Showing posts with label Voice of San Diego. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Voice of San Diego. Show all posts

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Voice of San Diego failed to see the problem with too much collegiality between the teachers union and Poway Unified


Was the first warning that something was wrong in Poway a May 2012 article by VOSD's Andrew Donohue?

In May 2012 Voice of San Diego presented an idyllic image of the Poway Federation of Teachers in a story about PFT President Candy Smiley.  Editor Andrew Donohue gushed about "the unique lesson Poway has to teach."

Three months later Voice of San Diego did an excellent job explaining Poway Unified's CAB scandal (the capital appreciation bond deal exposed by Joel Thurtell) but VOSD never connected the bond deal to excessive collaboration between Candy Smiley and the district.

I gave information to Voice of San Diego showing that both teacher union officials and school officials have been shirking their duties as they have formed over-friendly relationships with each other. Individuals on both sides have advanced their own personal agendas at the expense of the students and teachers they are paid to serve.  In November 2012 I warned about the dangers of too much collegiality between teacher unions and school districts.

Now, three years later, Voice of San Diego has finally decided that there's a problem:

 How Poway Unified Went from Big Happy Family to Family Feud
Ashly McGlone
For years, Poway Unified School District has existed as a kind of educational Never-Neverland: a place where school officials and the teachers union sailed through negotiations, brokering amicable deals that – for the most part – left both sides content even in tough times.
But that all seems to be unraveling.
It turns out that Poway’s successes occurred while the district and teacher’s union were breaking labor laws that require public notice of their contract talks. Now other labor unions are mad, and new school board members – elected to provide more oversight in the wake of a bond-deal blowup – are seeking change.
At the center of the dispute is Superintendent John Collins and the president of the Poway Federation of Teachers, Candy Smiley.
“John and Candy cut up the pie,” said school board member Charlie Sellers, who was elected in November. “The previous board simply rubber-stamped their action and this board is actually questioning their actions and they don’t like it.”...


VOSD has certainly changed its tune.  It is no longer talking about the "unique lesson that Poway has to teach." The relationship that Andrew Donohue wanted other districts to emulate now seems rather ominous: "Over the last two decades, though, the union and district have forged an uncommonly collaborative bond that started with trust on the budget and has now gone far beyond."

Yes, they were collaborative all the way to a huge scandal about CAB school bonds.

I don't believe that the Poway school board would have been able to pull of the CAB stunt without the blessing of the teachers union.

When there's too much "collegiality" among the people who run schools, different points of view don't get aired. Decisions are made behind closed doors. All the public ever sees is the smiling faces of the people who get along so very well together.

P.S.  I'm waiting for Voice of San Diego to formally announce a big change in its no-anonymous-comments policy.  The policy was suspended in February, when VOSD decided to disconnect links to all commenter profiles.  The explanation given for this decision was that some commenter profiles had been accidentally disconnected due to the launch of the new website.  It's a wonder that VOSD has not been able to reconnect the links over the past two months.  

Sunday, July 13, 2014

Sweetwater's Steve Rodriguez comes up with a great idea: a special evaluation system to identify "teacher leaders"

Steve Rodriguez writes:

"Teachers should be given the option of either continuing to be evaluated under the current, safe, orthodox process or choosing to be evaluated as teacher-leaders."

 I support his idea of a two-track system for teachers.

It appears that Mr. Rodriquez envisions these "teacher-leaders" continuing to function as they have in the past.

I would like to see a more rigorous system for choosing teacher leaders, and I'd like to give them more responsibility and more money.

But I am thrilled that VOSD has published this opinion piece.  Good for you, editor Sarah Libby!  Also, kudos to Scott and Buzz and Irwin and Rod!

My only concern about the evaluation process that Steve envisions is that it seems too subjective.  Steve suggests:
 "...an annual daylong symposium in which teachers presented their portfolio findings to other school principals, community leaders, parents and fellow teachers."
We know that the same old power groups are going to be influencing the outcomes of that day-long symposium.  Why not have people from outside the district do the evaluations?

Also, why not have some objective measures along with the totally subjective measures suggested here?

A video of a single lesson doesn't really tell us how a teacher teaches.  Why not have outside evaluators come in to the teacher's classroom and record facts--such as what people are actually doing in the classroom at a given moment?  I would also suggest that critiques of a teacher's instruction NOT be done by principals, teachers or parents who have a personal or professional relationship (either in the school district or in the teachers union) with the teacher.


Time to Rethink Our Less-Than-’Satisfactory’ Teacher Evaluation System
The San Diego County Grand Jury put it bluntly: The teacher evaluation process used throughout California public schools is “broken.”

This comes as no surprise to anyone working on a school campus. Teachers and administrators alike see little value in the current process, which rates nearly everyone “Satisfactory.”  But so far, there’s not much consensus on a viable alternative.
Discussions about designing a new process rarely get beyond the one-dimensional idea of using student test scores to measure teacher performance.
This raises the ire of the California Teachers Association. The union wants no part of a process that might allow principals to use student performance data to unfairly target certain teachers for termination. The recent teacher tenure ruling in Vergara v. California added more fuel to this fire.
READ MORE: The Most Blistering Findings from the Big Teacher Tenure Ruling
We need a new system, one capable of measuring teacher efforts, strengthening the profession and contributing to the mission of every school: greater student achievement.
A new evaluation process must take into consideration all major components of a teacher’s job. These include classroom instruction, planning lessons, grading exams and essays and an invaluable practice of self-reflection. These last three components aren’t easily noticeable during the annual one-hour classroom observation most principals use during the current teacher evaluations. And you definitely won’t find them while looking at student test scores.
The new process should consider highlighting teachers who already play leadership roles on campus, whether they volunteer as a department head or Professional Learning Community team leader, a peer coach or student performance data analyst. These are the teachers who think beyond their own classrooms to help other educators improve.
What these volunteers do as teacher-leaders is rarely used as part of their current evaluations. They get rated the same as everyone else – “Satisfactory” – based on that one-hour classroom observation. But we can use these teacher-leaders as eager test subjects while we try to fix the process.
The transition should be handled carefully. Teachers should be given the option of either continuing to be evaluated under the current, safe, orthodox process or choosing to be evaluated as teacher-leaders.
Under the latter option, teacher-leaders would be evaluated not only for what they did in their respective classrooms, but also for what they did to help other teachers. This would put a much-needed premium on innovation, sharing best practices and collegial teamwork, as well as the development of leadership skills.
Teachers could compile a professional portfolio to submit for review, including things like a video of them instructing class followed by a critique by fellow teachers, or a written self-reflection on the experience of having led a volunteer effort during the school year.
The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards already uses similar portfolio requirements to evaluate its board-certified teacher candidates.
Additionally, instead of a traditional two-way dialogue between teacher and principal, districts could expand the evaluation process to include an annual daylong symposium in which teachers presented their portfolio findings to other school principals, community leaders, parents and fellow teachers.
Though teacher-leader evaluations might still yield plenty of “Satisfactory” marks, the additional rigor in this process would make such a rating much more meaningful.
Before we waste any more time or effort touting student test scores as a means to hold teachers accountable, let’s put to use the innovative spirit we should value in teachers, and set a new standard for evaluating our educators.
Steve Rodriguez is an English teacher at Olympian High School in the Sweetwater Union High School District, and is a National Board-certified teacher. 


ksdvm86
 I would like to see you address Common Core as part of the issue with grading teachers


Maura Larkins
I looked at the article posted by ksdvm86.  Here's a quote, "Busywork is the name of the game with the Common Core. Kids need to write and rewrite spelling words and sentences until their hands practically fall off..."

The parent who wrote that should be complaining about the teacher, not Common Core.  This teacher isn't doing a good job.  Common Core does NOT require busywork.  We've known for a long time that writing a word more than three times does not improve the child's ability to spell it. 

Any teacher who creates a stressful atmosphere and then blames it on Common Core should be ashamed.  The teacher should teach good lessons and maintain a healthy learning environment.  Kids enjoy taking tests when they aren't stressed. 

Anyone who thinks all the kids are going to know all the answers is just being idiotic.  Some kids will do better than others. That's to be expected.

However, in an ideal world, all kids would have a teacher who does well at teaching.  Teacher quality is the problem, not Common Core.

Friday, July 11, 2014

Voice of San Diego has a great story about Thrive Charter School, a pet project of VOSD's Buzz Woolley

Caught in San Diego Unified’s Crosshairs, a Charter School Lives Up to Its Name
Mario Koran
Voice of San Diego
July 10, 2014

That charter school the San Diego Unified school board tried to kill has roared back to life.

Thrive Public School was approved by the State Board of Education Wednesday night in a unanimous decision. The school will open in September.

Earlier this year, after spending months working with San Diego Unified staff, Thrive’s founder Nicole Tempel Assisi presented the school board her petition to open a charter school.

The petition had been vetted by various district departments, and was recommended for a five-year charter – its highest vote of confidence. The petition was so convincing Superintendent Cindy Marten gave it the thumbs-up.

It wasn’t enough to convince trustee John Lee Evans, however, who first moved to deny the charter. He noted how Thrive had once simultaneously tried to open a charter in San Diego Unified and another district, and said it represented bad faith in the local community.

Assisi had been a founding principal at Los Angeles charter schools, worked at High Tech High in its early years and had been awarded a grant from the Gates and Broad foundations for the innovative model that Thrive promised.

But ultimately Thrive was shot down in a 3-2 vote. Why the board decided to move the goalposts on this particular charter school was hazy.

The vote, and a separate move by the board in which it raised the bar on which charter schools would be eligible for a slice of Prop. Z money, kick-started a new round of debate about the school board’s relationship with charter schools.

Thrive wasn’t finished. It appealed the decision to the County Board of Education. That came with a bizarre twist: The same San Diego Unified staff that once supported the petition argued the County Board should reject it.

Sarah Sutherland, an outside legal consultant who spoke to the county board on the district’s behalf, said Thrive sounds “good in theory,” but had gone through fundamental changes that undermined its chance of success.

It worked. Thrive was denied. Again.

Thrive appealed again, this time to the state. Thrive’s petition faced another review board, another round of vetting, another hearing before the State Board of Education, where it had 10 minutes to make its case. San Diego Unified had the same. And once again, Thrive faced opposition from a onetime supporter: Marten.

Even though Marten, months earlier, had vouched for her staff’s decision to green-light Thrive, she wrote a letter to the State Board asking it to deny the school, citing concerns over its support for English learners. (Read the letter here.)
But this time, Thrive won out.

Thrive is scheduled to open in the fall. Assisi said there are spots for 160 students, half of which are currently filled. Assisi has been interviewing teachers, and has a list of nine finalists – six of whom will get the nod for the fall.

Assisi will soon sign a lease for the school, she said. Even though the school will exist within San Diego Unified boundaries, it will be overseen by the state, which will monitor its test scores and finances.

The state will also visit the school twice a year, over the course of Thrive’s five-year charter.
Of course, because Thrive won’t be part of San Diego Unified, it also won’t see any of the bond money that other charter schools in the district will receive.
For Assisi, that’s a rub, but she said it’s not what matters most.
“We didn’t come to San Diego to have access to bond money,” she said. “We didn’t come to pick a fight. We came to San Diego because there’s need and kids across the city on waiting lists for charter schools – because there are students across the city living in poverty, not meeting their potential.”

Still, it was a fight – one that cost Thrive and San Diego Unified time and money.
Assisi said the process also cost them a grant that they’d won, but ultimately lost because the school’s charter hadn’t been approved on time.

Thrive has a lot of work to do before it’s ready to open in fall, but Assisi said it’s the kind of work she got into the profession to do.
“We have such an expedited timeline now, and that wasn’t necessary. It’s unfortunate that so much time and money was wasted – on both sides. It’s unfortunate that this wasn’t spent on children,” she said.








"Assisi said the process also cost them a grant that they’d won, but ultimately lost because the school’s charter hadn’t been approved on time."
In petition to the state Assisi claims....."Educational experts throughout the country have reviewed Thrive’s educational program, resulting in Thrive being selected over three-hundred school proposals nationwide to win the highly competitive Next Generation Learning Challenge; and receiving grants from the Broad Foundation, the Girard Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Public Charter Schools Grant Program and the Charter School’s Growth Fund. A primary concern of all of these reviewers and entities has been whether Thrive could provide an educationally successful program. Certainly differences of opinion can exist, but in this case, Thrive has raised over a million dollars in grants in support of its educational program and the successful administrative experience of its leadership after thorough vetting, interviews, and competitive processes."
Which grant did Assisi lose the Girard Foundation grant (Buzz Woolley) or some other one?
 
 




@Kathy S oh, I see what you did there.
 
 




 
Yes, Mario, we all see what Kathy S "did there":  she listed the five organizations that had given grants to Thrive.  Then she asked a question that brought our attention to the fact that one of those five organizations--the Girard Foundation--is led by Buzz Woolley, founder and donor of Voice of San Diego.  She was being very gentle with her subtle message.  I would have been more direct.  I would have said that this is the sort of information that should be included in a "full disclosure" message attached to your story.
Also, how about you ask Ms. Assisi to tell us in one or two sentences what is the main idea of her educational philosophy?  What is it that makes her plan innovative?






Sure, I could have written about Thrive's educational philosophy -- even though I did link to the presentation the school gave to the state -- but then I would've gotten away from the reasons Thrive was denied by the San Diego Unified school board in the first place. If you weren't at that meeting, you're welcome to check it out on the district's meeting archives. You'll note that Thrive's educational philosophy wasn't really a consideration in the board's decision for voting it down.

As far as your and Kathy's suggestion of my bias, I think, respectfully, it's a red-herring that distracts from the issues at play. I didn't answer Kathy's question because it sounded to me rhetorical. The Girard Foundation wasn't mentioned in the piece, and had nothing to do with my reasons for following the story. Of course, you're entitled to your opinions.

Whether every charter school that's authorized offers an educationally sound and fiscally responsible model is a valid concern. But it's a discussion the district and community should have in the open -- before a charter school is denied. Especially if the charter worked for months with the district, and the district helped shaped that very petition.




Maura Larkins

I think you have a great story here, Mario.  The about-face by Cindy Marten and the district is disgusting.  This charter had no problems until the issue moved into the political arena.

So why not trust your readers to see this?

The fact that Buzz Woolley is a bigshot at both the Girard Foundation and Voice of San Diego doesn't prevent the story from being accurately reported and newsworthy.

You could have avoided the distraction of this issue by doing a full disclosure up front.  A full disclosure is NOT a red herring.  It's an expected practice that allows readers to judge for themselves whether or not the story is biased.  Emily Alpert used to include disclosures when she wrote about Buzz Woolley. 

For the record, I do not think your story is biased. I think you did a public service by writing it.






@richard brick That's why schools should be evaluated not on how well students score on tests but on how much they improve.





Yes, you're right, Derek, and, happily, when people talk about test score results they're very often talking about the amount of improvement by students. There is a commonly-used measure called "value-added" which gives us the average number of months or years of academic improvement by the students of a given teacher.  Here's the Wikipedia article about Value Added Modeling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-added_modeling

It's much easier to improve the scores of average and advanced students than it is to bring up the scores of kids who are behind.  In fact, Michelle Rhee was accused, when she was Superintendent of Washington DC schools, of focusing resources on the more upscale schools in the district, and abandoning the lowest-performing schools. I can understand that Ms. Rhee may have felt that she had to use such tricks in order to have significant increases in test scores.
I agree with Mr. Brick that the Preuss School might not look so great if it accepted any child, perhaps using a lottery system.
I'd like to offer a challenge to the Preuss School: how about you start another campus that accepts students at random, and see if you can also be successful with those kids?




"It's much easier to improve the scores of average and advanced students than it is to bring up the scores of kids who are behind."

When you're using value-added, because it's impossible to improve a student who's at the 100th percentile as there is no 101st percentile, it can only be easier to improve the scores of students who are behind.




Maura Larkins

A student who is at the 99+%ile (there is no 100%ile) can most definitely improve. Let's say you have a third-grader who scores at a ninth-grade reading level. The next year, this child is almost certain to advance to tenth-grade or higher reading level. Of course, his (or her) percentile wouldn't change. If every single child were to improve one grade level each year, then each child would have exactly the same percentile score each year, but would nevertheless be scoring at a higher performance level. Unfortunately, a student who is two years below grade level is much less certain to advance a year or more during a school year. These students are usually not given proper instruction. They are likely to sit in class while everything goes over their heads because teachers "don't have time for the kids who are behind."


 A student who scores at the top of the class one year cannot score higher than the top of the class the next year. So at best, that student can only remain at the same percentile rank from year to year. Do we agree so far?
Now let's say that being two years below grade level puts a student in the 15th percentile. Would it not be easier to increase that student's percentile rank by 5% than it would be to increase a 94.99th percentile student's rank by 5%?


When you talk changing percentiles, you're talking about kids going up or down RELATIVE to other kids. You're NOT talking about how much actual improvement a student makes.

In your scheme of things, a kid who gets the top score in the whole country year after year, and rapidly raises his (or her) level of performance each year, has NOT improved.

You are also saying that a child who is in a low percentile to start with, who improves a little bit--but is still far below grade level--has improved MORE than the first kid!

This makes no sense.

Percentiles only allow you to know which kids are higher and which kids are lower.

Percentiles don't give you information about what kids actually know.  If everyone makes less progress year after year, the percentiles remain the same.  If everyone makes more progress year after year, the percentiles remain the same.

We want to know whether the student population as a whole is getting better, staying the same, or losing ground. This is CRUCIALLY important.

So we're not really much interested in looking at percentiles. Your mom is interested in your percentile, and college admissions departments are interested, but society as a whole is more interested in whether students are raising their grade levels..

The fact is that we ARE able to measure the improvement of the high performers by looking at changes in their grade level, and we know that teachers don't have to put very much effort into getting the high-performer to improve their academic performance.

We are also able to measure the improvement of low performers by looking at changes (or lack of change) in their grade level, and experience shows that teachers have to put a lot more effort to get that improvement.

That's why so many people are furious that low-income schools don't have the very best teachers.  The upscale schools don't need the best teachers; the downscale schools desperately need them.

Saturday, May 17, 2014

Master teachers: effective evaluations of teachers and principals


Was it SDUSD Superintendent Cindy Marten (above)
who convinced reporter Mario Koran that student test scores are no
longer of any interest to anyone in San Diego Unified for measuring
teacher performance? Or was it one of Voice of San Diego's donors?


Voice of San Diego education reporter Mario Koran isn't a big fan of objective measures of teacher quality. In the story below, he gives the impression that the current, failed practice of having principals do subjective teacher evaluations is just fine. Just because one school can improve without reforming this policy proves absolutely nothing. There have always been some schools that did a good job--but those schools were successful in spite of, not because of, having subjective teacher evaluations.

“The [San Diego Unified] district is focused on finding a way to replicate success like Marshall after it grew disillusioned with the school reform movement,” VOSD’s Mario Koran reports, “which focuses intensely on test scores as a way to gauge progress, and is now looking for a measurable alternative.”

Wait a minute. "Disillusioned with the school reform movement"? The whole movement? Everything? That's a rather sweeping statement. It implies that the school reform movement is limited to using "test scores as a way to gauge progress."

I would suggest that the district use the test scores intelligently, focusing intensely on the 10% of teachers who get the best improvement in student scores year after year.

It appears that VOSD doesn't want to focus on highly effective teachers any more than CTA does; they both prefer power politics for deciding which teachers are listened to.

Schools don't know who the best teachers are. The current process of principal evaluations (that often involve no classroom observations) is highly lax and political. Bad teachers with influence often get good evaluations; good teachers who don't support the agenda of the principal are often not fully acknowledged.

Schools would benefit if they had clear, unbiased information about which teachers were fully effective. For one thing, the best teachers could do training of other teachers, saving the obscene costs of hiring consultants selling the latest gimmick is monstrous.

But unbiased evaluations would interfere with school politics--and district politics. It would allow people to advance who weren't necessarily popular and politically connected--people who might change things, disturbing the smooth surface that covers up the dysfunction in our schools.

SDUSD's initial proposal to teachers April 15, 2014: district offer: A new evaluation article and process, focused on fostering meaningful professional growth and development for all certificated personnel

Here's another VOSD story:

The Case That Could Blow Up Teacher Tenure
By: Mario Koran
Voice of San Diego
April 28, 2014

Comments

DDunn
District Tenure:
In reading the San Diego board meeting agenda item re: Central Office Reorganization. This is when and how the district moves and shuffles worn out people and positions to create the illusion that something is improving. However some of the names and faces have been around and moved around for years. Not much will change, except the job titles and pay grade - look a bit deeper.

As for teacher evaluations - what is in place via State Assembly Stull Bill is quite adequate. It's the follow through by administrators that fails. Specifically, if an administrator finds a teacher as "needs improvement" or "not satisfactory", that administrator is required by contract to develop a plan (with a stringent timeline) to bring the teacher up to satisfactory - and this can take up to 2 years, and few administrators actually know how or what to do. (see SDEA contract Performance Evaluations). Also, by contract, an administrator can opt for a Special Evaluation at any time - but the plan, timeline, and work involved is heavy.

Now for student/parent evaluation input. Professionals need to be evaluated by professionals. So, next time you're out for diner with the family and get a "How'd we do" card from your server, hand it to your 10 year old to fill out. And for parents - your child is not the same child in class as she/he is at home...Sorry!

Kathy S

@DDunn But that rich guy Bill Gates says.....Gates "wants the country to spend $5 billion for every teacher in every classroom in every district to be filmed in action so they can be evaluated and, maybe, improve."

The philanthropist has dedicated resources in the last few years to identifying and developing effective teaching. His foundation funded the $45 million MET project designed to determine how to best identify and promote great teaching. They enlisted the help of 3,000 teachers and many experts to determine the best way to do this.

In regards to teacher evaluations, the MET project concluded that a three-step approach is best. This includes: student test scores, classroom observations by multiple reviewers, and teacher evaluations from students.

And cameras....

As for the Gates Foundation, this idea has been brewing for quite some time. Thomas Kane, a professor of education and economics at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and the director of the MET project, said in a 2011 interview with Education Next that there are a lot of advantages to having cameras in classrooms. He said:

One is it gives you a common piece of evidence to discuss with an instructional coach or supervisor. Second, it will prove to be economically much more viable because you’re not paying observers to drive around to various schools to do observations. If a teacher doesn’t think that their principal is giving them a fair evaluation because of some vendetta, they can have an external expert with no personal ax to grind watch and give feedback. (Thomas J. Kane, a professor at Harvard, testifies for the plaintiffs in Vergara v. California)
Maura Larkins' comment

I agree with you that administrators tend to be very neglectful when it comes to working with weak teachers. But another problem is the principal's original evaluation of a teacher. Principals are in a difficult situation: they are vastly outnumbered by the people they're evaluating. They can be bullied by teacher cliques. As a result of this, and as a result of simply being fallible human beings, many principals give good evaluations to teachers who are their friends or allies, and bad evaluations to teachers who disagree with them. It would make more sense to have evaluations done by unbiased individuals, and let the principals do the follow-up. Also, it would be easier for principals to help teachers improve if they weren't the ones who gave the bad evaluation in the first place. The teachers couldn't tell themselves that the evaluation was biased, and they'd trust the principal more.

Maura Larkins' comment: Principals are NOT chosen from among the most effective teachers. Principals don't ask for advice and support from the most effective teachers. Politics and effectiveness do not overlap a whole lot. How are principals chosen? By very subjective means, heavily influenced by politics.

Chief educator: Q&A with Cindy Marten
By U-T San Diego
May 10, 2014

...A: An evaluation process is something that should be highly relevant and meaningful to our most effective educators, as well as helpful for our educators who are struggling. I always look at evaluation as a tool and a resource. I look at what I call growth and development of our teachers. And do we have an evaluation system that allows us to give meaningful, relevant feedback on an ongoing basis. It shouldn’t be once a year or twice a year where an administrator comes in a room and sits in the back for 45 minutes. Feedback needs to be something that’s ongoing and a teacher finds it most relevant when the principal knows instruction, the principal knows what high-quality teaching and learning looks like, knows when you’re able to deliver a lesson that meets the needs of every learner in the class not just learners that are struggling or learners that are achieving at high levels. I expect my principals to be in classrooms all the time...

One other part that got a lot of attention was parents and students. I think that’s one that people are very interested in and that parents and students are a part of a system that gives meaningful feedback to our educators. Vision 20/20 (the district’s long-term plan) was adopted by the board before I even began. The mission and vision around that is to have a quality school in every neighborhood, and we’ve defined quality as more than the API score, more than a test score.

...When it comes to the formal evaluation, the principal is the one who’s the evaluator. The principal is the one who went to college, has the administrative credential, has been trained on formal evaluation processes, but we know that when teachers get to hear immediate and direct feedback from a student and from a parent, that changes and improves their practice.

Thursday, April 10, 2014

San Diego Unified: From Charter-Friendly to Charter Acquaintance

San Diego Explained: From Charter-Friendly to Charter Acquaintance
By: Catherine Green
Voice of San Diego
March 21, 2014

School board trustee John Lee Evans once called San Diego Unified “one of the most charter-friendly districts in the nation.”

And based on the numbers, he was right: From 2005 to 2012, charter students in the district jumped by about 40 percent

But all that’s about to change, thanks in part to the board’s decision to up the ante on tough requirements for charters to get funding from a $2.8 billion bond they helped get approved in 2012. The district has also been candid about making it harder to open a charter.

In this edition of San Diego Explained, NBC 7′s Catherine Garcia and Voice of San Diego reporter Mario Koran lay out the changing tides for San Diego charter schools.

Update: An earlier version of this post said San Diego Unified was second in the nation for charter school growth. That number came from a National Alliance for Public Charter Schools report. On March 26, the group said it had miscounted, and amended its report. According to the amended numbers, San Diego Unified ranks 18th for growth in charter school enrollment.

Catherine Green is deputy editor at Voice of San Diego. She handles daily operations while helping to plan new long-term projects.

COMMENTS

...Doug Porter
subscriber

Perhaps there have been some problems with charter schools that could have influenced SDUSD policies. I do seem to remember a couple of dozen tearful students and teachers pleading with SDUSD Board of Trustees a couple of weeks ago about conditions at a charter school.

Or perhaps they're cognizant of the schools around the country that have abruptly just gone out of business, leaving families in a lurch.

Or perhaps what's going on is part of broader policy change aimed at increasing the role of neighborhood schools.

We wouldn't know from this story, which just makes it seem like the big bad SDUSD Board is picking on them. (Oh, lookie! Did you see that union thug?)

I actually think charter schools have a role to play. Many of them provide unique and valuable educational experiences.

But come on.... Give us some depth.

Friday, March 29, 2013

School districts can no longer conceal what they pay their attorneys to fight lawsuits

Kyla Doyle sent me the following article. She notes:

"What caught my attention was that it includes "ongoing litigation" so the school districts can no longer deny records act requests just because the case hasn't yet resolved. Ours is still out there--after the denial by the US Supreme Court they are fighting over fees owed to our attorney....while racking up more fees for themselves..."

Here is a snippet of oral arguments in Kyla's case between one of the Ninth Circuit Justices and Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz attorney Jack Sleeth.

Kudos to writer Rex Dalton and Voice of Orange County for covering this story.

When I first glanced at the article below, I was surprised and delighted. I was going to applaud Will Carless of Voice of San Diego for finally writing about secrecy among school attorneys and their allies at San Diego County Office of Education. Then I saw that the story is from Voice of OC, not Voice of San Diego. VOSD continues to protect school attorneys since Emily Alpert left.


Supreme Court Rules Special Ed Litigation Costs Are Public
By REX DALTON
Voice of OC
March 11, 2013

Related: A 'Brotherhood' Fights Families Wanting Special Ed
Related: Questions Surround Attorneys' Actions in Speical Ed Case

The California Supreme Court has cleared the way for public disclosure of governmental legal costs in ongoing lawsuits where school districts, cities or other public agencies refuse to reveal the bills before litigation is complete.

In Orange County and other jurisdictions, governmental agencies have frequently declined to disclose the costs of ongoing litigation, contending such legal bills are exempt under the California Public Records Act.

But in its Feb. 20 ruling on a Los Angeles lawsuit, the court affirmed a published appellate decision in which judges decided that legal fees can be disclosed when a public records request is made during active litigation.

Terry Franke, an attorney for Californians Aware, an open-access organization in Sacramento, said, “This case properly ends an abuse too often employed to conceal from the public just how much of its money is being spent by lawyers.”

The court decision removes a ploy used by the Orange County Department of Education and a number of the county's 28 school districts to deny disclosure of litigation costs when fighting cases against families seeking special education for youths with disabilities under federal and state laws.

Last year, Voice of OC ran a series of articles showing how school districts were spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight families over services that sometimes cost only a few thousand dollars. Such legal battles also created enormous hardships for families and limited options for children with autism and other serious developmental disabilities.

For instance, the Orange Unified School District, working with county education department attorneys, refused last year to release the district’s legal costs after the district sued a family in federal court to prevent paying about $3,400 a year for a preschool for the family's autistic child. The youngster is known only as C.K. in court records.

Recently released Orange Unified records show the district’s legal costs to fight the family totaled at least $236,000. These costs were for an administrative hearing, where the family won service funding, and to sue the family in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana.

Orange Unified paid a Costa Mesa law firm headed by S. Daniel Harbottle about $83,000 of that total, according to invoices provided by the school district. And because the family of the child defeted the school district’s lawsuit, the federal judge ordered the district to pay their Long Beach attorney, Bruce Bothwell, his court-approved attorney fees of $153,000.

In another case involving an 18-year-old autistic youth in the Garden Grove Unified School District, the school district and county’s attorneys have refused to release the district’s costs in a contentious legal battle that has gone on since 2008.

The youth's guardian aunt has fought for services in five administrative hearings and filed several federal lawsuits against the district for declining to pay for or provide special education services. The family’s litigation costs are in excess of $350,000, they say.

The Garden Grove district's aggressive legal stance was designed to drive the boy out of the school district, alleged the aunt, Alexis Baquerizo. The school district has denied the charge in court.

A spokesman for the Garden Grove district declined comment on the legal ruling. He referred the inquiry to the county education department.

Lysa M. Saltzman, a county education department counsel, declined to address specific questions about the disclosure ruling, writing in an email that any new requests under the California Public Records Act for legal costs in the case will be evaluated based on the recent Supreme Court decision.

School district and county attorneys have argued that cost disclosures could compromise the school district’s legal position and should be treated like legal strategies, which remain exempt from disclosure during continuing litigation.

But last Nov. 16, the California Court of Appeal for the 2nd District ruled that legal fees in continuing cases were disclosable. It was this decision that the Supreme Court let stand while also affirming that the ruling should remain published, thereby serving as a statewide precedent.

“Government officials are not paying for litigation or other legal services out of their own pockets, so there’s no independent check on their spending, which can grow very large very quickly if taxpayers have no way of learning how the bills are piling up,” said CalAware’s Franke.

The decision arose from a civil lawsuit filed by a Bellflower couple in 1999 after they allegedly were improperly held and harassed by Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies during a 1998 auto theft investigation.

In a recent interview, Donald W. Cook of Los Angeles, attorney for the couple, said the case easily could have been settled more than a decade ago but the Los Angeles county counsel’s office engages private law firms to litigate seemingly forever as a tactic to discourage plaintiffs.

The couple’s original claim for damages has bounced up and down the court system during the 13 years. Furious over delays, Cook engaged an attorney to sue Los Angeles County for legal costs, which he estimated at about $1 million.

Cook said that certain governmental agencies like Los Angeles County “don’t want the taxpayer to know they are wasting money. The strategy here is to hire a private firm, which milks the case for all it's worth and then bills the taxpayer.”

A spokesman for the Los Angeles County counsel’s office declined comment.

In Orange County, families, child advocates and family attorneys have contended that school district have employed similar tactics for years to avoid providing services required by the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

A handful of law firms represents the county’s school districts, who look to them as buffers against substantial costs that some special education cases can require. District superintendents claim they must take a hard line to control costs.

The stakes are so high over the issue that Cook suspects governmental agencies may seek legislation in Sacramento in an attempt to amend the state Public Records Act to again block legal fee disclosures.

Expressing concern about the impact of the appellate decision, the League of California Cities filed a letter Jan. 24 urging the state Supreme Court to accept and hear arguments on Cook's case. The league, a Sacramento-based organization of 469 municipalities, fears being swamped by requests for disclosures.

A league attorney, Koreen Kelleher, said she was unaware of any such legislation effort.

Rex Dalton is a San Diego-based journalist who has worked for the San Diego Union-Tribune and the journal Nature. You can reach him directly at rexdalton@aol.com.

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Was the first warning that something was wrong in Poway a May 2012 article by VOSD's Andrew Donohue?

See Update April 2015

Photo by Sam Hodgson

Why exactly was Poway Federation of Teachers President Candy Smiley (left) so happy in this picture?

A few months after this picture was taken, it was revealed that all three Poway Unified board members endorsed by Smiley's organization had voted to sell bonds that would force a future generation to pay a billion dollars in interest for a $126 million loan.

Voice of San Diego editor Andrew Donohue wrote an interesting article last May about "the unique lesson Poway has to teach."

Donohue noted, "Over the last two decades, though, the union and district have forged an uncommonly collaborative bond that started with trust on the budget and has now gone far beyond."

Yes, they were collaborative all the way to a huge scandal about CAB school bonds.

I don't believe that the board would have been able to pull of the CAB stunt without the blessing of the teachers union.

When there's too much "collegiality" among the people who run schools, different points of view don't get aired. Decisions are made behind closed doors. All the public ever sees is the smiling faces of the people who get along so very well together.

School boards work hard to present an image of peace and joy, but that's often the signal that the rest of us should start worrying.

I did more research and found a strong link between the Republican Party and the five Poway school board members who created the CAB bond deal.

Linda Vanderveen, Andy Patapow and Marc Davis openly claim Republican credentials. I couldn't find a party affiliation for Penny Ranftle or Todd Gutschow, but they both received the endorsement of Republican Poway Mayor Don Higginson. It seems that ALL the board members either were Republicans or managed to make themselves acceptable to Republicans.

Interestingly, Marc Davis got the approval of the Poway Federation of Teachers as well as the Republican Party. Penny Ranftle and Todd Gutschow also were endorsed by Poway Federation of Teachers.

Clearly, the bond deal was designed to please Republican constituents who insisted on no new taxes. Todd Gutschow made clear that this demand by constituents was what pushed the board into designing the unusual bond deal.

On November 6, 2012 voters threw out Vanderveen, and likely would have thrown out Patapow if there had been another challenger. Patapow squeaked ahead of Vanderveen by 2032 votes out of about 50,000. Voters replaced Vanderveen with a Democrat, Kimberley Beatty.



Where the Teachers Union and District Love Each Other
May 9, 2012 | Updated: Aug 3, 2012
By ANDREW DONOHUE
Voice of San Diego

When Candy Smiley talks about the school district, the pronoun she uses subtly belies the unique lesson Poway has to teach.

"We," she says over and over again.

"We didn't spend the $6 million from the feds. We can't control the state budget," she says. "When we got the money, we could've hired teachers. We decided collectively not to, that we would save it so that we could ensure that teacher salaries would return."

Smiley leads the union for teachers at Poway Unified School District. Further south, things aren't so friendly. The San Diego Unified School District has repeatedly made end-of-days financial warnings, only to find a way to put off painful cuts at the last second. Meanwhile, union leaders have engaged in a full-throated campaign to discredit the district's numbers and the people that produce them. Nobody trusts the numbers; nobody trusts each other.

Things used to be like this in Poway, too.

Over the last two decades, though, the union and district have forged an uncommonly collaborative bond that started with trust on the budget and has now gone far beyond. Upheaval in the leadership of the San Diego teachers union has led to a pledge of greater unity with the district. Meanwhile, the district has continued to plead with the union to at least sit down and start negotiating a solution to a fiscal crisis that looks likely to put hundreds of teachers out of a job.

If both the district and its teachers are serious about repairing their relationship, then Poway is as good a place as any for them to study.

I originally interviewed Smiley and Poway Superintendent John Collins for a story we did on the revolution happening in teacher evaluation, but Poway's tale didn't fit directly into the story.

Still, I learned a lot from our conversation and many of you have asked for more reporting highlighting solutions being used by other communities.

So here are four takeaways from my research:

• How They Came to Trust Each Other

The way Collins and Smiley describe it, Poway once struggled with many of the same problems other local school districts have today. The district and its unions argued over money. The budgets weren't transparent. Nobody trusted each other.

But about a decade and a half ago, things changed. A new superintendent came aboard. The union president wanted to throw out the emotions and just get down to the data. So, the district and the union sat down and went through the budget line by line. They no longer argued about what the problems were, but rather simply how to solve the problems.

From Smiley:

Once you start talking about the data, you start building a trusting relationship.

Everybody grew to understand the budget in a very honest, transparent way. It wasn't "he said, she said." That is the way we have been doing our business ever since. Today, the two groups still sit down together in a room five times a year to do this. The budget is color-coded to show everyone what's gone up and down. For every question the union has, the administration has an answer and documentation to back it up.

In San Diego Unified, the district has offered to bring the union in and go line by line through the budget. So far, the union hasn't taken them up on the offer.

The union argues that the district has a history of miscommunication when it comes to its budget. And it has a point. District officials admit that for years, their budget was in disarray, and that incorrect information was often given out.

But the same officials say that confusion is a thing of the past. District Deputy Superintendent of Business Operations Phil Stover says confidently that he knows where every penny in the district is being spent. All the union has to do is ask, he says, and he can lay it all out.

In Poway, that’s already happening.

Smiley again:

We can ask any question we want and I have complete confidence that I will get a straight answer and there will be back-up documentation.

Pretty soon, you just start building a trust. And when they are honest with me we are honest with them.

I feel very responsible for this relationship that was built before I arrived.

Says Collins:

Over the years what that's resulted is a relationship with the union that's based in trust and open and honest communication. Everything's on the table. All our records are available.

We've already agreed on what the facts are and then we focus on solving the problem.

Instead of arguing we don't want to do this, it was, what are we going to do to keep the district from going bankrupt.

Collins and Smiley even issue joint communications to employees and management. • What That Means Practically for District Finances

In Poway, teachers have taken a 4.3 percent salary rollback and the district has offered early retirement to avoid layoffs. Not out of the ordinary. Other places, like San Diego Unified, have also made similar moves.

However, the rollbacks expire this year and the two sides say the district can handle the increased costs. They decided not to spend one-time money from the federal government immediately after receiving it, instead putting it in a reserve. And they're already talking about renegotiating if everything doesn’t pan out.

"They agreed if things get worse we'll be back at the table," Collins said.

• One Reason Behind the Relationship

Poway teachers are a rare breed in San Diego County.

They're part of the American Federation of Teachers, one of two big umbrella teachers unions in the country. Most teachers across the region, and those in San Diego, belong to the National Education Association.

As New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has written about, AFT leader Randi Weingarten has been pushing for unions to be actively participating in school reforms.

"I know the AFT has been very progressive," Collins said.

• What That Means for Everything Else

Now, back to the reason I interviewed Smiley and Collins to begin with.

There's a revolution happening right now in how data is used to evaluate teachers and push accountability. It's very controversial, and San Diego Unified isn't having any of it.

Big districts across the country, though, have been.

So I wanted to know if Poway's considering the use of sophisticated data to measure teacher performance.

Their answer: The two sides are in the early stages of meeting and talking about this very thing.

The Poway Federation of Teachers has surveyed its members. They recently had an all-day meeting about assessments with teacher union representatives from every school, every principal, the superintendent, his cabinet and four of the five school board members.

Smiley says evaluation needs to go beyond just test scores. There needs to be multiple measures.

"I'm confident that we will be building our own evaluation tool and we'll decide if we use test scores," she said. "We hope we'll be designing this — rather than having someone else design it for us."

Collins, not surprisingly, agreed.

"We're going to try to get some models in before we get told how to do it. We're hoping we can show the state a better model," he said.

Disclaimer: I'm not an expert in Poway education. This piece is based off of two interviews and a tip I'd received. If you think it's off base or there's something I'm missing, comment on this story or email me. I'm the editor of VOSD and you can reach me at andrew.donohue@voiceofsandiego.org or 619.325.0526.


[Maura Larkins comment: In fact, over a period of years I repeatedly told Andrew Donohue that VOSD was ignoring corruption in our county schools. His response was to refuse to publish important stories. Scott Lewis backed him up. I suspect that Buzz Woolley and Irwin Jacobs' deep pockets are responsible for VOSD's kid-gloved handling of school issues.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Who is exposing the underbellies of school systems, U-T San Diego or Voice of San Diego?

My challenge to Will Carless at VOSD and Jeff McDonald at U-T San Diego: Why don't you find out the truth about what's going on at SDCOE?

Now that Will Carless has replaced Emily Alpert at VOSD, why doesn't he conduct a "Crosier Watch" similar to the "Petty Watch" he conducted in 2008?

Over the past few years, only a few limited stories about the tactics of education attorneys have crept into the press. Reporters have to beg and plead and practically stand on their heads to get their stories published. Voice of San Diego dropped its coverage of SDCOE attorney shenanigans, and laid-off its stellar education reporter Emily Alpert. CEO Scott Lewis claimed that he didn't have enough money to pay her.

But that explanation doesn't hold water.

Voice of San Diego benefactors Buzz Woolley and Irwin Jacobs, who claim to care about education, could have easily paid Emily's salary with their pocket change if they'd wanted her to stay. And I suspect she would have wanted to stay if her job description had been made more appealing, which would have included being allowed to publish her stories freely. At one time she must have hoped that all her work would result in some changes for children in schools.

It seems Buzz Woolley, Irwin Jacobs and Emily Alpert weren't on the same page.

I recently discovered (in a story by Jeff McDonald at the U-T) that SDCOE executive Dan Puplava, whom Emily had started investigating, was fined $7000 and had his brokers license suspended while AIG Financial, which was paying Puplava big bucks for moonlighting with them, was fined $300,000 for not properly overseeing him. Still, Puplava retains his job as head of the SDCOE Fringe Benefits Consortium.

Voice of San Diego never even placed a link in its Morning Report to the U-T San Diego story.

To its credit, VOSD's Will Carless is doing a great job investigating a school bond scam in Poway pulled off by board members and their lawyers.

But if VOSD had been willing to aggressively investigate education attorneys, the Poway Capital Appreciation Bonds scandal might have been prevented. Of course, the downside of that for VOSD would be that it wouldn't have an exciting school bond story to write about.

It seems that journalists are a bit like Plaintiff lawyers: they actually benefit from corruption and wrongdoing because investigation it gets them money and fame.

All along, of course, the school attorneys are making work for themselves by advising school boards to ignore the law.

But the public doesn't hear much about this.

In fact, even private bloggers like me and Scott Dauenhaur get sued by SDCOE lawyer Dan Shinoff for defamation on behalf of himself and his pals at SDCOE. SDCOE should stop tax dollars to stop public discussion of school attorney tactics, but it won't.

Shockingly, it seems that U-T San Diego's Jeff McDonald is more willing to expose SDCOE than Voice of San Diego is. As a member of Voice of San Diego, I never thought I'd be forced to confess that we need the U-T in order to get balanced news reporting in San Diego. I never thought Doug Manchester's rag would sometimes do a better job on education than Buzz Woolley and Irwin Jacobs.

The U-T freely admits that it is using the paper to influence voters and officials. You know you're reading a biased paper when you read the U-T. The Union-Tribune has been killing important stories for years.

The problem with VOSD is that the bias is in the censorship--you don't know which stories they killed because donors didn't like them. Except, of course, in cases where VOSD started a story--and then killed it.

See similar problem in Maryland.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

English Learners Put High-Tech Blackboards to New Use

Wouldn't it be great if someone did a follow-up on the results of the huge investments (see last paragraph in story below) made by local school districts in digitized whiteboards? Here's a story from 2008.

English Learners Put High-Tech Blackboards to New Use
By EMILY ALPERT
Voice of San Diego
Friday, Feb. 1, 2008

...Magic is now standard at El Toyon Elementary School in National City, where Vazquez teaches bilingual classes for first and second grade students. Here, every classroom boasts an interactive whiteboard; across the National School District, half of classrooms got the tools this year.

National, a district with a history of achieving against the odds, has adopted the technology more widely than any other school district in San Diego County. It's an unlikely Mecca for high-tech, a school where educators say most children go home to play with Nintendos, not PCs. Ninety percent of its students are from low-income households; nearly 70 percent are still learning English.

But here, the technology has yielded results, according to an early study. Test scores ticked upward in the high-tech classrooms, where 5 percent more students passed state tests compared to their less-wired counterparts. Teachers report that students are more attentive and excited, and go absent less frequently.

National City's success points to an emerging focus for the technology: Bringing second-language students up to speed. English-language learners are the core challenge for National City schools, said Superintendent Dennis Doyle, and interactive whiteboards offer new ways to coax them toward success. Eighteen teachers tested the tools districtwide last year. This year, more took on the technology, with 20 boards in use at El Toyon alone.

"It's like … the Wii," Doyle said. "Everyone wanted it. You didn't have to advertise."

Interactive whiteboards aren't new. British schools embraced the boards four years ago, pouring nearly $50 million in government funds into the technology. Proponents tout the boards as a way to keep fickle students engaged, and to cater to different learners with multi-sensory lessons. Yet researchers have been skeptical, noting that achievement hasn't surged as the boards crop up in British classrooms.

But Britain is a world away from National City, where educators say the whiteboards are ideal for English-language learners. The tool is new to National City, but the methods aren't: lots of images and lots of interaction. To explain a word in English, Vazquez can pull a picture from the web; to keep students from tuning out, she sprinkles her lessons with quick quizzes, and invites students to the board to move objects and words onscreen.

[Maura Larkins comment: all of this can be done by any good teacher with a blackboard! When I was a teacher, I had banker boxes full of pictures and appropriate worksheets that I would pull out when my students wanted to pursue and unexpected topic.]

...Interactive boards aren't a magic bullet, educators caution. Like other technologies, they depend largely on how — and if — teachers use them. Past efforts to digitize U.S. classrooms have fizzled, lacking support from teachers, who need training and technical support, said B.J. Afeman, a project specialist in the San Diego County Office of Education. After computers did little to boost scores in the 1990s, many schools are wary of placing their hopes in technology, especially with a budget crisis looming, Afeman said.

"You can't just buy a laptop and expect kids to get smarter," said Afeman, who worked closely with National City on the project. "National did it differently."

National is known for doing things differently — and well. Statewide, its math scores top all other school districts with similar percentages of low-income and English-learning students; its English scores rank fourth. In 2004, two National elementary schools were tapped as exceptionally high-performing schools by Springboard Schools, an Oakland nonprofit that analyzes school success. Its test scores regularly rank it among schools that are far wealthier, whiter and more English-savvy.

Computers are plentiful here compared to most schools in San Diego County, with nearly one computer for every three students. But the key is how computers are used in National City schools, Doyle said — not how many there are.

Teachers decide when and how to use the boards, and are key to whether the lessons flourish or flop. Learning to use the technology takes time, as does crafting special lessons. It took Vazquez six hours to assemble her half-hour class about orange juice. Now, however, she and other El Toyon teachers can always use that lesson, pulling it up year after year.

Doyle has wisely tied technology to measurable goals, instead of heralding the technology itself, said Bruce Braciszewski, executive director of the Classroom of the Future Foundation. National also pushed professional development via the whiteboards. Teachers can trade ideas, archive their charts, and discuss individual students' progress through the system.

"Teaching is no longer that job you do all by yourself," Doyle said.

...South Bay Union School District, centered in Imperial Beach, is eyeing the technology, but nervous about the price, especially as California aims budget cuts at schools.

...Chris Oram, National's technology director, estimated the systems' total cost at $500,000. Each board costs roughly $7,000 including pre-made programs and egg-shaped controllers for students, Oram said. Individual schools pay for the boards, usually out of federal and state funds allocated to help low-income students and English-language learners. Each National City school receives between $250,000 and $500,000 annually in such funds.

National elementary schools also pay for three full-time employees to troubleshoot and train teachers to use the boards — a $250,000 cost,
Oram estimated...

[Maura Larkins comment: I wonder if the whiteboards turned out to be a white elephant. Dennis Doyle hasn't revealed why he suddenly resigned, but perhaps the board was unhappy about excessive spending similar to that in the story below.]

Lavish Spending at San Diego Anti-Terror Center
Colin Weatherby
Voice of San Diego
Oct. 5, 2012

An anti-terrorism center in San Diego was cited in a U.S. Senate report on Wednesday for its excessive spending, reports the U-T.

The state-operated center purchased 55 flat-screen televisions, claiming that the purchase was necessary for monitoring the news. The former director of the center was fired after spending nearly $75,000 on the purchase. The TVs were meant to be used for a training program that never happened, and were instead used to display calendars.

Throw in a few sixers, a bowl of peanuts, and a couple of Chargers posters and we might have San Diego's best new sports bar, right? OK, maybe not.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

The man who calls himself Papa Doug now owns all of San Diego's major papers.

The UT-San Diego yesterday denied that it had bought the North County Times, but today admitted that it had. This makes Voice of San Diego all the more important to San Diegans.

U-T Buys North County Times
September 11, 2012
By DAGNY SALAS
Voice of San Diego

Developer and U-T San Diego owner Doug Manchester now owns two major daily newspapers in the San Diego region: The company jointly owned by Manchester and his partner, U-T CEO John Lynch, bought the North County Times for $11.95 million. Voice of San Diego reporter Rob Davis is on the story and has been tweeting about it this morning:

11 Sep 12
Rob Davis@robwdavis
NCT publisher confirms that, yes indeed, the sale is complete now. Today. For real...

11 Sep 12
Rob Davis@robwdavis
Yesterday's non-sale fiasco has the bad odor of a case of We Wanted to Control Our News So We Denied The Report...

11 Sep 12
Rob Davis@robwdavis
The man who calls himself Papa Doug now owns all of San Diego's major papers. Good time to reread my profile of him. http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/environment/muck/article_171fddf0-4311-11e1-8874-0019bb2963f4.html



PRESS FREEDOM INDEX 2011/2012

Syria, Bahrain and Yemen get worst ever rankings

“This year’s index sees many changes in the rankings, changes that reflect a year that was incredibly rich in developments, especially in the Arab world,” Reporters Without Borders said today as it released its 10th annual press freedom index. “Many media paid dearly for their coverage of democratic aspirations or opposition movements. Control of news and information continued to tempt governments and to be a question of survival for totalitarian and repressive regimes. The past year also highlighted the leading role played by netizens in producing and disseminating news.

“Crackdown was the word of the year in 2011. Never has freedom of information been so closely associated with democracy. Never have journalists, through their reporting, vexed the enemies of freedom so much. Never have acts of censorship and physical attacks on journalists seemed so numerous. The equation is simple: the absence or suppression of civil liberties leads necessarily to the suppression of media freedom. Dictatorships fear and ban information, especially when it may undermine them.

“It is no surprise that the same trio of countries, Eritrea, Turkmenistan and North Korea, absolute dictatorships that permit no civil liberties, again occupy the last three places in the index. This year, they are immediately preceded at the bottom by Syria, Iran and China, three countries that seem to have lost contact with reality as they have been sucked into an insane spiral of terror, and by Bahrain and Vietnam, quintessential oppressive regimes. Other countries such as Uganda and Belarus have also become much more repressive.

“This year’s index finds the same group of countries at its head, countries such as Finland, Norway and Netherlands that respect basic freedoms. This serves as a reminder that media independence can only be maintained in strong democracies and that democracy needs media freedom. It is worth noting the entry of Cape Verde and Namibia into the top twenty, two African countries where no attempts to obstruct the media were reported in 2011.”...

Saturday, December 10, 2011

Nonprofit news website voiceofsandiego.org lays off three reporters, including education writer Emily Alpert

If I had known this, I would have thought much longer and harder before I made my donation five days ago. I can't help thinking that this should have been revealed sooner. All three of these people did work that was particularly meaningful to me. Is it possible that Emily was not enthusiastic enough regarding San Diegans 4 Great Schools to suit Buzz Woolley?

MEDIA: Nonprofit news website voiceofsandiego.org lays off three reporters
By ERIC WOLFF
nctimes.com
December 9, 2011

Voiceofsandiego.org, a nonprofit news website in San Diego, laid off three reporters and another staffer Friday because of a fundraising shortfall, according to a letter to readers on the site.

The three reporters are Sam Hodgson, photo editor; Emily Alpert, schools reporter; and Adrian Florido, neighborhoods reporter. Hodgson was the site's only staff photographer, according to its staff page. The letter did not identify the fourth person laid off.

The lay-offs amount to a 30-percent reduction in staff. The "about us" page lists 13 employees, including the now-departed workers.

In a letter on Voice's website, CEO Scott Lewis and Editor Andrew Donohue said they had raised $1.1 million this year, but had budgeted for $1.2 million. The pair budgeted $1 million for next year, a 17 percent reduction. The reduction did not come from the loss of a major donor, but out of concern that grants from national foundations might not be available, Lewis and Donohue wrote.

"Further budget reductions will not be considered for 2012," Lewis and Donohue wrote.

Friday, July 29, 2011

Anatomy of a Journalistic Success and a Journalistic Failure at Voice of San Diego regarding public records

Voice of San Diego's Will Carless triumphs but Emily Alpert fails to get public records from local agencies. Click here for comparison.

I suspect that VOSD editor Andrew Donohue and CEO Scott Lewis are the ones who decide how hard to press for public records. I wonder if Buzz Woolley, the financial mainstay of Voice of San Diego, has let them know that he wants top school administrators and their lawyers to be treated much more gently than redevelopment administrators.

Thursday, July 28, 2011

The Shelia Jackson brouhaha makes me ask: Which newspaper is better, the San Diego Union-Tribune or the Voice of San Diego?

UPDATE: July 29, 2011
Here are my latest comments on the Jackson story in Voice of San Diego:

To VOSD:
You guys are doing something wrong. I don't think your decisions are motivated by race, but the unbalanced racial makeup of the people you choose to attack exposes a problem. I'm not talking about the top elected officials. I am talking about how VOSD chooses which of the other 3 million people in San Diego to attack, protect, or discuss. There's something wrong with your methodology when so many of the people attacked are black women. There is something arbitrary and inequitable about your methods. The law of probability indicates that you are somehow pulling some of the cards out of the deck before the game begins.

You are exposing your methods unintentionally. The same thing happens with people who cheat on their taxes. The IRS spots them by looking for certain numbers that tend to pop up more frequently in the tax filings of people who are cheating. They use statistics to spot the fraud, without even looking at the reasons given for deductions.

VOSD has stepped gingerly around some stories, and stepped heavily into other stories.

The people that get the gentler treatment from VOSD tend to be white, not because VOSD is racist, but because, I suspect, the people whom Buzz Woolley and the rest of the top dogs at VOSD want to protect happen to be white. People high up on the food chain in San Diego schools are treated gently (and the superintendent there is a black man), while people who rank lower take the heat. Also, people down at SEDC get harsh handling.

Obviously, commenter "bigfan" doesn't like Shelia Jackson, and doesn't want to question VOSD's motives for choosing to attack Jackson while staying silent on more important issues in schools.

My point is that I think VOSD chooses stories for the wrong reasons, but not necessarily for racial reasons. But one must suspect that something is wrong when there is such a surfeit of black women being attacked. The laws of probability are being violated. The choices seem arbitrary. It appears that people are attacked if they are not on the protected list.

Let's look at the facts. When Regina Petty at SEDC wouldn't turn over public records, VOSD went after her with a vengeance. We were treated to 13 "Petty Watch" posts. It took two months of "almost constant hounding" to get SEDC to release public records.

But VOSD reported that when it asked for records from the County Office of Education "that would show if the trips were given to the agency rather than the employee, it didn't provide any." VOSD didn't begin an aggressive "Crosier Watch." No constant hounding. The difference in treatment was not due to the fact that the SEDC lawyer was black and Diane Crosier, the lawyer in charge of keeping public records out of public view at the County Office of Education, was white. It's because Petty had no friends at VOSD, and Crosier apparently does. I call it friendship when you meekly accept a "no" answer to a public records request instead of doing all you can to shame Diane Crosier into turning over the records.

I'm not saying VOSD shouldn't cover the Jackson story. I'm saying that we can clearly see that there is a problem when racial patterns emerge so clearly in VOSD stories. I'm saying VOSD needs to start telling the whole truth about schools in San Diego. And it should start with a "Crosier Watch."


ORIGINAL POST:

My opinion of the San Diego Union-Tribune has been on the rise since it covered the Dan Puplava story about financial company kickbacks to an employee of San Diego County Office of Education.

On the other hand, the SDUT has kept the secrets of lots of powerful people in San Diego Schools.

For this reason, I never expected the SDUT to cover the story when school attorneys managed to get Judge Judith Hayes to issue an injunction saying I couldn't mention them on my website--or even speak their name. I wasn't surprised that no one from the SDUT was there on July 11, 2011 when USD law professor Shaun Martin spoke on my behalf before the California Court of Appeal in San Diego. He did a great job. On the other hand, when the presiding justice asked the opposing attorney if he had any case law to support his position, he said he couldn't find any cases. "I tried! Believe me, I tried!" he whined.

While I had no expectations of the SDUT, I was surprised and disappointed that Voice of San Diego would keep this story quiet. My only explanation is that Buzz Woolley, the chief financial supporter of VOSD, is very much a supporter of school administrators, and this support apparently extends to their attorneys. VOSD apparently wants to protect the secrets of those attorneys even when (or especially when) they obtain unconstitutional injunctions that violate the right to free speech. It also seems to want to protect them when they help schools keep secrets from voters.

Just a few weeks ago I complained to editor Andrew Donohue and CEO Scott Lewis that VOSD had repeatedly protected powerful white men while going after less-powerful black women in the same organization. In each case, the more powerful person knew or should have known what was going on, but VOSD didn't hound them with public records requests. It went after Regina Petty at SEDC with a vengeance, but never took such a stance with Diane Crosier at SDCOE. Instead of an aggressive campaign like the "Petty Watch" against SEDC attorney Regina Petty, VOSD meekly reported, "But when VOSD asked for records that would show if the trips were given to the agency rather than the employee, it didn't provide any. Instead, the County Office argued that in the past, it just wasn't required to report gifts given to the agency. Despite repeated questions, the agency gave no further explanation of why it wouldn't have to report those gifts."


SEDC Chairman of the board Chip Owen had to notice that huge amounts of money were being saved because employees left without being replaced. How did he explain that the agency kept coming in barely under budget? Why is it only his subordinate Carolyn Smith (and her finance director Dante Daycap) who are facing criminal charges? Owen was in charge, for heaven's sake! He was responsible for oversight! Everyone says he's sharp and effective. If that's true, he knew.

The case was similar to the problems in another redevelopment agency across town, where Nancy Graham (a white woman) took all the heat, and her boss, Fred Maas, resigning discreetly about a year after the excitement had passed

VOSD has also been very polite in its public records requests to SDCOE. In addition, it has found no reason to write about Dan Puplava and Diane Crosier's legal issues, and has gone silent on the story of Diane Crosier's odd relationship with the attorney to whom she gives millions of dollars worth of work. Meanwhile, VOSD triggered a state investigation of a lower-level SDCOE employee who recommended that a tiny fraction of the legal work be given to her husband's firm. You guessed it,Crosier is white, the other employee is a black woman.

When I complained, VOSD assured me that it was just a matter of chance that it so aggressively attacked black women. But black women are just 5% of the population. How does VOSD manage to find so many of them to pursue?

Still, I was willing to believe that VOSD wasn't racist. I figured it was simply protecting the powerful, and, of course, the powerful tend to be white and male.

Then I learned that VOSD has been following Shelia Jackson around. Now I'm really wondering what is going on over there on Historic Decatur Road. Did I mention that the law firm that obtained the injunction against me is the next-door neighbor of VOSD? Is there something in the water in Liberty Station?


[I should also mention that NBC reporter Rory Devine, mentioned prominently in the VOSD story below, also decided to keep mum about the school attorneys who got Judge Hayes to protect their secrets from exposure.]


Five Possible Problems on Jackson's Residency
July 27, 2011
by Emily Alpert

We teamed with NBC7 San Diego to do a television version of our story about questions swirling over where San Diego Unified school board member Shelia Jackson lives. Here it is:

Reporter Rory Devine did a good job breaking down this complicated story. She explained that there are three possible problems here:

• Whether or not Jackson lives in the area of the school district she was elected to represent.

We saw Jackson coming to a Kearny Mesa apartment complex late at night or leaving in the morning four times in a week, raising questions about whether she lives there. Jackson says she does not. The apartment belongs to her daughter and Jackson says she stays there a few nights a week. The schools trustee, however, also used that address as hers when registering a business in August last year.

• Whether it is appropriate for her to accept free rent from a San Diego Unified employee.

Jackson says she lives rent-free in her district at a home owned by Gwendolyn Kirkland. Jackson voted with the rest of the board to approve choosing Kirkland as an interim principal last year.

Jackson and Kirkland both argue that she was not swayed by the free rent; Jackson also said she had no role in the selection process that led up to Kirkland being presented to the school board...


Remarks on this subject:
Frances O'Neill Zimmerman


Well, thank goodness the voice, in its zeal to uncover the truth about School Board member Shelia Jackson's legal domicile, mentioned that back in the day it was deemed perfectly okay for School Board President Ron Ottinger to live outside his District D at Coronado Quays and to send his youngest child to Coronado High School.

But Ottinger was rich and Anglo and could maintain a condo in the Gaslamp to keep up the fiction that he was a resident of District D. Ottinger also was the linchpin on the School Board threesome that kept Alan Bersin in business, so there was no way he was going to be sacrificed to some legal nicety that people are supposed to live where they are elected from. That residency rule was proved by Ottinger to be highly flexible.

In contrast, Shelia Jackson is African-American and working-class...