Why would "Parents Trust Jane Kim?"
I just received a slick color brochure entitled "Parents Trust Jane Kim".
I can't imagine why they would.
There is a large picture of Jane, but the only other text on the cover is a quote from one Angela Mok, who says, "Both of my children have been taught by Jane. I am extremely impressed by her tireless commitment to improving their education."
Gee, a parent who didn't otherwise know who Jane was would probably assume from this mailer that Jane is a teacher. But she isn't a teacher.
On the back of the piece, there is another smaller picture of Jane, and a brief bio. Here is the part I find most troubling. It says,
Hmmm, just a few weeks ago, Jane filled out her Green Party questionnaire and, in response to a question about her involvement with the schools, wrote:
Oh, and someone ought to point out to Jane that SFUSD has 21 high schools (including Newcomer, Ida B. Wells, Downtown, et al., plus Log Cabin court school), plus 4 charter high schools (and two others - Five Keys and Life Learning, which serve troubled youth) for a total of 27, not 11.
Misrepresenting herself as a teacher. Grossly exaggerating the number of students she has "taught." Even getting wrong the number of high schools SFUSD operates. Why on earth WOULD "Parents Trust Jane Kim?"
I can't imagine why they would.
There is a large picture of Jane, but the only other text on the cover is a quote from one Angela Mok, who says, "Both of my children have been taught by Jane. I am extremely impressed by her tireless commitment to improving their education."
Gee, a parent who didn't otherwise know who Jane was would probably assume from this mailer that Jane is a teacher. But she isn't a teacher.
On the back of the piece, there is another smaller picture of Jane, and a brief bio. Here is the part I find most troubling. It says,
"Jane Kim is the Youth Education Director at Chinatown Community Development Center where she has worked with thousands of SFUSD students."Thousands???
Hmmm, just a few weeks ago, Jane filled out her Green Party questionnaire and, in response to a question about her involvement with the schools, wrote:
"I have been indirectly and directly involved with the SFUSD for the past six years. As the youth program director at Chinatown Community Development Center, I have educated over 200 students attending all 11 San Francisco public high schools in our after school programs."How did those "over 200" students suddenly become "thousands" in just a few weeks?
Oh, and someone ought to point out to Jane that SFUSD has 21 high schools (including Newcomer, Ida B. Wells, Downtown, et al., plus Log Cabin court school), plus 4 charter high schools (and two others - Five Keys and Life Learning, which serve troubled youth) for a total of 27, not 11.
Misrepresenting herself as a teacher. Grossly exaggerating the number of students she has "taught." Even getting wrong the number of high schools SFUSD operates. Why on earth WOULD "Parents Trust Jane Kim?"
67 Comments:
The reason why Jane can claim that she has touched thousands of students' lives is because it is the honest truth. Speaking as one whose life she has changed and improved, I am so grateful for her guidance and mentoring. I am a current 11th grade high school student in the public school system and I've known Jane Kim for two years and counting. In that time, I've learned about the birth of SFUSD as well as its ins and outs. How many other students would get the benefit of learning firsthand politics that affect us? How many other candidates on school board are out for change, GOOD change? Jane Kim is. She's out to HELP, not HINDER students and improve conditions for us. I want someone on the Board of Ed that cares about what students want, about their opinions, and have worked closely with students to find out what WE want, not what adults perceive we want.
Many volunteers for Jane are students, from ages 13-23 who are interested in bettering the school system. Hmm...let's see. She's been working with kids for six years and counting. She's been giving presentations to schools for six years and counting. If Jane Kim chooses to be modest and limit her claim to OVER 200 students, who are we to criticize?
By the way, it's "Why on earth SHOULD parents trust Jane Kim?" And the answer is simple. Trust Jane because she cares and wants to improve SFUSD. Tell me you're satisfied with its current condition. Can't? Then vote for Jane if you want to take the first step towards a better school system and a School Board that listens.
"nestwife" says that she can't imagine why parents should trust Jane Kim but doesn't offer any actual evidence regarding Jane's views on education that would make Jane unworthy of being trusted with the future of their kids. All she offers are some harmless discrepancies in numbers that don't matter when it comes to her views on education. Will it really matter how many students Jane has helped over the last half-dozen years when it comes to making decisions on what improvements SFUSD needs? No.
In addition, all the high schools that "nestwife" mentioned that Jane forgot about have enrollments of under 500, many not even half that number. That was just an honest mistake that is really quite insignificant if, again, you consider the values that Jane stands for.
The aforementioned "discrepancies" probably cannot even be labeled as so as I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation, but it doesn't matter anyways
Jane Kim has not misrepresented herself as a teacher. Not once does she claim to be a teacher and she has, in fact, educated many of us. She has personally taught us Asian-American history and has taught us so much more than can be learned in school. Jane is an inspiration to the many youth in the youth empowerment program that Jane oversaw and helped coordinate for so many years. I have personally learned so much from Jane and have benefitted enormously from her guidance.
Anyone who has ever worked with, or even talked to Jane will agree with me that she wants to fix our schools because she believes they are essential to "combating poverty, reducing crime and providing economic stability for our city’s future."
"Why on earth SHOULD parents trust Jane Kim?" The question should be "Why on earth would ANYBODY not trust Jane Kim?" Speaking as a student currently in the public school system, I want someone who knows what she is doing, who cares about the students, and has a plan. That person is Jane Kim.
Jeffrey Zhang
Junior at Lowell High School, a proud supporter of Jane Kim
The reason why the quote sounded like Jane Kim is a teacher it's because the quote has been translated from Chinese to English. Hence, the translation might be a bit off, however, the meaning is close. Trust me, I know the translation of the quote is correct because I am the child of Angela Mok, and I was present when my mom made that comment. Beside, I truly believe Jane Kim is educating youth everyday. Who saids only "teachers" can educate and teach people, even a child can be a teacher figure. We learn new things from different people everyday. Everyone is a teacher...including JANE KIM!
Jane Kim knows the number of high schools at SFUSD. However, the reason why she said 11 is because she have met students from 11 of the 27 high schools in San Francisco. If she was elected to the Broad of Education, then she will meet students from all "27" high schools of SFUSD. Think about that!
Jane Kim is a role model and a leader. She have inspired many youth, including myself, to take the initative in working on improvement project of Chinatown. If it wasn't for Jane Kim, I would never have thought about making changes and knowing the flaw of the community. I also developed my voice through Jane Kim. She have proven to me that I am more than just a youth living in a community, but also a youth with power and ability to stand up for what I believe in. She is more than just a youth organizer, she is the future of education!
I can't imagine why anyone would want to state that parents should not trust Jane Kim. Jane is amazing enough to help mentor and guide youth who are on the verge of being social outcasts of society. I am personally lucky enough to have met Jane during my confusing high school life and she has shed light on my confusing and dark teenage life. Being an insecure youth who was still unsure about his sexual orientation, I was lucky enough to have Jane help mentor me and find who I am today. I can guarantee that many youth who has met Jane has been touched or affected by her in a positive way. I know for a fact that she has helped at risk youth in the community. Working with her not only shed new light in my life but also showed me that there is someone out there who would listen to me. What I don't get is why someone is mudslinging. For one thing, mudslingers only sling mud because they just want to make themselves feel better. Jane is certainly someone who should be on the school board because she is exactly what youth needs in a mentor and guidance. She knows the youth inside out and she is the voice of the youth. Remember, the school board should reflect not only parents but also reflect what the students should have avaliable to them. We should have someone there that wants to represent the youth and only for the interest of the youth, not for their own or other people's personal gain. Netswife should be ashamed of herself for not even understanding the whole story before making such a ridiculous claim against Jane.
Eric Chau
Alumni of George Washington High School, Class of 2005
UC Davis Student
Proud supporter of Jane Kim
And none of you high school students who have responded here found it odd that the only photo of Jane with "her students" in the brochure I mentioned was a large picture of her holding hands with two little blond girls under 7 years old? Which part of her work has her "teaching" kids like this?
I understand that the couple of hundred students who have participated in Jane's programs love her - that's nice. But it doesn't make her qualified to be on the Board of Education, to portray herself as a teacher, or excuse her misrepresentation of the number of kids with whom she has worked. These misrepresentations may not matter to those of you who have already decided to support Jane, but to parents who are still making up their minds about who to support, it matters a great deal. I think you understand that, which is why you have responded to my post.
The kind of misrepresentation Kim's campaign piece engages in -- deliberately and deceitfully portraying her as a teacher -- would get a job applicant or a college applicant automatically disqualified. None of the applicant's other attributes and none of the applicant's excuses and rationalizations would compensate for deliberate intent to deceive.
Jeffrey,
Thanks for responding. I have to disagree with you on this issue of whether or not it matters how many students Jane has worked with. If it didn't matter, then why did she exaggerate and say "thousands", when just weeks before she was saying "over two hundred?" Obviously, Jane thought it would matter; she thought it would matter enough that she was willing to contradict her earlier statement. Otherwise, why not continue to state, as she did on her Green party questionnaire, that the number was closer to 200?
I found this remark of yours interesting:
"In addition, all the high schools that "nestwife" mentioned that Jane forgot about have enrollments of under 500, many not even half that number. That was just an honest mistake that is really quite insignificant if, again, you consider the values that Jane stands for."
I'm glad you brought up the issue of the small schools which you say Jane "forgot." I would be very surprised if she actually had "forgotten" these schools, because they are the very schools which she is recommending as superior for high school kids. One of the four main planks in her platform
(http://www.janekim.org/section/platform/)
calls for more small high schools of no more than 500 kids. If she has "forgotten" that these small schools exist, then that is not really "insignificant", as you state, is it?
Jane bolsters her argument for small schools by citing the Bank Street College of Education study called "Small Schools, Great Strides."
(http://tinyurl.com/txk5a)
If you haven't read it, I can tell you that one of its conclusions is that no more than 10% of a school district's high schools should be conventional large schools, with the remaining 90% of schools enrolling no more than 500 kids. I see you attend Lowell - truly the behemoth of schools in our district, with about 2600 kids. This is exactly the size of school which the Bank Street study calls for replacing with smaller schools. Washington too, and Lincoln, and Galileo, and Burton - in fact, almost every one of the schools attended by the kids Jane works with, would be dismantled and replaced by smaller schools, if we followed the advice in the study Jane recommends. I reckon that with 27 schools, we could keep perhaps 2 of them as large schools, if we followed the Bank Street study recommendation. So, which shall it be? Keep Lowell and Washington, but dismantle Lincoln, Galileo, Burton, Balboa, etc? Keep Galileo and Balboa, but dismantle everyone else?
Jane Kim reminds me of my cool aunt. As a kid, I would sometimes get invited to her house to play with my younger cousins and spend the night. My cool aunt would let us have milkshakes for dinner, stay up late watching scary movies, and trash her kitchen doing the kind of messy art projects, like tie-dying clothes, that my mother would never allow. My mother, on the other hand, had the unenviable job of enforcing a regular bedtime, insisting that homework get done, and serving nutritious meals - not the kind of thing a kid is grateful for (at the time) but all of the things a parent has to do for the child's own good.
Being on the Board of Education often requires commissioners to be like my mom - the parent who has to enforce the rules and make the tough decisions for the good of the kids. It isn't always about being the kid's best friend.
You might remember that last year, the school district proposed moving Leadership High School onto the Balboa campus. Leadership's current building is not earthquake-safe, and state law requires they be in an earthquake-safe building by this coming January. In order to continue to offer classes of no more than 25 kids, Leadership would have taken up so much space at Balboa that Bal's own kids would have had to squeeze into much more crowded classrooms to accommodate them. What to do? Side with the smaller school, and crowd the Balboa kids, or stick up for the rights of the Bal kids and refuse to turn over the number of classrooms Leadership demanded? Either way, one group of kids was going to get the shaft. Luckily, a compromise was worked out in which a waiver was applied for to allow Leadership to remain in their current site. But if the state balks at signing the waiver, Leadership still has no earthquake-safe home, and they might once again start eyeing space at Balboa. If that happens, the BOE will be in the unenviable position of my mother once again - having to enforce unpopular rules, and probably have to favor one group of kids over another. Is Jane ready to do that, in essence, to have to be the bad guy sometimes, because that comes with the territory?
School funding is a zero sum game - the district does not control the amount of funding they receive from the state and federal government. If more money is budgeted for one area, then less will go to all of the others. If small schools are given more funding (as some small schools are requesting) then other bigger schools will get less. It may be necessary to close some schools in order to keep others open. These are hard choices, and require BOE members to sometimes have to make choices which are unpopular with some kids. I don't see anything in Jane Kim's experience which would make me believe that she is ready to make these hard choices.
Sure, the kids she works with and plays with now love her - because she doesn't have to tell them, No, you can't have the JROTC program you like so much. No, you can't continue to go to your school, because we have to merge it with another school to balance the budget. No, you can't continue to have reasonable-sized classes, because we need to squeeze more kids onto your site. It isn't just about being a friend, and supporting the relatively small group of kids Jane currently works with. As a BOE member, she would be expected to work for the good of all kids, and that sometimes means making the hard calls.
Nestwife,
I can’t help but notice that you consistently refer to the students that Jane has and is still working with as “kids.” I’d like to emphasize that we all are intellectuals and do not need people, such as Jane, to pamper or play with us. For your information, we spend meetings organizing community activities and events and engaging in serious discussions on propositions and other community issues. We do not play. As a matter of fact, Jane helps guide us towards being active members of society—learning to be good citizens, educating ourselves on current events, and more. Thus, with experience, Jane is a qualified candidate for the BOE. Furthermore, she CAN make DIFFICULT decisions—a crucial ability for her past employments.
Merely because we, the people who have replied to your comment, have worked with Jane, you assume that our opinions are biased. May I just ask: do you know any of us? Please don’t read our comments through tinted glasses.
Give yourself the chance and privilege to meet and talk to Jane. Clear up all your questions and confusions.
Thank you for paying attention to Jane’s flyers.
Amy
Lowell High School Alumni
UC Davis Student
Proud Supporter of Jane Kim
Amy,
Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my posting. I think you hit the nail on the head when you describe the kids Jane works with as "intellectuals"; as a former Lowell student, I am sure you saw a lot of that kind of student (two of my own kids have attended Lowell, so I have seen it too.) Lowell students tend to be bright, organized, hard-working, thoughful individuals who take an interest in the world around them. That's usually part of how they got accepted to Lowell.
Too bad that the whole school district isn't full of kids like that - the easy ones, the ones who take an interest in their communities, who like the arts, who help others, who do well in school and get accepted to UC Davis.
However, there are all of those other, more challenging students who are also part of the school district - the special ed kids (Jane never mentions them, for some reason); the kids who are at risk for dropping out; the ones who are already drinking heavily, or doing drugs, or having unsafe sex; the ones for whom violence is a daily part of their lives; the ones who sit in the back of the room, disengaged, and who will not be going on to UC or City College or much of anywhere at the end of their time in high school.
Just working with the higher-end kids, the "intellectuals" (to use your phrase)is not, in my opinion, sufficient experience to prepare one for Board service. Jane seems to be familiar with a certain segment of the school population, but it is only one segment. High school students comprised just 34% of the student population in the SFUSD last year, and the "intellectuals" among high school students are an even smaller subset within that group.
As I said, it's nice that the kids Jane works with love her, and I am aware that they do not all go to Lowell - but they are just one segment of a very diverse school district, one with many needs, some of which conflict. Working with a homogeneous group of kids is probably not the best preparation for becoming a Board of Education member.
Caroline,
There is no evidence of "deliberately and deceitfully portraying her as a teacher." That claim is utterly rediculous. Nowhere does Jane ever claim to be a teacher because that is not her occupation. If you had taken the time to read and comprehend the other comments, you would have known that Jane "teaches" high school youth to be active in the community, be good citizens later in life, as well as crucial leadership skills. In addition, you have absolutely no proof there is a "deliberate intent to deceive," especially in light of the fact taht I, and others, have completely validated the statement that Jane is in fact, an educator, if not a teacher by profession.
Nestwife,
I must object to you continually calling high school students "kids" and saying we "play" with Jane. When Amy said that "we are intellectuals," she meant "we" as high school students. Perhaps you have forgotten what it is like to be a high schooler or times have changed, but the 16-18 year olds of today have quite rational, analytical minds. We are smart, reponsible, and conscious enough to go out there and make a difference. By we, I also do not just refer to Lowell students, but to high school students in general. As one who does hours of community service, I am insulted and deeply offended.
I believe Jane Kim is one of the best candidates for BOE because she is willing to listen to students, who are often ignored in these proceedings. The student advisory council is a joke, student representatives to the individual SSC's get no respect or voice, and in general, students don't have a voice in what happens to OUR education. Wouldn't you agree that students, being in the school system, are in the best position to know what needs improving? Wouldn't you then also agree that it would be wise and prudent to listen to these students? I feel that this is what the BOE has lacked in recent years and is essential of the future of SFUSD. Parents may be trying to do what they believe is best for the district, but being as far removed from the classroom and daily school life as they are and despite their best efforts, parents may or may not know what exactly is best. After all, the students are the ones who are most directly affected by the changes, are we not? Then shouldn't we ought to have a say in what happens in the school district?
Also, you claim that Jane does not work with "at risk" youth. Obviously, you have either not done your research thoroughly or haven't talked to many people in the youth program that Jane was coordinator for six years for. If it weren't for this program, Adopt-An-Alleyway Youth (AAA) Empowerment Program, many of the students would be loitering on the corners of Chinatown smoking God knows what. Jane does not just work with the "higher-end" kids. Quite a few of our youth leaders were once considered "at risk" youth, but under Jane, have risen from the ashes of society and established themselves as responsible leaders. I could tell quite a few "Cinderella" stories, if I mentioned names. However, I do not feel it is right for me to name somebody as ex-"at risk" youth. However, I will say that one of them is attending UC Berkeley and another is working for a non-profit organization.
Also, you say that you don't believe Jane will be able to make the hard decisions. You mention the Balboa vs. Leadership High School situation, but I have faith that Jane will stick to her principles and do what she believes is the best for the school district as a whole. I base my faith on the incontrovertible fact that Jane has spent her entire adult life fighting for her principles. I have personally worked with Jane on matters of education and know that she has a passion to make our school district better. This is why I trust Jane Kim.
I am not some lovey-dovey seven-year-old child who loves my cool aunt. I am a thinking, politically conscious young adult with my own views on issues. I am not a kid who has blindly placed my trust on someone who "plays" with me. I trust Jane Kim because of her personal integrity of character and her principles/political views.
Jeffrey Zhang
Junior at Lowell High School
Nestwife,
I'm one of Jane's students. I currently a senior at Burton. When the school district decided to consolidate 12 teachers at my school, I stood up and tried to stop that. The reason I got the courage to stand up to the consolidations was because of what Jane taught me. After all the protests, petition and speaking in front of the school board and the SSC. My fellow students and I SAVED 2 teachers. Burton have at more than a thousand students, and because I stood up because of Jane's teaching, she did affect a thousand students' lives.
Queena Chen
Senior @ Burton High
Caroline,
Jane has not misrepresented herself. She translated what was told to her. You are drawing conclusions based on your own bias of what she said. By saying "taught by Jane" means exactly what it says, Jane has taught the youth she works with numerous lessons including the ones the first commenter and Mr. Zhang have mentioned. I am sure you have been taught by your children many lessons over their childhood; that doesn't mean that your children are teachers (well at least, then).
_________
"Jane seems to be familiar with a certain segment of the school population, but it is only one segment. High school students comprised just 34% of the student population in the SFUSD last year, and the "intellectuals" among high school students are an even smaller subset within that group."
I'm surprised that you brought this up, Nestwife. Because you received the flyer, and obviously you've read the whole thing, I am sure that you know that one of Jane's platforms is to focus attention on middle schools. She does not only focus on one part of our school system.
Also, hearing you give the impression that "intellectuals" only attend Lowell is frustrating. Yes, there is a stereotype, but there are many other students at other high schools that are just as capable as Lowellites, if not more.
Yes, Jane works with students from Lowell, but she also works with students from other schools who are a bit "disadvantaged" than Lowell is. There are at-risk youth who she works with as Mr. Zhang mentioned.
I would like to make clear that I have never personally worked with or even met Jane. I have attended events that her youth organization planned, but I've never actually worked with her before. Nevertheless, I support her because she is the best candidate for the job. She knows and understands the people who she is working to better: the "kids" and the students.
_______
Strong students who care are not "kids." We/They are strong people who make good decisions, contribute to their society, and are especially concerned about what is happening around them and to their schoolmates of all ages. We, students, put our trust in the adults to make the right decisions for us. But we also have our opinions, and it's our right to have it heard and carried out by adults. It is horrid to see that our opinions are so blatantly disregarded and thrown out like we know nothing.
It's true we all love her and have our own bias opinions for Jane Kim, otherwise why would we be spending our time writing back and responding back to you. Jane is doing something that not many people are doing (especially those running for school board), which is giving the youth a voice to speak out. She taught all of us how to do public speaking, how to be leaders in our own communities. It is unfair to be attacking those that are doing good in the community just based on a simple phamphet that was recieved from her campaign group.
The "misreprestantions" and "misleading" information that you pointed out can be interpretated anyway an individual reads it. This goes down to basic psychology. As a critical reader myself, I can see your concerns becuase to the average readers, they don't take the time to learn and digest the information. All they see is the picture and the easy quote and that is more than enough to persuade them in a certain way. Many CAMPAIGN GROUPS are using this strategy and why should Jane's campaign be any different. It shows the effectiveness of this stragtegy.
As Amy said, give her a chance and learn from her. Then you can have the legitimate say that you dislike her platforms and perhaps her "personality" (that seems to be protrayed through the way the phamphelet was designed). Tell me that you have met her and perhaps we will all back off on the comment (or perhaps not, the youths have the right to speak up and speak out).
You also mentioned that we didn't say anything about her holding hands with the two young blond children. In the phamphlet, it never said anything about her teaching that particular group of students and who's to critize the way this phamphet is designed?
Neitherless to say, the majority of US are NOT from LOWELL! As you claim:
"as a former Lowell student, I am sure you saw a lot of that kind of student (two of my own kids have attended Lowell, so I have seen it too.) Lowell students tend to be bright, organized, hard-working, thoughful individuals who take an interest in the world around them. That's usually part of how they got accepted to Lowell."
Amy never said the "intellectuals" of Jane's group is from Lowell. You assumed all the students Jane worked with are Lowell students with a minority from Galileo, Burton, Marshall, Lincoln, Washington, etc. You have just made a generationalization that hurts more than what you have been saying about Jane Kim.
Like what Jeff said, I am truely offended by your comments and your constant references to youths as "kids". It shows that even though you might have the students best interest in mind, I must assume that even if we do have a voice in issues, you will only listen and then disregard what we have just said. If that is the case, you have no right to critize any of our comments because we are not considered "youths" with equal status as adults.
I see that you know your stuff about education. But your opinions are what we are commenting about. Your assumptions that Lowell students tend to be the bright ones implies that we, the students, of other schools are not. We, the OTHER STUDENTS, are not organized, well-informed, etc. But the bad conditions that are felt (not to say Lowell students are not affected at all) are those that wants changes to be done BUT don't HAVE THE SKILLS TO ORGANIZE, CAMPAIGN, BE WELL-INFORMED of issues bigger than what is happening at their schools. Jane's program taught US the SKILLS necessary to be aware. She gave us the power to create change. NOT THE SCHOOL.
Please answer this question, How many school board candidates can honestly say that they have students that are doing this (commenting and looking at people's blogs) on thier own free will and comment on thier own free will?
To have students support is more powerful than not having any at all.
On your comment about her not working with at risk students... first of all, she is one individual and because she is one individual, she knows she can't do things on her own, therefore she is running to help others. second of all, she does visit other youth programs and work in coalitions with them.
All in all, we urge you (but you dont have to) to Give her a chance. Otherwise, start proposing a better alternative for a school district that would vote to shut down an elementary school even though there was funding for it; for a school district that would refuse to work with the Gates Foundation on creating smaller schools; for a school district that allows overcrowding and understaffing, along with shutting schools down.
Or even better, try running for school board yourself.
Former Galileo Student
Amy never said the "intellectuals" of Jane's group is from Lowell. You assumed all the students Jane worked with are Lowell students with a minority from Galileo, Burton, Marshall, Lincoln, Washington, etc. You have just made a generationalization that hurts more than what you have been saying about Jane Kim.
----
i meant to say:
AMy never claimed all intellecutals are from Lowell. SHe is referring to her school as well as to the others. You based your assumption mainly from the school Amy said she came from. Just like your assumed and made a lot of generalizations about her phamphlet.
Amy never said the "intellectuals" of Jane's group is from Lowell. You assumed all the students Jane worked with are Lowell students with a minority from Galileo, Burton, Marshall, Lincoln, Washington, etc. You have just made a generationalization that hurts more than what you have been saying about Jane Kim.
---
i meant to say:
amy never made a claim that the intecutals were all from lowell. she was referring to all the high school students that participated in the program past and current.
you have based your assumption on the fact that amy put in her former high school's name. Just like you assumed and made generalization about jane based soley on her literature.
Nestwife,
I am a student from Galileo Academy. I felt insulted when you made this statement:
"Lowell students tend to be bright, organized, hard-working, thoughtful individuals who take an interest in the world around them. That's usually part of how they got accepted to Lowell."
Does this mean Lowell students are defined by the title of the school and not by their individuality? Does this mean if I, one day, walk into Lowell High I will automatically gain great knowledge and feel motivated to work with community project? I am a student from Galileo, and I feel very passionate about community improvement projects as much as students from Lowell. I am not against any Lowell students; I do believe that they are intelligent people, for example, my friend Amy and even my own brother who graduated from Lowell High. However, we, non-Lowell students, have the same passion and motivation as Lowell students. Most of the students that Jane Kim worked with aren’t even from Lowell, and yet WE are the one making changes in the community. Shall we all transfer to Lowell, just to label ourselves? You cannot make assumption without even knowing youth from all the SF schools. Have you ever been to other school campuses and observe the school system? Do you even know what students do at their schools?
Since you have been questioning Jane Kim’s ability, I have a question for you. If you are so concern about Jane Kim in the election, why don't you run for School Board yourself, just to prove your passion and belief? And if you truly believe that Jane Kim is not a good candidate, why are you using “nestwife” as your name? Do you fear for your belief? If you have doubt, why are you questioning Jane Kim and not yourself?
Right now, I am standing up for all the non-Lowell students and Jane Kim. I know Jane Kim will do her best for the school district because she has worked with youth around San Francisco, not just Lowell. She has heard “youth” voices from Galileo, Burton, Washington, Lincoln, Marshall, Lowell, ISA, etc. She did not neglect us. She believes in us and listens to us. Our voices count. She may not have the ability to change the whole universe, but she is a woman with passion, strong belief, and motivation!
“Just working with the higher-end kids, the "intellectuals" (to use your phrase)is not, in my opinion, sufficient experience to prepare one for Board service.”
Well, if Lowell students are the intellectual youth you are referring to, then I am not part of them, am I correct? Hence, when Jane Kim is working with me, or other students from Galileo and other schools, isn’t she working with “lower-end” youth? In conclusion, she worked with different students of different needs in San Francisco. She has heard our concern. Have you?
Tammy
Galileo Academy
Thank you all for your thoughtful responses. I'm sorry to see that few of you have addressed the issue of my initial complaint - that Jane's mailer seemed designed to mischaracterize her as a "teacher", and more directly, grossly exaggerated the number of students she has "taught."
Perhaps some of you remember a few years ago when George W Bush had himself photographed in full military flight getup on the deck of a warship.
http://www.alternet.org/stories/19055/
Presumably he was trying to convince the American people that he was a "warrior" - but what was his military service again? Oh yeah, that's right, the "Air National Guard", at a time when "real" military personnel were fighting and dying in Vietnam......
You can continue to make excuses for why Jane would allow her campaign to disseminate information about her which is not true (like that she has "taught" thousands of students), but deception is deception. Some of you students have already filled out college applications; do you recall what UC has to say about the information you provide about yourself? the part about how if any of the information is found to be inaccurate or incorrect, it can jeopardize your admission? I think that, as your mentor and friend, Jane sets a pretty poor example by fudging her own accomplishments in a bid to deceive voters. Frankly, I expect better from anyone who works with kids, but particularly from someone who believes she is fit to serve on the Board of Education.
You can say it doesn't matter, or that "other campaigns do it", or talk about Jane's "values" all you like, but that doesn't make it right.
I wonder why none of you have addressed the other issues I have raised - like how Jane could have "forgotten" about the existence of small high schools in SF, when she herself advocates for more small high schools, and cites as proof of their success a report which recommends that no more than 10% of a school district's high schools enroll more than 500 students?
I see that some students from Galileo and Burton have joined the discussion. Perhaps you can address this issue, since the students from Lowell and Washington didn't want to touch it. If SF were to follow the recommendation of the report Jane is promoting ("Small Schools, Great Strides", see link above), and break all but two high schools up into smaller schools, which two should she pick to maintain as larger schools? Lowell and Washington? Lincoln and Galileo? Burton and Balboa?
Or the Balboa/Leadership issue - one of you has expressed confidence that Jane will "stick to her principles and do what she believes is the best for the school district as a whole", but that really doesn't reassure me as to what it is Jane will do. She would be in a position of either having to force Balboa students into overcrowded classrooms in their own building, in order to give Leadership enough classrooms to accomodtae the smaller class sizes they want, or else she will allow Balboa students to remain in their current-size classrooms and overcrowd the Leadership students by giving them less rooms. Which will it be?
Finally, on the issue of listening to students, the hottest topic of discussion right now among the students I know is the JROTC issue. Students at schools with JROTC are speaking out loud and clear in favor of keeping JROTC, against a board which seems determined to shut the program down because of the political ideology of some members. The kids feel hurt and insulted; no one is listening to them. I would have thought that as someone who works with students, Jane would have listened to these kids and wanted to support them, but according to the SF Bay Guardian, "She's in favor of phasing out the JROTC."
http://tinyurl.com/tdnvx
I agree with the student who said that Jane would vote according to her values, and I respect that, but here is a case in which her "values" put her at odds with what a large and very vocal group of students has indicated they want. There has been talk of replacing JROTC with "another program" but so far, such a program has not been identified. The JROTC students have been very clear that they don't WANT another program, they like the program they have. So I guess what we can expect is that Jane will allow her "values" to trump the desires of students, at least in this case.
Too bad, because "listens to kids" was one of the more persuasive arguments in her favor. It becomes much less persuasive when it is shown that she might "listen" to students, but at least in this case, has chosen to ignore what they are saying in favor of her "values." As Jeffrey says, it is the students who are most affected by the changes in schools, so it would be "wise and prudent to listen to them." If Jane is really a voice for students, then why hasn't she taken a much more forceful and outspoken stand on maintaining JROTC in our schools?
Nestwife,
You claim that few have addressed your initial complaint. Although plenty of the replies addressed the “teacher” and number “issue,” you don’t seem satisfied. Do you expect EVERYBODY to comment on that? Furthermore, although MULTIPLE people have addressed your wrong reference to us as “KIDS,” you also seem to disregard it. We demand respect. Respect us. Respect our voices. And our replies are NOT EXCUSES. You are still reading through TINTED GLASSES. On the last note, please STOP GENERALIZING. Each of us is an individual; we do NOT represent a school or any student body group. We speak for ourselves. STOP CATEGORIZING us by our present/former schools. Respect us for who we are—individuals.
Amy
Proud Supporter of Jane Kim
My point is that, as Nestwife also expressed, Jane's campaign sent out a flier clearly intended to portray her as a teacher, without expressly specifying that she's a teacher. The intent to deceive and mislead -- while not explicitly lying -- is clear. This is not because of a technicality in translating -- there are many ways this professionally produced campaign material could have made the situation clear. These are slick pros; they know what they're doing and what their campaign materials are portraying.
The slippery ethics are a BIG problem to me, and I'm sorry to see a lot of very committed and involved young people defending that.
I have another question about helping students. Jane is advocating for more counselors in middle schools -- which, as a middle-school parent, I vigorously support. (I have a 7th-grader at Aptos and a 10th-grader who graduated from Aptos in 2005.) She is also on the Prop. H Committee. Money from Prop. H funds that could have been spent on counselors was used for employee raises instead. I'm curious whether Jane was a voice on the Prop. H Committee advocating for directing that money to counselors.
It feels GREAT to see so many students visiting and revisiting this blog to talk about someone and something they are so passionate about; time well spent.
As for the other two of you, you know what I'm about to say. I value your opinions, but shouldn't you spend your time debating over Jane's platform instead of nit picking at details of her flyer(by the way, the font of her text was way to harsh on the eyes, but I'll start another blog on that). Come on now, these students just spilled their hearts infront of you and all you have to say is "misrepresentation, exaggeration, misrepresentation."
However, props do need to be given. You guys got what you wanted; people responded to your initial statement and now know all the reasons why you feel threatened by Jane. Thumbs up.
But seriously, it would be nice to see you two work on something productive and positive instead of...this. If you don't like Jane's platform, fine, blog about your own ideas and explain why it would be better for our schools. If you don't like Jane as a candidate, fine, volunteer for the candidate you DO believe in, so they can make the changes you want to see. And when you vote, double check that you didn't accidentally vote for Jane, and make sure you mark in bold the candidate you do want. But sitting in front of your computer bad mouthing a candidate will get you no where. It'll just make you feel bad when Jane wins.
No pressure to respond to this comment. But if you do, please don't respond with an essay full of statistics and please, please, please don't quote me and make me feel bad by telling me I made grammarmatical (however you spell that) or spelling errors in my text.
Xiao Long Li
Again, I return to my original example. Just because on the flyer it says "both of my children were taught by Jane," it obviously does not mean Jane is a teacher. She is the coordinator for a youth empowerment program where she teaches them how to be leaders. It is exactly the same as your children teaching you valuable lessons as you raise them. They have still taught, you have still learned.
I'm a junior, so I haven't filled out college applications yet, but what I do plan on writing is that I taught disadvantaged youth over the summer at a summer program. Am I a certified teacher with a college degree? No. But did I teach in the classroom, and received notes from kids, "thank you for teaching me math, because of you, I actually understand it now?" Yes. You tell me if I’m misleading you when I tell you that I taught students math.
If you were truly reading my comments through objective eyes, you would see that I have answered your complaint of her intention to ‘deceive.” Jane is NOT deceiving. She is telling the darn right truth. If you can not see that, well you’re only one out of the city.
I don’t know what Jane would do. What would you do? As a SSC member at Balboa, I’m sure you have a bias toward Balboa. Jane will keep an impartial mind to deciding matters like these.
Also again, you disregard our comments, students who have worked with Jane and students who haven’t. You have also offended us in a big way, insinuating that our comments are not responding to your comments even though they are and calling us “kids”, and not intellectuals just because we don’t step foot into Lowell everyday. I would like an apology. You haven’t even defended your actions. I don’t read this blog daily to read entries that are condescending toward students. I read this blog because it’s respectable, normally fair, and informative. This blog is supposed to talk about news about San Francisco schools, and those schools have many students who you’ve insulted throughout our discussion on this page.
Belle
Thank you all for your comments. Yes, I am already volunteering in several campaigns - lots of stuff on the ballot this fall. Yes, I do blog once in a while (in fact, this is one), and write a variety of things, both online and also in print. It is a great way to get your point across - that whole "pen is mightier than the sword" thing.
I know this is completely off topic, but since some students seem to be checking this thread, I wonder what you all think of this article which I found in the Examiner today.
http://tinyurl.com/y6dtql
This is not a "trick" - I really do wonder what high schoolers think of this idea. I'm not going to criticize you for your opinions. I'd just be curious to know what they are.
Thanks in advance for sharing.
Nestwife,
Just a quick comment on the JROTC program. It is true that Jane is in favor of phasing out the JROTC program. However, when I specifically asked her about it, she responded by asking me how popular it was in schools. When I and another student from Galileo told her it was actually quite a popular program, Jane expressed her desire to replace it with another leadership program (since that is one of the main reasons for keeping ROTC, it provides youth with leadership training) but also said that if the youth want to keep ROTC and feel it is important, she is open to keeping ROTC. This is a golden example of Jane being willing to listen to the students, which, as you agree with me on, is both wise and prudent.
It is plain to me that neither you nor Caroline will never change your minds about Jane deceiving voters into thinking she's a teacher. It saddens me to think that two seemingly intelligent adults are blind to pure reason and logic. Jane is not a teacher by profession. However, she does teach youth to be leaders, be active, and stand up for what they feel is right. She is NOT deliberately trying to mislead voters. That is write not to respond to nestwife or Caroline, but to inform people who may believe such ridiculous allegations. You've said it, we've offered evidence against it, you said it again, we explained it again, and yet you still said it again. She even said in her pamphlet, "As the youth program director at Chinatown Community Development Center, I have educated over..." I don't know if you have selective reading or something, but that issue has clearly been addressed. Multiple times. I have tried to open your eyes, but they remain firmly shut and I will leave you to your baseless accusations.
As for the over 200 vs. 1000s, I actually have an answer for that. Over the last 6 years, while working with her youth program, she has directly worked with over 200 students. In the process and course of her job, she has indirectly worked with many more students. Many more students leave the program and she also works with students for brief periods when she conducts workshops, visits youth groups, helps conduct youth conferences, etc. That is where the estimate of 1000s comes from. When filling out her Green Party Survey, she was only taking into account the students who stayed in the youth program and she worked extensively with.
As for the Leadership/Balboa issue, I do not believe that is a fair question to ask because it is a lose-lose situation there. Every other candidate would face the exact same question and I doubt any could give a solution where everybody lives happily ever after. I do not know what Jane's stand on this issue is, and perhaps that is a question better directed at Jane. I cannot argue her platform for her, I do not have the know-how to do so. Nestwife, you sound like you are quite knowledgable and could challenge a candidate on his/her positions on issues. However, I do not believe any of us are qualified to respond to those challenges. That is also why we have not addressed some of your other issues. We lack the knowledge to do so. If you truly want a satisfactory answer, I suggest you seek Jane out and ask her yourself. Otherwise, it's quite obvious you're doing this just as a smear job while posing as a concerned parent whie not wanting any real answers.
One last thing before I have to go do HW, have you ever wondered why so many students responded to your original post of their own volition? I did so because I saw a baseless attack on Jane's character. If it had been a disagreement with Jane's platform, I would have read it, noted your opinion, and gone on. But an unjustified attack on Jane's character on a public website, I could not allow.
Jeffrey Zhang
Junior at Lowell High School
Proud Supporter of Jane Kim
Right. Lots of stuff. Because "lots" is a truly descriptive word. I could quote you on that a month later and say you MISREPRESENTED yourself. How are we supposed to know you meant one or two or three? Tsk, tsk. Not setting such a great example for kids, are you? Oh. And your "once in a while" comment was also hilarious. Just tickled my funny bone to death. Criticizing Jane Kim and her students every few hours is not "once in a while" occurance. Criticizing the views of bright high school and college students doesn't just happen because you feel it would be beneficial to the world if you did. It's like shooting a child. To you, it's funny and curious to see a child bleeding. To the students, parents, and others who are concerned about SFUSD, it's a life and death situation.
In response to the first comment you made...to your own entry, I'll just ask if you know those kids. Do you? Didn't think so. Since you 1) don't know those kids, and 2) don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't go around telling tall tales, should you? Do you know for a fact that when Jane was taking a picture with those two girls that she didn't tell them about the history of Chinatown? Were you the fly on the wall at that scene? Ah. Again, the answer is no, isn't it?
I think the idea of small schools is a good idea. I think it will help decrease the achievement gap and raise testing scores, like Golden Gate Elementary. I also think that you WILL criticize us for our opinions. Let's look back at your ineffective and petty comments towards the youth. At this point you're probably plotting another defensive and inane comment, but before that, although you didn't promise not to criticize all of our previous comments, you did promise not to criticize them from now on, didn't you? I mean, your previous comment says so. Too bad you didn't specify which opinion or which topic you would refrain from criticizing, isn't it?
Also, judging by your bitter words, I'd also like to add that honey woos bees better than vinegar. This little six word sentence, if you don't mind taking my advice, will probably help you in any campaign, including better and healthier food for schools. You don't want to go and make an enemy of a future school board member who actually believes in helping students, now would you?
...I'll bet you're ecstatic you've posted this blog. This must be the most hits you've ever gotten. Keep doing what you need to get hits, but after all the negative comments you usually give, who do you think is going to continue reading this? Right. You.
Ms. Zhang
so she's worked with thousands of SFUSD students and she's educated over 200. what is your point? jane kim rules!!
I must say, Nextwife, I love reading your comments. I love how you ask all these controversial questions like you expect this blog to answer it. I get it, you stay really updated with SFUSD matters. But if you really want to know what Jane has to say about those issues, why don't you ask her. Stop whining and ranting about them on this blog.
It is also amazing how you just pick a single topic (JROTC) that Jane doesn't agree with, and rant on about how she doesn't listen to students. I may not agree with anything you say Nextwife, but I can listen to what you have to say. I want Burger King for school lunch everyday. Jane might not agree, but she will definitely listen.
Now to hopefully end all this nit picking of Jane's flier.
"Jane Kim is the Youth Education Director at Chinatown Community Development Center where she has worked with thousands of SFUSD students."
Maybe over the 6 years Jane was at the CCDC, she taught community building, leadership, and public speaking workshops for students all over the bay area including Sacramento and Marin, organized free SAT and college writing workshops for SFUSD high school students, collaborated with many different youth groups to hold fundraisers and events, organized youth-led community tours for youth all over the country, planned trips for youth to go to L.A. and Houston to attend national community organizing events, and organized students to attend and speak at rallies in front of City Hall.
Thousands??? Yeah, probably.
"I have been indirectly and directly involved with the SFUSD for the past six years. As the youth program director at Chinatown Community Development Center, I have educated over 200 students attending all 11 San Francisco public high schools in our after school programs."
I guess if you're talking about our after school programs, yeah, I know about 200 people who have been in it; a number of them have already testified. These are the people who worked, at times, everyday after school AND on the weekends with Jane. These are the youth fliering and walking precincts saying, "Hi, my mentor is running for School Board."
Jane Kim is not a teacher? 200 students AND their parents beg to differ. Many can testify, Jane Kim has taught them more than what any of their teachers at school has taught them.
Let's see, and about the number of high schools; yeah I guess you're right. Jane should probably go to hell for that.
Wendell Lin
Benjamin Franklin Middle School 00
Gateway High School 04
Current UC Berkeley Student
nestwife,
I shall start by saying I have no opinion about Jane Kim as I have not kept up-to-date with her views and policy-making, I am only here to comment upon your post to a flyer for her campaign.
firstly, you keep saying that Jane Kim misrepresented herself as teacher. Now, i know multiple others have commented on your lack of support for this claim but just to make sure you understand: how can a person NOT be called a TEACHER if they HAVE TAUGHT someone?? is that not the fundamental principle of teaching?? to impart values upon the younger generations?? Seeing as MANY have attested to this fact, your claim is shoddy, at best.
secondly, why are you making a distinction between the phrases "over 200" and "thousands"?? isn't 1000 over 200 or did i miss the lastest mathematical convention declaring "over" equal in meaning to "not over"? The former is the factual statement and you should therefore not have oppugnancy to this discrepancy. In truth, I believe it was most likely that she did not want to seem too conspicuous in her pride over how many students she has touched and provided a safe estimate for her party statement that she knew was low and her campaign manager probably O.K.ed the "thousands" on the flyer to try and make her seem more personable and trustworthy, which clearly DID NOT work on your keen intellect.
thirdly, you have absolutely NO IDEA the difference between a small school and a large school if you so highly advocate that Bank Street philosophy. And please spare me the pleasure of your opposition when you say that I either have no right to make that claim or that you have a supreme library of knowledge concerning this matter as you have so addressed the other criticisms of your views. I absolutely have the right to make this claim coming from a middle school class of 9 to my 2008 graduating class, at Lowell, of 650+. Lowell is the most diversified, not in race but in subject matter and range of extra-curriculars, school in this ENTIRE CITY!!! and i have visited SEVERAL small private high schools that would fit the Bank Street profile if they were public. These schools are small and provide a cornucopia of attentive environments for our future leaders; however, they ALL follow a single-track program. My middle school, for example, was an arts school, presenting 3 performances-either musical or strictly theatrical-every year. While this may seem enlightening for the children, P.E. was playing dodge ball for an hour and we had to fight with the principal to allow a school, yet not school funded, basketball team to even exist, let alone find a league or have practice. Other examples include: University High School, which has a wonderful reputation of being full of rich, caucasian males living in the same district the school resides, and FAIS, also a small school, which is in all glorification, a private, IB (short for International Baccalaureate), French language school. Lick-Wilmerding, however, does come close BUT it is nowhere NEAR the level of cultural and mental diversification exhibited at Lowell Alternative High School. In case my following diatribe was not clear, I take personal offense to the statements you made about Lowell being insufficient to unlock SF's students full potential simply because it is a large school. Once again, please to not use your indirect knowledge of Lowell through your children as refute for my statement. Simply because you acknowledged the school as having "intellectuals", as you put it, does not supersede your glaring implications about the institution.
I hope the following summary has been helpful in clearing up the confusion you obviously had about the invectives posted above, and communicating my views on the concern you expressed.
Thomas Collins
Adda Clevenger Class of 2004
Lowell High School Class of 2008
p.s. feel free to research Adda Clevenger if you feel like. I'm sure it would be a thoroughly edifying session of investigation into unrelated matters.
NestWife,
As a former ROTC student, I know what students like about ROTC, they like the fact that they're learning how to gain leadership skills. Jane said that she's in favor to phase out ROTC, so that there can be another leadership program that isn't military ran so that everyone will be able to get a equal chances.
As for smaller schools, even if you break up lowell, wash or burton, it doesn't matter. What matter the most are the teachers there, if they can teach the students well, other than that, it doesn't matter what school you go to because if a student really wants to learn, they'll go ask the teacher for help if they need help. And for the Leadership and Bal situation, I'm sure Jane will find a fair way to solve it.
If you have any more questions about Jane's platform, I think you should ask her directly instead of posting comment on the blog.
Queena Chen
'07 Burton
I am very proud at the fact that students, colleagues are taking time out into doing their homework or playing video games, just to voice out their opinions when they hear something is unjust to them. Props to all of you who have posted a response.
Nestwife, do you see how many feedback you've gotten back since Tuesday's post? We all feel that what you've written have hurt us, and to truely know someone like Jane, and seeing her being "dissed" online, we are standing up for her.
I agree with what Wendell had said earlier, stop ranting and nagging about issues in this blog that everyone has already answered your question, yet, you're still in denial and creating more excuses for people to blog more about your issues. If there was someone who can fix and solve every single dam thing in the school district, then we wouldn't even need a BOE. Of course in every case, every canidate is bound to lack certain solutions that don't meet up certain people's requirements. That's reality, I'm sure you don't do/listen what your children asks you to do for them right?
Seems to me like all your questions have been answered already. Is there anything else that you would like for us young people to help you broaden and open up your perspective?
I advise for you to get to know Jane first and ask her questions before you start questioning about her beliefs.
nestwife and caroline,
all i hear from you is that JANE KIM 's paper had made some confusion for you guys and hopefully these comments had cleared up the misperception of JANE KIM. Jane Kim's group sure had a strong argument and i believed that they had answered the initial questions that you had asked. They answered all the questions and on top of that they proved their point strongly. I know for sure that Jane Kim is the voice for us youths. If you met Jane in person or even attend one of her group meetings, i am sure you know why she would claim herself an educator. She had not mispercieved herself and can proudly state that she is a "EDUCATOR".
Think about it,Which other candidates made a bigger impact on youths and teaching them the leadership skills? which other candidates had educated as many youths and youths that would support her values? which other candidate has the potential that JANE KIM has? Which other candidates has as much youth supports as JANE KIM?
just VOTE FOR JANE KIM FOR SCHOOL BOARD like we all will and you won't regret your votes because she is going to WIN. "SEE JANE RUN"
Graduate of George Washington High
Another Proud Youth Supporter of JANE KIM
VOTE FOR JANE KIM FOR SCHOOL BOARD
I am amazed by all the responses for this blog. A student like me, who had never been interested with politics until Jane Kim started campaigning had shown me that running for school board isn't just about your values or changes you think you can bring into the school district, but it's about the effort you put into supporting the changes you want. Jane isn't someone who is running for school board only because of the concerns of students, but becuase she knows she can bring some changes for this diverse school district.
Nestwife, from this blog, I can infer you don't listen to others much becuase it's been stated over and over again that the fliers that everyone, including I, passed out were not meant to decieve and say Jane Kim was a teacher. She was an educator in the terms of teaching youth thier rights and leadership skills, but in no way did the flyer state she was a teacher. Even if I don't agree on what you're saying, I will at least lsiten to your opinions. You can start by listening to what Jane has to say on your issues and not arguing over a flyer that was not meant to decieve.
I can tell you are very educated and invovled in issues on the SFUSD, but please don't "diss" Jane until you've sat down and LISTENED to what she has to say. I see no logic "ranting" about issues that can't be answered except by Jane. I advise you to sit down with her and LISTEN to her side on the issues. Other than that, I won't see how you will get the answers you want for issues such as Leadership and Balboa.
I will say that being from George Washington High School and helping out every weekend to get you to look at the flyer in itself is hard work, but not as much work as Jane is doing every week. I can only be grateful that I had a chance to meet her. Only by talking with her will you be able to understand why she supports what she supports. If you think you can do better, then be my guest and run for school board next time around.
B. Ng
Junior at George Washington
Jeffrey,
About this:
"As for the Leadership/Balboa issue, I do not believe that is a fair question to ask because it is a lose-lose situation there. Every other candidate would face the exact same question and I doubt any could give a solution where everybody lives happily ever after."
You are absolutely right that this is a lose-lose situation, and it is typical of the kind of issue which comes before the BOE all the time!
Take the student assignment system, for example. There are families who want neighborhood schools, and there are families who hate their neighborhood school, and want to use the school across town. There is no way to please all of them, and yet we must have some sort of assignment process which is fair. What to do?
Then there is the issue of insufficient funding; the unrealistic demands of NCLB; the achievement gap; the need to close schools; the list goes on and on. These are all lose-lose situations. If one school gets more funding, the others must get less. If more resources are targeted at one group of students, it comes at the expense of everyone else. Save one school from closure and you end up having to close another one. Lose-lose.
That's why just stating over and over that "Jane listens to kids" is not enough to convince me that she has the experience to be a competent BOE member. There is a whole lot more to it than just listening - to kids, or parents, or teachers, or staff. Obviously, the ability to listen is important, but it is not everything.
A BOE member has to be willing to make the tough decisions, the ones that make some people angry, because there are so many lose-lose situations that must be dealt with. No student assignment system will please everyone. No matter what school is picked for closure, there will be people who will be unhappy.
I am glad that Jane is helping students learn to speak out for what they believe in. Unfortunately, it just makes the job of BOE members even harder when they do have to make these tough decisions, and it comes after hours of listening to public testimony about why they SHOULDN'T decide this way, or that way. I hope you will come to the board meetings that will take place at the time that the student assignment situation is discussed and a decision is made. Listen to the anguished parents telling their stories, and then see how difficult it is for the BOE members to know that they must make a decision, and that no matter what they decide, there will be hurt and angry people. Speaking out is good, but it doesn't always solve the problem.
Thomas
Thank you for responding. I think you are a little unclear on what I am saying.
"you have absolutely NO IDEA the difference between a small school and a large school if you so highly advocate that Bank Street philosophy"
I don't advocate the Bank Street philosophy - Jane does. Read her platform.
I agree with you that larger schools have their advantages, including the ability to offer a wide range of foreign languages, electives, and AP classes, as well as sports teams and other extra curricular activities which are just not available at small schools.
I believe that there is a place for small schools in our district, but that place is being adequately filled at the moment by Gateway, Leadership, June Jordan, ISA, CAT, MAT, and the Academy at SOTA. As it is, some of those schools are not full, so I don't think another small school is needed.
There is also a place for intermediate size schools, like Mission, Balboa, Wallenberg and Thurgood Marshall. These schools are big enough to offer their kids a good selection of classes and activities (for example, Balboa has a choice of 8 AP classes this year, plus AP Art History through the De Young Museum) while still remaining small enough to foster close relations between students and teachers.
There is also a place for large schools like Lowell and Lincoln, which have the greatest selection of choices; not every kid needs the intimacy of a small school, and some actually thrive better in a bustling and competiive environment like Lowell.
I have other methodological issues with the Bank Street study too, and in addition, it was paid for by the Joyce Foundation, whose mission it is (among other things) to promote small schools, so it is not surprising that the conclusions of the study were that small schools should replace larger ones. But again, I am not the one who is citing the Bank Street study as proof of why we should have more small schools - Jane is.
Hi Thomas -- I'm very, very familiar with Adda Clevenger, so I e-mailed blogger Nestwife some information on it. -- Co-blogger Caroline
...previous message, continued (sorry, I hit "log in and publish" too soon).
My only point in adding to these comments previously was to address the particular campaign mailing in question. But I can see that Thomas is praising the benefits of large schools. What Jane K. has been calling for is to make most of SFUSD's high schools small ones -- which would mean breaking up a number of successful SFUSD high schools.
I haven't heard Jane's position on SFUSD's selective high schools, but she is running as a Green, and as an ally of the "progressive" faction on the current Board of Ed -- Eric Mar, Mark Sanchez and Sarah Lipson. They have made clear that they oppose SFUSD's selective high schools (Lowell and SOTA) and want to see them revamped into regular lottery high schools (in essence eliminated). As I say, I don't know if Jane K. has said she agrees with that viewpoint, but she is running as an ally and successor of that group.
There is a notion among some in education circles that small schools are the answer to all the challenges facing public education. In my opinion, that's a simplistic and poorly-thought-out answer. The number of intelligent, thoughtful comments from students in large high schools on this blog thread alone demonstrates that large high schools aren't the arch-villain of public education. (For the record, I'm a SOTA mom, and that IS a small high school, but we have so many friends who are doing well in large high schools that I can see how successful they are.)
So, just helping clarify -- it's Jane K. who is advocating getting rid of most large, comprehensive high schools, and is allied with those who would like to eliminate Lowell entirely.
DANA,
After listening (reading) about all your naggings, complaints, and questions since Tuesday, I have a couple of question for you.
1) Why do you keep on asking the same questions, but never asked any of ours? Tammy have commented two times with questions, but you never answered even one!
2) If you are so enthusiastic and concern about the School Board, why are you not running? Sitting in front of your computer and critizing the candiates with potential won't help!
3) Have you ever visited any other schools besides Lowell, Balboa, and Aptos (schools that your sons attended or is still attending)? You have no right to talk about other schools if you haven't even been there or seen the school.
4) Why are you so concern about the Balboa-Leadership issue? Is it because your youngest son is attending that school now? According to what I understand, you said only Lowell students are from the "higher-end", where do you consider you youngest son to be, "lower-end" or middle?
Are you actaully going to give us some answer, or are you just going yo ignore it like tammy's questions?
-janekimrules
(since you don't like using your real name, Dana, I'll play along too)
janekimsrules-
Tammy has taken my remarks about Lowell out of context. I was addressing a student who identified herself as a Lowell student at the time that I made them; thus, I talked about Lowell. There are plenty of bright, committed students at other schools, both students who work with Jane and yes, even students who have never heard of her, but who nonetheless volunteer in their communities, work hard, and consider themselves to be "intellectuals" just as many of Jane's friends do.
But, as I said to the Lowell student (I believe her name was Amy), those kids are the easy ones, as far as the Board of Education is concerned. By that, I mean that bright, hardworking, thoughtful, involved students (like all of you who have taken the time to post here) generally do well in school (no matter whether they go to Lowell, Balboa, Mission, or wherever), go on to college, and live productive lives.
The Board of Education must address what is happening to the other, harder-to-educate students (as I enumerated) - the special ed and African American kids whose achievement was low enough to get the district identified by the federal government for Program Improvement; the kids who are chronically truant, costing the district money and depriving themselves of an education; the kids who can't pass the exit exam and so may drop out before graduating. It is much tougher to improve education for these kids, and this is where the BOE needs to be focusing its energy. I bet Jane would agree with me on that - why don't you ask her?
About running for the Board - people have been asking me to run for the BOE for years. Maybe some day I will, but not now. I am a little troubled by your suggestion that if I am not running myself, I have no right to express an opinion about those who are running. Does that rule of yours apply to everyone? The only people who are allowed to express their opinions about the candidates are the candidates themselves? I don't think that is what is taught in American Democracy or AP US Government.
I've been to lots of schools in this district, having been an SFUSD parent since 1991. Do you want me to list them all? It will take a long time. For example, when my oldest son was in 7th grade, I visited every high school in the City - including Galileo (twice, because I really liked it and they had a good science department.)
Funny you should ask about the Balboa-Leadership issue. I am concerned about it because both the students of Balboa and the students of Leadership were extremely upset about the prospect of a shared campus when it was raised last year. In a spectacular act of cooperation, the two student bodies joined forces and (with their teachers) drafted a resolution to send to the BOE asking that space be found elsewhere for Leadership, as it was not in the best interests of either school for them to share space. They attended BOE meetings, made signs, gave speeches, talked to the press, all of the things some of you have indicated you learned to do from Jane.
At first, I was concerned that opposing the space sharing with Leadership would just leave Balboa open to having yet another program moved onto their site, and in fact that could still happen, as the district is required to find earthquake-safe locations for all charter schools, even if it means displacing or overcrowding the existing students in a building. However, the kids were so determined that I eventually came around to their side. They indicated that if they had to fight the same battle the next year, and the year after that, they were willing to do whatever it takes to keep their own building as 'Balboa High School' only - who could resist such dedication to their school, and such a brave fighting spirit? I listened to the kids and then I did what I could to help (put them in touch with a reporter to help publicize their feelings; brought a BOE member to school so they could talk one to one about the issue.)
So, as I said, it's kind of funny that you asked me why I am so concerned about the issue, because the reason is, I am concerned because the kids were (and still are.) And by the way, whether or not Leadership or another school ends up sharing space at Balboa, it won't affect my own family because my kid graduates from there this year; if you are imagining that my interest is for selfish reasons, you are wrong. You really don't know anything about me, so please do not make assumptions.
Same thing with JROTC - my own feeling is, I find the military thing kind of creepy. But that doesn't matter, because it is not a program for us, the parents - it is a program for the kids, and Bal kids are behind JROTC 1000% so I support it too.
Finally, you said that Tammy had commented two times; I am trying to find her second post so that I can address whatever questions she may have raised there, but I have scrolled through several times and I can only find one post which is signed "Tammy." You will have to direct me to her second post if you want me to answer those questions, because I can't find it.
Thanks for responding!
Most students that support JROTC, really don't care what happens to it. the only student truely supporting the JROTC program are the ones that are in it. If most of the students really wanted to keep JROTC because they acutally wanted the military in the schools running programs and curriculum, then Jane will fight to keep it, but most students are saying they are keeping it beacuse they either don't care or they want a leadership program. If that is the case I see no reasons why Jane should keep JROTC. I would rather have the SFUSD use the 1 million they spend on JROTC to be spent on programs such as Peer Resources to build thier leadership, rather than letting a military that discriminates against lesbians, gays, bi-sexuals, transgender, and questioning run a leadership program for all the students in San Francisco, especailly in a city full of diversity such as this one.
I find that it is amusing that Nestwife supported the kids side on issues such as JROTC, but won't support kids who are willing to support a candidate who supports the kids, just as you were in JROTC.
The BOE is not meant to decide things in your education, but in our education, the students. That is why I find you being a hypocrite when you stated,"Same thing with JROTC - my own feeling is, I find the military thing kind of creepy. But that doesn't matter, because it is not a program for us, the parents - it is a program for the kids, and Bal kids are behind JROTC 1000% so I support it too." It is the same thing when it comes to the BOE. It's not about your education, but our education.
You could say kids right now only have virtual representation on the BOE, such as what the colonists had with parliament in Britain right before the American Revolution broke out. We study history to apply it to our present time to prevent us from making some msitakes. To prevent another mistake such as what Britain did when it placed unfair acts on the colonists without any real representation, we can't be truly represented on BOE until we get a real representative on what students think. But with Jane we will have real representation, even if she can't change the things we want, at least we know we have one real representation. If we don't have one real representation expressing how the "taxes" or issues affect us, then what gives the BOE the right to control our education.
With Jane on the BOE, we know we will have one person expressing how we feel.We don't need her to side with us completely, but at least we won't argue no "taxation" without representation which in our case is don't decide our education without us having a representation. Most of the candidates promise to change the school district for the better and what not, but I blieve Jane is the only one who will listen to us, express our opionions, and make the tough deciscions that will benefit our education more than it will hurt our education.
Brian Ng
Junior at George Washington
I keep thinking this thread is really done, but I have to correct another piece of misinformation. SFUSD would NOT come out financially ahead if it scrapped JROTC.
SFUSD contributes some of the cost of the program and the U.S. government contributes the rest, but JROTC replaces P.E. for the students who participate in it. SFUSD would have to provide P.E. instructors for those additional students if JROTC were scrapped.
The Board of Education members who OPPOSE JROTC and who want to get rid of it say that SFUSD would break even -- the money they would save by not having to pay for part of JROTC would be equal to the amount they would have to pay for P.E. teachers. Others on the board and district staff say it would cost SFUSD more if it had to pay for those P.E. teachers. But nobody on either side of the issue says SFUSD would save the money.
Also, many opponents of JROTC talk of creating a new program with its positive features but without the military aspect. That would cost SFUSD too. So there is no scenario under which SFUSD would save that money. Just clearing up that misconception.
formal retraction
nestwife,
I apologize for misquoting your post about the Bank Street philosophy! I am guilty of skimming because, as i'm sure you are aware, this post has become very repetitive in subject with very little new information per comment. Hence, I missed the very subject of the sentence, a grievous error on my part.
My response to your summary of the philosophy in addition to the rhetorical comments you made about dismantling schools was with you as the advocating party. I now see that those comments were your interpretation of the 90% small/10% large philosophy and that we share the same views. I am deeply sorry for my harsh verbiage in this manner.
However, I am still neutral since you did not draw a direct connection between Jane and advocacy of school dismantlement on a large scale or the inefficiency of large schools-which is what I infered you believe in from my earlier mistake. Her platform only shows her advocacy for small schools being introduced into SFUSD, not replacement of large schools with them, a policy I agree with. Although I realize this course of action will lead to the restructuring of large schools into small schools at some point in time, it wouldn't necessarily be wide-spread and, if Jane really listens to the public, I'm sure she would be forced to stop agreeing with such a drastic measure. Also, I still find it slightly odd how you take such offense to Jane's supposed misrepresentation as a teacher and the disconcerting yet relatively insignificant discrepancy in the number of students she has influenced.
Respectfully retracting the 3rd paragraph of my last post,
Thomas Collins
P.s. To clarify my position on small schools: the education I received at Adda prepared me not only for Honors level English but Honors level Math as well. I wholeheartedly believe that this is not a unique feature of my being but the evidence of what small schools can do. Instead of being forced on a slow track with others who did not understand a class's material as well as I, I was allowed to assimilate more and more information until i was more than prepared for basic high school english and mathematics. Imagine the possiblities if the entire district experienced what i had. That is why i support a structure of mostly small elementary/middle schools and a good mixture of all sizes of high schools so students can find the right fit for themselves.
p.p.s. I see caroline has sent you information on my middle school. before you attribute my personal success with the year-long school year, actual in-school time was still the same as an average school since we were allowed more vacation time and, during the cram weeks of rehearsal before a show, we were pulled out of class. And core subjects had roughly the same time in class as other schools since all middle school students had at least two dance classes, choir class, and art or drama class in addition to the required curriculum.
Nestwife,
It is undeniable that many difficult decisions come for the BOE (as is obvious by the many cases you brought up). However, you state these issues, then say that "Jane listens to kids" is not enough to sway you to trust Jane. Fair enough. However, since you agreed with me in that it is "wise and prudent to listen to listen to them [students]," wouldn't you also agree that it is quite an essential quality for a BOE member to have? Jane Kim has earned my trust through her dedication, strength of character, understanding of SFUSD, and her plan for improvement. I have given my reasons for placing my trust in Jane Kim, but you have not done the same in regards to why you don't trust Jane. That said, I will relegate my comments to correcting incorrect information from here on out because I've said all that I can say. I will leave it up to arbitrary readers to decide who has made a more persuasive argument.
Nestwife claimed that Jane wantes to replace all large schools such as Lowell with smaller schools. This is a clear misrepresentatin of Jane's platform, Jane has repeatedly emphatically stated that she has never said those words and does not endorse making all schools small schools. She endorses the ideas of small schools based on several surveys that have shown that small schools work for some people. "it's Jane K. who is advocating getting rid of most large, comprehensive high schools, and is allied with those who would like to eliminate Lowell entirely." by Caroline is a lie. Somebody, it may not be Caroline, has been misinterpreting (deliberate or not) Jane's message and has twisted it into an extreme statement. Jane believes, along with either nestwife or Caroline, I can't find that quote anymore for some reason, that large schools are right for some people, medium-sized schools are right for others, and small schools also have a place in education. This is blatantly disseminating incorrect and completely bogus statements about someone, a clear case of libel.
I'm sure Caroline would balk if I said she encouraged genocide through the use of nuclear weapons or something.
Jeffrey Zhang
Junior at Lowell High School
Nestwife,
It is undeniable that many difficult decisions come before the BOE (as is obvious by the many cases you brought up). However, you state these issues, then say that "Jane listens to kids" is not enough to sway you to trust Jane without offering any particular reason as to why you distrust Jane. However, in regards to listening to student voice, since you agreed with me in that it is "wise and prudent to listen to listen to them [students]," wouldn't you also agree that it is quite an essential quality for a BOE member to have? I don't believe I've made myself clear on this point. I believe that Jane will take students' voices into consideration when making her decisions since we are the ones actually affected. However, if all the students in the district wanted to fund a mission to Mars, I very much doubt Jane would go along with that. So Jane will do something that many board members fail to do, but this will not hinder her ability to do what is best for the district. Jane Kim has earned my trust through her dedication, strength of character, understanding of SFUSD, and her plan for improvement. I have given my reasons for placing my trust in Jane Kim, but you have not done the same in regards to why you don't trust Jane. That said, I will relegate my comments to correcting incorrect information from here on out because I've said all that I can say. I will leave it up to arbitrary readers to decide who has made a more persuasive argument.
Nestwife claimed that Jane wantes to replace all large schools such as Lowell with smaller schools. This is a clear misrepresentation of Jane's platform. Jane has repeatedly emphatically stated that she has never utterred those words and does not endorse making all schools small schools. She endorses the ideas of small schools based on several surveys that have shown that small schools work for some people. "it's Jane K. who is advocating getting rid of most large, comprehensive high schools, and is allied with those who would like to eliminate Lowell entirely." by Caroline is a lie. Period, end of discussion. It is a filthy lie. Somebody, it may not be Caroline, has been misinterpreting (deliberately or not) Jane's message and has twisted it into an extreme statement. Jane believes, along with either nestwife or Caroline, I can't find that quote anymore for some reason, that large schools are right for some people, medium-sized schools are right for others, and small schools also have a place in education. This is blatantly disseminating incorrect and completely bogus statements about someone, a clear case of libel.
I'm sure Caroline would balk if I said she encouraged genocide through the use of nuclear weapons or something.
Jeffrey Zhang
Junior at Lowell High School
Sorry, ignore the first of my two latest comments, I went back to revise my comment and I changed some stuff around as well as corrected some typos. So read the 2nd of the comments.
Jeffrey Zhang
Junior at Lowell High School
First of all, I wholeheartedly agree with what you say, Exwife. Jane Kim is not fit to run for School Board. She listens to students. That's her first strike. She has ugly fliers. That's her second strike. And what was your third po