San Diego Unified Parent- Life At School

We’re all able to take a shot at the Superintendent and the Board of Education.  It’s not difficult, and there’s plenty of fodder.  Everyone will, at one time or another, be able to come up with a reason to dislike their decisions and processes.

But after attending most of a workshop meeting today, I have to type to you that I was impressed.  I saw a LOT of material fly across their desk today, and each was discussed in detail, sometimes painstakingly, driven to try to make the best decision while mired in hopelessly complicated detail.  It ain’t easy.

The frustration I had at the last board meeting was significantly diminished, primarily due to a lack of public participation.  Instead of the circus that prevails at the Ed center meetings, this was a group of dedicated individuals with business to conduct.  Outside of a disappointing fit of pique and stomp-out-of-the-room from John de Beck, differing points of view were tolerated well.

Sadly, I had to leave (pick up the kid from camp) just as the budget was getting reported.  But it was an interesting and informative way to spend the morning.

An advantage (there are many DISadvantages) of being a geek is immediacy. Today’s example is this post, my first created entirely on iphone directly from a school board meeting. This is an amazing process, and makes me even more thankful that I’m a photographer and not a boardmember. There is interesting stuff happening right now, so I’ll post more later.

Nope.  

A parcel tax is a special tax levied on property owners for funding special projects.  In San Diego county, there is much discussion of a parcel tax for our schools.  If you read this article, you’ll see the teacher’s union and the school board are not getting along on this subject. 

Some background:  Years ago, Proposition MM was passed by the voters to fund capital improvement in our schools.  These improvements were only for repair and expansion- not for funding staff.  MM was great for the district, and brought many positive changes.  It was not without it’s flaws- many libraries were built without librarians, but on the whole, schools saw many needed improvements.

Bond measures are temporary things- by voting for them, taxpayers agree to pay a little extra for a set period of time.  In the case of MM, the term was 10 years.  This year, we taxpayers will stop paying for prop MM.  But our schools still badly need capital improvements- some are tired, run-down and too small.  Our family’s school, Grant Math+Science Magnet, is practically a blight on the neighborhood.

The district is currently considering a new bond- let’s call it LL just for fun.  LL would do the same things MM did, and could be pitched to the taxpayers on the basis of “no new taxes”- that is, you’ll pay tax rates similar to last year’s.  

Here’s where the fun begins-

It’s my understanding, based on last week’s car wash and the prevailing winds that blow easterly across the Normal Street compound and across Washington, that the teacher’s union saw LL as a fantastic opportunity. Not that LL could provide more money for teachers, but that it provided a fulcrum with which the union could leverage the board.  

Simply put, if the board did not promote the parcel tax idea, the teacher’s union would come out against the bond proposal.

Yes, that means the teacher’s union is happy to put the welfare of our children second to their political power and influence agenda.  I don’t hold it against them- they have a job to do, and that job is to further their agenda at whatever cost.

Now the union is mad, and the recriminations are flying.  The teacher’s union is once again pressing for a new contract, but they know without a parcel tax they’re going to be chasing unlined pockets.

I don’t bemoan the loss of a parcel tax, our family pays plenty of taxes, thanks.  And I’m certainly unwilling to support a teacher’s union (teachers, yes! union, no) whose thuggish tactics denigrate the profession.

I’m both happy to vote for a bond measure, and happy to support merit-based teacher pay raises.

Part of blogging is trying to offer something of interest to readers, either by creating content myself, or by offering carefully researched resources when someone does a better job.

For any San Diego Unified Parent, www.voiceofsd.com is a must read.  Yes, I’ve mentioned it before, but the latest articles are excellent and the contents will be material for upcoming blog entries.  So homework is required.  Emily Alpert won a three awards from the Society of Professional Journalists for her coverage of education issues in San Diego.  [I only won a single second place- but it was for photography in San Diego Magazine- a guy's got to make a living.]

Links to her reporting are on the sidebar of this blog.  Pay particular attention to the *parcel tax* issue.  I had my truck washed the other day, and the wind brought interesting information (something Emily Alpert couldn’t or wouldn’t publish) in the breeze.

My other favorite educational resource, also in the sidebar, is www.edutopia.com.  I just had a look over their to try to present some recent interesting bits- but it’s ALL interesting.  Edutopia tackles big, system-wide issues, and asks questions about k-12 education in a global way.  These big questions can help guide us, as parents involved in our children’s education, towards improving our schools and future of our children.

that’s it for now.

As mentioned before, I attended the Board of Education Meeting (good) on the 8th.  

Now, many of my closest friends, in moments of candor, will tell you I can be a grumpy old bastard.  I am well over 40, and have a view of the world and expectations of conduct that began in another century.  I was taught by parents who had their values solidly based in the Depression (you know- the 1929 one).  This life experiences puts me in the fist-shaking at the wind category.  I am embarrassed we live in a society that has to have signs to tell people to get off their phone before approaching a service counter, or in the neighborhood of my studio 2 blocks from the ballpark (hear the angels sing), a sign that says “Don’t [urinate] in this doorway”.(bad)  It makes me grumpy.(bad)

The BOE meeting on the 8th was just such an event.  There were LOTS of parents (good) who wished to speak to the Board about their particular cause (good) and were fervent in their beliefs.  Primary among these were supporters of Eddie Caballero.  Mr Caballero is an awfully popular guy (good) among the Sherman Heights Community and parents.

The BOE made it clear from the beginning that there were so many speakers, time would have to be limited to one minute per person.  And off we go to the races.

Grumpy me has certain standards of behavior for certain activities. For example, riding my dirtbike has a lower standard than walking through a house of worship- anyone’s. (naive)

There seems, however no standard of behavior for parents attending BOE meetings.  Many of Mr Caballero’s supporters were Latina-istas, which is far easier to type than to say.  The Latina-ista mob was completely disruptive (rude)- talking on cell phones, chatting amongst their crew, and making their hats of protest while the BOE was in session.  When the Caballero announcement was made (good) the place went crazy- you would have thought Terry Grier was a soccer announcer and had yelled GOAL-OSOOOOOO!  

Look-I understand and support the enthusiasm these parents have for their community (good) and have no objection to their outburst (good) celebrating the goal.

But then it took an ugly turn.  The Latina-istas continued to conduct themselves as if they were at that imaginary soccer game, (rude) while other business was trying to be conducted.  At one point, a Latina-ista leader grabbed the microphone away from another person addressing the BOE on a seperate matter to let her crew know it was OK to leave the building. (rude!).

Lost in the Latina-ista pandemonium were speakers who had very important discussions for the BOE.

One was the parent of a special education child who was, above the din of the soccer-match crowd, trying to explain to the BOE that their budget cuts would saddle principals with too many special ed students. (bad)  Another was a pink-slipped science teacher, who was pointedly reminding individual members of the BOE about statements they had made in previous meetings- and holding them accountable (good).  

But overall, the attention in the room was stolen by Latina-istas.  One speaker all but shook her fist at the BOE and told them that they “were taking over” (rude) and they would be watching EVERY decision the BOE would be making in the future, in all future meetings (good!).

Until the break, when they all left. Including Ms Fistshaker of the Future.

As parent, I believe we should support open access to our BOE.  Their process(s) should be as transparent and visible as possible.  But with public behavior like I witnessed Tuesday, it’s no wonder the BOE enjoys it’s closed-door sessions. And it just makes more of those closed sessions more likely- I completely understand why.

Oh- and another (naive)discovery.  I’m not an educator or a politician, and when someone “schools” me about these situations, I feel pretty foolish- but I’m learning. I’ve subsequently learned that at least some of the Latina-istas were not Sherman parents at all:

They were just activists trying to guarantee that our school system continued to teach children in Spanish.

And let me clarify- not Spanish as a second language, but Spanish as a primary language in the classroom.

I’m so naive.(bad)

It’s entirely possible I’m wrong.  Will someone can comment and disabuse me of my opinion?  Just click on the comment link below.  Thanks.

Yesterday afternoon’s Board of Education meeting was interesting to me for several reasons, one of which I’ll detail for you tomorrow.  But it began on a high note- the Board, fresh from a closed door meeting, announced that Eddie Caballero (see another of my insightful posts below) was reinstated at Sherman Elementary.  

This is great news for Mr. Caballero, and the communities of Sherman Heights and Scripps Ranch, the latter who may be allowed input for the subsequent candidate for principal at Jerabek.  Kudos are to be offered to the Board for being flexible and responsive in this situation.

The news that is not great is we still have no clue as to why our elected officials treated our employees and our communities in such an offhand manner.  I don’t generally object to closed-door meetings- I believe some decisions are best resolved in an environment as possible to complete candor.  But this is a situation where all appearances point to poor management practices.  

If there are members of the Board or employees of the District who are behaving badly- misusing the power we provide them by casually reassigning key personnel or making otherwise poor managerial decisions that require time and effort to retract and attempt to repair the damaged credibility of the District, I’d like to know who they are, and why they deserve to continue working in our employ.

I’d also like to know if the District was somehow threatened or forced into changing their mind.  For example, was the decision to transfer Caballero against employment law?  Was legal counsel (on either side) necessary?

We may never know.

I mentioned a now-famous email from Dr Grier in another post, and said we’d return to that subject- and here we are.  I’ve yet to receive any threatening letters from district lawyers about verbatim repeating of the email, so, for the benefit of the few readers I have, I’ll once again throw caution to the wind.  The email was sent from Dr Terry Grier on 5.11.2008, this is an excerpt:

Principals-

This coming year, we are asking that you implement the following school improvement strategies in your school. As you see, they are “cost neutral”.

*   Do not allow parents to select their kindergarten student’s teacher.

*   Randomly assign kindergarten students to their classrooms and to a teacher.

*   Keep this year’s kindergarten students (2007-2008) together in their cohort groups when promoting them to first grade.

*   Keep this year’s first grade students (2007-2008) together in their cohort groups when promoting them to second grade.

These strategies are based on research completed in the Tennessee STAR class size study by Dr. Charles Achilles and his associates.  They apply to keeping groups of students together and do not address the “looping” of teachers.  It would be nice if we could add the reduced class size of one classroom teacher per 15 students to this initiative, but our budget prohibits that move at this time.

Please use common sense if there is a conflict between two students or between a student/parent and teacher.  I realize that some students will move out of your school, while others will move in.  However, please keep your cohorts together as much as possible and reasonable.  Dr Achilles’ research indicates that the “effect” of these practices applies in kindergarten through second grade.  The research does not support academic benefits of these practices above second grade.

As a wholly unqualified and untrained parent, this is all pretty interesting stuff.  

First, it’s my opinion that most parents are less qualified to choose their child’s kindergarten teacher than an administrator who’s done both a reasonable assessment of the child and knows the teachers that work at the school.  If I were running a school, and was tasked with the responsibility to consistently increase the quality of education of the students that attend “my” school, I’d want to be in charge of matching the students with the appropriate teachers and classes.  Parent opinions would be secondary considerations.  However, I doubt the idea to “randomly assign” students to classrooms would have any great deleterious effect on the group of children, requiring enormous investment in therapy in their futures. (Doc, it all began when-sniff-when-sniff,sniff- my kindergarten class was randomly assigned!) I think many parents will choose based on popularity of a given teacher- it becomes a prestige icon to have the juice to choose the teacher you want for your child.  In all fairness though, some parents have established relationships with teachers from their experience with siblings, and may wish to continue those relationships to the benefit of child, parent, teacher and school.

From a district point of view, it can serve to avoid  ”loading” classes- like giving all the “problem” children to the newest teacher as some charming rite of initiation.  Yes, my educator friends tell me, it does happen.  I also believe if the district realizes an administrator does this, they should immediately encourage that administrator towards an alternate career.

All in, the combination of random assignment coupled with common sense will likely result in few real changes around our schools.

Cohort groups, however, (as my dad says) are a horse of a different color.  I don’t have any forceful opinion about cohort groups, and the small sampling of educators that will talk to me say the idea (like any) has it’s strong and weak points.  But Grier says to use common sense, so it’s all good.

The problem I DO have with the cohort plan is that Greir’s  ”strategies are based on research completed in the Tennessee STAR class size study”.  Just for reference, here’s the link to the study. STAR is an acronym for Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio- it was a study about class size.  Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I cannot find any reference to cohorts in the study at all.  They appear to use the word “cohort” to identify fellow students participating in the project, but I cannot find any justification in the Tennessee Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio report that in any way backs up the claim in Grier’s email that there is an advantage in keeping these students together as a group through second grade.  It’s simply not the subject of the STAR study at all.

The STAR study illustrates the advantage of a lower teacher-to-student ratio- one that we can’t afford to implement.

So- why does Grier use an unrelated study to justify the idea of cohort groups?  

I’ll reiterate my opinion- he seems like an incredibly well-qualified guy, and the limited exposure I’ve had to him is confidence inspiring. I think the Superintendent job something akin to being a duck in a shooting gallery, trying to make it from one side of the room to the other with a large number of sharpshooters motivated to pick you off.

Maybe he’ll answer us.

Please?

When it comes to parent/school relations, many parents get themselves into trouble. They trouble themselves, the school staff, and their kids because they’ve somehow come to believe the school is:[drum roll, use deep announcer voice] The Fountain of Education. These parents are fervent in their belief that The Fountain must be pure, perfect, and majestic. No changes may be made to The Fountain, and The Fountain must be be the sole educational quencher of their child’s undying thirst for greater knowledge.

Further, (and perhaps most importantly) The Fountain must satisfy all thirsts in equal and generous proportions. It should truly be a sparkling and magical fountain.

Parents come to believe in the Fountain of Education because of what they don’t believe- they don’t believe that by becoming parents, they are completely responsible for the education of their child(ren). Many parents believe it’s the school’s (and the mother of all schools, the District) responsibility to teach their children (break into song!) well. Not just well, but everything little people need to know about, well- everything. And all children need to do is drink deeply from the pure and sparkling Fountain of Education.

The truth is, the school should only be a small portion of our children’s education, and possibly the less important portion. Our schools are best equipped to teach the easy stuff- the reading, writing and arithmetic and other fact-based curriculum. The expectation that The Fountain will stretch far into the area of parenting is troublesome.

It’s about percentage. Let’s say schools can only provide 30% of the total needs to fill a young mind full of mush, successfully bringing that child to functioning adulthood. The remaining 70% is up to the parents- teaching morality and values, courtesy and manners, providing learning experiences. Promoting physical activities, nurturing creativity through real-life problem solving. Loads of discipline [Note: discipline does not mean punishment= the root word of discipline is disciple, which means follower of a leader] and parenting. Exposure to cultures, and lifestyles and giving guidance to life’s choices. If we create this type of situation for our children, we will rely on The Fountain for very little, and changes or flaws in The Fountain of Education are minor irritations.

If the equation is inverted, and parents draw from The Fountain for 70% of their child’s needs, a small change to those clear and sparkling waters becomes a catalysmic event.

The Fountain can only be so pure- it’s actually not some magical creation with supernatural powers- it’s just a big organization run and staffed by human beings. And as an earthbound entity, it has plenty of limitations. Can and should we find the best Fountain for our children? Of course. Do we have a responsibility to support and encourage The Fountain’s keepers (yes, the analogy is breaking down rapidly) yes, we do.

But we can’t rely on a some mythical nourishment creation to take the place of our parenting obligations, and we can’t blame the same myth if it falls short in fulfilling them.

Continue Reading »