UPforED will not make anything better as long as it thinks that teachers are the only interest group that is sabotaging education.
The entrenched and corrupted power of school district politicians and administrators is just as big a problem as the teachers' union. For BOTH groups, kids come second to personal agendas. In order to keep power in the hands of powerful administrators, board members and their union official secret pals, school districts and the teachers union cooperate behind closed doors a lot more than most people know.
It's just too tempting for the leaders of both groups to maintain the status quo.
I agree with Lisa Berlanga that the California Teachers Union has stood in the way of meaningful teachers evaluations--but administrators and politicians are equally guilty. Lisa's organization seems to want to let the wolf replace the fox in the henhouse.
UPforED could actually do some good if it got an effective system of teacher evaluation instituted. The evaluation system would not need to put much, if any, emphasis on student test scores. But it's about time we had eyes in the classrooms, simply recording what teachers are doing.
Principals are not doing, and probably can not do, a proper job of evaluating their own teachers. They have to play politics with powerful teachers to make their schools function. Evaluations should be done by people from outside a school, or, better yet, from outside a school district. Perhaps even volunteer parents could do some of the basic information gathering on teacher performance.
Why not work for meaningful teacher evaluations, Lisa?
Is it just too easy to target the teachers union?
School Board Election Key to Turning Around San Diego Schools
Oct 18, 2012
By LISA BERLANGA
Voice of San Diego
On Nov. 7, San Diego Unified School District moves forward with three new or re-elected board members reconfiguring a board of five, beleaguered by governing questionably in the students' best interests.
In the last few years, we've seen more than our share of controversies that United Parents for Education, or UPforEd, believes served the political expediency of adults to the personal disappointment of parents, and the educational letdown of students.
Let's consider just a few decisions made by five people, elected by the majority of San Diego Unified voters that leads us to question their motives.
Recently, San Diego Unified decided not to pursue $15 million dollars in funds under Race to the Top. The Obama administration put forward Race to the Top criteria and guidelines, in an effort to improve student outcomes and close the achievement gap.
Yet, San Diego Unified chose not to even apply for these funds. A parent has to ask why wouldn't the district pursue another source of funding during such tight budget times?
In another confounding example, the district faced spiraling healthcare expenses in 2010 to the tune of $167 million — the biggest share of cost aside from payroll.
The issue came up this year and the unions blocked hearings on proposals from competitors of the California Schools Voluntary Employees Benefits Association without even a public hearing on the matter.
The media brought the issue to light discovering that in 20 years, the district hasn't put the healthcare bid out once despite best practices suggesting soliciting new bids every three to five years.
Because of decisions like these there is not enough money left in the budget to fund teachers. So our teachers, sometimes the best and brightest, get pink-slipped each year.
Yet for all these poor fiduciary decisions, voters continue to elect school board members who maintain the status quo and put what's best for kids' achievement second, placing the full burden on parents and teachers...
Lisa Berlanga response:
Lisa B
posted at 12:10 pm on Fri, Oct 19, 2012
Just for clarification my article was referencing school board members, not the teacher's union. However, I agree with you Maura, let's create a meaningful teacher evaluation system that would provide teachers with ongoing realevant feedback, supports, mentoring and professional development. Let's design a system that actually recognizing exceptional teachers and rewards them in some way. Let's share best practices and what is working amoung all the schools. Let's give the principals the authority to create teams of teachers who work together for years on a population of student's figuring out what works best for them. UPforEd is all for that but we need parents, teachers, administrators, board members and the teacher's union to work together to accomplish this. Anyone who agrees this is a great goal for our district, join us, www.upfored.org.
Maura Larkins response:
Hi Lisa:
It sounds like UPforEd is planning to sit around waiting for "parents, teachers, administrators, board members and the teacher's union to work together" to create a teacher evaluation system.
In the meantime, you're hoping to give administrators more power.
You say, "Let's give the principals the authority..."
If you give principals more authority over teachers BEFORE you have meaningful AND INDEPENDENT teacher evaluations, then you're just supporting the current system of personal agendas and school politics.
That's not exactly the same thing as getting all stakeholders to work together, is it?
You already have about 10% of teachers who have figured out what students need. Successful teaching is not a mystery. The expertise of those teachers should be accessed instead of giving principals more power to reward their (often mediocre) teacher cronies for loyalty.
UPforEd has a huge amount of money--enough to hire you as executive director, which is pretty impressive for a new organization. I suspect that Irwin Jacobs is your major benefactor. If this is true, it should be noted when you publish an opinion piece in VOSD, which is also flourishing due to Jacobs' generosity.
Instead of trying to get rid of the board members who failed to apply for Race to the Top (which means, of course, board members who are supported by the teachers union), why not put your huge amount of cash toward designing a teacher evaluation system, and then campaigning for it?
After you make it inevitable that effective teacher evaluations will be implemented, then the "parents, teachers, administrators, board members and the teacher's union" can finalize the details.
But that's not your goal, is it? You don't want effective, unbiased teacher evaluations. You just want more arbitrary power for administrators.
MORE COMMENTS
Wiz1 posted at 11:35 am on Wed, Oct 24, 2012.
As for Up for Ed, it started in 2011
ScrippsDad posted at 1:25 pm on Wed, Oct 24, 2012.
...UPforED started well before 2011, and again, you ignore the facts and you don't bother to do the research. I'm not sure how you can lay claim to the truth when you weren't there; I was and have been throughout so folks can take what you say as an uniformed outsider...
Maura Larkins posted:
Dear Scripps Dad:
I tried to take your advice about researching the beginnings of UPforEd, but it wasn't easy. I couldn't find this information on the UPforEd website.
I looked through three pages of Google results, and the earliest date I could find connected with UPforEd was Feb. 20, 2011, the date the organization registered its domain name.
I assume that most of the people involved in UPforEd had made efforts to change schools before the organization started--but you can't predate the start of the organization to the time when some members first started making efforts for schools.
In fact, weren't most of the founders of UPforEd once organized under the name San Diegans 4 Greater Schools? And didn't they start UPforEd after SD4 garnered some bad publicity during its failed effort to pack the SDUSD board with unelected members?
Perhaps you intend to say that UPforEd and SD4 are the same organization? Is that how you justify saying that UPforEd started before 2011?
If that's the justification for your statements, then you need to come out and state that UPforEd is simply a new name for an older organization. Otherwise, it will appear that you're trying to fudge the facts.
Until you make that argument, I think Wiz1 is correct when he states that UPforEd started in 2011.
ScrippsDad posted at 4:10 pm on Thu, Oct 25, 2012
Maura - so not true about UPforED being an offshoot or newer iteration of SD4 and I can tell you that straight because I am not or ever was in agreement with SD4 and was not a participant in SD4 and I'm a founding Board member of UP4ED.
Maura Larkins posted at 10:45 am on Tue, Oct 30, 2012
Dear Scripps Dad,
Where did UPforEd get so much money so quickly? Is Irwin Jacobs a major contributor? How about Rod Dammeyer and Buzz Woolley? Were assets transferred to UPforEd from SD4GS?
ScrippsDad posted at 7:54 pm on Tue, Oct 30, 2012
Maura - keep grasping at straws. No, Irwin Jacobs is not a major, or even, minor contributor. No assets (what assets might those be anyway?) were transferred fromSD4GS.
Seems you guys will believe what you want, make up what you want to believe regardless of facts...
Maura Larkins posted
Dear Scripps Dad:
I’ll respond to your statements one at a time.
“Maura - keep grasping at straws.”
Since when is asking questions the same as “grasping at straws”? Well, I suppose it is somewhat similar when the only answers that are forthcoming are as flimsy as stalks of dried grass. For example, what does it mean when you say that something is “not so true”? It sounds that you’re saying that it’s somewhat true. I believe you when you say that you did not support SD4, but why not admit that many SD4 people joined UPforEd when SD4 shut down? Here are just a couple of them:
1. Erica Holloway, spokesperson for SD4, is now spokesperson for UPforEd.
2. David Page, a major figure in SD4 (he would have been one of a small group of people given the responsibility for choosing several board members), is a board member of UPforEd.
“No, Irwin Jacobs is not a major, or even, minor contributor.”
Did you forget to include Rod Dammeyer and Buzz Woolley in this statement? Or am I to conclude that Dammeyer and Woolley are contributors? Now that you mention it, this does feel like grasping at straws. You seem to offer answers, but when I examine them, I see that there’s really not much there.
“No assets (what assets might those be anyway?) were transferred fromSD4GS.”
I suspect you’re being disingenuous when you ask what assets I might be talking about. Surely you read the stories Emily Alpert wrote about the big donors who gave many hundreds of thousands of dollars to SD4, enabling it to hire the La Jolla Group to circulate its petition. www.voiceofsandiego.org/education/article_c0d00cae-7b15-11e0-bfd6-001cc4c03286.html Nevertheless, I’ll take your answer at face value.
“Seems you guys will believe what you want, make up what you want to believe regardless of facts.”
Well, now, Scripps Dad, that is a very personal observation. You have no justification for saying this to me. And by the way, I was surprised when the editor published your insulting comment to Wiz1 when you said that he must be a bad science teacher since he expressed views for which you have contempt. I thought that VOSD had a policy of no ad hominem attacks. I am happy to see that your comment has now been removed. But I wonder, why are you so angry? Do you feel that the privacy of UPforEd is not being respected adequately? What’s wrong with having a calm, civilized discussion about who’s who among those who are spending large amounts of money to affect San Diego schools?
Showing posts with label San Diegans 4 Great Schools. Show all posts
Showing posts with label San Diegans 4 Great Schools. Show all posts
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Is this what SDUSD would be like if SD4 get their way? Parents Demand Investigations at Two Charter Schools
Charter board members are often chosen by other board members, not elected like a school district board. While some charters opt to have representatives who are chosen by the parents or teachers, voluntarily putting it into their own rules, it is not required by law. That means that charter boards can sometimes veer from what parents or staff want, and it can be hard to say who speaks for the school.
While Promise and Tubman are charter schools, which are publicly funded but independently run by their own boards, the school district is supposed to provide oversight because it approved the schools in the first place. Charters can be shut down if they violate their rules or perform poorly.
See all posts on San Diegans 4 Greater Schools.
February 2, 2011
Parents Demand Investigations at Two Charter Schools
Voice of San Diego
by Emily Alpert
Parents and teachers at a small charter school in Chollas View are demanding that San Diego Unified launch an investigation of their school after the principal and new board members made a string of controversial decisions.
The Promise Charter School board changed dramatically last summer after some of its existing members, including the principal, voted to eject members and later added new ones.
Parents and teachers upset with the leaders allege that Principal Jose Orozco has intimidated parents who disagreed with him on everything from scheduling to staffing by barring them from campus and telling them to leave the school, and harassed their children by questioning them about their parents.
Fourth grade teacher Vicky Toscano said after one teacher was fired and others were told to reapply for their jobs, teachers have been afraid to question irregularities at the school, such as allegedly enrolling students who are too young for kindergarten. Teachers at the school have petitioned to form a union.
Orozco said the allegations of harassment are untrue and that the upset parents and teachers have resisted "anytime anyone tries to change anything at the school." For instance, Orozco said after he introduced new rules about inappropriate touching of students, teachers overreacted and complained they couldn't even look at kids. Other parents stepped forward to back the principal.
The upset parents and teachers are calling for San Diego Unified to choose a district representative to sit on the Promise Charter board, something that school districts can do under the law, monitor the school more closely and investigate their allegations. They say that some of the changes at the school, including altering its hiring policies, actually violate their charter, a founding document that sets out school rules.
The same demands were made by teachers and parents from Tubman, another charter that has been in turmoil. Tubman teachers recently joined the San Diego teachers union and have fought the firing of a teacher, alleging she was discriminated against as a labor leader.
The two charter schools share a board member and made common cause over their concerns.
After parents and teachers from the two schools spoke up at a San Diego Unified school board meeting on Tuesday night, school board President Richard Barrera asked Superintendent Bill Kowba to look into the concerns at both schools, saying that they were serious issues.
"Charter schools cannot be mini-dictatorships that exist on the dime of the public taxpayer," Barrera said. "And we need to make sure that we guard against that."...
While Promise and Tubman are charter schools, which are publicly funded but independently run by their own boards, the school district is supposed to provide oversight because it approved the schools in the first place. Charters can be shut down if they violate their rules or perform poorly.
See all posts on San Diegans 4 Greater Schools.
February 2, 2011
Parents Demand Investigations at Two Charter Schools
Voice of San Diego
by Emily Alpert
Parents and teachers at a small charter school in Chollas View are demanding that San Diego Unified launch an investigation of their school after the principal and new board members made a string of controversial decisions.
The Promise Charter School board changed dramatically last summer after some of its existing members, including the principal, voted to eject members and later added new ones.
Parents and teachers upset with the leaders allege that Principal Jose Orozco has intimidated parents who disagreed with him on everything from scheduling to staffing by barring them from campus and telling them to leave the school, and harassed their children by questioning them about their parents.
Fourth grade teacher Vicky Toscano said after one teacher was fired and others were told to reapply for their jobs, teachers have been afraid to question irregularities at the school, such as allegedly enrolling students who are too young for kindergarten. Teachers at the school have petitioned to form a union.
Orozco said the allegations of harassment are untrue and that the upset parents and teachers have resisted "anytime anyone tries to change anything at the school." For instance, Orozco said after he introduced new rules about inappropriate touching of students, teachers overreacted and complained they couldn't even look at kids. Other parents stepped forward to back the principal.
The upset parents and teachers are calling for San Diego Unified to choose a district representative to sit on the Promise Charter board, something that school districts can do under the law, monitor the school more closely and investigate their allegations. They say that some of the changes at the school, including altering its hiring policies, actually violate their charter, a founding document that sets out school rules.
The same demands were made by teachers and parents from Tubman, another charter that has been in turmoil. Tubman teachers recently joined the San Diego teachers union and have fought the firing of a teacher, alleging she was discriminated against as a labor leader.
The two charter schools share a board member and made common cause over their concerns.
After parents and teachers from the two schools spoke up at a San Diego Unified school board meeting on Tuesday night, school board President Richard Barrera asked Superintendent Bill Kowba to look into the concerns at both schools, saying that they were serious issues.
"Charter schools cannot be mini-dictatorships that exist on the dime of the public taxpayer," Barrera said. "And we need to make sure that we guard against that."...
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Two Donors Give Big to Campaign to Expand School Board
Two Donors Give Big to Campaign to Expand School Board
January 26, 2011
by Emily Alpert
A group of philanthropists, parents, business leaders and others seeking to revamp San Diego Unified school board elections raised more than $451,000 last year, according to its most recent campaign filings. Most of that money came from just two donors.
A company owned by philanthropist and businessman Rod Dammeyer, CAC Advisory Services LLC, gave $300,000 last year to San Diegans 4 Great Schools. Qualcomm cofounder Irwin Jacobs gave $150,000. The group also got smaller donations from several retirees, including retired school administrator Linda Sturak, who gave $500.
"We've had a couple other donations but at this point, they're really providing the bulk of it," said Scott Himelstein, the group's president. Himelstein said while the donor list is short, the campaign was still meeting its fundraising and spending targets so far.
Last year, the group spent or owed more than $50,000 of that money for radio advertisements, more than $130,000 to pay petitioners and more than $115,000 in consulting costs, according to documents filed with the city yesterday that cover the last few months of the calendar year.
San Diegans 4 Great Schools is campaigning to expand the school board, now composed of five elected members, to include four more appointed members. The campaign would also set term limits and elect school board members exclusively from geographical subdistricts instead of making them campaign in the school district at large.
Its backers say the changes would stabilize and depoliticize the school board, stopping the political turmoil and the revolving door of superintendents in past years. Opponents, including existing board members and the teachers union, call the plan elitist and undemocratic and say it won't help schools.
(Full disclosure: Camille Gustafson, VOSD's marketing director, also donated $100 to the campaign.)
January 26, 2011
by Emily Alpert
A group of philanthropists, parents, business leaders and others seeking to revamp San Diego Unified school board elections raised more than $451,000 last year, according to its most recent campaign filings. Most of that money came from just two donors.
A company owned by philanthropist and businessman Rod Dammeyer, CAC Advisory Services LLC, gave $300,000 last year to San Diegans 4 Great Schools. Qualcomm cofounder Irwin Jacobs gave $150,000. The group also got smaller donations from several retirees, including retired school administrator Linda Sturak, who gave $500.
"We've had a couple other donations but at this point, they're really providing the bulk of it," said Scott Himelstein, the group's president. Himelstein said while the donor list is short, the campaign was still meeting its fundraising and spending targets so far.
Last year, the group spent or owed more than $50,000 of that money for radio advertisements, more than $130,000 to pay petitioners and more than $115,000 in consulting costs, according to documents filed with the city yesterday that cover the last few months of the calendar year.
San Diegans 4 Great Schools is campaigning to expand the school board, now composed of five elected members, to include four more appointed members. The campaign would also set term limits and elect school board members exclusively from geographical subdistricts instead of making them campaign in the school district at large.
Its backers say the changes would stabilize and depoliticize the school board, stopping the political turmoil and the revolving door of superintendents in past years. Opponents, including existing board members and the teachers union, call the plan elitist and undemocratic and say it won't help schools.
(Full disclosure: Camille Gustafson, VOSD's marketing director, also donated $100 to the campaign.)
Sunday, January 23, 2011
SD4 wants to take control of San Diego Unified from voters
The thing I like about Voice of San Diego's Morning Report is that it contains summaries with lots of links. Click on the link below to see what I mean:
Morning Report
...Fake Name, Fake Pitch:
He said his name is "Jeff Smith." That's not true, and neither was the professional petition gatherer's claim about a proposal to expand the size of the San Diego school board and bypass voters.
According to the U-T, "Smith" offered this to passersby at the Target in Mission Valley: "Want to help San Diego schools? Get more accountability on the board? Get more teacher voices on the school board? Sign here."
San Diego Fact Check says his claim about teacher voices is misleading.The petition gatherer later fessed up to giving a fake name to the U-T reporter: "'This is very competitive, people are cutthroat. People get up at 3 a.m. to stake out a place to work,' said the worker, who declined to disclose his real name. 'This place is a gold mine, but I don't want to mess things up. I'm not trying to give anyone bad information, I'm just doing my part to get this to a ballot so the people can decide.'"
Two of our commenters are unhappy with our Fact Check story. One says "the fact that a paid signature gatherer gave misleading information to get a signature (that's how he gets paid) isn't newsworthy," while another complains about slamming a guy who's "trying to earn a living for his family." Reporter Emily Alpert, who wrote the story, responds: "It's appropriate for us to let people know the facts."
The school board ballot measure is in the news at City Hall too. City Council President Tony Young wants the council to discuss it.
Other big cities mingle city politics and education (New York and L.A. come to mind), but San Diego doesn't. The mayor and council have tended to stay out of school affairs, although the mayor has visibly thrown his support behind the new measure.
The proposed measure would force the council to pay attention to education. It would change the city charter and require the council to hold an annual hearing on student performance.
CityBeat, meanwhile, urges readers to not sign petitions supporting the measure. It says several provisions are "non-starters" and attacks backers for their union-bashing: "The teachers union at times puts its members' interest over the interests of students, as was the case when the union opted to shorten the teaching year in lieu of a pay cut. But blaming the union entirely for the state of local schools is nutty."...
Morning Report
...Fake Name, Fake Pitch:
He said his name is "Jeff Smith." That's not true, and neither was the professional petition gatherer's claim about a proposal to expand the size of the San Diego school board and bypass voters.
According to the U-T, "Smith" offered this to passersby at the Target in Mission Valley: "Want to help San Diego schools? Get more accountability on the board? Get more teacher voices on the school board? Sign here."
San Diego Fact Check says his claim about teacher voices is misleading.The petition gatherer later fessed up to giving a fake name to the U-T reporter: "'This is very competitive, people are cutthroat. People get up at 3 a.m. to stake out a place to work,' said the worker, who declined to disclose his real name. 'This place is a gold mine, but I don't want to mess things up. I'm not trying to give anyone bad information, I'm just doing my part to get this to a ballot so the people can decide.'"
Two of our commenters are unhappy with our Fact Check story. One says "the fact that a paid signature gatherer gave misleading information to get a signature (that's how he gets paid) isn't newsworthy," while another complains about slamming a guy who's "trying to earn a living for his family." Reporter Emily Alpert, who wrote the story, responds: "It's appropriate for us to let people know the facts."
The school board ballot measure is in the news at City Hall too. City Council President Tony Young wants the council to discuss it.
Other big cities mingle city politics and education (New York and L.A. come to mind), but San Diego doesn't. The mayor and council have tended to stay out of school affairs, although the mayor has visibly thrown his support behind the new measure.
The proposed measure would force the council to pay attention to education. It would change the city charter and require the council to hold an annual hearing on student performance.
CityBeat, meanwhile, urges readers to not sign petitions supporting the measure. It says several provisions are "non-starters" and attacks backers for their union-bashing: "The teachers union at times puts its members' interest over the interests of students, as was the case when the union opted to shorten the teaching year in lieu of a pay cut. But blaming the union entirely for the state of local schools is nutty."...
Saturday, December 11, 2010
San Diegans 4 Great Schools would only need one elected board member on their side to control schools
If they succeed in getting four appointed members added to the San Diego Unified School District board, SD4GS would only need one vote from an elected member to have a majority.
Dec 10, 2010
Encroaching on Our Right to Vote
By Guest Blogger Doug Porter
Voice of San Diego
I find it quite curious that any mention of gun control anywhere leads to a chorus of cries that our freedoms are in grave danger. Yet when a private group openly espouses encroaching on our right to vote...[crickets].
We hear a lot these days about the failings of our education system. Everywhere you look, fingers are pointed at the supposed culprits behind this crisis: lack of funding, the unions, the special interests, television, the internet, poverty, parents, teachers, immigration and, perhaps, the meddling federal government.
Education reform has become a fashionable forum for philanthropists who are so sure they can transfer their success in business to education that they are willing to bet your children's lives on it. Diane Ravitch calls them the "Billionaire Boys Club" in her best-selling book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System.
Now there is a move afoot, inspired by these well-meaning types asking the citizens of San Diego, via an upcoming initiative, to sacrifice your right to vote for school board members in the name of reform. Perhaps you've seen their (paid) signature collectors recently, asking for your support to "save our schools."
By 2020 just about one-half of students nationwide will be attending public schools clustered in 20 large urban districts. The research into large city school districts reveals widespread poverty, chronic academic underachievement, dropouts, crime, unstable school boards, reform policy churn, and high superintendent turnover. The typical tenure of a superintendent in the largest large city districts is two to three years. In San Diego, we've had four superintendents since 1996.
Reliance on test scores, charter schools and an ever increasing expectation for school system employees to do more with less are all parts of the currently fashionable "reform" picture. At the root of all this local push is the notion that such reforms can only be accomplished by a strong leader, one like Alan Bersin, who directed San Diego's system from 1998-2005.
Bersin's tenure ended here once the majority that backed him on the school board was defeated at the ballet box. Despite, for example, spending $720,000 to defeat Board member Frances Zimmerman in 2000, the pro-Bersin, pro-business interests were unable to persuade the public to buy into their approach.
Now these same groups are back in the game, hailing a self-financed study of San Diego schools that selectively uses data purporting to show that a "crisis" is at hand. Calling themselves San Diegans 4 Great Schools, their solution to this "emergency" is to appoint an additional four members to the school board.
Other major urban areas have tried this route, either going with hybrid appointed/elected school boards, or by having the mayor take control of the schools. Like charter schools, these attempts at governance reform have produced mixed results, and certainly nothing that would qualify as a game changer or a silver bullet for school performance.
There is no simple cure for the ills that plague our schools. But if the problem is worst in our largest districts, then one understandable policy proposal would be to divide them into smaller districts, as Harvard University economist Caroline M. Hoxby has pointed out. Her research indicates that smaller districts foster more choice for parents, with the resulting competition leading to significantly improved school performance. Given that parents greatly value neighborhood schools, smaller districts would seem to be a better choice. San Diego Unified is already taking steps in this direction on the administrative level by breaking local schools into eight clusters.
We've tried the "we need some appointed experts" approach in the not-so-distant past right here in San Diego with the city's employee pension plans. And I don't think that process has worked out too well for the taxpayer. We certainly need to question the motives of any group that claims to have "the" solution to a problem this complex. If it's too good to be true, it probably is.
As Winston Churchill said on the eve of the cold war, "Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect... Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Faced with the choice of giving up my right to vote or more local control, I'll take local control every time.
Doug Porter is a regular blogger for OBRag.org and a San Diego Unified parent. He is guest blogging about why he opposes a campaign to change how the San Diego Unified school board is selected...Doug Porter is a 1968 graduate from Point Loma High School and has a daughter that attends the San Diego School for Creative and Performing Arts. He blogs regularly for OBRag.org. You can contact Doug directly at dougporter506@gmail.com.
COMMENTS
"sinister" "suspicion" "behind closed doors" "martians will suck out my brains"
Come on, folks- this is just paranoia. I understand people disagree with this organization, and I understand why. As I pointed out, I'm not in complete alignment with them either. Fair enough.
But they are trying to bring options and they are trying to improve schools in a manner they believe match the needs of employers. And, as business types (myself included) we make decisions based on sound management and business principles. (OK, in my case maybe not so sound) Leadership is not defined as appeasing everybody or taking polls and deciding a course of action that is popular. Margaret Thatcher told us that "Consensus is a lack of leadership".
It's absolutely clear that the labor-controlled board is acting in the best interest of union, often at the expense of the students and teachers. Remember the PLA?
This is a group that believes (and I agree) that our schools suffer from poor and biased leadership, and have strong and legitimate suggestions for changes they believe would help *students*.
DIsagree all you wish- that's good citizenship. But to use terms like "sinister" "suspicion" "behind closed doors" "martians will suck out my brains" to defend a weak argument belies the dedication to status quo that continues to cripple our schools. One cannot ask to "bring all players to the table" from one side of a keyboard, but on the other side criticize and besmirch the efforts of those players who do.
In short: Bring all players to the table, but don't change anything, OK?
Now, cue those conspiracy theorists that believe there is big bucks awaiting for these sinister and suspicious business types- wait for it- they'll arrive anytime.
Paul M. Bowers
Response to Paul Bowers from Maura Larkins:
You say "it's absolutely clear that the labor-controlled board is acting in the best interest of union," and at the same time you say it's paranoia to think that businessmen trying to pack the board with unelected members might have mixed motives.
Is that the best you can do to defend SD4GS's motives? To say that it's paranoid to question those motives? You're not much of a supporter of public discussion of public entities, are you?
You know that the "businessmen" you are defending have a spokesman, Scott Himelstein, who attended yacht parties with superintendent Ed Brand, and got Brand to interfere with a teacher hiring panel on behalf of his wife. You are either being disingenuous or you are kidding yourself if you still think that those "businessmen" have wholly pure motives.
At least we know what the union's goals are.
Democracy is far from perfect, but voters clearly chose union-connected board members. So you want to weaken democracy in the governance of schools? What do you plan to teach students about democracy? That businessmen should undermine it in order to help students? That the goals of these businessmen are so pure and paramount that they outweigh our democratic tradition?
It's simply wrong to assume that businessmen care more about education than teachers do. Both groups have mixed motives, neither group can be trusted to run schools alone. And who should decide what mixture of businessmen and union supporters should be on the board? The voters should continue to decide--not an appointed panel.
Maura Larkins
I agree and disagree when I hear that businesses need employees that can come out of school ready to work. Are you talking about high school grads?Than if that's the case Wal-Mart, Target and others always need a low-wage work force to be competitive. Businesses after all have the bottom line in mind, all the time. Or is business leaders talking about college grads (I doubt it)?
Mr. Bowers, do you remember when you were 18 and out of school? Yea, most people don't like hiring someone right out of high school, you know why? They don't have life experience and know the expectations for what the real world is like. I think you need to give teenagers a break (that's what they still are). You know and I know to make it in our county you need a college education, you can't survive on a high school diploma anymore. This goes back to loosing our manufacturing base, overseas jobs and oh, I could go on and on.
I would NOT want my child to work for someone who is going to hire them out of high school, instead, like all of us we want them to go to college and get a real job. I'm very suspicious of someone ready to hire my son right out of high school.
I think we can agree our children (city of san diego) need a great education, we just disagree on how to get there.
Peace,
Roberto
(Robert Hampton)
Dec 10, 2010
Encroaching on Our Right to Vote
By Guest Blogger Doug Porter
Voice of San Diego
I find it quite curious that any mention of gun control anywhere leads to a chorus of cries that our freedoms are in grave danger. Yet when a private group openly espouses encroaching on our right to vote...[crickets].
We hear a lot these days about the failings of our education system. Everywhere you look, fingers are pointed at the supposed culprits behind this crisis: lack of funding, the unions, the special interests, television, the internet, poverty, parents, teachers, immigration and, perhaps, the meddling federal government.
Education reform has become a fashionable forum for philanthropists who are so sure they can transfer their success in business to education that they are willing to bet your children's lives on it. Diane Ravitch calls them the "Billionaire Boys Club" in her best-selling book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System.
Now there is a move afoot, inspired by these well-meaning types asking the citizens of San Diego, via an upcoming initiative, to sacrifice your right to vote for school board members in the name of reform. Perhaps you've seen their (paid) signature collectors recently, asking for your support to "save our schools."
By 2020 just about one-half of students nationwide will be attending public schools clustered in 20 large urban districts. The research into large city school districts reveals widespread poverty, chronic academic underachievement, dropouts, crime, unstable school boards, reform policy churn, and high superintendent turnover. The typical tenure of a superintendent in the largest large city districts is two to three years. In San Diego, we've had four superintendents since 1996.
Reliance on test scores, charter schools and an ever increasing expectation for school system employees to do more with less are all parts of the currently fashionable "reform" picture. At the root of all this local push is the notion that such reforms can only be accomplished by a strong leader, one like Alan Bersin, who directed San Diego's system from 1998-2005.
Bersin's tenure ended here once the majority that backed him on the school board was defeated at the ballet box. Despite, for example, spending $720,000 to defeat Board member Frances Zimmerman in 2000, the pro-Bersin, pro-business interests were unable to persuade the public to buy into their approach.
Now these same groups are back in the game, hailing a self-financed study of San Diego schools that selectively uses data purporting to show that a "crisis" is at hand. Calling themselves San Diegans 4 Great Schools, their solution to this "emergency" is to appoint an additional four members to the school board.
Other major urban areas have tried this route, either going with hybrid appointed/elected school boards, or by having the mayor take control of the schools. Like charter schools, these attempts at governance reform have produced mixed results, and certainly nothing that would qualify as a game changer or a silver bullet for school performance.
There is no simple cure for the ills that plague our schools. But if the problem is worst in our largest districts, then one understandable policy proposal would be to divide them into smaller districts, as Harvard University economist Caroline M. Hoxby has pointed out. Her research indicates that smaller districts foster more choice for parents, with the resulting competition leading to significantly improved school performance. Given that parents greatly value neighborhood schools, smaller districts would seem to be a better choice. San Diego Unified is already taking steps in this direction on the administrative level by breaking local schools into eight clusters.
We've tried the "we need some appointed experts" approach in the not-so-distant past right here in San Diego with the city's employee pension plans. And I don't think that process has worked out too well for the taxpayer. We certainly need to question the motives of any group that claims to have "the" solution to a problem this complex. If it's too good to be true, it probably is.
As Winston Churchill said on the eve of the cold war, "Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect... Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Faced with the choice of giving up my right to vote or more local control, I'll take local control every time.
Doug Porter is a regular blogger for OBRag.org and a San Diego Unified parent. He is guest blogging about why he opposes a campaign to change how the San Diego Unified school board is selected...Doug Porter is a 1968 graduate from Point Loma High School and has a daughter that attends the San Diego School for Creative and Performing Arts. He blogs regularly for OBRag.org. You can contact Doug directly at dougporter506@gmail.com.
COMMENTS
"sinister" "suspicion" "behind closed doors" "martians will suck out my brains"
Come on, folks- this is just paranoia. I understand people disagree with this organization, and I understand why. As I pointed out, I'm not in complete alignment with them either. Fair enough.
But they are trying to bring options and they are trying to improve schools in a manner they believe match the needs of employers. And, as business types (myself included) we make decisions based on sound management and business principles. (OK, in my case maybe not so sound) Leadership is not defined as appeasing everybody or taking polls and deciding a course of action that is popular. Margaret Thatcher told us that "Consensus is a lack of leadership".
It's absolutely clear that the labor-controlled board is acting in the best interest of union, often at the expense of the students and teachers. Remember the PLA?
This is a group that believes (and I agree) that our schools suffer from poor and biased leadership, and have strong and legitimate suggestions for changes they believe would help *students*.
DIsagree all you wish- that's good citizenship. But to use terms like "sinister" "suspicion" "behind closed doors" "martians will suck out my brains" to defend a weak argument belies the dedication to status quo that continues to cripple our schools. One cannot ask to "bring all players to the table" from one side of a keyboard, but on the other side criticize and besmirch the efforts of those players who do.
In short: Bring all players to the table, but don't change anything, OK?
Now, cue those conspiracy theorists that believe there is big bucks awaiting for these sinister and suspicious business types- wait for it- they'll arrive anytime.
Paul M. Bowers
Response to Paul Bowers from Maura Larkins:
You say "it's absolutely clear that the labor-controlled board is acting in the best interest of union," and at the same time you say it's paranoia to think that businessmen trying to pack the board with unelected members might have mixed motives.
Is that the best you can do to defend SD4GS's motives? To say that it's paranoid to question those motives? You're not much of a supporter of public discussion of public entities, are you?
You know that the "businessmen" you are defending have a spokesman, Scott Himelstein, who attended yacht parties with superintendent Ed Brand, and got Brand to interfere with a teacher hiring panel on behalf of his wife. You are either being disingenuous or you are kidding yourself if you still think that those "businessmen" have wholly pure motives.
At least we know what the union's goals are.
Democracy is far from perfect, but voters clearly chose union-connected board members. So you want to weaken democracy in the governance of schools? What do you plan to teach students about democracy? That businessmen should undermine it in order to help students? That the goals of these businessmen are so pure and paramount that they outweigh our democratic tradition?
It's simply wrong to assume that businessmen care more about education than teachers do. Both groups have mixed motives, neither group can be trusted to run schools alone. And who should decide what mixture of businessmen and union supporters should be on the board? The voters should continue to decide--not an appointed panel.
Maura Larkins
I agree and disagree when I hear that businesses need employees that can come out of school ready to work. Are you talking about high school grads?Than if that's the case Wal-Mart, Target and others always need a low-wage work force to be competitive. Businesses after all have the bottom line in mind, all the time. Or is business leaders talking about college grads (I doubt it)?
Mr. Bowers, do you remember when you were 18 and out of school? Yea, most people don't like hiring someone right out of high school, you know why? They don't have life experience and know the expectations for what the real world is like. I think you need to give teenagers a break (that's what they still are). You know and I know to make it in our county you need a college education, you can't survive on a high school diploma anymore. This goes back to loosing our manufacturing base, overseas jobs and oh, I could go on and on.
I would NOT want my child to work for someone who is going to hire them out of high school, instead, like all of us we want them to go to college and get a real job. I'm very suspicious of someone ready to hire my son right out of high school.
I think we can agree our children (city of san diego) need a great education, we just disagree on how to get there.
Peace,
Roberto
(Robert Hampton)
Friday, December 10, 2010
Fact & Fiction About San Diego School Reform (or maybe just fiction, eh, Scott Himelstein?)
Which part of democracy does San Diegans 4 Great Schools not understand? Apparently the part where representatives are elected by the people.
More on Ed Brand.
Fact & Fiction About San Diego School Reform
by Scott Himelstein, guest blogger
Voice of San Diego
Dec. 9, 2010
...• The five-member elected board would be expanded, with four independent members appointed by a nominating commission comprised of educational leaders and parents....
More on Ed Brand.
COMMENTS
Sounds fishy Scott. You say you're for teachers but it smells like big business which doesn't like unions at all and is part of the current anti-teacher fever in our country. Also the fact that people will be appointed is very undemocratic in itself, who are they accountable to? How can you say that they would not be influenced by special interest? I'm sure you have some quick response to this but I (we) are very weary of a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Roberto
There is nothing undemocratic about what we are trying to do. Propositions are a long-time and permanent part of the democratic process. None of the proposed reforms will happen unless the people of San Diego vote for them in a democratic election! Sorry that you are so weary of an open proposal that voting members of the public can decide for themselves on.
Scott Himelstein
I agree that schools need to be involved in continuous improvement. Electing School Board members by districts may be a good idea, although I am not sure than building in district vs. district "special interest legislating" is any better than what we have now. I would welcome financial contributions by well-intentioned philanthropists to support public education.
But my wife and I would never, ever, in a million years support having appointed members serve on the School Board. We will gladly tell the paid signature solicitors that, if they ask us to sign a petition, and if the petition drive succeeds we will gladly vote against the initiative. To say that adding appointed members is not "anti-democtratic" simply points how deceptive those mounting this campaign are willing to be.
Fryefan
I have criticized the teachers union severely, but that doesn't mean I think that its power should be transferred to unelected board members. Here's what I'd like to know: once San Diegans 4 Great Schools disenfranchises the teachers union, what specific reforms will it try to get implemented?...
I think San Diegans 4 Great Schools are well-meaning people who think democracy isn't working. Why do they think that? Because voters elected board members who are loyal to the teachers union. Anybody who knows me knows that I am deeply disappointed in the teachers union, but I have seen that administrators and others who are hostile to the teachers union are also guilty of putting their own interests ahead of children. There is a lot of money involved in education, money that goes to expensive programs that achieve nothing, and to lawyers who help schools keep financial documents secret. Have you ever tried to get public financial records from San Diego County Office of Education? Apparently SDCOE's rule is that if they don't want you to have public documents, the only way you'll get them is by going to court to enforce the law. (That's what it took to get SDCOE documents about the MiraCosta College scandal.) I continue to believe that democracy is our best bet.
Why aren't San Diegans 4 Great Schools trying to educate voters instead of disenfranchising them? SDRGS should be campaigning to make schools transparent. The public should know that most administrators and board members behave as though their main goal is to promote their own careers, not educate children. It's not just the teachers that are trying to make their jobs as easy and lucrative as possible.
Maura Larkins
Still googling, but I was googling for Mr. Lynch and this old history popped up.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061029/news_2m29brand.html
Lee Hazer
Good work, Leecal!
The connection between Scott Himelstein and Ed Brand is significant. It's beginning to look like this is a conflict between right-wing superintendents and the teachers union. Ed Brand is one of the most notorious superintendents in the county, and has been closely connected to the secretive SDCOE-JPA. The JPA allows superintendents to choose the lawyers they like, and then spends millions in tax dollars protecting those superintendents in court. The JPA also protects the superintendents from the media by refusing to turn over documents to the San Diego Union-Tribune and Voice of San Diego. It's all starting to make sense to me.
I take back what I said about SD4GS being well-meaning people. I think you're right that is a raw power grab.
Maura Larkins
...Mr. Himelstein’s group would only have to work on getting one elected board member in place to have a majority. By electing the board members within districts the plan would atomize politics and make it easier to sway elections. Again, moneyed elites would easily buy a candidate within a district...
Scott Mullin
It is true that Himmelstein is a hired gun. He has been one for years. The reason is that he has been paid through donations (tax deductable) to folks that are exempt from full disclosure. USD is one such place. And Mr. Himmelstein is not starving. I bet he will never supply anyone with his tax data. As to the merits of the proposal, one should look at the motives surrounding it. Hiding a dilution of the power of the voters behind the "obvious" merits of separate area elections is no cooincidence. The standard political strategy for getting what you want is to disquise it within a popular cause. If the motives for district elections was pure (like one I got on the ballot years ago) then ther would be two petitions, one for district elections, and the other for appointments of board members. Guess which one might pass? The fact that the district is now suffering from a labor board takeover (conducted fairly, but misguided) which will preside over the worst cuts of valuable educational programs in history is also likely to make this new skirmish go to ballot. A disgruntled public is just the ticket for this kind of ploy. If the public continues to see the decimation of our local schools by the current board, with no temporary concessions by labor to help balance the budgets, I see this misguided anti-democratic end run as gaining traction. I only hope that the public starts to pay attention to what is needed to make our schools great instead of taking sides in a battle that will DESTROY public education. Taking control of your schools is done by voting for the RIGHT people, not diluting power of those you were foolish enough to support. You get what you vote for! Don't blame anyone but the person you see in the mirror. Don't let the paidgunslinger fool you. This isn't about better education at all, it is about where your educational dollars are spent and who controls your schools. Taking them back is a great rallying cry, but giving them away is worse.
...Because the backers are funneling money to the 'reform' group based at USD – a private institution – the money trail is covered. I am not an expert in the rules governing contributions to private organizations housed on the grounds of private institutions. I base my understanding of the hidden money trails on what John de Beck has been writing about the USD based group over the past year or so. I don't remember vilifying anyone anywhere. If I have I apologize. I work for change every day with the students I teach. Teachers are eminently qualified to effect change in the public schools. And we are a part of change every day. Many, if not all, of the 'reforms' that the well funded group at USD hope to put in place through their end run around democracy have been tried and shown to be ineffective throughout the United States. As Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."...
Scott Mullin
More on Ed Brand.
Fact & Fiction About San Diego School Reform
by Scott Himelstein, guest blogger
Voice of San Diego
Dec. 9, 2010
...• The five-member elected board would be expanded, with four independent members appointed by a nominating commission comprised of educational leaders and parents....
More on Ed Brand.
COMMENTS
Sounds fishy Scott. You say you're for teachers but it smells like big business which doesn't like unions at all and is part of the current anti-teacher fever in our country. Also the fact that people will be appointed is very undemocratic in itself, who are they accountable to? How can you say that they would not be influenced by special interest? I'm sure you have some quick response to this but I (we) are very weary of a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Roberto
There is nothing undemocratic about what we are trying to do. Propositions are a long-time and permanent part of the democratic process. None of the proposed reforms will happen unless the people of San Diego vote for them in a democratic election! Sorry that you are so weary of an open proposal that voting members of the public can decide for themselves on.
Scott Himelstein
I agree that schools need to be involved in continuous improvement. Electing School Board members by districts may be a good idea, although I am not sure than building in district vs. district "special interest legislating" is any better than what we have now. I would welcome financial contributions by well-intentioned philanthropists to support public education.
But my wife and I would never, ever, in a million years support having appointed members serve on the School Board. We will gladly tell the paid signature solicitors that, if they ask us to sign a petition, and if the petition drive succeeds we will gladly vote against the initiative. To say that adding appointed members is not "anti-democtratic" simply points how deceptive those mounting this campaign are willing to be.
Fryefan
I have criticized the teachers union severely, but that doesn't mean I think that its power should be transferred to unelected board members. Here's what I'd like to know: once San Diegans 4 Great Schools disenfranchises the teachers union, what specific reforms will it try to get implemented?...
I think San Diegans 4 Great Schools are well-meaning people who think democracy isn't working. Why do they think that? Because voters elected board members who are loyal to the teachers union. Anybody who knows me knows that I am deeply disappointed in the teachers union, but I have seen that administrators and others who are hostile to the teachers union are also guilty of putting their own interests ahead of children. There is a lot of money involved in education, money that goes to expensive programs that achieve nothing, and to lawyers who help schools keep financial documents secret. Have you ever tried to get public financial records from San Diego County Office of Education? Apparently SDCOE's rule is that if they don't want you to have public documents, the only way you'll get them is by going to court to enforce the law. (That's what it took to get SDCOE documents about the MiraCosta College scandal.) I continue to believe that democracy is our best bet.
Why aren't San Diegans 4 Great Schools trying to educate voters instead of disenfranchising them? SDRGS should be campaigning to make schools transparent. The public should know that most administrators and board members behave as though their main goal is to promote their own careers, not educate children. It's not just the teachers that are trying to make their jobs as easy and lucrative as possible.
Maura Larkins
Still googling, but I was googling for Mr. Lynch and this old history popped up.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061029/news_2m29brand.html
Lee Hazer
Good work, Leecal!
The connection between Scott Himelstein and Ed Brand is significant. It's beginning to look like this is a conflict between right-wing superintendents and the teachers union. Ed Brand is one of the most notorious superintendents in the county, and has been closely connected to the secretive SDCOE-JPA. The JPA allows superintendents to choose the lawyers they like, and then spends millions in tax dollars protecting those superintendents in court. The JPA also protects the superintendents from the media by refusing to turn over documents to the San Diego Union-Tribune and Voice of San Diego. It's all starting to make sense to me.
I take back what I said about SD4GS being well-meaning people. I think you're right that is a raw power grab.
Maura Larkins
...Mr. Himelstein’s group would only have to work on getting one elected board member in place to have a majority. By electing the board members within districts the plan would atomize politics and make it easier to sway elections. Again, moneyed elites would easily buy a candidate within a district...
Scott Mullin
It is true that Himmelstein is a hired gun. He has been one for years. The reason is that he has been paid through donations (tax deductable) to folks that are exempt from full disclosure. USD is one such place. And Mr. Himmelstein is not starving. I bet he will never supply anyone with his tax data. As to the merits of the proposal, one should look at the motives surrounding it. Hiding a dilution of the power of the voters behind the "obvious" merits of separate area elections is no cooincidence. The standard political strategy for getting what you want is to disquise it within a popular cause. If the motives for district elections was pure (like one I got on the ballot years ago) then ther would be two petitions, one for district elections, and the other for appointments of board members. Guess which one might pass? The fact that the district is now suffering from a labor board takeover (conducted fairly, but misguided) which will preside over the worst cuts of valuable educational programs in history is also likely to make this new skirmish go to ballot. A disgruntled public is just the ticket for this kind of ploy. If the public continues to see the decimation of our local schools by the current board, with no temporary concessions by labor to help balance the budgets, I see this misguided anti-democratic end run as gaining traction. I only hope that the public starts to pay attention to what is needed to make our schools great instead of taking sides in a battle that will DESTROY public education. Taking control of your schools is done by voting for the RIGHT people, not diluting power of those you were foolish enough to support. You get what you vote for! Don't blame anyone but the person you see in the mirror. Don't let the paidgunslinger fool you. This isn't about better education at all, it is about where your educational dollars are spent and who controls your schools. Taking them back is a great rallying cry, but giving them away is worse.
...Because the backers are funneling money to the 'reform' group based at USD – a private institution – the money trail is covered. I am not an expert in the rules governing contributions to private organizations housed on the grounds of private institutions. I base my understanding of the hidden money trails on what John de Beck has been writing about the USD based group over the past year or so. I don't remember vilifying anyone anywhere. If I have I apologize. I work for change every day with the students I teach. Teachers are eminently qualified to effect change in the public schools. And we are a part of change every day. Many, if not all, of the 'reforms' that the well funded group at USD hope to put in place through their end run around democracy have been tried and shown to be ineffective throughout the United States. As Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."...
Scott Mullin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)