UESF: SF Educators Overwhelmingly Vote to Approve a Strike

The following is taken from the latest email update from Dennis Kelly to the teachers:

SF Educators Overwhelmingly Vote to Approve a Strike

87% yes vote sends clear message to the district

Last night 2520 San Francisco teachers and paraprofessionals voted overwhelmingly to authorize the Executive Board of UESF to call a strike. Twenty-seven years earlier, San Francisco's 1979 strike was ended with a vote in the same Kezar Pavilion where UESF members gathered yesterday.

The large turnout and strong vote reflects the deep frustration that educators feel over not having a contract for nearly two years. Despite our repeated attempts to settle the contract in a timely fashion, district negotiators have made it clear that they would rather see negotiations continue into the 2006-2007 school year.

We cannot let that happen.

San Francisco educators have allowed more than enough time for the negotiations to work. Negotiations have now dragged on for 15 months, with little progress on key issues.

After nearly four years without a raise, pay is obviously a sticking point, but school health and safety issues, including guarantees of first aid kits in every classroom, and schools free of rodents and pests, are also key issues.

Equity for paraprofessionals is also a fundamental concern for our union. As a group, paraprofessionals do not have the same rights as other employees in the district and in the city. They are denied basic due-process rights afforded other city workers. At least 77 career paraprofessionals are currently denied health care upon retirement.

San Francisco children deserve safer schools and educators who are respected and fairly compensated. They do not deserve another school year with tense negotiations hanging over their heads.

State mediation sessions have been scheduled for April 4 and April 10. As a union, we are committed to letting the process work. We will do everything we can to settle the contract without going on strike.

I am proud of all our members who braved the rain and made it to Kezar Pavilion last night. As a group we have taken a principled stand for our profession, and for San Francisco public schools.

The strike authorization vote was also covered in the SF Chronicle here: Teachers vote to strike -- 2,203 to 317 in favor of walkout. The SJ Merc ran this story: San Francisco teachers authorize a strike

Learning Disabled Left Behind

Joan Ryan's column in today's SF Chronicle does a good job of deconstructing the myth that students requesting accomodations on the SAT are mostly affluent white kids trying to gain that extra edge.

It's probably true that students receiving accomodations are more white and affluent than test takers as a whole. Ms. Ryan points out:

Some might say this reinforces the "gaming" notion. But I would argue it reinforces the shortcomings of "standardization." The few students [about 2 percent] who get accomodation have to jump through all kinds of hoops, sending to the College Board test results on cognitive ability, information processing and reams of other costly assessments. Lower-income students from schools with sparse resources are less likely to produce such documentation.

The solution? Make the SAT an untimed test. Ryan cites research that indicates that scores for kids without learning disabilities only go up four or five points with unlimited time on the test, while scores for kids with verified learning disabilities go up 40 or 50 points with the extra time. And, she points out, anyone who can finish the test within the current 3 hours 45 minutes allotted is unlikely to stay longer even if the test is untimed.

This idea seems to be gaining some traction, with a similar opinion put forth on the Op-Ed page of yesterday's New York Times.

Schools on the rise

When I saw the list of schools that were singled out for their improving API scores, I decided to compile my own list. Below are all the schools that improved their state rank scores this year. The table shows each schools 2005 Base API, their 2005 Ranks and Similar scores, their 2004 scores, and the changes in those scores from 2004 to 2005. The table is sorted first by the change in Rank then by the change in Similar Schools rankings. All of the schools mentioned in the BOE notes are included, along with many others. A very impressive record of improvement this year.

School	API05	R5	:	S5	R4	:	S4	dR	:	dS
Milk (Harvey) Civil Rights ES	766	6	:	10	3	:	2	3	:	8
Cleveland ES	703	4	:	8	1	:	1	3	:	7
Sunset ES	833	8	:	10	6	:	3	2	:	7
Webster (Daniel) ES	704	4	:	7	2	:	2	2	:	5
Sheridan ES	785	7	:	10	5	:	6	2	:	4
Galileo HS	744	8	:	9	6	:	8	2	:	1
Golden Gate ES	799	7	:	-	5	:		2	:	0
Creative Arts Charter	758	6	:	10	5	:	2	1	:	8
Sunnyside ES	764	6	:	10	5	:	3	1	:	7
Peabody (George) ES	796	7	:	9	6	:	3	1	:	6
Serra (Junipero) ES	702	4	:	9	3	:	3	1	:	6
West Portal ES	899	10	:	10	9	:	5	1	:	5
International Studies Academy	603	2	:	7	1	:	2	1	:	5
Revere (Paul) ES	639	2	:	6	1	:	2	1	:	4
William de Avila ES	676	3	:	4	2	:	1	1	:	3
Visitacion Valley MS	667	4	:	6	3	:	3	1	:	3
O'Connell (John A.) HS	631	3	:	7	2	:	4	1	:	3
Stevenson (Robert Louis) ES	881	10	:	10	9	:	8	1	:	2
Redding ES	777	7	:	9	6	:	7	1	:	2
McKinley ES	771	6	:	10	5	:	8	1	:	2
Chavez (Cesar) ES	723	4	:	10	3	:	8	1	:	2
Harte (Bret) ES	648	2	:	6	1	:	4	1	:	2
Alvarado ES	812	8	:	10	7	:	9	1	:	1
Glen Park ES	755	6	:	9	5	:	8	1	:	1
Starr King ES	721	4	:	10	3	:	9	1	:	1
James Lick MS	611	2	:	2	1	:	1	1	:	1
Spring Valley ES	825	8	:	10	7	:	10	1	:	0
New Traditions Center	721	4	:	-	3	:		1	:	0
Burton (Phillip & Sala) Academic HS	701	6	:	8	5	:	8	1	:	0
Balboa HS	628	3	:	2	2	:	2	1	:	0
Independence HS (Alter.)	521	1	:	-	0	:		1	:	0

School Board Notes 3.28.06

School Board Notes
3.28.06
By Nicole Achs Freeling
GreatSchools.net Correspondent

• Board Adopts Recruitment Guidelines
• District Cheers API Increases
• Presidio CDC Shares Fundraising Success
• Student Assignment for Teachers' Kids Discussed

Board Adopts Recruitment Guidelines

The board approved guidelines for allowing military and college recruiters on school campuses aimed at reigning in military efforts while still complying with federal laws.

The board has, for years, opposing allowing military recruiters on campuses, but passage of No Child Left Behind requires that districts allow equal access to military recruiters as they do other organizations or risk losing federal funds. Since the recruiters have been visiting campuses, however, there have been numerous complaints that they target children in minority and low-income communities and use more aggressive tactics than other recruiters, such as approaching students in the lunchroom rather than speaking to them from a booth at a career fair.

A survey of recruiting visits presented to the Board Tuesday showed that, while most colleges visited schools once or twice a year, military recruiters visited some schools, which were in low-income neighborhoods, as many as eight times in a year. By comparison, they did not visit the academic magnet school Lowell once.

The new guidelines limit visits by any recruiting organization to two visits a year per school. While that will limit the presence of military recruiters, it could also cut the number of visits from colleges, especially those in the University of California system. Representatives from some of these schools visit under-served neighborhoods on a regular basis to shepherd students through the college application process and advise them on financial aid.

The board approved the guidelines, asking for a report on the potential negative impact of the twice-a-year limit so that it may amend the policy if necessary. The only dissenting vote was Eric Mar, who voted no to underscore his opposition for military recruitment of poor and minority students.

District Cheers API Increases

Schools in the district showed marked improvement this year on the Academic Performance Index, California's system for measuring school performance and improvement. A third of district schools scoring in the top third in the state, according to Interim Superintendent Gwen Chan, and more than three-quarters of the schools maintained or improved their schools. Several schools made dramatic gains. The first number reflects the school's ranking on a 1 to 10 scale compared to other schools in the state. The second shows its ranking compared to "similar schools," those with comparable socioeconomic populations.

School	2004	2005
Cesar Chavez Elementary	3:8	4:10
Cleveland Elementary	1:1	4:8
Harvey Milk Elementary	3:2	6:10
Sheridan Elementary	5:6	7:10
Starr King Elementary	3:9	4:10
Sunnyside Elementary	5:3	8:10
Sunset Elementary	6:3	8:10
Daniel Webster	2:2	4:7
Visitacion Valley Middle School	3:3	4:6
Galileo High School	6:8	8:9
ISA	1:2	2:7
John O'Connel High School	2:4	3:7

Four schools scored 10:10. They were:

• Robert L. Stephenson Elementary
• West Portal Elementary
• Alice Fong Yu Alternative (K-8)
• Lowell High School

Presidio CDC Shares Fundraising Success

Proud parents and youngsters from the Presidio Child Development Center, which narrowly avoided closure last year, demonstrated the results of a dedicated cost-cutting and fundraising campaign at the school, which saved the district $132,000 this year. Illustrating the results of a drive to find corporate sponsorships, five preschoolers held aloft an enormous copy of a check to the district for $10,000 from Wells Fargo Bank.

"I stood before you almost a year ago arguing and promising that we at the Presidio CDC could save a significant amount of money for the district," said Thomas Lefort, a parent of two children at the center. "Today I would like to (show) how we followed up on our commitment."

• Parents helped press the Presidio Trust to abate the rent, which was reduced from $60,000 a year to zero.
• The center's opening hours were reduced from 12 to 10.5, which saved the district $56,000
• An application fee for new tuition based applicants raised more than $1,000.
• The CDC received greater factor money coming for infants, toddlers and children with limited English proficiency. The increase amounted to more than $87,000
• Finally, the center engaged in a major fundraising effort, raising $15,000. More than 60 percent of the families at the school contributed, and boosters are hoping to raise that to 100 percent next year.

Student Assignment for Teachers' Kids Discussed

The district began an informal discussion of how to handle student assignment for the children of teachers and principals that might enable them to attend the school where their parents teach. Until now, staff's children have participated in the student assignment lottery along with everyone else, per the terms of the court order under which the lottery was administered. That court ordered expired at the end of last year.

There appeared to be guarded support for the idea, but board members requested further data to ascertain how many families the benefit might extend to. UESF representative Linda Plack said that in a recent union survey 80 elementary teachers said they would want their child to be assigned to their school. The issue will be taken up further at an upcoming Committee of the Whole Meeting

Email comments to sfschoolnotes@greatschools.net

SFUSD Negotiation Updates

The district has published three papers updating their position on the ongoing negotiations with the teachers' union. You can find the PDF versions at the links below, or read them in HTML by reading the full text of this post.

• What A Strike Vote Means
• Update on UESF Negotiations
• Negotiation Notes 3/17/06

Continue reading the HTML versions of these PDF documents...

What A Strike Vote Means

WHAT A STRIKE VOTE MEANS

A strike vote is an extremely serious matter. If teachers and paraprofessionals vote to authorize a strike, every UESF member and each SFUSD student and family will be affected. It is crucial that UESF members understand the seriousness of a strike vote.

Don’t let others make choices for you on issues that are this important. Get the facts and show up to vote.

Implications for UESF Members

• A strike authorization greatly increases the chances that UESF leaders will call a strike if and when they choose to.
• A strike will force each teacher and paraprofessional to choose between crossing a picket line and going unpaid.
• Under Board of Education Policy 4470 — Employee Duties and Responsibilities — no employee shall be paid for time withheld during a strike or slow down of services.
• Retirement-related earnings will be negatively impacted. Teachers will not obtain the full service year STRS credit. Para-professionals’ retirement contributions will be reduced due to work days missed and unpaid.
• A strike could destroy any chances for a future parcel tax dedicated to significantly increasing employee salaries.

Implications for SFUSD Students and Families

• Every SFUSD family will need to decide whether or not to send their children to school.
• Teaching and learning will be disrupted. This includes many students who can least afford to miss out on appropriate instruction by their classroom teachers and services provided by other staff.
• Many families will face difficulties making alternative arrangements for child care.

Other Implications for SFUSD

• A strike could drive greater numbers of families to leave San Francisco or to enroll in private schools, further eroding enrollment and requiring more school closures, program cuts, and layoffs.
• During the 1979 school strike, which lasted six weeks, individuals engaged in destructive behavior that permanently damaged personal relationships between members of school communities.
• A school strike and related activities that are timed to disrupt the administration or results of mandated academic assessments will invite increasing levels of state and federal sanctions on the most-impacted schools.

Negotiation Notes 3/17/06

SFUSD-UESF NEGOTIATIONS NOTES

March 22, 2006

In response to UESF leaders’ recent call for a strike vote by the end of March, SFUSD negotiators are asking union leaders to postpone the strike vote and remain at the bargaining table to complete contract negotiations. The Board of Education has offered the union salary increases totaling 7.5% by next June, including a 2% increase retroactive to January 1, 2006.

Interim Superintendent Gwen Chan and Board of Education President Norman Yee reiterated their respect and gratitude for the hard work of UESF members. "I greatly appreciate that thousands of educators are working tirelessly across our schools each day on behalf of our students," said Chan. President Yee added, "The Board’s current offer is made in good faith to recognize their hard work while preserving the District’s fiscal stability."

Ms. Chan, who attended the parties’ most recent mediation session on March 13th, has also pledged to be actively engaged in future contract talks and pursue additional outside resources once a settlement is reached. "I sincerely want to work together to pass a local parcel tax for additional compensation and continue to press Sacramento for full funding of K-12 education," she said. "Considering that I am just getting started as Interim Superintendent, I hope our teachers and paraprofessionals will give me a chance to work with them to get the adequate funds we and our students need."

SFUSD negotiators are calling on UESF leadership to let their members vote on the proposed contract offer instead of threatening a strike, which would be harmful to both students and employees. UESF cannot legally strike until the conclusion of mediation and fact-finding by independent experts.

In expressing disappointment with union leaders’ call for a premature strike vote, school district officials pointed out serious concerns, as outlined below.

SFUSD’s Fiscal Condition

• The State has failed to appropriately fund SFUSD and other K-12 districts across the state for the last four years.
• SFUSD’s Board of Education has recently made painful decisions to consolidate schools. These decisions have made possible the compensation increases currently offered to teachers and paraprofessionals.
• The Board of Education is offering UESF employees increases in wages that will further stretch already thin resources.
• Meeting UESF’s demands of a 10% pay raise would require significantly more expenditure reductions, including draconian cuts to schools, programs, and jobs.
• To avoid the fate of other Bay Area school districts that have gone bankrupt and have been taken over by the State, the Board of Education must balance demands for further compensation increases against SFUSD’s fiscal solvency.
• Current negotiations are taking place in a time when health care costs are rising dramatically, SFUSD is losing funds due to declining enrollment, and the State continues to under-fund its Prop 98 obligations.
• In recognition of the District’s financial condition, SFUSD principals have already accepted the same offer that UESF leaders are rejecting in favor of a strike. Contrary to information disseminated by UESF leaders, salary schedules for both principals and UESF members were last increased in School Year 2002-03.
• Oakland Unified School District went bankrupt largely due to signing union contracts that it could not afford, necessitating a $100 million state bailout and the loss of local control. Oakland teachers now want to restore wage cuts of 4% they accepted two years ago due to that district’s insolvency. By comparison, UESF leaders are encouraging members to strike for more than the 7.5% wage increases that SFUSD has offered.

Negotiations Process

• UESF leaders have called a strike vote after only two sessions of mediation. Three more sessions are scheduled (3/21, 4/4, 4/10). All five sessions were scheduled mutually by SFUSD and UESF.
• Calling for a strike vote in the middle of mediation undermines the prospects of reaching a mediated settlement. SFUSD wants to remain at the bargaining table and is committed to continuing to negotiate in good faith, around the clock and as frequently as necessary.
• If mediation is unsuccessful, both parties would proceed to fact-finding, which would include an independent analysis of SFUSD’s ability to afford pay raises by an impartial expert. District negotiators would welcome this independent analysis.
• A strike would only be legal following the conclusion of the legally prescribed mediation and fact- finding process. UESF leaders should commit to bargain in good faith and pledge not to call an illegal strike.
• The Board of Education is committed to following collective bargaining processes outlined in California law and working as hard as possible to avoid a strike.

Strike Implications

• A premature strike vote will greatly increase the chances of a strike called by UESF leaders, forcing employees to choose between crossing picket lines and going unpaid.
• A strike could destroy chances for passing a parcel tax, which would significantly increase teacher compensation. SFUSD and UESF leaders should cease expending significant and precious energy fighting each other, when the best solution is to seek more funding together. The parties need to settle this contract with a fair raise for teachers and paraprofessionals that SFUSD can afford, and move on to work together for a parcel tax and more state and federal resources.

For more information, please contact SFUSD Labor Relations at 241-6230 or visit www.sfusd.edu

Update on UESF Negotiations

San Francisco Unified School District
www.sfusd.edu
MARCH 22, 2006
FACT SHEET

SFUSD NEGOTIATIONS WITH UESF

• SFUSD firmly believes that teachers and paraprofessionals deserve appropriate raises, and the Board’s difficult decisions to close, merge and relocate schools has improved its ability to pay teachers and paraprofessionals.
• Unfortunately, the current financial situation does not allow the District to meet UESF’s demand for a 10% increase within the next year, plus a bonus equal to an additional 1%.
• The District has offered 7.5% by June 2007 (up from 4%) with 2% immediately.
• The District continues to provide 100% coverage of health care costs for individuals and subsidized health care for dependents for current employees as well as retirees.

SFUSD Current Proposal

2% salary increase immediately (retroactive to 1/1/06) 1% additional salary increase effective 7/1/06 1% additional salary increase effective 1/1/07 3.5% salary increase effective 6/30/07 Total offer is 7.5% by June 2007 Total estimated cash value over the next three years of the salary increases offered by SFUSD is over $34 million, including more than $3 million this year and $10 million next year

Three-year estimates include costs from 7/1/05 through 6/30/08 (Fiscal Years 2006, 2007, and 2008). Cost of 1% salary increase equals $2.3 million for teachers and $ 0.4 million for paraprofessionals, totaling $2.7 million.

State Funding Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA): Where Does It Go?

FY 2005-06	FY 2006-07 (Projected)
$13,700,000 Gross COLA -$5,041,000 Step and column salary increases +$2,855,000 Salary savings from retirement -$2,101,000 Active employee health care increase -$2,130,000 Retiree health care increase -$600,000 Utilities costs increase -$4,500,000 Declining enrollment $2,183,000 Net COLA	$18,500,000 Projected Gross COLA -$5,041,000 Step and column salary increases +$2,855,000 Salary savings from retirement -$3,186,000 Active employee health care increase -$2,343,000 Retiree employee health care increase -$600,000 Utilities costs increase -$5,200,000 Declining enrollment $4,985,000 Net COLA
1.82% Net COLA Based on Rev. Lim. of $273 million	0.83% Net COLA Based on Rev. Lim. of $264 million

Neil Bush's Ignite! — Beware!

If you haven't heard anything about the brewing scandal surrounding the ignominious Neil Bush, his educational software company, Ignite!, the fishy Ignite!-earmarked Katrina donations and Ignite!'s eye opening foreign "investors", read this and this.

Josh Marshall over on TPM is reprinting a high school teacher's chance encounter with Neil Bush and his software:

"'Leave that to the eggheads. I failed all this stuff when I was in school.'"

With the Sandra Day post, and now this, maybe I'm letting my personal politics intrude on what is supposed to be a local school venue. So sorry. The national issues do intersect with our world. In this case, privateers on the national stage want to intrude on our schools. So take note of the cautionary tale of Neil Bush's fetid Ignite! boondoggle.

Great API info from GreatSchools.net

While compiling the Ed news round-up post, I noticed that the SjMerc's Education page featured a wealth of links to information about school performance results. And all links pointed to our friends at GreatSchools.net, the ones who bring you the invaluable BOE meeting notes we are so happy to publish here.

On of the more interesting pages on their site is on named The API: 10 Things Parents Should Know. I've take the liberty of reprising the list here:

1. The API is not a test…
2. The API measures both school performance and improvement…
3. The API has very high stakes…
4. The API measures academic performance, not school quality…
5. The API focuses on achievement for all students…
6. Schools that don't improve their APIs must get help…
7. API results are for schools and districts only…
8. The API has changed…
9. The API will keep changing Over the next few years, the API will continue to incorporate more and different measures of student learning and school quality…
10. The API is complicated…

They really do an excellent job of demystifying a complex subject. Go there and read it.

Sandra Day O'Connor Unbound!

I'm liking Retirement seems to be a bit liberating for Sandra Day O'Connor. She is speaking her mind freely. I like what I hear.

In today's WaPo she co-authored an op-ed with LA school superintendent Roy Romer that touches on high school education priorities: Not By Math Alone

This country has long exemplified democratic practice to the rest of the world. With the attention we are paying to advancing democracy abroad, we ought not neglect it at home.

Two-thirds of 12th-graders scored below 'proficient' on the last national civics assessment in 1998, and only 9 percent could list two ways a democracy benefits from citizen participation. Yes, young people remain highly patriotic, and many volunteer in their communities. But most are largely disconnected from current events and issues.

A healthy democracy depends on the participation of citizens, and that participation is learned behavior; it doesn't just happen. As the 2003 report 'The Civic Mission of Schools' noted: 'Individuals do not automatically become free and responsible citizens, but must be educated for citizenship.' That means civic learning -- educating students for democracy -- needs to be on par with other academic subjects.

Read the rest. I couldn't agree more. My kids' teachers have always done an excellent job of teaching history and current events. But we can't rely on the strength of individual teachers. History and civics has to be a priority, a cornerstone of high school curriculum on par with math, science, and reading literacy.

everybody's doing it?

Interesting article on Ars Technica: Internet plagiarism—everybody's doing it:

The cut-and-paste nature of the Internet and its massive store of content have made plagiarism an increasing temptation, especially for students at the high school and university level.

My daughter tells me that her teachers have not made any mention of this -- no warnings about plagiarizing and no busts of kids plagiarizing. But you have to think that it is happening all the time.

Anyone have any anecdotes about this issue?

Is there such thing as too much sunshine?

Interesting article in yesterday's Examiner on a blogger who has cost San Francisco taxpayers more than $120,000 with constant demands for public records.

As a journalist, of course I'm for open government and sunshine. But there's a point where it goes beyond reasonable. You could look at this as akin to the flap about Arlene Ackerman's lunch tabs. It's reasonable to expect legimitate access to records, just as it's reasonable to expect that your employer cover your business meals. Then there's a point where it goes into excess.

It's ironic that one publication that has demanded a list of public records from SFUSD so long that it would require a full-time staffer to produce them is also the publication that has made the biggest deal of Ackerman's lunch tabs -- the Bay Guardian, of course. The SFBG charged that Ackerman "pissed away public money," a description that could also be applied to making beyond-reasonable demands on school district clerical staff.

The issue of "too much sunshine" first hit my radar when there were heated online accusations that SFUSD was "covering up" because it didn't release all details of a student's near-fatal plunge from a third-story catwalk at an SFUSD high school. Read between the lines on that one and wonder about how much sunshine you want on your own child's medical and personal records. Adequate sunshine is essential, but there's a point where it goes beyond reasonable.

Activist wants to know — lots

Justin Jouvenal, The Examiner
Mar 24, 2006

San Francisco has spent more than $120,000 in taxpayer money in the last six months filling dozens of public records requests by a single blogger who styles himself an open-government activist, according to city officials.

Kimo Crossman said he is trying to shine light on issues such as an alleged backroom deal between city officials and Google, but the City Attorney’s Office said the requests have gotten so expansive and without “civic interest” it believes Crossman is trying to punish city departments as part of an ongoing feud over access to documents.

City employees have already spent more than 600 hours complying with Crossman’s requests, eating into time spent on other department work, officials said. The City Attorney’s Office alone has spent $120,000 to fill the document requests, and another pending request could cost more than $100,000, officials said.

“This is using a well-intentioned law as a blunt instrument to punish government departments,” said Matt Dorsey, a spokesman for the City Attorney’s Office. “It’s pushing open government beyond the bounds of rationality and common sense.”

San Francisco’s Sunshine Ordinance was established to give city residents a tool to monitor public officials and city government actions by obtaining documents. The ordinance only allows officials to recover costs of 10 cents a page for copied documents.

Crossman, a 41-year-old computer consultant, defends his requests, saying they have only grown so numerous because city officials are often not providing him with the information he has asked for.

“This is the old story of creating a logjam and not responding to requests and blaming the filer,” Crossman said. “I started off on this as an interested member of the public, and I still am.”

Crossman added that San Francisco’s Sunshine Ordinance does not mention the word “reasonable” when it comes to what can be requested.

Crossman’s first request was for bids submitted to The City for a universal wireless Internet system Mayor Gavin Newsom is trying to establish in San Francisco. Crossman said he believes The City is likely set on awarding the contract to Google — a charge city officials deny.

Since then, Crossman has fired off dozens more requests to a handful of departments, including the City Attorney’s Office and the Department of Telecommunications and Information Services. The requests include documents related to every public records request made to the City Attorney’s Office over the past two years, old drafts of The City’s Sunshine Ordinance and highly technical e-mail data only accessible by computer experts.

Ron Vincent, the chief administrator of DTIS, said Crossman sent his department public records requests, e-mails and other correspondence every day for months. Vincent said he has spent about half his work time since last September dealing with Crossman’s requests.

The City Attorney’s Office has asked Crossman to narrow or pare back his requests in letters over the last several months.

A continual state of crisis

I posted yesterday about SFUSD-bashing based on inaccuracies and misstatements from the left (Green Party activist/BOE candidate Kim Knox) and the right (hothead SFSOS mouthpiece Wade Randlett). To her credit, Kim has gracefully corrected the inaccurate figures that she used on the blog Leftinsf to show that some schools were at risk of being closed.

Nestwife posted an insightful commentary on the sfschools Yahoo group that I'm reprinting here, with her permission and a couple of links.

I too appreciate Kim's correcting her inaccurate information. For those of you who have pointed out errors in SFSOS' figures, don't hold your breath waiting for them to issue a correction.

Still, I am troubled by these two instances of individuals deliberately trying to create a wave of hysteria among parents who are already anguished about their child's school assignment. I know what Wade Randlett's agenda is (he views himself as a s**t-disturber), but he is a private citizen, albeit one with a big mouth and seemingly limitless supply of money with which to fund his Ministry of Disinformation.

But Kim is running for BOE, and furthermore, she has made it a plank in her platform (and rightly so) to call for better PR for under-requested schools, to help more parents to become aware of the advantages of enrolling in a "hidden gem." So it puzzles me why she would post a controversial piece yesterday which claimed that certain schools, like Marshall and Revere, were in immediate danger of being put on a closure list because of lack of requests. To her credit, when informed that the figures she posted were wrong, Kim corrected them.

However, it seems to me it would be more appropriate for her to be out cheerleading for under-requested schools, rather than starting rumors that these schools would be subject to closure within the year if more parents didn't hurry up and sign up (not exactly an enticing argument.)

All I can think of is that she must subscribe to the Mark Sanchez school of "continual crisis." As he explains in this interview with Matt Gonzalez from 2002, Sanchez apparently believes that it is the duty of every BOE member to view the school district as in a permanent crisis:

"In large part I was voted onto the board because people really wanted a public schoolteacher on it. I'm the first teacher since Tom Ammiano served more than eight years ago. I taught for seven years in San Francisco public elementary schools and as a result of that, everything I do on the board is informed by my experience with students. It really is about practicing the politics of urgency, which means that it must be continually acknowledged that our school system is in crisis and that we as elected officials must behave like we know this."

Portraying the SFUSD as being in a continual state of crisis does not help our kids or our schools, and based on the most recent API results, it isn't even accurate. It does not draw more families in — on the contrary, it scares them away. We don't need any more BOE members who think it is their first duty to scare the crap out of parents all the time, whether it is leading them to believe that their kids are going to be served irradiated meat (which they were NOT), or that the Superintendent was on a spending jag that would rival that of the recently convicted former Roslyn NY Superintendent Frank Tassone (which she was NOT), or that any school which was not full 24 hours before the end of the round one assignment period would be in imminent danger of being closed.

What we need are BOE members who will devote themselves to bolstering the performance of all of our schools, to burnishing their reputations and promotoing them in a positive light to current and prospective SFUSD parents, and to the taxpayers who may well be asked to approve a parcel tax to benefit the schools.

Constantly screaming "Panic!" does nothing but create a panic, and that doesn't help kids, parents, teachers, or schools.

Ed news round-up

Here's a survey of recent educaiton articles from various media sources. I spend a lot of time scanning education blogs, but this time I've focues on more traditional news sources.

Chron: Teachers, aides set strike vote March 29

The San Francisco teachers' union will hold a strike vote on March 29 and could stage a walkout by mid-April, union leaders said Wednesday.

Chron: The Saturday morning Dante Club

A dozen Mission High students eager for more of the Western classics are studying 'The Divine Comedy' for fun and loving it

Examiner Editorial: Mostly good news for S.F. schools

San Francisco’s public school system received some good news this week when state test scores showed that many city schools are improving and the district as a whole is outperforming the state average. However, that good news was moderated by other, more sobering results revealing that some schools continue to post poor scores and fall at the bottom of the heap even when compared to schools where students share similar economic and cultural backgrounds.

This one is written by our very own Caroline Grannan. !!! Bay Guardian: Volunteering too much

In the combative world of school politics, flak has been flying about veteran San Francisco school board commissioner Jill Wynns's expenses for out-of-town, board-related conferences and events.

Not everyone understands that school board members donate unpaid volunteer time to attend these events. Board members get a flat $500 a month, period. Wynns incurs more travel expenses than other board members because she donates more unpaid time.

SjMerc: State's low school spending yields few college graduates

California sends a lower percentage of its seniors to in-state public four-year universities than any state but Mississippi -- and a report released Wednesday offers an explanation.

Topping the reasons: a shortage of high school counselors, adequately trained teachers and college-prep classes -- largely caused by one of the lowest levels of educational spending in the nation.

SjMerc: Universal preschool plan fuels debate

Proponents of a free, universal preschool system in California believe that early education is key to improving the lives of disadvantaged children and will eventually reduce the state's costs for services such as special education and even incarceration.[...]

But critics say money should be given to the neediest children, who stand to benefit most.

NYT: SAT Problems Even Larger Than Reported

The College Board disclosed yesterday that the problems resulting from the misscoring of its October SAT examination were larger than it had previously reported.

NYT: The Two Faces of A.P.

But at the very time that schools like those in Guilford County, Dallas and Hackensack are jumping on the A.P. bandwagon, many of the elite schools that pioneered A.P. are losing enthusiasm, looking for ways to cut their students loose from curriculums that can cram in too much material at the expense of conceptual understanding and from the pressure to amass as many A.P. grades on their transcripts as possible. A few have abolished A.P. programs altogether, and many have limited students to taking three a year, fearing burnout and bad scores.

NYT: Far, Far and Away

As domestic tuitions rise yearly and the world grows smaller by the minute, going to an English-language college abroad is an increasing option for superior students.

Looking for teen theater group?

As a new School of the Arts mom, I'm discovering that there's a tight-knit, talented group of kids who do youth theater around the city (this is new to me, as I'm a band mom). There's one theater company that a lot of these kids have been involved in that is absolutely impossible to find if you're not an insider -- no current online presence, no listing in the phone book. So I thought I'd list it here as a public service:

Young People's Teen Musical Theatre Company
415/ 554-9523

The kids call it simply "Company" — no article. It's run by S.F. Rec-Parks, is based at the Harvey Milk Recreation Center in Duboce Triangle, and is free or low-cost, while other theater groups cost big bucks. I have a call in to get more information such as age range, schedules etc., which I'll add when I get them.

Wanton attacks on SFUSD hurt kids

For a district that's getting all kinds of praise for raising its test scores (remind me why we drove Arlene Ackerman out of town again?), SFUSD is getting bashed from both sides.

From the left we have semi-officially declared Board of Education candidate Kim Knox posting a lot of misinformation on the Green Party's LeftinSF blog inaccurately claiming that some SFUSD schools had so few applications that they'll be next on the closure list. Kim, who means well, is concerned that these schools need better publicity so they'll attract more applicants and won't have to close; yet she herself is doing the most harm by publicly posting damaging misinformation about them.

From the right (by S.F. standards), chronic hothead Wade Randlett makes a nasty blast at Parents for Public Schools, an organization that has made a huge difference in our district by persuading parents to open their minds to a wider variety of schools. The blast comes in his weekly newsletter Signal Flag, for which I can't find a link to include here.

(I understand that Randlett's SFSOS has been providing material on test scores that has been distributed at SFUSD enrollment counseling sessions — and that also includes statements promoting his view opposing SFUSD's all-choice enrollment system. Apparently PPS raised questions about that, provoking his ire.)

As usual, I'll point out that these attacks harm our schools and our kids. Kim, I'm publicly urging you to have someone double-check your figures and your information before you make public statements. Wade HAS been urged to tone it down, but clearly isn't willing to listen.

— Caroline

Note: Kim Knox is insisting that her information is correct and that I'm shooting the messenger when I object to it. But she's wrong; her information is inaccurate.

Special Ed Lawyers Living Large?

My new favorite special ed blogger, Charles P. Fox, is pretty quick on the uptake and has already posted a rebuttal to the Chronicle Op-Ed piece penned by a Marin administrator. Mr. Fox points out the many, many cases where school district lawyers have overcharged children for their services. So just which lawyers are living large at the kids expense? And an alert reader points out that our Marin administrator, Ms. Karen Mates, is being quite disingenuous when she argues:

Public schools must certainly provide the best possible education for children with disabilities (and for all children), however, this becomes exceedingly difficult when tax dollars destined for all our public school youth are given to a few whose parents believe they are entitled to services beyond what the public schools provide. The result is huge amounts of money ($34 million in San Francisco Unified School District alone) is funneled into special education from the general educational fund over and above what is provided for special education by the state and federal governments.

The "huge amounts of money" from the general education fund result from the failure to fully fund what IDEA costs, not lawsuits.

UESF: Strike Authorization Vote, Mediation Update

Here is the latest update from the UESF on the negotiations with the district. Not good news, but then again, the only possible good news would be the announcement of a tentative agreement. We're not there yet, clearly.

---

From: Dennis Kelly of United Educators of San Francisco
Date: Mar 22, 2006 9:39 AM
Subject: UESF: Strike Authorization Vote - March 29 - Kezar Pavilion

UESF Strike Authorization Vote!

March 29th - 4:00-7:30 p.m.
Kezar Pavilion - 755 Stanyan St.

As directed by the unanimous vote of the UESF Assembly, a strike vote date has been set for March 29th at Kezar Pavilion. The meeting will take place between 4:00 and 7:30 p.m.

San Francisco teachers and paraprofessionals have given more than enough time for the negotiations to work. Before declaring impasse on February 2nd, the union and the district had met 29 times over 366 days. Since reaching impasse, the mediation process has failed to bring the two sides closer together on substantive issues.

What we ask for is simple - Safer Schools, Fair Pay and Equal Protection for all members. Instead of working with us to find any middle ground, the district has taken every opportunity to stall, delay, or otherwise prolong these negotiations. It is time for teachers and paraprofessionals to stand up for what is right for San Francisco schools.

If you have any questions, please contact the union office at 956-8373 or email action@uesf.org.

Third Mediation Session

Mediator Paul Roose and the two negotiating teams were in session all day on Tuesday, March 21. The teams were kept in separate rooms all day and the mediator shuttled back and forth carrying contract language to either side.

No agreements were reached and the mediation ended with two more scheduled meetings on April 4 and April 10. The union's attempt to find another mutually agreeable date before the planned strike authorization date was not successful.

Union negotiators have not asked to schedule additional days after the sessions that were previously agreed upon.

Still Talking About Special Ed

The S.F. Chronicle has an informative point/counterpoint on special education issues on the Op-Ed page today. On one side, two fathers imagine a world without special education. On the other, a special ed administrator blames the lawyers for the problems in the system.

The fathers argue that the real issue is getting the Federal government to fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) -- it is supposed to bear 40 percent of the cost of educating students with disabilities, but actually pays only a fraction of its obligation. Fully funding IDEA would go a long way toward getting kids with special educational needs the services they are entitled to under the law.

The administrator's perspective is that public schools are wrongly seen as a limitless source of funds for lavish educational programs forced by lawyers. It's true that most special education parents don't have the wherewithal to sue, so those who do drag districts into court end up with much more than those who can't. This results in unfair disparities - a high-functioning child with autism gets a full-time aide because his parents sued, while another with equal needs does not get the same support. And while the special education system is not supposed to be a zero-sum game (one child gets more, so another gets less), in reality it is often played that way because of budgetary concerns.

Karen Mates, the Marin special education administrator writing in the Chronicle, puts forth a few ideas: getting the law to better define what an "appropriate" education is, capping attorney's fees and limiting the amount taxpayers must pay for private school placements. While I'm personally leery of getting rid of the lawyers anytime soon (given districts' track record of providing appropriate placements and supports without prodding), or letting politicians decide what educational services are appropriate, it's clear that a dialogue needs to continue at the Federal level.

The fathers (Frank Bien and Bill Bivins of the wonderful organization Support for Families of Children with Disabilities) deserve the last word:

The answer is not to wring our hands over a few extraordinary cases, but to work to get special education fully funded. If students get the services they need from the public school system, there would be fewer expensive settlements and more money left over for the entire system.

The pre-IDEA world was not only cruel, it was costly. Institutionalizing disabled children is many times more costly than having them attend public school -- even with the occasional payout for private services. Beyond the cost, though, the world after IDEA is a richer and more decent place for children of all abilities.

SFUSD API spreadsheets updated with 2005 API data

I have updated the SFUSD API data spreadsheets (orginally posted here and here) to include the 2005 Base API data that was published earlier today. The data is included in these three files:

sfusd-api-base-summary.xls	Summary of base API data from 2000-2005. Includes Base API, State Rank, Similar Schools, and SCI
sfusd-api-base-99-05.xls	Complete Base API data for all SF schools since the start of API reporting: 1999-2005
sfusd-api05bdb.xls	Complete Base API data for all SF schools: 2005. This data is included in the sfusd-api-base-99-05.xls file.

Update coming! I'm working on updating these files with the latest API data. Until then, I have some updated data available for those of you with a thirst for it. Enjoy.

2005 Base API Data Published

Seems like it's all-API-data-all-the-time around here. But really, it is an accident. When round 1 enrollment results were announced I thought it might be useful to compile the available API data. Now that the 2005 Base data is available, I will quickly update the spreadsheets and republish.

Meanwhile, a quick review of the 2005 data shows that SFUSD is doing very well. Perhaps the most remarkable measure of SFUSD performance has been identified by sfschools list member Luis Alegria. He computed a weighted average for the Similar Schools Rank in this sfschools post, Comparative School District Performance

Population-adjusted Similar School Ranks

Fontana Unified	7.996
San Francisco Unified	7.392
Inglewood Unified	7.374
Riverside Unified	7.261
Sacramento City Unified	6.516
Fremont Unified	6.439
Garden Grove Unified	6.407
Elk Grove Unified	6.389
West Contra Costa Unifie	6.353
Long Beach Unified	5.500
San Bernardino City Unif	5.266
Glendale Unified	5.257
Orange Unified	5.172
San Jose Unified	4.944
San Diego Unified	4.845
Los Angeles Unified	4.595
Capistrano Unified	4.581
Oakland Unified	4.043
Lodi Unified	3.769
San Juan Unified	3.356
Chino Valley Unified	3.000
Mt. Diablo Unified	2.894
Fresno Unified	2.875

Gives you some idea of where SFUSD sits - I've got the big districts there, some local ones, and the best-performing ones I've found. Fontana is something; its also something that SFUSD is in that company.

No doubt about it, this is great news for the district and even better news for the students. Kudos to all the hard working professionals for their hard work and commitment to our students.

I will add one footnote to this statistic. The method for calculating the Similar Schools Rank has changed this year. In previous years "Similar schools ranks have been confusing for some schools when the 100 schools with which they are compared do not appear similar", according to the Information Guide published with the new data. So they have added six new variables into the calculation to help determine truly similar schools:

• % Grade span enrollments
• % Students in GATE programs
• % Students with disabilities
• % Reclassified fluent-English-proficient students
• % Migrant education students
• % Students in reduced class size for full day

Some of these changes may have helped measure where SFUSD teachers and schools are successfully meeting particular challenges. This does not discount the outstanding similar schools result noted above, but it does mean we should be wary of comparing this result with the same statistic from prior years. The state is learning how to measure similar schools' performance better. Which clearly is good news for the educators of SFUSD.

Summary Base API Data 2000-2004

I've created an Excel spreadsheet that shows some of the highlights of the Base API data for all SFUSD schools for the years from 2000 through 2004: sfusd-api-base-summary.xls

The spreadsheet shows four years of API, Rank, and Similar schools scores. It also shows the School Characteristic Index, or SCI, for each school for all four years. All the data for each school is in one row. The goal is to present the complete progression of the high level summary data for each school at a glance. You can see if their rank and similar schools scores are changing over time, see if the SCI is changing, all by scanning one line of data. And the data is in spreadsheet form to make it easy for those of you who like to play with the data.

This file was created from the data I published earlier in the post Complete API data for SFUSD, '99-'05. The new file does not cover the 1999 data since the state has not published this data in a format that is easily comparable with the other years. I've also limited myself to SFUSD schools and omitted the county schools as well as most charters. Schools without four full years of data were generally excluded from the summary file.

There is a great deal to know about how the API, Rank, Similar, and SCI data are calculated, and what they mean. I tried my hand at explaining it last year in a two School Beat articles published at BeyondChron titled "The Affluent Parents Index" (Part I) and (Part II). Do not impute too much meaning in a school's API scores. Many of the schools that have fared badly in the API regime are actually doing quite well and offer many compelling programs taught by great teachers. Also keep in mind that the basis for API scores changes from year to year, making simple comparisons of API scores from different years problematic.

Standardized test scores are just one measure of a school, and a very limited one at that. Yet, they get a lot of publicity and attention, so I'm trying to do my part to present the data clearly and in context in the hope that it will be useful for families struggling with the difficult task of picking a good school for their kids.

SFUSD 2006-2007 Instructional Calendar

The district has posted the instructional calendar for next year. In past years they did not announce the schedule this early — kudos for improving customer service in this regard. I do wonder if some of the details may be subject to revision based on the ongoing teacher negotiations and the pending state budget negotiations. Still it is good to have this information early.

Jul. 04:	Independence Day (Holiday)
Aug. 23:	Teacher Work Day
Aug 24-25:	Professional Development Days*
Aug. 28:	Students Report – First Day of Instruction
Sep. 4:	Labor Day (Holiday)
Oct. 09:	Columbus/Indigenous People’s Day/El Dia de la Raza
Nov. 10:	Veterans Day (Holiday)
Nov. 22-24:	Thanksgiving Recess
Dec. 18-30:	Winter Break
Jan. 01:	New Years Day (Holiday)
Jan. 15:	Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. (Holiday)
Jan. 25:	Fall Semester Ends
Jan. 26:	Professional Development Day*
Feb. 19:	Presidents’ Day (Holiday)
Mar. 30:	Cesar Chavez Day (Schools Closed)
Apr. 02-06:	Spring Break
May 28:	Memorial Day (Holiday)
Jun. 12:	Last Day of Instruction/Spring Semester Ends

* Professional Development Days (Tentative), dependent on stat fundiavailabilityity

New blog layout

Yup, I changed the banner image and made the blog wider. The goal is to improve readability and make it look better. If you have any problems, like reading this on low-res monitors, slow page loads on dial-up connections, etc. leave a comment here.

Lowell keeps arena scheduling

Word of mouth news from my daughter via one of her teachers is that Lowell will retain arena scheduling, with some modifications. The students will pick their fall courses at the end of the school year instead of at the begining of the year &mdassh; not sure what happens with Freshman. And there will be no second round. Any schedule conflicts or problems that cannot be resolved by the student in the one-round arena scheduling will be resolved by staff. Sounds like a win-win compromise.

I do not see any reports on this resolution on-line, there are many unknown details, and I'm getting this 3rd hand — so take this with a grain of salt. I will post an update when I learn more.

Calling home

Wow. Check out this Bay Area teacher's story about calling home to reach out to some of her student's parents.

I only have 78 students, and this is 6 of them. I'm honestly afraid to call the rest. I wish more teachers would call their students' parents when something seems amiss to find out if they can help.

Follow the link and read the whole story. Chilling. And not the first time I've read of such horrors in a teacher's blog.

"It's child abuse."

The Schools Matter blog linked me up with this excerpt form article by article by Neil Steinberg of the Chicago Sun Times: Where do the children play?

There are two madnesses running unchecked throughout primary education. One is the tendency to medicate kids for the once-normal qualities of childhood. If a kid fidgets, he's got ADD and there's a pill. If he's unusually focused, then it's Asperger's Syndrome and there's another pill.

The second is our mania for standardized tests. What started as a good idea — let's see how well schools do — has become a be-all, end-all, tail-wag-the-dog enterprise where cash-strapped schools, crazed to throw off good scores, spend more time cribbing kids to ace the tests than they do teaching them stuff they actually need to know.

Testing is part of what the National PTA blames for the inhumane drive against playground recess. A full 40 percent of schools nationwide, according to the PTA, either have banned recess or are considering it, in part to free up time to cram for tests.

Kids need to exercise — everyone does, but particularly children. They need the activity that recess provides, and they need the how-do-we-pick-up-a-team social training that also comes from unstructured play.

The irony is that schools close off the outlets for kids to get exercise, then drug the ones who don't take well to sitting behind a desk all day.

No educator in his or her right mind would consider doing away with recess, no parent who gave a damn would countenance it. It's child abuse.

I heartily agree about the excesses of testing and the way we are robbing kids of their childhood. But I don't know of any schools in SF taking away recess. It's bad enough that we don't offer enough PE, but I don't think any school is eliminating recess in San Francisco, and I would be appauled if it were happening.

UESF: Strike vote by March 31st

I just received the following email update from Dennis Kelly and the UESF:

UESF — Strike vote by March 31st

---

Fed up with the slow pace of negotiations, Wednesday night the Assembly of the United Educators of San Francisco voted unanimously to set a strike vote by the end of March.

San Francisco teachers and paraprofessionals feel that they have given more than enough time for the negotiations to work. Before calling impasse on February 2nd, the union and the district had met 29 times over 366 days. Since reaching impasse, the mediation process has failed to bring the two sides closer together on substantive issues.

According to a recent study by the National Center for Policy Analysis, San Francisco teachers are the second lowest paid in the country, taking cost of living into consideration. But pay is not the only issue that educators are willing to strike over. School health and safety issues, including guarantees of schools free of rodents and pests, first aid kits in every classroom, and protection from assault are also key issues.

Equity for paraprofessionals is another strike issue. As a group, paraprofessionals do not have the same rights as other employees in the district, and in the city. They are denied basic due-process rights afforded other city workers. At least 77 career paraprofessionals will also be denied health care upon retirement.

The district has taken every opportunity to stall, delay, or otherwise prolong these negotiations. It is time for teachers and paraprofessionals to stand up for what is right for San Francisco schools. The ball is now in the district’s court. It is up to them to prevent a strike.

State mediation sessions have been scheduled for March 21, April 4 (half day), 10, and 11(half day).

In the coming days, look for a date and location for the strike authorization vote. If you have any questions, please contact the union office at 956-8373 or email action@uesf.org.

While We're Talking About Enrollment . . .

The talk of the SF public school community this week has been, of course, the results of Round 1 of the enrollment lottery. But parents of children with disabilities seeking inclusive placements didn't need an assignment letter to tell them that over 65 percent of San Francisco schools would deny their children admission outright. In a recent post about special education enrollment in Boston, Charles P. Fox (who blogs on special education law) writes about Boston's attitude towards inclusive education and it sure does sound familar:

IDEA has been a Federal law for the better part of three decades. From the beginning the concept of educating children in the least restrictive environment ("LRE") has been a cornerstone of the law. To combat wholesale segregation of children with special needs was one of the motivations for enacting the law. Even after all of these years, in Boston over 40 percent of children with IEPs are segregated from their neurotypical peers and not exposed to the general curriculum. Boston is the harsh reality that thousands of children face; not the fantasy world of Nanette Asimov's imagination, or the false construction of the school side in Arlington Central v. Murphy--that experts and advocates are coopting parents into filing due process.

Readers of this blog who don't monitor the sfschools discussion group might not be aware that in SFUSD, only 42 schools — less than 35 percent of all schools in the district -- even allow students with disabilities seeking inclusive placements to enroll. While we are encountering strong resistance from the district in attempting to figure out how many inclusive seats this group of schools actually represents, it is almost certainly lower than the dismal percentage Mr. Fox offers for Boston. (Especially when you consider than most of the "inclusive" schools in SFUSD are elementary, not middle or high schools).

This state of affairs is incomprehensible given our progressive ideals in San Francisco, not to mention the IDEA obligation to consider the placement offering the "least restrictive environment" first. Oh, and the requirements of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, a more broad law governing the treatment of persons with disabilities by organizations receiving public funds. Under Section 504, organizations receiving public funds must not (among other things):

(i) Deny a qualified handicapped person the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit or service;
(ii)Afford a qualified handicapped person an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service that is not equal to that afforded others. (34 CFR 104.4)

How can SFUSD allow general education students to choose from any school in the district, while saying that students with disabilities seeking inclusive placements cannot have the same choices? Inherently, these students are being denied the "opportunity to participate" and given choices that are "not equal to that afforded others." Further, consider that the highest scoring middle and high schools (Presidio and Lowell) do not offer inclusive placements for students with disabilities, denying them the ability to access the (arguably) most rigorous and prestigious academic programs the district has to offer.

Kitchen Table Math: Falling Off The Math Cliff

Found on the blog, Kitchen Table Math

1 A boy begins his wondrous journey.
2 He perseveres.
3 Math cannot become any more difficult than this, can it?
4 Yes.
5 Yet he does not give up!
6 For a brief moment, there is a glimmer of comprehension.
7 Actual midair pedalling.
8 The plummet.

source:
"Falling off the Math Cliff" (Progression of student learning math.)
The New Yorker March 6, 2006 page 57

School Board Notes 3.14.06

School Board Notes
3.14.06
By Nicole Achs Freeling
GreatSchools.net Correspondent

• Community Council Will Advise District on Long-term Plan
• More Teachers Union Demonstrations
• Agreement Signed with Administrators Union
• Exit Exam No Bar to Graduation Festivities

continue reading...

Community Council Will Advise District on Long-term Plan

The School Board is seeking experts – especially parents – to serve on a Community Advisory Council that will direct the board in establishing a long-term plan to boost student enrollment and staunch the flow of students from the district.

Establishing the Community Advisory Council was a key part of a decision Tuesday to launch a long-range plan to address school consolidation. Board members believe the district will need to close more schools, but voted to also mount an effort to reverse the trend of declining enrollment. The plan will address district and school demographics, student assignment, outreach and recruitment and potential partnerships with city agencies.

The Community Advisory Council will be made of experts the following areas:

• Design and implementation of quality education programs and educational reform strategies (2 members)
• Outreach to diverse families
• Community engagement strategies
• Demographic planning and analysis
• School facilities design and use
• School finance
• Representing the voice of youth

In earlier discussions, the board had discussed creating a committee of more than 30 representatives of stakeholder groups. The resolution it adopted Tuesday calls for a somewhat different type of council, with only eight members, which will be culled through an open application process. Interested parties must submit applications by April 14.

Commissioner Dan Kelly urged the district to ask groups like the Parent Teachers Association, the Parent Advisory Council, Parents for Public Schools and Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth, along with the NAACP and Asian advocacy groups, to recommend candidates.

Members of both the public and the board expressed concern that the expert committee might not allow enough input from parents and the community. "You are missing the single largest group of stakeholders, which are parents and caregivers," said Joan Livingston, the parent of a child at New Traditions. "If you want our buy-in, we have to be at the table with you when you develop this plan." The committee will be tasked in part with seeking such stakeholder input. Its jobs include developing a plan to gather input, collecting public testimony, and reporting its findings back to the district. Other community groups like the San Francisco Education Fund, are also working with the district to collect community input.

The resolution calls for staff to complete an analysis of current conditions and community input, in consultation with the advisory council, by the last regular board meeting of June. It anticipated staff would prepare a long-range action plan by September 2006, to be reviewed by the public and the board, and to be used in next year's school closure decisions.

More Teachers Union Demonstrations

Frustrated that mediations have so far failed to produce a contract agreement, hundreds of teachers, along with supportive parents and coworkers, gathered in driving rain outside the district to protest the stalled negotiations. They belted out chants like "No contract; No work!" and "Show us the money!"

"Impasse was declared 40 years days ago," teachers union president Dennis Kelly told the board. "There have been two mediated discussions since then. Our members need a sign that the district is interested in a fair settlement." The next two mediation sessions will be held April 4 and April 10.

Agreement Signed with Administrators Union

In a more positive development, the board voted to enter into a tentative agreement with another major union, the United Administrators of San Francisco. That agreement provides for a 6.5 percent raise over the next 16 months, with 2 percent retroactive to January 2006.

"This is a happy moment for me, and the board, and hopefully we'll have happier moments soon," said Board President Norman Yee.

UASF representative James Dierke said the union was pleased with the proposed contract.

Earlier in the evening, the district honored administrators who had been nominated for awards by the Association of California Administrators, Region 5, representing San Francisco and San Mateo Counties. Dierke, an administrator at Visitacion Valley Middle School, was named the region's Administrator of the Year. Also honored were Marion Grady, of Glen Park Elementary, Margaret Chiu, of Galileo High School and central office administrators Ritu Khama, Susan Wong and Marigrace Cohen.

Exit Exam No Bar to Graduation Festivities

Students who have failed to pass the California High School Exit Exam but have met all the other requirements for graduation will be able to attend commencement ceremonies with their classmates, the board decided. Such students will receive a "certificate of completion," a document that shows they completed their required high school coursework, although the certificate is not equivalent to a high school diploma.

In order to participate in graduation ceremonies, students