Andy Craig is running the school district into the ground - financially, policy wise, personnel wise, and instructionally, as well as denying bus transportation to families of all races. House values will plummet if the bus transportation is discontinued.

Since October, when the District announced that the Amherst Regional Public Schools would restrict peanuts and tree nuts, there has been a public debate about the decision. The arguments against this approach have ranged from the shortsighted and insensitive to the inaccurate and outright dangerous. The new practice does not deny anyone of their right to consume nuts in their daily life. It is a restriction on having them in the public schools. We are talking about a six and a half hour day without nut products, not an entire diet. There are plenty of protein sources and nut alternatives available to families. The district has expressed a willingness to work with people who have a significant medical issue that requires an alternate plan. Though there are other medical issues that may require accommodations, there are not other medical issues that could kill a child within minutes and for which there is a simple solution to greatly minimize that risk. While this new practice may require some getting used to, the inconvenience to families and children is minor when weighed alongside the positive impact of this practice on the safety and well-being of children with life-threatening nut allergies. A lot has been said about the economic hardship of purchasing nut butter substitutes to make up for the loss of the "healthy protein source" of peanut butter. While peanut butter alternatives such as Sunbutter and WowButter are more expensive than the cheapest peanut butter brands that include an unhealthy combination of oils and sugars, the truly healthy peanut butter varieties are just as expensive as peanut butter alternatives. There are also countless protein sources aside from nut substitutes. For families experiencing a significant financial challenge there is subsidized lunch, where the cafeterias have been serving nut butter alternatives for years. Attempting to make this a conversation about class is manipulative and diversionary. Some people feel that the whole focus of this issue should be keeping allergic children away from allergens by separating them from peers who consume nuts at school. In fact, a food allergy is a disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act and the recommendation is to manage the disability without exclusion or segregation. There is a significant social and emotional component to living with food allergies and it impacts a child's safety as they grow into an age where they manage their own allergy. This new practice nurtures and protects the whole child. It teaches all of our children an important lesson about taking care of one another and inclusion. There are challenges in this, but there are also gains. Some people argue that children with food allergies should not have the benefit of this accommodation because they should learn to live in the "Real World." In the "Real World" we protect children, and some children need more protection than others. Crossing guards and booster seats and movie ratings are all part of the "Real World." The world is a much scarier place for children with life-threatening allergies. They will spend their whole lives negotiating the challenges associated with their disability. Affording them the chance to learn in an environment where they are not quite as fearful seems like a reasonable accommodation. Perhaps the most outrageous suggestion is the one that parents will be lulled into a state of complacency and our children will become less safe as a result. The allergen is the threat. Greatly reducing it will greatly reduce the threat. Parents of allergic children are painfully aware that nothing will ever eliminate the threat. To suggest that we could ever stop worrying about that is enormously insensitive. To use a fabricated concern for the safety of food allergic children in an effort to diminish a practice that would help them is disingenuous. I am the mother of a child with a life threatening nut allergy. I know why this issue feels so important to me. What I cannot understand is why anyone whose child's life is not in danger would take the time to fight against a practice that represents great progress toward safety and inclusion for a hundred children in our district. Each of those children is a human being and a life. I started this petition because in the process of public debate some of us seem to have forgotten that.

We can end student loans. I have an awful amount of student loan debt and I am angry that student loan debt keeps growing for current students and folks in repayment. I don't want any other student to ever experience the problem's I've had with high student loan debt. It's time that banks quit profiting from students quest for high education. It's time for college tuition to quit being a barrier for low and middle income students. Oregon(1) has already shown that there is another way to pay for college. Instead of colleges setting tuition, all alumni should pay a small portion of income for 15 years to enable the next generation of students to attend college. Pay 5% for 15 years- all the money back to your school, none of it to the banks. If Oregonians can pay it forward, why can't every college seeking student also pay it forward? Let' s use next years Higher Education Reauthorization Act to end student loans once and for all. Sen. Harkin (IA) is the Chair of the Senate's Health,Education,Labor, and Pensions (HELP) committee and has the power to include Pay It Forward as part of this bill. Tell Sen. Harkin to help us end student loans in 2014. We can end student loans. Really, we can end student loans. Let's end student loans. (1) http://abcnews.go.com/Business/oregon-legislature-approves-tuition-free-college-pilot-program/story?id=19577994

The suffering these animals endure to gain data that is for the most part inconclusive at best, is cruel unnecessary & barbaric. It is also funded with taxpayers dollars who HAVE NO SAY to thier ethical objection to these practices. SHAME ON YOU!!!

ubject: Post911 GI bill. The bill has served many active duty members and their dependents well. Unfortunately, the bill falls short of offering the retired veteran the same degree of appreciation. The current version of the bill prohibits veterans from transferring their educational benefit. In part, the law states that the transfer of benefits from individuals eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill to certain family members is allowed if you are currently a member of the Armed Forces (active duty or Selected Reserve) on or after August 1, 2009. This wording effectively eliminates the retiree from making the transfer. In the end, this prohibition is unnecessary and unfair to the veterans who have served and defended this great nation. This bill is permanently authorized and supported through mandatory funding. And it requires no additional appropriations for a retiree like me to hand the benefit to my child just as a service member. Recently, I read that the U.S. spent $34 million to build a facility in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan that will never be used. And more than $770 million was spent on aircrafts that the Afghan forces will never fly. Not to mention, the $350 million bridge to nowhere. I could go on giving examples like this. Nevertheless, people can’t understand how we can give so much aid to other countries and balk at allowing vets to transfer their earned benefit. Especially, since additional funds are not required. By allowing this transfer, thousands of our American children will have the opportunity to receive a college education. And without it, many will unnecessarily struggle to attend and even more will not be able to afford it. Who can be against that? All the while being in support of giving billions to other countries to feed and educate their children. The monies from the 3 examples above could have educated more children than what the mind could imagine. So, the questioned asked by all of us is why prohibit it? Congress modify the Post911 GI bill to read: “Veterans who qualify for the Post911 GI bill is allowed to transfer their educational benefit to their spouse or dependent children”. It is the only and the right thing to do.

Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio is about to take office. He has spoken out in support of so many fantastic education policies. We’re hopeful that as he starts to put his policies in place, he can work to lower the high stakes of the New York State tests for New York City students and teachers. We have put together this petition urging him to do just that. And we need your help to spread the word. Time is of the essence, as we anticipate many of the new educational policies that will ensue under this new administration will start to go into effect shortly following the transition. We believe that valid assessments used thoughtfully by teachers and schools can be extremely useful. But we also believe New York’s testing program – as currently designed and practiced in grades 3-8 – is not educationally sound and should not be used to make high stakes decisions for students, teachers, principals, or schools. While there are many things about the high stakes tests that we would eventually like to see changed, there are three specific aspects that Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio has direct control over and will be able to change: 1. Ending promotion tied to test scores 2. Ending middle and high school admissions tied exclusively to test scores 3. Ending school report cards based primarily on student test scores These changes won’t fix everything. But they’re a great start – and they represent changes Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio would be able to make himself. So join us in reaching out to him and urging him to help us lower the stakes surrounding testing in NYC… and lowering the weight they are currently placing on our teachers and our students by signing this petition.

Student loan debt is a big burden for those on fixed income.Some have co-signed for children and grandchildren. debt like this put seniors in risk of extreme poverty

The leadership of Eastern Michigan University (EMU) entered into an inter-local agreement that created the Education Achievement Authority (EAA). They did so in a manner that fostered assumptions that members of the education faculty at Eastern were actively engaged in the EAA -- misleading the citizens of the state; the professional educators of the state; AND the students of the University. The fact is EMU faculty were not invited to give input into such an arrangement or asked for our expertise as researchers and professionals in the complex and varied aspects of education (school administration, teacher development, and student achievement) as the EAA was established. To date, the faculty have been excluded from any direct participation in the creation or implementation of its policies, operating procedures, professional development, curricula or pedagogical practices, many of which the faculty find questionable at best. Furthermore, the faculty find the undermining of democratic processes represented in the creation of a district outside the purview of public decision-making and oversight to be in direct conflict with this university's mission and our legacy as a champion of public education. This violation of our principles is now beginning to affect our historically strong relationship with local schools. Thus, the faculty find Eastern Michigan University’s participation in the Education Achievement Authority unacceptable. These negative impacts on our reputation, our local relationships, our students and programs, the clear effect on enrollments and thus revenue to the university are a repudiation of Eastern Michigan University’s legacy as a champion of public education and a leader in the preparation of educational professionals. The faculty implores you to remedy this situation as quickly as possible by unanimously voting to withdraw from the contract creating the Education Achievement Authority.

Our children's education should be our top priority. Schools need funding. The lottery was intended to support schools. Let's honor that intention. The last weekend of every month; all lottery funds generated are distributed between all California Public Schools. Schools are required to use funding for Common Core implementation.

School district policies have protections in place for bullying for students, however, there are no mandates to protect public school employees from administrative and workplace bullying. Need to create language in school Ed Code and mandates to insure civil protections for all.

I am bringing this petition to the school board because there is a lice problem at Gibraltar that won't end. My daughter has come home with lice four times in the last two school years. We need a new policy to keep lice from spreading, including lice checks. There are several parents that won't send their kids on the bus anymore because of the lice problem. Parents would like Gibraltar to put a policy in place that will help put an end to this problem.

To help students, parents, teacher's, and staff come together to problem solve the growing number of bullying incidents and fights that are breaking out on school grounds, by text, or by social media.