Monthly Archives: May 2009

Bayview kindergartners, then and now

Posted on May 31, 2009 | Comments Off

kindergartenThe Chronicle has a nice feature today on a class of Kindergartners who enrolled at George Washington Carver Elementary School in the 1995-96 school year. Through extensive reporting, the Chronicle found all but a handful of the students, and reports on what became of them — comparing what actually happened with state statistics that predicted at least a third would fail to graduate from high school.

Read full article >>>

Watch  slideshow with audio >>>

Comments Off

Posted in Improving schools, issues

Tagged

Governor proposes cuts to school busing

Posted on May 30, 2009 | 8 Comments

Today’s Chronicle has a story about an additional series of cuts to close the state’s $24.3 billion deficit between now and June 2010. Here’s one nugget about how the cuts might affect SFUSD:

The elimination of state funds for school buses would mean a loss of $3.2 million for San Francisco Unified School District, jeopardizing school transportation for 7,000 students who rely on busing, said Myong Leigh, deputy superintendent for operations.

“We would have to take a real hard look at the pain of cutting transportation versus cutting money in other places instead,” he said.

We’ve been mostly shielded from making these kinds of painful decisions due to help from the City’s Rainy Day Fund. I think we’d better brace ourselves, however, because the really tough decisions are down the road.

→ 8 Comments

Posted in budget

Tagged

Recap: May 26 regular meeting

Posted on May 27, 2009 | 9 Comments

I’m sore and sleepy today — seven hours in a hot, crowded meeting that lasts until 1 a.m. will do that to you. A very brief recap:

  • The Parent Advisory Council presented some very interesting statistics on participation and availability of after-school programs in SFUSD; information that needs to be absorbed and addressed by the Board on a night with a less packed agenda. Commissioner Fewer plans to bring this topic to the next Curriculum committee meeting, on June 1 at 4:30 p.m. in the Board room.
  • The San Francisco Unified School District has now aligned its graduation requirements with the A-G course sequence required for admission to the University of California and the California State University system, starting with the class of 2014. This is really a historic action and cements our commitment as a district to graduating every student college- or career-ready. Vote: 7-0 in favor.
  • The Board passed the P.E. Master Plan, which lays out a strategy to improve and expand our P.E. offerings in the coming years (the source of funds will be the funding stream provided by the Public Education Enrichment Fund–aka “Prop. H”). There was some discussion about whether the new requirement that all students take four years of P.E. (if students pass the state fitness test they may opt out of P.E. in grades 11 and 12) is too restrictive, given the Board’s concurrent discussion about providing alternative P.E. programs in certain cases. The General Counsel said, however, that the Board may create alternative programs at a later time as a “clarification” of this policy.  Vote: 7-0 in favor.
  • The Board had a lengthy discussion on a proposed partnership between City College, Communities of Opportunity and SFUSD to create a “Gateway to College” program at City College’s Southeast campus to re-engage students who have dropped out and get them back on a college path. There are many advantages and pluses to this proposal, since everyone agrees we have collectively failed these students; a multi-institution partnership is a great way to work to fix this problem. The objections center around the location: there are not extensive course offerings or support services for this group at the Southeast campus currently, and in the opinion of some Board members, the location does not provide the college experience that these students may need. In the end we amended the proposal to keep discussing locations while allowing the district to move forward with acquiring required waivers from the state. Vote: 7-0 in favor.
  • The Board unanimously passed resolutions calling for a Parent Engagement Plan and a Student Feedback System.
  • Many members of the public were waiting to comment on Commissioner Yee and Kim’s proposal to allow students in JROTC the ability to meet the P.E. requirement through an independent study program that would be supervised by the JROTC instructors. Originally, the plan was that the Board would vote to suspend the rules and act on the proposal last night. But by the time the item came up (well after 11 p.m.), Commissioner Mendoza had long departed and there were not enough votes to suspend the rules (this action requires a supermajority of the board, not a supermajority of the quorum). In the end, the item was referred to the Curriculum Committee (June 1, 4:30 p.m. in the Board room) for discussion, and will return to the full Board at the June 9 regular meeting.
  • National Urban Alliance — a controversial professional development plan proposed for 20 high schools at a cost of $2.7 million between now and June 2010 over two years — passed 4 votes (Yee, Kim, Fewer, Maufas) to 1 (Norton).

→ 9 Comments

Posted in BOE, issues

Tagged , , , , ,

P.E. and JROTC

Posted on May 23, 2009 | 1 Comment

I am getting a lot of mail about P.E. and JROTC, and a great deal from P.E. supporters who don’t think the course should be allowed as an alternative to P.E.  I’m sorry, but I disagree.

It’s true that in recent years, the state has made great progress in raising standards for physical education. It has beefed up its content standards, as well as its requirements. It’s important for us to teach students to value and achieve physical fitness, to understand how to live healthfully, and help them draw the connection between physical and emotional health. It’s also true that earning a credential to teach P.E. requires a significant commitment of time and effort.

What I disagree with is the insistence that only P.E. can achieve these goals. Yes:  in many (and even most!) cases, traditional P.E. can help students learn what they need to know in order to live a healthy lifestyle and be physically fit. But in some cases, traditional P.E. is counter-productive, and I question whether it’s a wise course to insist on a one-size-fits-all approach. The fact is that there are alternatives, from competitive athletics, marching band, dance and, yes, JROTC,  which can all provide the vigorous physical activity required by the state, while also engaging students and involving them in activities they are committed to and  which they enjoy.

I applaud our efforts, through the P.E. Master Plan, to improve our P.E. instruction and better align that instruction to the state content standards. However, I don’t see that work as the only way to get to our overarching goal of helping students learn the benefits of being physically fit.  To my mind, the most important thing is to help students find a physical activity they enjoy, and one they will stick with in order to live a healthy and fit life. So I’m sorry, but I think it’s important to allow students as many alternatives as we can if the outcome is that they will ultimately learn how to respect themselves, respect their bodies, and make choices that lead to a healthy, long, and fulfilling life.

I also reject the contention that allowing qualified alternative courses to satisfy the state’s P.E. requirements somehow cheapens the credential that certified P.E. teachers work so hard to earn. This isn’t about the teachers! This is about finding the best ways to reach and engage every child in the quest to help young people live healthier lives.  I’m sorry if P.E. teachers feel their professional qualifications are somehow dismissed; I don’t endorse that view. But I also don’t endorse the view that it’s disrespectful to P.E. teachers to allow students a range of options to satisfy a requirement.

Finally, it’s come to my attention that a district employee, acting in an official capacity as a supervisor, sent an email to many of our P.E. teachers claiming that some high school P.E. teachers could lose their jobs if the district again allows students an alternative pathway to traditional P.E.  Aside from the fact that this claim couldn’t be further from the truth, it’s also an outrageous abuse of this employee’s responsibilities as a supervisor and a blatant attempt to manipulate teachers in order to influence an action of the Board. (Wouldn’t you write the Board if a supervisor told you your job might depend on it?)

Bottom line: with the new P.E. master plan we will have need for more, not fewer P.E. teachers, regardless of what happens with JROTC. Also, the deadline to send out layoff notices for next year is long past, so even if we WERE planning to lay off P.E. teachers (we aren’t!), we would not legally be able to.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in BOE, issues

Tagged ,

Good news, bad news

Posted on May 22, 2009 | 1 Comment

What a day!

The good news: California schools showed gains on the 2008 state testing, adding to a consistent record of improvement on the books since 1999. San Francisco did well too, improving as a district to an API score of 772 from 764 ayear earlier.

The bad news: Deputy Superintendent for Instruction, Innovation and Social Justice Tony Smith was hired by Oakland Unified School District to be Superintendent of the Oakland public schools.  Of course this is a loss, since Dr. Smith was part of the heart and soul of the change happening in San Francisco. But we wish him well and the work here will continue even as he moves on to other challenges.

The good news: President Obama’s handpicked Secretary of Education Arne Duncan was in San Francisco today meeting with students, teachers and district leaders to see first hand the change that is happening here in San Francisco, and gave what was described as an “inspiring” address to 700 community leaders at a lunch this afternoon.

The bad news: Earlier in the day, Secretary Duncan told mayors and urban Superintendents that California had “lost its way” on education reform. Hopefully that rather depressing statement means that we are on the short list to qualify for “Race to the Top” funds that the U.S. Department of Education will be awarding later this year.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in BOE, Great things going on, issues, Not so great things going on

Tagged , , , ,

May 19: Budget meeting recap

Posted on May 20, 2009 | 2 Comments

Lots of items on last night’s Budget and Business Services Committee agenda. First up: the Superintendent’s proposal to align SFUSD’s graduation requirements with the University of California’s admission requirements, known as the A-G course sequence.  The presentation from the staff focused on the fiscal impact of making this change, which is not insignificant but actually less than one might think, considering we are going to need to seriously re-align our course offerings and institute support services for students who struggle with the more demanding series of courses.

Continue reading →

→ 2 Comments

Posted in BOE, budget

Tagged ,

How I’m voting today

Posted on May 18, 2009 | Comments Off

As a reminder, here’s how I’ve decided to vote on the six Propositions on the ballot for today’s Special Election:

  • 1A (Cuts spending and establishes a Rainy Day fund): NO – this is no way to make good public policy (update: if you don’t believe me, believe Sweet Melissa, she knows!);
  • 1B (Repays school districts later for budget cuts now): YES – 1B does not take effect without 1A, so this is a protest vote that will have no practical effect but feels good;
  • 1C (Restructures the state lottery): NO - I am OK with borrowing against future lottery revenues but don’t like that the proceeds go in the general fund instead of funding education;
  • 1D (Cuts in services for children age 5 and younger): NO;
  • 1E (Cuts in mental health services funding): NO;
  • 1F (Prevents pay increases for legislators): NO – this is a basically meaningless measure (CFT calls it “faux populist”) that is just there to make people feel good by sticking it to the Legislature, but hey–support it if it makes you feel better.

Comments Off

Posted in budget, Campaign, politics

Tagged ,

Getting out of the abyss

Posted on May 17, 2009 | Comments Off

This weekend I’ve been in Sacramento at an annual legislative action conference sponsored by the  California School Boards Association. I’m told that usually many different legislative topics are discussed but not this year. The budget crisis is The Topic and the news is not good. Yesterday I blogged about the problem, and how the propositions on Tuesday’s ballot won’t really solve it (that’s why I’m opposing all of them except 1B).

If the Legislature and the Governor continue to oppose tax increases and other revenue measures, the way out of this abyss in the short-term is going to be extremely painful for everyone who depends on publicly-funded services. In one of today’s presentations we were told that if , as expected, the ballot measures don’t pass, California public schools will sustain a cumulative cut of at least $9 billion over the two years beginning in July 2008 and ending in July 2010. That is approximately $1,440 per student in cuts over two years! And even if by some unexpected reason the propositions do pass, the cuts will be devastating, so don’t think that voting yes saves us as a state much, if any, pain over the next two years.

Continue reading →

Comments Off

Posted in budget, issues, Not so great things going on

Tagged

Are we supposed to vote or something?

Posted on May 16, 2009 | Comments Off

“Were we supposed to vote on some propositions or something?”  reads the email from my husband. I am in Sacramento this weekend to attend the California School Boards Association‘s Legislative Action Conference, so he must have heard something about an election on the news and wondered whether we missed it.

Nope, we haven’t missed it, hon — but you’re forgiven for not being sure. Most people don’t seem to be paying much attention to Tuesday’s Special Election, and the few that are seem to be pretty negative on the whole thing; pollsters say most of the measures will fail.  But the Democratic Party, the California Teachers Association and most of our local legislators are either supporting or neutral on the six measures on the ballot, which are supposed to give the state flexibility to maneuver during the ongoing budget crisis. The state’s other teachers’ union, the smaller California Federation of Teachers, is opposing all of the measures except 1B.

Continue reading →

Comments Off

Posted in BOE, budget

Tagged ,

The BOE giveth, then taketh away

Posted on May 14, 2009 | 2 Comments

A lot of people are confused about the unfortunate coda to Tuesday night’s vote on JROTC — the subsequent decision to issue layoff notices to the 12 JROTC instructors, whose program we had just brought back from the brink after three years of limbo. I’ll try to recount what happened, and what happens next.

At around 10:30 p.m. Tuesday evening, the Board voted to reinstate the program, after which there was much celebration by the assembled supporters of the program. Then the supporters (understandably, after four-and-a-half hours of sitting there) went home while the Board got down to the rest of the meeting.

About an hour later, we got to an item asking the Board to approve layoffs of the 12 JROTC instructors and 1.5 Vocational Ed instructors. I had assumed that item was there as a precaution in case the Board did not approve the resolution to reinstate the program (under state law, the district must issue final layoff notices by May 15 if it plans to lay off certificated employees for the following school year). After all, if there weren’t going to be a JROTC program, there would be no point in continuing to employ the JROTC instructors, whose credentials don’t allow them to bump into other teaching positions.

So I proposed an amendment deleting the JROTC instructors from the resolution, but was shocked when the staff argued that the ongoing uncertainty over the enrollment and credits for the program necessitated going ahead with the layoffs. They could always be rescinded, the staff and the superintendent argued, and so to preserve maximum flexibility while the credit issues are being worked out, they recommended the Board approve the layoff resolution as offered, authorizing the district to send out layoff notices.

Well, it had been a long night, and I got a bit emotional. I haven’t watched the replays, but I got a text message from a friend reminding me I was on TV and telling me to cool off a little. And political blogger Sweet Melissa quoted me as being on quite a rant.  My amendment was voted down, 5-2, allowing the resolution to pass as offered, again 5-2. After that, I had to leave the room for a while.

So what does this mean for the instructors, dedicated teachers who have endured three years of uncertainty about their jobs, and the almost unimaginable stress of fighting this most contentious of issues over and over again? It means they will get letters next week informing them that, as of now, they don’t have jobs next year. If the layoffs are rescinded (which I have been assured they will be), their jobs will be restored. But I have no way of knowing when that will happen, and in the meantime they will have to endure yet more stress and uncertainty.

During the argument over my amendment, I said something about how taking the action to lay off the instructors even after saving their program was nothing short of mean-spirited. In general, I’m sympathetic to the idea that we should maintain flexibility in hiring decisions, so that we aren’t forced to employ people we don’t need at the expense of other priorities. But in this case, everything points to the fact that the enrollment in this program will pick up now that its presence is assured. By refusing to shed these 12 jobs, we would have acknowledged that the past three years have been very hard on some of our dedicated teaching staff. We would have sent the message that we were prepared to stand by our decision and implement it honorably, even though not everyone agrees with the decision we made. We failed to do that.

The upshot? This too will pass, but only after adding to the heap of collateral damage this mother of all policy fights has caused to students, instructors, and the district itself.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in BOE

Tagged