I’ll bet that 1.2 million spent on LFL made the district feel like a million bucks! I hope it generated a million dollars worth of student self esteem, after administrative costs of course. I guess if ya feel good enough about yourself you’re gonna feel better about others and less inclined to fire back, so to speak.

I can see why LFL contracts do not include NRA training, because arms are for self etc. hugs not for self defense. Given BSA intolerance for intolerable BS it’s good that the BSA has a fire wall to protect it from gay etc. blow back.

It’s informative to know that LFL qualifies as an after school service provider, sharing in Title I funding and that mythical ‘free lunch.’ It’s hard to have positive self esteem on an empty stomach, one of the reasons I’m not looking forward to to what happens in urbia when EBT cards stop feeding the innards of the inner cities during a full blown economic collapse! I dare say it would be great having an NRA trained boy scout in the house, or back seat, on that day! But I digress.

In do believe the LFL/BSA self esteem/self defense firewall (segregation) model should be an established feature of the blue state/RED STATE paradigm.

Last year Oakland Public Schools spent 1.2 million on Learning for 14 Learning for Life consultant contracts. Learning for Life is an affiliate of Boys Scouts of America.

However, the money spent on these contracts did not include training by the NRA.

Learning for Life has a legal fire wall between itself and its Boy Scouts of America affiliate so it can work with public schools and avoid blow-back because of Scout politices that discriminate against gays and non-religious students and personnel.

Learning for Life qualities as organization that can provide after school services and share in Title I funding for schools with poverty enrollment defined as students eligible for Federal free and reduced lunch program.

Jim Mordecai

An acquaintance living a top the Oakland hills has a neighbor who recently got raped in her back yard after dark by a visitor from down flat yonder. Her husband responded by going for his cell phone holster and firing off a call to the Oakland cops – not the kind of ‘bravery’ one might expect of an NRA trained boy scout.

“On my honor I will do my best to shoot the bastard trying to rape my wife between the eyes…” unless Obama says I can’t???

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/01/11/obama-opposed-gun-ban-exception-defend-home/

and a different site

http://schoolspending.apps.cironline.org/county/alameda/district/oakland-unified/

both show OUSD above $10,000 per child(which is well above the state average everyone moans about.

From this article, its seems like Alameda and Fremont should be the ones complaining about being underfunded.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/California-school-funding-analysis-finds-disparity-2369251.php

http://www.ibabuzz.com/onassignment/2011/09/07/a-closer-look-at-spending-and-test-scores-in-east-bay-schools/#comments

One other note about Piedmont is on top of that parcel tax revenue, they out-fundraise even the heavy jitters like Chabot and Crocker and the three Elementary schools pull their monies together. That’s another concept that will never fly here, nor should it. In actuality, parents should stop paying for basics (like paying with their own moneyfor teachers which is common now). Instead they should demand the districts spend the money they have on what it is intended and stop hiring consultants and funding more and more studies and expert analysts.

It’s not difficult to cook the books. And Piedmont is a smaller district.

Still the disparity between the two numbers is interesting and I’d love to know exactly where the spending differences are. I find it interesting that high value children are this cheap. And that OUSD is pouring so much money into people who (by and large) can’t read and write.

It would appear that Oakland gets very little for it’s funds, and probably should not be spending so much. With the literacy scores OUSD turns out, the could cut a $1000 per year per kid and not have lower scores. In the alternative they should cut the “academic” budget and pay the $1000 or so per year to private schools to teach Driver’s Ed and Driver’s Training to all the students at OUSD.

You know, so they could get a job later with a driver’s license. Ditto other vocational training privately outsourced.

If you are going to be making a living with your hands or your back, you need to get to work early.

Brave New World!

Gun training is typically offered through the Jr. Colleges. It used to be a fixture in some high schools. Perhaps we should consider gun training as well as driver’s training in the high schools here.

With appropriate screening of course. Some teens are barred from/unfit for handling weapons.

The last time I was at the gun range it was a weekend and there were numerous families with both teens and small children training the kiddies to shoot targets. And by small children I’m guessing five year old girls and boys shooting. They were all behaving very seriously.

No blacks but me. Some Mexicans. Crowded large outdoor range.

I contrast this with the shooting we see from the urban crowd , keeping it real…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDnEkFSMRik

Which is why “certain people” lead the flying lead mortality tables.

Thus the need for gun training in OUSD!

Brave New World!

Another attribute of Scouting I just learned today is it is linked to NRA. The Bay Area Boy Scouts provides on its webpage advertised arms training sponsored by the NRA.

Also, the front of today’s Tribune, dealing with gun control, had the headline “An Issue of Safety: Experts: Guns and good guys don’t mix” Beginning of the article referenced a 25 year old returnee from Afghanistan stating he learned to shoot as a Boy Scout.

Jim Mordecai