07)
In reading the story you will find that the towing company owner in question wined, dined, and paid for trips to Vegas to various members of the city administration. These members included councilmen, police chiefs, and police officers over a number of years. The implication was to obtain exclusive contracts and increases in towage or storage fees.
As you read through the story, on page two and three you may notice a familiar name. That name is Rick Lopez, former Maywood police chief. You will also find that within the story that this former police chief had his family treated to trips to Vegas and it is even implicated that an amount of $5000 was given to the then Chief for gambling expenses. Obviously the former chief denies that.
What may slide by is that the story mentions that the former police chief, Rick Lopez now works for a small police department in Orange County. Ladies and gentlemen that small department is the SAUSD School Police department where he works as a patrolman or school resource officer. Reportedly he has also recently been transferred to the traffic enforcement division as a motorcycle officer.
Is it coincidence after former chief Lopez joined SAUSD police as a patrol officer that a towing and impound program was implemented completely separate from the Santa Ana Police program where the district would begin to receive the income from storage and impounds of arrested drivers? Is it coincidence that the motorcycle division of the school police department began to make record numbers of impounds or storage arrests after the program began? Read the article and decide for yourself.
Anonymous Says:
6/13/2007 1:18 PM
The district’s three puppets – Victoria Zaragoza, Rosa Alda and Victor Madrigal took the podium last evening supporting the spiriting away of an additional 12 acres of land. Victoria’s plea was shrouded in *public safety.* It’s regrettable that Zaragoza is willing to whitewash the residents’ concerns about the district renegaing on the MOU. Sources report she never bothered to attend any meetings when this controversial school was before the public for comment.
Zaragoza kow-tows to district admins and certain BoE members, so she can keep her personal family center at Kennedy. Safety is NOT her priority, she is only concerned about maintaining her family center at Kennedy.
As far as the two PTA clowns – why aren’t they storming the district offices about the CASHEE fiasco? There are numerous students that will not be awarded an certified diploma. After 12 years of schooling they will walk out with a certificate of completion. This certificate is worthless in today’s job market. Why isn’t the PTA demanding for a CASHEE action plan from the Supt? Dr. Bratcher The BoE?
Zaragoza, Alda and Madrigal are district puppets. C’mon, people on this blog complain that Richardson has no children in SAUSD schools, well neither does Victoria. Her grandchildren attend SAUSD schools. Why these grandchildren’s mother isn’t advocating for her children is a mystery.
DELAC needs a new leader. It is not healthy for one person to occupy this position for too long.
Future leaders should be allowed to come forth and blossom.
Hey Mr. Anonymous, this is Rick Lopez why don’t say your name if your going to talk about me? It amazes me how some people, like you have time to talk “poison” about something or someone they know nothing about. There’s a saying about don’t believe everything you read especially in the LA Times! Let me clear up some issues for you and the readers of this rag since you like “stirring the pot!”
1)Yes, its true 10 years ago my wife and I did go to dinner and Vegas with the owner of the tow company (so what!) and obviously I didn’t take any money as to do so would have been immoral, illegal not to mention stupid! The guy in the story making these false allegations is suing the tow owner over a business dispute (sour grapes??)
2) The checkpoints and towing contract in Maywood were and still are regulated and put in place by the City Council, NOT ME. I did not have any influence, make recommendations or evaluate any city contract (yes, there is proof.)
3)The traffic program was created due in part, that Maywood, (the most densely populated city in California) had and continues to have a large problem with unlicensed drivers in violation of state law and a very serious threat to public safety. In 1998 A Maywood police officer was killed in the line of duty by an unlicensed, illegal immigrant driver (a tragedy for both the driver and the officer’s family!)The State of California gave Maywood a monetary grant in order to agressively address this very issue and that’s how the checkpoints were born.
4)While the Maywood Police Department was legally towing cars from people breaking the law, I was the 1st and at the time, the only LA County Police Chief working very hard with then Assembly Member Gil Cedillo and the ACLU on a legistlative bill to get Driver’s Licenses for illegal immigrants so these people would no longer have their cars legally seized by police. (“California Connected” on PBS did a documentary on this. yes, I’m on it.) More proof!
5) The tow company owner was in business to make money. He wasn’t running a charity. (what a concept!) With me constantly holding press conferences with Sen. Cedillo and lobbying in Sacramento for changes to the Drivers License bill, I was basically looking to hurt his business not help him. My focus was and continues to be public safety.
6) The towing program was in place here at SAUSD long before I started working here. I did not play any part in establishing the traffic or towing program here. (I’m sure you can find this out)
7)There is no connection of corruption between myself and SAUSD. The Times story is about Maywood’s issues and I play a part in the story because I was the Chief there 10 years ago when the checkpoint program started.The story is mainly focused on the current city and police officials long after I resigned from there.
Lastly, there’s nothing juicy here. Let the FBI, LA DA and the State AG do their work. Don’t be so quick to judge me based upon garbage you read in the paper. As you can see the Times only gives you part of the story. They know about everything else I’ve talked about in this blog, but choose not to write about it. Understand this, I’m here because I want to be here. I love my job here and my chosen profession of 23 years. The work conditions here allow me not to work under the high pressure of a L.A. County Chief’s job (I have had other Police Chief job offers and I’ve refused) and affords me the ability to peacefully raise my kids and spend time with my family. Something I couldn’t do before.
So Mr. Anonymous, leave me alone. I haven’t done anything wrong and I just want to go about my life. I don’t need your negative opinions and doubts cast upon me by people like you who know nothing about me or my life. If you want to talk to me in person, I’m sure you know how to find me. I’ll be happy to clear up your misconceptions about me and my past. My best to you- RL
#1064
Since Russo is only hiring and/or promoting incompetent admins, your pal Carisle should be thankful that he was not tapped by Russo.
At the last school board meeting Dr. Christine Anderson was awararded central administrator of the year by SASSA (?). This is the same woman who told teachers that she was the one at fault regarding the revenue boosting scam she developed. Anderson’s pal, Russo covered Anderson’s back by whining to the Register that the CSR paperwork was too detailed and difficult to fully grasp. Yet, Anderson recently defended her doctoral dissertation; graduated summa cum laud, undergraduate; and was hailed as indispenable and a beacon of knowledge for all at SAUSD.
SAUSD admins are best at slapping praise on eachother when they’ve f*kd up. Mijares rewarded on loyalty and so does Russo.
#1067
Here is the link to the story:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-tow18jun18,1,2466132.story
I see Mr. Lopez has stopped by to give his side of the story. Very cool.
However, Mr. Lopez, make sure you are posting during break/lunch because the district computers can/are monitored depending upon you talk to. Gross misuse of funds to try and “catch” people discussing the district when they are posting from home or on free time.
Just a reminder fwiw.
As an aside, do your children go to SA schools?
ISDP
Trouble is said to be brewing over at Saddleback. The principal who likes to micromanage the handicapped students overlooked the fact that there was NO staff in the classroom for the kids on at least one occasion.
Oh wait! Administrators there only harass and micromanage dedicated, credentialed special education teachers. The rest of the time the kids are shunned and segregated from her “real students”.
Health and Safety risks have never been taken seriously there.
Concensus seems to be that Russo is nothing but old school SAUSD.
Same ‘ol. She’s got the guard dogs out in full force.
Mr. Rick Lopez.
My apology if the article or I made any statements that were not true. The LA Times had the attendance scam wrong too? Is the special Ed story at Valley also wrong? Possibly in your case they made an error. Sue them if they did. You have that right. Again my apology if I made any mistatements.
#1069
Rick Lopez,
Did you give any input into the towing/impound program that was recently put into place?
Anyone know who got the contract for the new program?