As Bubba and I were taking our morning stroll, I met a young girl from the neighborhood. As I had not seen her for a while, I stopped to chat with her.

She was holding a note book and I asked why. She explained this was the last day of summer school for her and she was waiting for the bus.

I was confused. School had only ended a few short weeks ago, how could this be the last day of summer school? She explained summer school only lasted five days. This confused me even more. I asked how could someone learn enough in five days to pass a subject when they had all term to learn it and failed. She did not know.

I asked what subject was she taking and she replied Social Studies, which turned out to be American History. OK, so what have you learned about American History in five days? She replied, nothing. Our teacher gives us a paper with questions and the page the answer is on. We look up the page and write the answer.

I asked if she had at least read the book. She could not because they were not allowed to take the book home with them.

This girl, in the 9th grade, had heard about the Revolutionary War and Civil War. She had heard of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. She had no idea what the Constitution was or what it said. She had no idea our government is divided into three equal parts. I asked her what the Executive Branch, Congress, and the Judicial Branch of our government were. She had no idea what I was talking about. She heard of the Bill of Rights but what it was or what it said she could not answer.

I can understand not learning Peter Minuet purchased Manhattan Island for $24 worth of trinkets. I can understand not learning Roger Williams walked the boundaries of Rhode Island. To a certain degree I can understand not learning about "Common Sense' written by Thomas Paine or the writings of John Locke, because today both would be considered terrorists and arrested for what they wrote, even though our Declaration of Independence is based, in part, on those writings. She had heard about the Declaration of Independence but was not sure exactly what it was.

I spoke to a friend who lives in a different part of the state and mentioned this conversation to her. She asked her teen age boys about history and they too had very little idea about it. In their county history is not a required subject to take for High School graduation.

This is a quote from my friend when she asked one of them if he knew who Republicans and Democrats were ...he said "there was 37% more crimes committed by Democrats then Republicans. That Republicans were the rich and the Democrats were the poor. He said that Democrats voted for welfare so they did not have to work and that Republicans voted on things to make them richer. He said that Democrats were goofy people like that Michael Moore and Republicans were people like Ronald Reagan." This is what he was taught in school.

We learn history because history has a way of repeating itself. We learn the mistakes which were made so not to make them again. To ignore history is depriving our younger generations the wisdom of our forefathers.

I do not know who makes up the curriculum taught in our schools. I understand social interaction is important for later in life. I also understand not teaching our children to think for themselves, or to deprive them of past lessons learned, will turn out a generation of individuals who look to a P. Hilton or a L. Lohan as roll models. If this is the case, I feel very sorry for the generations which will follow.

By: Athena Louise
http://www.athenalouise.com

Editors Comment:, Although the above article could have meaning in any state, we are placing it under California Issues because it shows exactly what we have found in California education. I speak with numerous California young people and virtualy none of them know anything about California, American or world history. I have also spoken with California teachers and a large number of them state that they either do not have the time or resources to actually teach history or that there are more important matters to teach. There is an old saying "those that do not learn history are bound to repeat it's mistakes." That saying is being born out in California and America today.

Featured By Resources For Attorneys, a Legal Resources and Lifestyle Resources portal.

For more legal resources in California see California Legal Resources.

Are you getting depressed over what's going on in the world today? Do you need something to pick you up? Do you need some laughter in your life? Check out our Jokes index and brighten your day.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.

On November 8th, the voters of who live in the Los Angeles schools district will be faced with their fourth proposition, called Measure Y. The $3.985 bond measure, which will be paid by property taxes, is for more planned expansion within the Los Angeles schools, allowing them to add another 25 elementary schools to the current list of 160 schools that are scheduled to be constructed by year 2012. Some of the money also is slated for other needs, such as new school buses, repairs and charter schools.

The other three bond measures were passed for Los Angeles schools new construction and repairs that were long overdue. Classrooms were literally falling apart, and classes were excessively overcrowded with year-round schedules for many schools. The previously passed measures underwrote the current 160 schools on the list for construction.

Many people, however, are asking if this fourth measure is truly needed. According to the Los Angeles Daily News, the traditional Los Angeles schools are slowly but steadily losing students from their rolls. Since the 2002-2003 school year, the traditional Los Angeles schools have lost 4,471 students. According to Los Angeles schools officials, they expect another 4,304 to be dropped this year. There are several reasons for these drops in enrollment.

First, one in every 20 students is choosing to attend a charter or private school, rather than attend traditional Los Angeles schools. The 88 charter schools within the state now enroll about three percent (about 200,000) of the public school students. About 35,000 of these students attend charter schools within the Los Angeles schools. The number of charter schools within the state continues to increase, with another 20 new charter schools planned for this fall.

The California Charter Schools Association predicts that ten percent of public school students within the state will attend charter schools by the year 2014, with perhaps an even higher percentage in the Los Angeles schools area. They cite that the number of charter schools would need to triple in order to accommodate all of the students currently on waiting lists. With the smaller size and flexibility of charter schools, they can be created and implemented in a very short time, as compared to the large, traditional Los Angeles schools that take years to construct.

The second reason for the drastic drop in enrollment at the Los Angeles schools is birth and lifestyle trends:

* Los Angeles County statistics have shown that hundreds of fewer babies are being born in the county each year. The trend is expected to continue through to the end of the decade.

* Upper income singles and couples with few children have replaced neighborhoods that were once inhabited by large immigrant families. With the rising housing prices in the Los Angeles schools area, most young families or families with many children can no longer afford to live there, opting to move to areas with lower costs of living.

* Additionally, according to researchers at the Public Policy Institute of California, another trend is smaller immigrant families. In their 2002 report, they show that after the first generation, immigrant families successively have smaller families.

Glenn Gritzner, special assistant to the Los Angeles schools, says that the Los Angeles schools have taken the changes in demographics into consideration, but they are not critical enough to change the school building plans. Gritzner states that, if school plans and trends/statistics remain on course through 2012, there still will be 200,000 Los Angeles schools students in portable classrooms and plenty of overcrowded Los Angeles schools remaining. Plus, trends are only current patterns that are subject to change. Measure Y definitely is warranted.

By: Patricia Hawke
Patricia Hawke is a staff writer for Schools K-12, providing free, in-depth reports on all U.S. public and private K-12 schools. For more information please visit Los Angeles Schools.

Featured By Resources For Attorneys, a Legal Resources and Lifestyle Resources portal for attorneys, lawyers and the general internet public.

For more legal resources in California see California Legal Resources.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.

Comment from David G. Hallstrom, Sr.
Resources For Attorneys.
I strongly disagree with Ms. Hawke's statement that "Measure Y definitely is warranted.".

The $3.985 she mentions is actually $3.985 billion which will actually cost the taxpayers of Los Angeles over $8 billion to repay. That's $8 billion dollars for 25 elementary schools, or $320 million for each school. $320 million for one school, that is a ridiculous waste of money that Los Angeles does not have. Additionally, due to lack of proper oversight and cost overruns, the $8 billion dollars will probably only pay for the building of 10 to 15 schools and then the School District will come back for more money to finish the 25 schools. The total cost could end up being two or three times the projected $8 billion.

Superintendent of Instruction for the California schools, Jack O’Connell, initiated an audit more than a year ago into the fiscal concerns of the Options for Youth and Opportunities for Learning (OYO) schools. The OYO is a chain of independent study charter schools within the California schools system, which are privately run but funded by the state.

The OYO California schools serve students who have dropped out of the traditional high schools. They currently have about 15,000 students in 40 storefront locations across the state. These California schools students do most of their work at home, meeting with teachers twice a week. According to state records, student achievement test and high school exit exam scores are above average, as compared to other alternative high schools within the California schools system. According to a Los Angeles Times article of August 10th, only 11 percent of OYO students graduated during the 2003-2004 school year. The remainder of students that left school that year either dropped out, were expelled, or transferred to other schools.

The California schools’ audit was conducted by the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, who concluded their analysis and presented their findings in a report that was released in August 2006. The audit cites accounting defects, overpayments by the state, conflicts of interest, nepotism, excessive compensation, and mixing private business concerns with public schools.

The OYO was founded and still operated by John and Joan Hall, former teachers from Hollywood High School. They have fully cooperated with the California schools’ audit, but dispute most of the findings.

Some examples from the audit report are:

• Accounting Defects and Overpayments. The Halls count each of their teachers as 1.92 full-time positions. Their spokesperson, Stevan Allen, stated that this is a common practice for charter schools in the California schools system and is a legitimate method for compensating school staff for longer days and year-round schedules. California schools superintendent O’Connell believes teachers should be counted only as one full-time position each. The auditors disagreed, citing that traditional California schools teachers spend much less time working each year than those at OYO. However, the auditors believed the 1.92 amount is inflated. This example, alone, accounts for more than half of the $57 million overpayment.

Additionally, the report noted several questionable expenses. One example of unrestrained spending, given by the Times was an $18,000 staff party held at Disneyland. Allen defended that event as an attempt at relationship building between staff members, who are scattered across the state. He noted that the costs was less than $50 per staff member.

• Conflicts of Interest and Mixing Private Business with Public Schools. Besides the charter schools, the Halls own and operate several private businesses that sell materials and services to schools. The Times noted that the Options in OYO was the nonprofit part of the setup, with the Opportunities part being for-profit. The audit calls this practice and setup into question.

• Excessive Compensation. The audit also questions the combined salaries for the Halls, which is $600,000 annually. The report states that it may be excessive for the amount of time the couple actually works.

• Nepotism. The Halls created a separate charity with $10.8 million of the California schools’ funding, called Pathways in Education. The charity is run by their daughter, Jamie Hall. Little money has been spent toward education thus far.

The Halls contend that they previously had requested guidance on their operation from the California schools many times, but never received any response. Thus, they tried to follow California schools requirements as best they could with their understanding of the policies. Even O’Connell conceded that none of the cited practices are illegal.

The audit recommends the California schools should attempt to recover the $57 million in overpayment from the OYO. O’Connell has sent the report to the state’s attorney general’s office for review and any necessary action.

By: Patricia Hawke
Patricia Hawke is a staff writer for Schools K-12, providing free, in-depth reports on all U.S. public and private K-12 schools. Patricia has a nose for research and writes stimulating news and views on school issues. For more information on California schools visit http://www.schoolsk-12.com/California/index.html.

Featured By Resources For Attorneys, a Legal and Lifestyle resource for attorneys, lawyers and the general internet public.

For more legal resources in California see California Legal Resources.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.

When the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1718 on October 14, it agreed to impose economic sanctions against North Korea for testing a nuclear device earlier in the month. The resolution condemned the atomic test, demanded that the DPRK conduct no further tests or ballistic missile launches, and called upon all United Nations member states to stop the trade of various weapons systems, luxury goods, and certain technologies with North Korea.

Of course, the communist dictatorship of Kim Jong-Il immediately rejected the resolution and threatened war on nations imposing economic sanctions on the DPRK. Why the bellicose rhetoric? Because North Korea knows that the sanctions resolution is more show than actual punishment, and the provisions of Resolution 1718 will be selectively enforced.

Almost as soon as the resolution was passed, the Chinese government stated that it would not participate in the inspection of cargo entering and exiting North Korea. After some diplomatic prodding from the United States, China began limited checks of North Korean trucks crossing its border, but has thus far not agreed to inspect cargo ships transiting the waters in the region.

China is hesitant to enforce tough sanctions on North Korea because the threat of regional instability from a governmental collapse in Pyongyang is perceived to be greater than the risk of a North Korean nuclear attack on Chinese soil. If Kim Jong-Il decided to launch an atomic device at his long-time benefactor, the response would be swift and crushing, without any Chinese fear of repercussions from the world community.

But if North Korea collapses under the weight of crippling economic sanctions, China faces a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions. Refugees would flood across the border and instability would engulf the region. China knows that the North Korean economy is in dire straits. The people are starving and the situation seems to get worse with each passing month.

USA Today reported recently that the World Food Program warned it might have to cut food aid to North Korea early next year because donations from the world community have fallen woefully short. According to USA Today, the WFP has collected only 10-percent of the $102 million it needs to provide food to North Korea for the next two years.

China has been propping up Kim's regime for a long time, flooding the country with money, food, and consumer goods. While the government in Beijing does not want to see nuclear proliferation in its backyard, it also does not want to deal with an economic and humanitarian disaster that experts warn could happen as soon as three months from now.

For now, at least, it appears that the enforcement of sanctions in the region will be limited to the efforts of the United States and Japan. Other countries, such as long-time American ally Australia, will prevent North Korean ships from entering their ports and will suspend trade with the DPRK. China will go through the motions of random checks at the border to make it look as if they are doing their part to enforce the U.N. resolution. They may even freeze some funds and restrict travel between the two countries.

But in the end, real enforcement of economic sanctions is not an immediate concern for the Chinese. While the United States wants to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a ruthless dictator, China wants to avoid the consequences of a complete implosion by its eastern neighbor. And as long as that is the case, the Chinese can be expected to do little to stop Kim Jong-Il's nuclear pursuits.

By: Greg Reeson
http://reeson.townhall.com

Featured by Resources For Attorneys, a legal resources and lifestyle directory.

Conventional geopolitical thinking has long assumed that North Korea has pursued an unrelenting campaign of provocations, its illicit nuclear program, and even a nuclear weapons test with the objective of assuring the survival of its current regime. Toward that end, an exasperated Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently told CNN, “there is no intention to invade or attack them. So they have that guarantee… I don’t know what more they want.” It is that “more” that North Korea wants that is really driving North Korea’s actions. North Korea wants the U.S. to withdraw its forces from South Korea, end its military obligations to the South, and ultimately, Korean reunification on its terms.

North Korea has long sought to reunify and place the Korean Peninsula under its totalitarian rule. On June 25, 1950 it launched an invasion of South Korea only to have its forces rolled back by massive U.S. intervention. Ultimately, following Chinese, and to a lesser extent, Soviet intervention in the conflict, the boundary between the two Koreas was set at the 38th Parallel.

Since then, North Korea has persisted in its call for reunification. Under Kim Jong-il, that call for reunification has grown more urgent. North Korea sees Korean reunification as “the call of history,” North Korea’s Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) explained on January 11, 1999. “For the Korean nation, nothing is more important than national reunification and no task is more urgent than it,” KCNA added. On October 4, 2006, KCNA declared, “To achieve the reunification of the country is the most urgent task facing the Korean nation.”

Kim Jong-il and his government believe they are the ones who will bring about Korean reunification. On August 5, 2002, KCNA reported, “National reunification is sure to come under the leadership of Kim Jong-il, the sun of the 21st century and the lodestar of national reunification.”

When discussing its pursuit of reunification, North Korea employs often soothing language. On January 7, 1999 KCNA explained, “To achieve the great unity of the whole nation is a decisive guarantee for the independent and peaceful reunification of the fatherland.”

There is nothing reassuring about North Korea’s calls for reunification. Rather, North Korea is borrowing from Cold War Era propaganda efforts that were aimed at dividing Western popular opinion. For example, a declassified memorandum to the director of the CIA issued on December 21, 1961 observed of the USSR, “The peaceful coexistence line, far from being an abandonment of Soviet expansionist goals, is a tactical prescription considerably more effective than the compound of heavy-handedness and isolationism which was Stalin’s foreign policy.”

At closer inspection, the fangs of North Korea’s totalitarian dictatorship are barely concealed. “South Korea should not depend on the outside forces, but take the way for reunification through alliance with communism and the north,” KCNA advised on January 4, 1999. An “alliance with communism” would mean that South Korea would be required to embrace North Korea’s totalitarian system. The January 7, 1999 KCNA report added, “The five-point policy as well as the 10-Point Program of the Great Unity of the Whole Nation put forward by President Kim Il Sung are the banner the entire nation should uphold and the political program of great unity they must invariably defend and realize without fail.” Later, on March 8, 2003, KCNA predicted, “All the Koreans in the north, the south and abroad will work hard to accomplish the cause of national reunification under Kim Jong-il’s steermanship and thus glorify [the] dignity and honor of Kim Il Sung’s nation.” What is most revealing in this statement is that North Korea, not South Korea, would be “glorified” by reunification.

At present, it is the collision of this North Korean ambition and the U.S.-South Korean alliance that is driving North Korea’s foreign policy in stiff defiance of the will of the United Nations and North Korea’s neighbors. North Korea is seeking to transform the environment to the point where it possesses the leverage to bring an end to the Korean Armistice Agreement of 1953 and can negotiate reunification to its own terms.

In place of the existing Armistice Agreement, North Korea seeks a “non-aggression pact” that would mandate the withdrawal of U.S. forces from South Korea and terminate the U.S.-South Korea military pact. Then, South Korea would be rendered far more vulnerable to a possible attack by North Korea. At the same time, as U.S. forces would not be impacted by possible hostilities and there no longer would be a binding U.S. commitment to defend South Korea, the U.S. would have far less legal basis to come to South Korea's assistance. Moreover, a bilateral non-aggression agreement would make such intervention illegal. This reality would greatly bolster North Korea’s diplomatic leverage.

At present, North Korea’s leadership has concluded that events in the Middle East, South Asia, and East Africa have increased its opportunity to transform the geopolitical playing field in its favor, with or without the support of the international community. In 2003, Joseph Nye, Dean of Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government trumpeted, “If anyone doubted the overwhelming nature of U.S. military power, Iraq settled the issue… Not since Rome has one nation loomed so large above the others.” Three years later, North Korea sees only weakness. U.S. forces in Iraq appear hapless in the face of a 50,000-man insurgency, the Taliban is waging a comeback in Afghanistan, and radical Islamists affiliated with Al Qaeda have “bagged” Somalia with no U.S. response whatsoever. Furthermore, North Korea sees the United States as “isolated” in the world community. In contrast, North Korea believes it enjoys world support. “Kim Jong-il has dedicated himself to the human cause of independence for a long time,” KCNA declared, “The [world’s] progressive people repose absolute trust in him.”

At a time when it is unimpressed with U.S. military capabilities and sees only U.S. weakness, North Korea believes it is invincible. On October 10, KCNA boasted, “The single-minded unity of the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] in the Songun [strong military-centered state] era represents an indestructible harmonious whole in which the army and the people are closely united… It is growing ever stronger… The single-minded unity of our party and army is unbreakable.” The news agency also proclaimed, “Our party will always demonstrate its might as an indestructible party that remains unshaken in any storm and stress and a militant party capable of doing anything…”

If North Korea largely escapes vigorous sanctions on account of its nuclear test, and odds favor such an outcome, North Korea’s perception that it is in a position of being “capable of doing anything” will only be bolstered. That will likely lead to an even more defiant and provocative North Korea.

Given international events and its own balance of powers calculations, North Korea is now stepping up its campaign to eliminate the presence of U.S. forces on the Korean Peninsula. That is the real story behind its recent nuclear test. “The Koreans should force the U.S. imperialist aggressor forces, the very source of war, to quit South Korea as early as possible,” North Korean newspaper Rodong Sinmun recently declared. “The U.S. forces present in South Korea are a stumbling block lying in the way of…solving the issue of the country’s reunification independently by the concerted efforts of the Koreans,” KCNA stated on October 4. KCNA also asserted, “The U.S. policy of military occupation of South Korea is a policy of enslavement to all intents and purposes. The U.S. has interfered in all internal affairs of South Korea ranging from the installing of the ‘government’ to shaping its policies and their implementation to serve its purpose of aggression… It is the unanimous will and ardent desire of the Koreans to drive the U.S. imperialist aggressor forces out of South Korea…”

So long as North Korea’s paramount objective remains Korean reunification on its terms, it continues to view the U.S. commitment to South Korea as thwarting that ambition, and it believes the U.S. is weakening—a failure for the U.S. to bring about a stiff international sanctions regime will further confirm the idea that the U.S. is weakening—North Korea is not likely to alter its present course. Economic inducements or security guarantees that fail to address North Korea’s basic aspirations will hold little sway. North Korea only wants an arrangement that would lead to the withdrawal of U.S. forces from South Korea and an end to the U.S.-South Korean military alliance. Anything else will do little to change North Korea’s behavior. As a result, there is little likelihood of meaningful breakthroughs anytime soon. Instead, North Korea will likely continue its nuclear buildup, carry out additional missile and nuclear tests, and launch fresh provocations.

By: Don Sutherland

Featured by Resources For Attorneys, a legal resources and lifestyle directory.