Activistas

Oregon public school budget cuts: Really?

It's not that I'm an expert in education policy or funding.  It's that I have one child in PPS and another rising.  Today's email from PPS, and the sad reality that spurs it, weigh heavy on my mind, even if it is summer vacation.

Maybe we should do *more* worksheets (and underwater math, like we did today at the pool) and read *more* books, because it looks like the "at home" piece of kids' education just keeps getting more and more important.  Like who needs a librarian anyway (ha!)?

This just in via email from PPS:

"Superintendent Carole Smith today released $19.4 million in cuts to Portland Public Schools’ proposed 2010-11 budget — roughly 4.3 percent of the PPS general fund budget. Her recommendation to the Portland School Board follows a 9 percent across-the-board reduction in state spending.  

In a letter to families, Smith stated, “Over the last 15 years, we have cut budgets repeatedly and tried as much as we can to protect our classrooms, our teaching jobs and our student’s school experience. This year I must recommend difficult cuts that will cost valued employees their jobs and that will be felt at every school, by every student.”   If approved by the board, reductions will include:  

• Central support and operations: $3.1 million PPS central services and operations — including administration, finance and payroll, transportation, building maintenance and more — will cut spending on materials and services, as well as reduce staff by the equivalent of 25 full-time positions (or FTE).  
• Special education and English as a Second Language: $4.6 million Reductions to these services, staffed centrally but touching all schools and programs, include elimination of the equivalent of 52 full-time teaching positions through shifts in staffing assignments and a delay of program enhancements.  
  
• School staffing: $11.6 million This cut will eliminate the equivalent of 126 teaching positions in PPS schools — further reducing already lean school staffing.  
  

To ensure all students have access to the same core educational program, PPS will provide specific direction on what schools should cut. For grades K-8, the district will take a uniform cut to a common program so that all schools face the same challenges. For example, all schools would cut PE or enrichments and library staffing to maintain greater equity and more consistent programs across schools.

The loss of PE instruction by specialists could be mitigated by having classroom teachers lead students in physical activity, or through other strategies. The approach will not be decided and acted upon until the school board provides clear direction. High school staffing also will suffer substantial cuts and significant increases in class sizes, particularly in core classes.  

The school district faces a bleak long-term state budget outlook and PPS already plans to tap $16 million in reserves next year. For those reasons, the superintendent and board chose not to pursue one-time fixes such as a shortened school year, unpaid furlough days for staff and continued spending of reserves — instead focusing on actions to reduce costs over several years.  

The superintendent also considered freezing employee pay — for some employees for the second straight year. However, the contract with teachers includes a negotiated 2 percent cost-of-living adjustment, and the Portland Association of Teachers declined to reopen that negotiation to consider wage concessions at this time.   The school board meets on Tuesday, June 29, at 6:30 p.m. in the Blanchard Education Service Center, 501 N. Dixon, to hear from the public and approve the direction of the budget.

Comments or questions may also be sent by e-mail, to: SchoolBoard@pps.k12.or.us or CaroleSmith@pps.k12.or.us.  After taking comments, the board hopes to come to agreement on budget balancing plans so that the superintendent and staff may more forward with the reductions. The Portland School Board will formally vote on the budget amendments at its July 19 regular board meeting."

Send in your comments, attend a meeting, and grab a workbook (or 10) for your kids.

[Thanks to Flickr CC & etsukoabe87 for the open library pic]

Ask for cleaner air this Wednesday 6.30 in Pdx

This just in from Mary @ Neighbors for Clean Air:

The Sunday New York Times reported that EPA's inspector general said the agency is ten years behind schedule in setting guidelines for a host of air toxic benchmarks. Even more damning, the "agency had not met targets outlined in a 1999 planning document, the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy, including tracking urban dwellers' risk of developing health problems from exposure to pollutants.

Frank O'Donnell, the president of Clean Air Watch, an environmental watchdog group based in Washington, said the inspector general's report made clear that 'the issue of breathing cancer-causing chemicals in city air is something of an orphan issue.' For example, the agency's last assessment of the risk of toxic air pollutants is based on emissions data from 2002. That analysis found that 1 in 28,000 people, or 36 in 1 million, could develop cancer from lifetime exposure to air toxics from outdoor sources. That number is an average, however, and people living in densely populated cities may face a higher risk."

The people most exposed, Mr. O'Donnell said, "are probably not out in the wheat farms - they're going to be people living near where the bus depots are.'"

As Paul Koberstein has noted, Mr. O'Donnell is referring to communities like ours, situated in Portland's toxic hot spots. In fact, Koberstein notes that in Portland we are at 1 excess cancer in 12,000 people or 79 in a million, so we are just more than double the national average.

This just underscores how on track we are to be pressuring the DEQ to address the health risks of air toxics, specifically our children and other vulnerable populations who live, work, play and go to school in Portland's toxic hot spots.

Many of us have experienced the frustration in addressing our concerns to DEQ about the health effects of the toxic emissions from regulated polluters. Over 500 people have signed the petition online and on paper, because every meeting has been the same: complaints of odors, confusing data, and inaction from the agency. That is why our group has elected to take our concerns downtown and deliver the petition in person, to remind DEQ that citizen's expect our health to be put above the needs of polluters.  I hope you will join us Wednesday to deliver the message:

What: Rally for clean air & deliver petition to Oregon DEQ

Where: In front of DEQ Headquarters, 811 SW 6th Ave, Pdx, 1 block S of Pioneer Courthouse Square (get map)

When: Wednesday, June 30th @ 4:30 PM (for a photo), then on into the DEQ offices to meet the 5 PM comment deadline

See you there!  Can't make it?  Sign the petition and you'll be there in spirit.

[Originally posted on NCA's blog]

Save the date...and your stuff! We're havin' (another) garage sale

We did it last year (see photo, right) and we're doin' it again in 2010. Mark your calendar for the 2nd annual urbanMamas / Activistas community garage sale! 

It's a fundraiser for Family Forward Oregon, so, please, don't take that load to Goodwill!  Save it for us, instead.

How it works:

You donate all that stuff you just don't need anymore, and we sell it to folks who do.  100% of the proceeds will be donated to Family Forward Oregon, a year-old Oregon non-profit (run by mamas) that is working to build a family-friendly economy in Oregon that fully supports the work of child-raising and family caregiving without jeopardizing economic security. 

Garage sale details:

• When?  Fri & Sat, August 13 & 14
  Where?  NE 47th & Siskiyou, 2 blocks S of NE Fremont in Pdx
• What: Your donated baby/kid and non-kid stuff for sale 
• Help! You can donate stuff (save it till August or drop it at one of our drop houses sooner), work the sale, or bake for the inevitable kid-run lemonade stand (or all of the above!)
• Questions?  Leave a comment here and we'll reply, or get in touch directly: activistas@gmail.com

This is just a heads up so you can plan to donate, bake and/or shop.  And of course, help us spread the word in the meantime.  As the date nears we'll provide more details.

Play Again: A film about kids, nature & technology

A few weeks back I dragged my visiting mother to the local premier of Play Again. She had landed just a few hours earlier, but I really wanted to see this. I think a lot about how technology is affecting us (me!), and what it prevents us from doing. We don't watch TV at our house for that reason, but these days, that's just part of it, right?

The movie featured a handful of teenagers who spent ALOT of time using technology: to communicate, to play, to watch, to learn. ALOT of time.  For the film, they were plucked out of their lives and dropped, together, into the wilderness for a week, sans technology. They had fun. They ate s'mores. They chatted 'round the campfire. They played.

As I suspected, it made me want to get my kids into the woods more, and as far away from a cellphone/videogame/TV/laptop/ipod/Wii as I possibly could. Which, if you know me, is to be expected. (They're only 4 and 7, so this is a little easier than if there were, say 14 and 17 - I suspect).

What about the parents?

But what I really missed in this film is a look at the parental responsibility in all this. I mean, these are kids. Do we blame them for their addiction to technology?   Or ourselves?  Ok, sure, it's never just one or the other. But in this case, I'd wager that's it more us parents needing to limit (the kids and ourselves...) and pay attention.

What do you think?  And how do you limit your kids' access to technology at home?  Not during meals?  Cap the hours/day?  After homework is done?

You can get a sense of the film in this trailer - and get info on hosting a screening here:

Find more videos like this on C&NN Connect

Tell Congress to Protect Our Children From Toxic Chemicals

Shrek glasses with cadmium? Cancer-causing formaldehyde in furniture? Over 1.1 million gallons of toxic oil dispersants pumped into the Gulf of Mexico? Clearly, our current laws do not protect us from harmful chemicals.

Tell Congress enough is enough! We have a unique opportunity to protect our health and environment for generations to come, please call your Representative today.

Renown pediatrician, Dr Alan Greene describes the history of our current chemical law and why it's so important to take action today to protect our children.

Yucky Ducky? Click to find out.

The Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010 was just introduced in the House of Representatives to reform our broken chemical law called the Toxic Substances Control Act. The current draft of the bill is a good step, but it's missing some key provisions (like phasing out the worst chemicals that are Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic, and ensuring that chemicals are tested for safety BEFORE they are allowed on the market).

Your Representative needs to hear from you NOW.

Please call (202) 224-3121 and ask the operator to connect you to your Representative.

You can find your Representative's name and direct phone number by entering your zip code at: www.house.gov

Tell your Representative:

Hi, this is __________ and I live in __________.   I am concerned about harmful chemicals in consumer products and their impact on the environment and my family's health. Please strengthen the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010 by supporting a phase-out of the worst chemicals, called PBTs, and ensuring that chemicals are tested for safety BEFORE they are allowed on the market.

Never called Congress? Here's a quick YouTube video to tell you how.

Please be sure to report your call here to let Ecology Center (the creators of HealthyStuff.org) know how many calls were placed to Congress.

This is also being shared at Change Becomes Change to expand the reach of this important topic.

Local mom activist writes about Portland's toxic air (yes, it's true)

Mary Peveto is a mom  on a mission.  And she's informed - very informed.  And organized.  So organized that she co-founded local action group Neighbors for Clean Air.  If you missed her recent OpEd piece in The Oregonian, "Portland's air pollution: The hidden danger in our midst" - it's well worth a read.

Here's how she concludes her excellent piece:

"As the nation watches the catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico continue to play out, we're learning that we cannot let unfettered economic interests overrule every other metric of reasonable precautionary investments, including protecting the health of our children. We can change this picture. We need to sit down with industry, their watchdogs, scientists and concerned citizens and create a more livable Portland -- a safe place for our kids."

Thanks, Mary, for taking your time to fight for cleaner air in Stumptown.  Clearly, it needs it.

[Thanks to StuSeeger and Flickr CC for the lovely Pdx image]

Guest post: The part-time worker blues

Terrific guest post on the public policy failures related to women (often us mothers who want more time with our children) and part-time work from Valerie Young, "Your Woman in Washington."

There are many different reasons women and mothers get the short end of the stick in our social order, but a major factor has to be how part-time work is structured in this country. This is a big part of the reason women's earnings and women's wealth trails that of men so dramatically.

The US Joint Economic Committee recently published "The Earnings Penalty for Part-Time Work: An Obstacle to Equal Pay". The report shows that neary 2/3 of part-time workers are women. In 2009, that was 17 million women in the U.S. It is true that most women do work full-time outside the home, however one fourth of all working women are in the part-time category. (Only 13% of employed men are working part-time.) The food service and personal care industries are predominantly part-time fields, and employ far more women than men.

In these and other occupations, part-time workers make less per hour than full time workers in the same field, even though they are doing precisely the same work, though for fewer hours. For example, a part-time worker in sales makes 58 cents for every dollar a full-time salesperson earns. In computer and mathematical occupations, a part-timer is earning only 63 cents for every dollar a full-timer earns. In addition to a lower rate of compensation, part-timers don't see the health benefits, paid time off, or pension plans that many full-timers can take advantage of. So, the hourly difference actually underrepresents the economic discrepancy.

The appeal of part-time work for women is likely the decreased hours, which they need to accommodate their other obligations, like caring for children or other dependent family members. It is no surprise, then, that offers for "work at home" are targeted at women in general and mothers in particular, promising great wages, especially on the internet. Many of these offers are outright scams, preying on the competing interests of mothers to make some money and care for their children.

Sharon Lerner, author of The War On Moms: On Life in a Family Unfriendly Nation, wrote an eyebrow-raising article in a recent issue of American Prospect, on multilevel marketing schemes and how women have been taken in and lost thousands of dollars. "For every legitimate work-from-home job advertised on the Web, there are some 57 scams..." she writes. Mothers desperate for ecnomic stability and flexible work are prime victims.

There's no doubt that this situation is the direct result of a public policy failure to align the 21st century workplace with the 21st century workforce. Child care, especially good child care, is hard to find, and when found, invariably expensive. If a mother has even two young children, what she earns can be far too close to what it costs to pay for child care alone. Lacking an accessible, affordable early education/child care policy, the US offers little in the way of flexible and/or part-time work with proportionate pay and benefits.

It isn't going too far to say that our national approach (or really, lack of one) creates a huge pool of willing customers for these direct sales marketers. In fact, 88% of people in direct sales are female. The number turning a profit is negligible, less than 1% by some estimates. Ironically, mothers pursuing economic stability in this manner will likely find themselves worse off than ever.

We can continue to think that really, women aren't discriminated against in this country, and there is equal opportunity to all, male and female, parent and non-parent. After all, it's just the way things are. Or we can take a cold hard look at the situation, inform ourselves, and connect the dots. The space between cause and effect gets shorter and shorter, especially where mothers' economic independence and public policy run into each other. The situation we find ourselves in is no accident. Nor is it inevitable. But it most certainly will continue until we say, "Enough".

This post was originally posted here on June 3, 2010.

Sandra Steingraber's new film, "LIving Downstream"

If you haven't seen this film about the environmental links to cancer, based on Steingraber's eye-opening book of the same name, get thee to a screening. As Steingraber (a personal heroine) says so eloquently and forcefully,

"We should become carcinogen abolitionists.  These chemicals simply need to be phased out.  When carcinogens are introduced into the environment some number of vulnerable persons are consigned to death."

This bag says it all

 

Too Many Summer Camps = Expensive

Well school's just about out.  The kids are r-e-a-d-y for summer.  But is my bank account?  I mean, with a full (ridiculous) 12 weeks out of school (can you say: fall behind?), and way less vacation time from work, camps are a modern reality.  And they ain't cheap.  Let's take a vague average (from my own family research) of $200/week per kid (which so doesn't include before and after care). 

Let's say you have 2 kids, and if you're lucky after covering other school-year holidays (think: Thanksgiving, Christmas, Spring Break), 2 weeks time off (ha!). 

So a back-of-the-napkin cost calculation might look like this:

10 weeks x 2 kids x $200 = $4,000 (YOWZA)

Compare that, of course, to what you might be paying during the year for school, and chances are summer's lookin' pretty costly by comparison.  To get back to numbers, her's a comparison from our house:

4-YO daughter costs $500/month for 3 days of pre-school + 7-YO son is (bless him) free at PPS = $1,250 for 10 weeks

And to bring it on home, last I checked, $4,000 is $2,750 more than $1,250, making summer more than twice as expensive as our non-summer education/child care costs.

What about you?  Think summer is too expensive?  Summer break t-o-o long?  Or is it all OK on your end?