You might as well read about it here, since it’s already hit the local news. The latest issue of The Lowell, the student-run newspaper at Lowell HS, carries an innocuous-looking, business card sized ad reading “Free Music Downloads” in large letters, then a web site address in smaller type. The web address leads to a web site that distributes “white resistance” music, stickers and other materials.

The ad was apparently submitted via email and cost $30 to place. While a Chronicle story indicates that the contents of the web site might have changed between the time the ad was submitted and the time it appeared in print, other reports question whether faculty advisors actually checked the link. In addition to The Lowell, other high school newspapers around the country were apparently targeted.

In any event, this was an underhanded stunt, pure and simple, intended to dupe student journalists into promoting offensive content that most would never run if they realized its true intent.

(Note: while I try always to link to other news outlets when their original reporting informs the content of a post, I have decided not to do that here in order to avoid giving this web site additional attention.)

The news that 25 middle-schoolers from a Chicago charter school were arrested after participating in a food fight is all over the blogs, news and airwaves, from the The New York Times to ABC World News Tonight.  The school said in a statement that “The Chicago police officers who help protect our school, concerned about potential injuries resulting from the fight, felt it was necessary to arrest those responsible.”

This brought to mind a discussion the Board had just last night, over a resolution to fund “increased police presence” at several middle schools in SFUSD (total cost – $40,000, our commitment to a school climate grant we received jointly with SFPD). Commissioner Fewer questioned the expense, wondering whether instead of a “presence,” police officers could provide training to teachers in de-escalation techniques. According to Ms. Fewer (who should know, since she’s married to an SFPD officer), police officers receive deep training in de-escalation, and could actually provide great support to our teachers in defusing tense situations in the classroom. Commissioner Kim additionally pointed out that increasing police presence at our schools is at odds with our new Restorative Justice policy, passed last month.

While we ended up postponing a vote on this expenditure until we can get more information about whether the presence of “School Resource Officers” (SFPD officers stationed at schools) is being “maintained” or “increased,”  this news from Chicago underscores the concerns about the point of police presence in our schools. Personally, I think the presence of the right SRO can contribute in a positive way to school climate — promoting a positive and two-way relationship between law enforcement and families, for example, as well as de-escalation techniques for adults to use when working with troubled youth. But as the mother of two teens who were arrested in the Chicago incident points out, it’s pretty ridiculous to arrest a teenager for throwing a carrot.

I also wonder whether the race of the students played a role in the police reaction – the charter school where the incident occurred is primarily comprised of African-American students. Maybe I’m being too sensitive, but I keep thinking about the scene in the movie “Animal House” where a food fight involving white students is portrayed as exuberant fun. (Without too much effort, I also found this pretty funny clip of Michael Jackson and Macaulay Culkin staging an elaborate pie fight.)

So I think it’s appropriate to question “zero tolerance” policies in situations like this. The point of restorative justice is to be sure that discipline frameworks actually address the wrongs resulting from anti-social behavior, and I’m not sure that arresting students (which enrages their parents and endangers their futures) for an offense like this is in any way effective discipline. Why not instead ask the students to clean the cafeteria until it sparkles?

I’m also reminded of a senior prank my friends and I perpetrated at Berkeley High School a few days before graduation in June 1984. One night we drove a car on to the campus, unloaded several hundred pounds of sand, a boat and a palm tree, commandeered a few picnic tables and spent the next day lounging in our self-created “Senior Island,” ordering off all underclassmen and thinking we were pretty much the bomb.  The then-administration of the school was incredibly tolerant, (probably too much so, since we also refused to attend class), only asking us to remove all of our traces at the end of the day (which we did).  It was memorable, largely harmless, and utterly against the grain of what should be going on in schools. If students tried such a prank today, would administrators feel they had to call police to intervene? I hope not.

City Hall watchers know that the Board of Supervisors has been trying to reverse the layoffs of scores of workers in the City’s Department of Public Health; layoffs that directly affect school district workers because of “bumping” policies that allow workers in certain Civil Service job classifications to bump into jobs either in the school district or in the City.

Unfortunately, the legislation that would have restored the Public Health jobs failed to get the required eight votes yesterday (voting against were Supervisors Alioto-Pier, Chu, Elsbernd, and Maxwell). The Chronicle reports, however, that the legislation could go back to committee for changes, allowing the authors to try again for an eight-vote majority at some later date. Time’s a wasting, however — the first layoffs go into effect as early as next week.

As I said, I’m sorry the jobs were not saved, because that would have given our workers some peace of mind. But I also think this would have been at best a temporary solution — there’s no guarantee our secretaries and other workers wouldn’t get bumped out of their jobs again later. The real solution — the one no one at the City seems to want to talk about — is that we need to get real about Civil Service job classifications for school district jobs. In no reality-based universe is the job description for a school secretary the same as a clerk in the Department of Public Health — however wonderful and hard-working. Being a school secretary requires specialized knowledge of how the school district works, including budgeting and staffing mechanisms; and in many case bilingual skills so that this essential “face” of our school office can easily communicate with parents. You don’t even have to take my word for it: ask the principals, teachers, students and parents who have been coming to City Hall in droves and writing impassioned letters to their elected officials in order to make the same point.

Tonight we heard public comment from many families whose children are currently enrolled in the general education program at Dr. William R. Cobb Elementary. Families are worried their program will be closed, because the school district is implementing a Montessori program at the same site.

While my ability to talk about the specifics of this situation is limited, there has been no decision to either close the school, move a program, or end a program.

What I can say is that The Montessori program at Cobb was created to fulfill two objectives: implement programs that integrate Pre-K and elementary school programs in a seamless way; and create high-quality programs for African-American children. In several districts across the country (most notably Milwaukee), public Montessori programs have been implemented with very positive results for low-income children and African-American children, and this data was the spark that started the push for a Pre-K through 5th grade public Montessori program. Why locate this program at Cobb? There were existing preschool classrooms, the school was under-enrolled, and the principal was enthusiastic.

I don’t believe anyone saw the Montessori program as a way to marginalize the predominantly African-American families who currently attend the school. The objective (I believe, though I was not on the Board at the time the program was created) was to offer families from the Western Addition a unique and high-quality alternative program; and a program that would afford children a seamless transition from preschool to elementary classrooms. Because our preschool programs are required to reserve 60 percent of their seats for families who are low-income, job-hunting, or unable to afford preschool, the Cobb program was seen as a way to ensure that the least-advantaged families were first in line as we implemented a promising educational approach.

I’m posting a useful FAQ on the Cobb General Ed-Montessori situation that may help answer some of the questions swirling around.

Very short meeting tonight. We basically heard about the plans for community engagement around the six options currently before the Board. Parents for Public Schools and the Parent Advisory Council have worked with district staff to create a discussion guide for a series of community conversations with parents and community members around the district, with a particular focus on families that have not traditionally engaged with our student assignment process.

Over the next two months, the groups will convene several dozen conversations to gather input and reaction to the options the Board is considering. This information will be compiled and presented to the Board on January 25. In addition, the district has organized a number of town hall meetings in neighborhoods across the City (note that the address for Drew Elementary is 50 Pomona St., not 350 Girard). Finally, for those who can’t attend a meeting and want to offer input, there is an online survey.

The district has also prepared a really informative and exhaustive summary of all the work that has been done so far, and what is left to be done – I highly recommend taking a look at it if you are new to the discussion or want to keep track of where we’ve been and where we’re going.

Today was the annual enrollment fair. It’s a kind of amazing, only-in-San Francisco event designed to help parents find a public school for their child. What a scene it is! Every school staffs a table, and most of them have elaborate photo displays, banners and brochures on hand to represent the school’s unique identity. The district’s Educational Placement Center organizes workshops helping parents to understand how our complex enrollment process works; and other agencies and organizations that serve families and children are also on hand.

The first enrollment fair was organized by PPS-SF back in 1999 2000, and it was an astounding success when over 1,000 people attended. Now, the attendance at the annual fair is easily four or five times that 7,000 people or more.  And it’s going to sound mushy (and kind of enrage people who hate our current enrollment process), but I love the fair every year! There is a tremendous positive spirit in the room, filled with people who want our schools to work and who are for the most part volunteering their Saturday to send the message that they are working for many children.

Like the annual Support for Families Information and Resources Conference every spring, this event is a great time for me to catch up with friends at schools across the district, and make some new ones. I had a great conversation with one of our newer principals about the way his staff are using data to identify which instructional strategies are working and which are not.  I met many prospective Kindergarten parents and a number who were looking for high schools and middle schools.

Now, I know that the complexity and uncertainty of our assignment process is the underlying reason why we have an Enrollment Fair in the first place. And that the expense and effort of organizing and hosting the fair every year wouldn’t be necessary if our system were less complex and more certain.  I also know that the current assignment process needs to change, because it is not accomplishing our district-wide goals of closing the achievement gap, and providing access and equity for every child.

All of that said, I still think it is such a positive experience to see so many hundreds of parents, teachers and principals ready to spend an entire Saturday talking about all the good things that are happening in our schools. I wish very good luck to all of the parents who attended today’s fair, and want to assure you that in the end, you WILL find a good public school for your child in San Francisco.

Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell was on hand today to announce that Valerie Ziegler, a history teacher at Lincoln High School, was one of five teachers across the state to be named “Teacher of the Year.” .

KTVU did a nice piece on Ms. Ziegler, including some very complimentary comments from her students.

The press release on all five Teachers of the Year is here.

This opinion piece from Jeff Bleich, one of the Trustees of the California State University system, really hits home. Three generations of my family were educated in either the UC or the CSU system — both my grandfathers were UC professors and my dad and stepmother still are. Mr. Bleich writes about the opportunities his UC Berkeley law degree has given him, and his efforts to pay it forward through the years. He observes:

My story is not unique. It is the story of California’s rise from the 1960s to the 1990s. Millions of people stayed here and succeeded because of their California education. We benefited from the foresight of an earlier generation that recognized it had a duty to pay it forward.

That was the bargain California made with us when it established the California Master Plan for Higher Education in 1960. By making California the state where every qualified and committed person can receive a low-cost and high-quality education, all of us benefit. Attracting and retaining the leaders of the future helps the state grow bigger and stronger. Economists found that for every dollar the state invests in a CSU student, it receives $4.41 in return.

So as someone who has lived the California dream, there is nothing more painful to me than to see this dream dying. It is being starved to death by a public that thinks any government service — even public education — is not worth paying for. And by political leaders who do not lead but instead give in to our worst, shortsighted instincts.

It breaks my heart that a system that has offered so much opportunity to so many is in tatters. When will we wake up and realize that you can’t have a world-class educational system if you don’t invest in it?

I’ve been busy of late and the “stuff to blog about” list is getting longer. Here it is, without my usual editorial finesse or opinions. Hopefully, others will find these links of interest until I have time to write about some of them:

• Is Bill Gates the real secretary of education? ;
• SBX5 1 (Romero) is not the reform California needs;
• Crisis in school leadership seen for California;
• A new, if pushy, idea to improve special education;
• Students remaining in English language classes too long, study finds;
• Mapping state proficiency standards, 2005-2007 (Federal study), and a NY Times article that provides a great summary of the somewhat dense and statistical report – essentially, the study found that most states “dumbed down” their curriculum standards in order to score better on state assessments. California, thankfully, did not.
• A flurry of stuff on student nutrition: The Chronicle’s Michael Bauer reviewed school lunches, and I know you’re shocked, but the review wasn’t all that positive. So mommy blogger Amy Graff filled in some of the background on our nutrition program’s extreme budgetary constraints, and then wrote a follow-up post on where the food comes from.  Yes, the food could be better, but I maintain that we have made good progress in recent years on making it more nutritious – the meatballs might be small and the green beans might be mushy, but they’re not corn dogs or taco pockets and we serve actual vegetables, rather than ketchup! But if you, like me, are still not happy with the status quo (even taking into account recent improvements), then you need to suggest to our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, that perhaps the Federal government could take one or more of these steps when it re-authorizes the Child Nutrition Act next year:
  • Increase the amount of money the Federal government reimburses districts for meals served to low-income students (currently $2.68 per meal; after labor and overhead, in SFUSD that means we have only about 90 cents to spend on actual food).
  • Index the reimbursement amounts to take into account higher costs in areas with higher costs of living (e.g., San Francisco).
  • Back off on some of the crazy rules for qualifying children for free or low-cost meals. Complying with these rules costs school districts lots of money, and  . . . why, exactly? I’m not seeing students who are dying to eat the school lunch without paying for it. Generally, if students are in the lunch line, they’re hungry and they have no other option for lunch. All of the time and the millions of dollars we are spending on compliance is simply taking away money that could go towards better food.

(Updated below with hearing vote, clarifying details)
Today I attended the Budget Committee hearing at City Hall to speak in favor of a resolution that would restore eliminated jobs in the Department of Public Health, and therefore keep a number of essential school secretaries from being bumped.  What I learned from listening to the questions and commentary from Supervisors, budget and Mayor’s office staff was that there is an unexpected surplus in the Department of Public Health budget that could be used to restore positions. Ben Rosenfield, the City’s Controller, testified that there still may be shortfalls in other departments, and cautioned against using a larger-than-expected revenue figure in one department as a justification for restoring spending cuts in that department.

There was also a little drama when Supervisor Campos reported that he’d been prevented from subbing for Supervisor Mirkarimi as a member of the Budget Committee,  a substitution that requires the signature of the President of the Board of Supervisors. However, an observer later reported that it was all a misunderstanding that was sorted out later in the meeting, and that Supervisor Campos was ultimately allowed to vote in Supervisor Mirkarimi’s place.

The City’s head of Human Resources, Micki Callahan, testified that the City is not convinced that many employees will bump into positions at the school district, since those positions are paid at a lower level than their City jobs (I was somewhat confused by this, because the Chronicle reported this morning that the school district would have to pay larger City salaries of City employees who bumped into school district positions, but according to testimony from Ms. Callahan and Steve Kawa, the Mayor’s chief of staff, this is not the case. I’ll have to investigate further.)

The hearing lasted several hours, and I had to leave before I had an opportunity to testify. I’m guessing, though I am not positive, that the Budget committee voted to restore the positions, but I’m not sure what comes next. I’ll report as soon as I have definite information. In the meantime, here’s the statement I intended to deliver during public comment:

Good afternoon Supervisors.  If the principal is the head of a school, the secretary is the heart of the school office, supporting staff, parents and children. They welcome visitors, answer phones, translate for parents who don’t speak English, comfort sick children and administer Band-Aids or ice packs, sort the mail, handle essential paperwork for school staff and generally keep schools running from day to day.

I am grateful to Supervisor Daly for bringing for this resolution and seeking to restore City positions that would in turn restore employment to school district workers. This resolution will certainly bring relief to workers who have been in imminent danger of being bumped out of their jobs.

However, I would be remiss if  I did not point out that this is, at best, a temporary fix. There is no guarantee that essential school district employees won’t be bumped in the future, and I believe we must give some consideration to the idea that the work of the school district is fundamentally different from the work of the City. I will grant that some jobs are the same, whether they are performed on one side of Van Ness or another, but others are not.  Without taking anything away from the important work of a clerk who works in the Department of Public Health, school secretaries perform work that is fundamentally unique to a school environment.

I strongly urge that the two entities, the City and the School District, work together on creating school district-only job classifications for many of these positions. This work would save school district jobs, and put an end to the current spectacle that is pitting our two institutions against each other.

UPDATE: The Chronicle reports that the Budget committee voted 2-1 to pass the proposal that would restore 150 City jobs. The proposal now moves to the full Board. I also asked why the school district says that employees who bump into our positions will cost us more, when the City says they will not. According to school district officials, City employees will come with increased benefits costs, so accepting bumped City employees in place of school district employees will result in increased salary and benefits cost to the school district.