Things Ms. Frizzle did to help me were...

...to write with a clear, honest voice about the things that matter to her and her class. There is no one in the Ed Bog universe that has come close to her. She will be sorely, sorely missed. (Or not, since she is merely turning a page and starting anew.)

OK, we like TMAO too, and posthipchick, and we'll try some others on her blogroll. But damn, I'm sad to see the Ms. Frizzle blog go dark.

Good luck in Turkey. We'll be sure to follow you on that adventure now.

Charter school fires teacher for organizing effort

As we know, the Gates Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation will write a large check at the mere mention of the words "charter school," and Gap mogul Don Fisher is a major financial supporter of KIPP and before that Edison Schools (until Edison's ignominious fizzle). The New York Times story below may clarify why these business moguls are so enamored of a "school reform" model that is showing unimpressive results.

June 28, 2006
Teacher Says Charter School Fired Her for Organizing to Improve Pay Scale
By ELISSA GOOTMAN
In May, Nichole Byrne Lau received an evaluation saying that her
students at the Williamsburg Charter High School were "lucky to have
you as their teacher." This month, she was fired.

Ms. Byrne Lau, 33, said she had been singled out for distributing copies of the pay scale for teachers in New York City's traditional public schools and organizing her colleagues to press for better salaries and benefits. "I'm devastated," she said yesterday.

Eddie Calderon-Melendez, chief executive of the school, in Brooklyn, did not respond to several telephone messages seeking comment. Kelly Devers, a spokeswoman for the city's Department of Education, said it would investigate.

Charter schools are supervised by the state and receive public financing, but are run by outside groups. Under state law, new small charter schools are not bound by teachers' union contracts. To unionize, charter teachers must go through a multistep process and a formal vote.

Randi Weingarten, president of the United Federation of Teachers, has taken up Ms. Byrne Lau's case, saying it illustrates the obstacles to unionizing in charter schools. Ms. Weingarten's position was central to the State Assembly's recent refusal to allow more charter schools in New York State, against the wishes of the governor and the mayor.

"I am appalled," Ms. Weingarten wrote to Mr. Calderon-Melendez, saying that cases like this "led us to advocate for labor rights in any reconsideration of the state's charter law." In response, he wrote that Ms. Weingarten's version of events was "inaccurate" and that the school had "an exemplary track record."

Ms. Byrne Lau said she had tried to organize a forum for teachers to share their grievances and push for a public and consistent pay scale to replace what she described as a hodgepodge of individually negotiated salaries, some comparable to public school pay, and some below. In fact, the school recently released a pay scale for 2006-7.

When she met with Mr. Calderon-Melendez on June 5, Ms. Byrne Lau said, he said that whoever distributed the city's teacher pay scale "obviously doesn't know how to run a school." He then told her he would not renew her contract, Ms. Byrne Lau said, but refused to say why, saying the school, an at-will employer, did not need to give a reason.

— Caroline

WSF Suddenly grabs center stage

When was the last time anyone on this blog approvingly linked to something penned by Rod Paige? Never. Until now.

Here is a NYT Op-Ed piece by Bush's former Education Secretary that — surprise, surprise — makes the Weighted Student Formula into the hot topic in the education world. For School Equality, Try Mobility:

Instead of gimmicky fads, we need fundamental reforms. One good idea now picking up support is 'weighted student funding.' Under this approach, each child receives a 'backpack' of financing that travels with him to the public school of his family's choice. The more disadvantaged the child, the bigger the backpack.

When that money arrives at a school, principals have freedom to spend them as they see fit. Does the school need to pay more to snag a top-notch math teacher? Are extra hours needed to allow for intensive tutoring? Principals would be able to allocate resources accordingly; accountability systems like No Child Left Behind give them strong incentives to make good decisions.

There is a lot of background that goes into this story breaking now. First, there is the foolish fad of the 65% solution championed by Internet entrepreneur Patrick Byrne, that we haven't even mentioned here. Now the Fordham Foundation counters his initiative with the 100% solution, which is actually WSF by another name. Paige jumps on the NYT stage to put his name in front of this emerging bandwagon...

Could this have anything to do with why Arlene turned down the Boston job? WSF is suddenly being thrust on the stage as a bipartisan solution to the most vexing problems in education. And who has more to say about it than the Superintendent who has implemented it in, what, three different urban districts? Suddenly that endowed chair at Columbia looks a lot more inviting than working miracles in the racially charged, treacherous, desperate minefield of the Boston schools.

We'll have more to say about this, you can bet.

Loans boost charter schools

What I don't get about this story is how charter schools repay these
loans. And where are the loans for traditional public schools? (Also,
how does a reporter for a major newspaper manage to be so wide-eyed and skepticism-free?)

Loan beneficiary Mike Piscal, quoted here, wrote a widely hyped column
for the Huffington Post in which he singled out the PTA along with
teachers' unions as impeding reform. He promised to name names of
guilty individuals (those fiendish volunteer PTA mommies) in
a future column, but if that future column ever appeared, I couldn't
find it.

From the Los Angeles Times
Loan Program Helps 5,000 Students Attend California Charter Schools
By Carla Rivera
Times Staff Writer

June 29, 2006

A program designed to boost enrollment at California charter schools has helped get nearly 5,000 mostly low-income children off waiting lists and into high-quality classrooms, charter school officials said Wednesday.

The Charter School Growth Loan Program was created by the California Charter Schools Assn. and taps banks and lenders to provide loans to schools to help them expand.

Since the program began two years ago, loans nearly doubled from $5.5 million to $10 million. This year alone, 28 public charter schools were able to place 2,818 children who otherwise would have remained on waiting lists.

"This is a good example of a public and private partnership that is great for public schools and banks," said Caprice Young, charter association president and chief executive. The banks earn interest off the loan, while "parents and children benefit by having greater school choice. It's good business all around."

The loan program is vital, Young said, because new public charter schools typically face a four- to six-month lag from when a new student arrives to when the school receives state funding.

The loans can be used to hire more teachers, buy books and add space. So far, all of the schools have repaid lenders in full and on time.

In the Los Angeles Unified School District, the program has helped more than 2,000 students get into charter schools.

Under the program, View Park Preparatory Charter Schools in South Los Angeles enrolled 550 additional students, said founder and head of school Michael D. Piscal.

View Park, which opened in 1999, will have five campuses next year and has about 5,000 students on its waiting list.

"The program has been phenomenal," he said. "We were able to get a loan of $1 million last year and $450,000 this year. Now that so many charter schools have been successful, banks now find us credit worthy."

The loan program is expected to increase to $13 million next year to fund spaces for 3,500 new students at 35 schools, officials said. Lenders include Prudential Social Investments, the Low Income Investment Fund, NCB Development Corp., Local Initiatives Support Corp. and Raza Development Fund.

— Caroline

Summer of Love Heats Up!

Just when I was about to post another plea for contributions to our Summer of Love challenge... Boom! We get a large anonymous donation that fully funded one of our projects, Our World Through Books. Next year a Title I school near you will have more Spanish titles in their refurbished library to support their dual-immersion program.

Suddenly we're going from wondering if we set out goals to high to wondering how far beyond our $1000 goal we might go. Thank you, anonymous donor, for turning the tables. Hopefully it will inspire others. Any donations are welcome. Small or large, they all make a difference.

Can we hit $2000?

School Board Notes?

Here we are, the day after a significant BOE meeting where the budget was approved, a small school resolution was passed, and lots of other business transacted. An no School Board Notes! The Chron has some coverage here. But there is so much left out.

Nicole, I hope you're having a great vacation. Here's hoping you and the School Board Notes return in the fall!

Ackerman bows out, Sims interested

Boston's search for a Superintendent changes by the day. The Globe is reporting that Ackerman has opted not to pursue the position: Search progresses for schools superintendent:

Ackerman , 59, said she met with the search committee Monday and said then she could not pursue the job because she needed a break after nearly 10 years as a superintendent and had committed to teaching at Teachers College at Columbia University in the fall.

``Under any other circumstances at a different time in my life, this would be just what I was waiting for,' Ackerman said. ``I'm heartbroken that I have to say no.'

Ackerman praised the pool of candidates, but she said she was partial to Sims, her deputy in San Francisco. Sims worked with Ackerman to improve failing schools by lengthening the school day and holding school on Saturdays.

``She's one of my stars,' Ackerman said.

Sims, 53, said yesterday she was honored to be considered and would wait to hear from the search committee before commenting further.

That was quick.

Ackerman and Sims short-listed for Boston Superintendent

The Boston Globe is reporting that Arlene Ackerman and Deborah Sims are two of five candidates short-listed for the Boston Superintendent of Schools job. Alongside the main article about the candidates they have this summary of Arlene's experience: Ackerman known as a tough innovator:

Arlene Ackerman has taken on tough school systems, has butted heads with school board members and city officials, and has departed with mixed feelings.

She has won national acclaim for attacking tough problems, such as cutting budgets and raising test scores in Washington, D.C., and San Francisco. But critics say she often lacks diplomacy, according to news reports.

They Globe offers less info on Deborah A. Sims. They describer her as chief of K-12 operations at SFUSD: Sims has training pedigree

Sims, who is in her 50s, has been groomed to handle a top spot in a school system. In 2005, she enrolled in an executive management program that trains people to run urban school systems.

Sims has worked under the tutelage of San Francisco School Superintendent Arlene Ackerman, who resigned this school year. Sims also has run the district's Office of Parent Relations, served as assistant superintendent for K-8 schools, and been principal of a high-poverty elementary school.

The Globe that one of the key requirements for the Boston gig is the ability to work with parent and community groups. If there is any residue of the toxic, flammable mix that afflicted that town back when I grew up there, Arlene would have a hard time there. Boston is a radically different town since the days of busing wars and Louise Day Hicks. But 30 years doesn't change much in parochial New England where the culture—and the racism—runs very deep. For Boston's sake I hope they have evolved to a point where an African American woman can command the respect and authority needed to turn around their school system. For Arlene's sake I hope she has learned some lessons on how and when to listen to others, and how to run a more inclusive and open administration. On the plus side, I doubt she'd have to wrestle with Green/Progressive adversaries.

Budget update

The district has published two budget related documents:

Fiscal Year 2006-07 Recommended Budget Presentation

Recommended Budget for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 (Second Reading)

Thankfully, this version of the budget proposal is searchable! They're listening!!! Of course, it arrives at the last possible moment. The BOE will vote to adopt the budget tonight. Still, this is a valuable resource to have, and it's far more valuable now that we can search (as well as cut and paste) the text.

Charter schools: where the megabucks are

Now Warren Buffett is giving Bill Gates' foundation his money to hand out. The Gates Foundation rains money on charter schools, of course.

Meanwhile, a rare ethical charter-school advocate is challenging his fellow charter boosters' dishonesty. His issue is that charter backers raise an outcry about unfair methodology when data shows charters underperforming traditional public schools, yet they themselves use the same methodology when it does flatter charter schools.

This is the same point made by the hopelessly wonkish book "The Charter School Dust-Up," which roundly and decisively debunks the entire charter movement's claim to superiority, but in such unreadable form that it has been totally ignored. "Dust-Up" points out that the charter movement disputes methodology that debunks charter superiority, but uses that same methodology itself to attack traditional public schools.

Frederick M. Hess is a right-wing think-tanker at the American Enterprise Institute.

The wrong way to argue for charter schools

By FREDERICK M. HESS
New York Daily News
June 26, 2006

The undercard of the marquee fight over whether or not to lift New York's cap on charter schools is a vitally important battle over how to define these schools' success.

And unfortunately, in a recent series of press releases and articles, some charter supporters have promoted the schools' student achievement statistics in an intellectually dishonest manner.

I support the spread of charters as much as anyone — because I believe they offer important alternatives to traditional public schools — but these tactics deserve scrutiny.

First, some background. There has been an ongoing dispute in the world of schooling about whether it's useful to judge charter schools based on crude end-of-year test scores.

Just about every serious charter school supporter and expert has concluded that this approach is deeply flawed — because charter schools enroll a self-selected body of students that may begin the school year performing at a level significantly different from their peers in traditional schools.

As was argued in a full-page 2004 New York Times ad sponsored by the Center for Education Reform, a pro-charter group, such scores fail to "take into account such key characteristics of students known to affect their performance as parental education, household income, and the quality of learning resources at home."

Instead, the ad made clear, the appropriate way to compare charter schools with district schools is by focusing on how much students improve during the course of the school year.

Remember that logic, then flash-forward to this year.

New York's most recent test results were just released by the state Education Department. The new data show that charter school students have higher scores on math and English than do district school students, at both the fourth- and eighth-grade levels.

Yet because this time the results are favorable for charter schools, some advocates are ignoring their previous warnings, apparently concluding that now it's quite all right to employ simpleminded comparisons.

The Center for Education Reform crowed that the "report shows better [charter school] performance at every level." Bill Phillips, president of the New York Charter Schools Association, declared, "The state Legislature has all the evidence it needs from this report to warrant lifting the cap on new public charter schools."

Charter proponents who play it fast and loose will come to regret their stance. The next time someone uses similar data to cheap-shot charter schools, charter defenders will be standing on shakier ground. It's hard to complain about unfair treatment when one's scruples appear to be a matter of convenience.

Hess is director of Education Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

The exaggerated dropout crisis

The increasing outcry about dropouts consistently leaves out an obvious piece of information, as KC noted in his post a couple of days ago — and that's the historical trend.

I haven't done the digging to get long-term figures yet. In his book "The Big Test," Nicholas Lemann points out that the U.S. high school graduation rate didn't hit 50% till about World War II. Any of us who's not directly descended from nobility can think back a couple of generations and realize that it was simply not the norm in our grandparents' day for anyone but the elite to graduate from high school, let alone go to college.

My own grandmother, born in 1899, dropped out after 8th grade to work in a glove factory, in accordance with her family's needs and expectations. This was viewed as a given, not a tragedy.

The op-ed below, from the Economic Policy Institute, doesn't give the long-term data either, but we get the idea from this quote:

... we need to get our facts right, including the truth that high school graduation rates have been improving. In 1979, 77 percent of black young adults were high school completers. By 2000, it was 88 percent. For whites, the growth was from 89 percent to 95 percent.

I agree with the author (EPI president Lawrence Mishel) that the graduation rate should be improved. But the outcry about the supposed dropout crisis is just another bashfest coming from the right, aimed at attacking, damaging and eventually fully privatizing public education.,

Here's the EPI op-ed.

Education Week, March 8, 2006

The exaggerated dropout crisis

By Lawrence Mishel

The new conventional wisdom — that the dropout rate is rising — can’t be squared with the simple economic reality.

There’s a consensus that our high schools are in crisis. The conventional view is that only about two-thirds of students graduate, and that only about half of black youths do. These data, generated mostly by Manhattan Institute senior fellow Jay P. Greene and former Urban Institute research associate Christopher B. Swanson (now the director of the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center), have had enormous influence. Foundations have directed major resources to stem the crisis, while the Bush administration and the governors have shifted their attention to high school reform.

I’m new to education issues, with a career as a labor-market economist, concentrating not on test scores but on wages, employment, and household incomes. The more I’ve read about the dropout crisis, the more skeptical I’ve become, because the story is inconsistent with the economic data I know.

Consider this: Knowledge is becoming more important in the economy, and “returns to skill” — higher wages for workers with more education — should be growing. Yet the ratio of high school graduates’ wages to dropouts’ wages has not changed for 30 years. The most plausible explanation, accepted by most economists, is that the share of graduates in the workforce has grown, while the share of dropouts has fallen. If the demand for graduates relative to dropouts has gone up, the wage ratio can remain stagnant only if the supply of graduates relative to dropouts has also gone up.

The new conventional wisdom — that the dropout rate is rising — can’t be squared with this simple economic reality.

continue reading...

Economists rely on U.S. Census or U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics surveys to estimate the educational attainment of the workforce. From these, we understand that from 80 percent to 90 percent of all Americans have a regular high school diploma, and from 70 percent to 80 percent of all African-Americans have one.

Greene, Swanson, and some other education researchers, in contrast, use enrollment and diploma data that the U.S. Department of Education collects from state governments and that states, in turn, collect from districts. The researchers use these administrative data to calculate their extraordinarily low graduation rates. To oversimplify a bit, these researchers divide the number of diplomas districts say they awarded in any year by the number of students who were 9th graders three years earlier, or by the average of the number of 8th, 9th, and 10th graders. The education researchers dismiss surveys that economists use because, the researchers say, people may lie to census-takers, claiming to have diplomas when they don’t.

Of course, some people may lie, but if this were a major issue, we’d have more serious problems than mistaken graduation rates, because our national economic and social policies rely on Census and Bureau of Labor Statistics data that the education researchers are quick to dismiss. Policies about unemployment, income inequality, marriage rates, poverty, health insurance, and so on all rely on these surveys. Try telling the Federal Reserve Board or the Congressional Budget Office that the data can’t be trusted.

It’s not as though government statisticians have never thought about the reliability of their surveys, whose strengths and limitations are amply documented. Substantial resources are spent to monitor accuracy. In contrast, education researchers have offered no evidence to support claims that the economic surveys are mistaken.

Nor have the education researchers undertaken serious studies to establish the reliability of the administrative data, which, in contrast to the Census, have little documentation. I have not been able to learn whether school districts are consistent in their reports to states, how data are checked, or even whether all diplomas are reported. I am skeptical that administrative data should be taken on faith while throwing overboard the entire statistical basis of federal social and economic policy.

This skepticism provoked me and my colleague, Joydeep Roy (also an economist), to venture into these education data ourselves. We found that the administrative data are contradicted even by other respected education sources. Consider, for example, the Education Department’s National Education Longitudinal Study, which surveyed a national random sample of students who were in 8th grade in 1988. Called NELS:88, it continued to interview these students in later years. To ensure truthful answers, the department checked them against actual transcripts in school district files, and tracked students down at home if they were no longer registered in school.

Education researchers have offered no evidence to support claims that the economic surveys are mistaken.

Longitudinal studies like these can be flawed by attrition, when students in the original sample can’t be found later, but the extraordinary efforts the department has made to control attrition and check transcripts has made NELS:88 the “gold standard” of education research.

NELS:88 shows that in 1992, the “on time” graduation year for this cohort, 78 percent of all students, and 63 percent of blacks, received a regular diploma, not including the General Educational Development, or GED, certificate. By 1994, 83 percent of all students, and 74 percent of blacks, had received one.

These last numbers provide an “apples to apples” comparison with administrative data, because diplomas reported by districts and counted by education researchers also include those for students who took more than four years to graduate.

The new conventional wisdom seems to have exaggerated the African-American dropout rate by a remarkable amount — doubling it from about 25 percent to 50 percent.

One problem with these education researchers’ approach is obvious. Their graduation-rate denominator, the number of 9th graders three years earlier, is artificially inflated by students who are held back in 9th grade, a growing phenomenon. In 2000, there were 26 percent more blacks in 9th grade than were in 8th grade in 1999. Swanson ignores this problem. Greene only partially addresses it by averaging 8th, 9th, and 10th graders.

There have also been several local longitudinal studies using the same school district records upon which the administrative data rely. Yet these studies fail to confirm the education researchers’ picture. A Florida study following individual students found graduation rates of 73 percent overall and 60 percent for blacks, from 10 to 15 points higher than we can get by applying the Greene or Swanson methodologies. A New York City longitudinal study found graduation rates from 10 to 27 points higher.

What objections might education researchers raise to our findings? They might say that NELS:88 was only one cohort, and schools have since deteriorated. But the importance of NELS:88 is that its data are so consistent with those obtained from the Census’ Current Population Survey, or CPS, and from microdata of the Census itself. Thus, NELS:88 gives us confidence in the ongoing reliability of the premier national economic and demographic surveys.

The importance of NELS:88 is that its data are so consistent with those obtained from the Census’ Current Population Survey, or CPS, and from microdata of the Census itself.

Researchers might object that the Current Population Survey, by leaving out those in prison, undercounts dropouts. But the CPS also leaves out military personnel, whose graduation rates are higher. For all students, these two omissions offset each other, although for African-Americans, graduation rates in the CPS are artificially high because more are in prison than in the military. However, by using Census microdata (which includes prisoners), we were able to adjust for this distortion. It lowers African-American graduation rates in the Current Population Survey by about 3 percent, leaving them still far higher than administrative data suggest.

Some object that surveys like the CPS combine GED recipients with high school graduates, inflating the true graduation rate. So we obtained annual GED-certificate data and subtracted these from the appropriate age groups of high school graduates in the CPS. That’s how we concluded that 73 percent of blacks get regular high school diplomas (compared with 86 percent, if GEDs are included).

My report with Joydeep Roy documenting these claims will soon be available. We’ll send one to anyone who writes to us at hsgrads@epi.org.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not satisfied with a national black dropout rate of 25 percent, or a much higher urban rate. We must fix this glaring social problem.

But to solve it, we need to get our facts right, including the truth that high school graduation rates have been improving. In 1979, 77 percent of black young adults were high school completers. By 2000, it was 88 percent. For whites, the growth was from 89 percent to 95 percent. Even with the most extreme assumptions about increased numbers of GEDs and incarcerations, there would still remain a real growth in regular diplomas for blacks, and a narrowing of the black-white graduation gap. Something right has happened to propel this long-term improvement, and we should figure out what it is, so we can do more of it.

Lawrence Mishel is the president of the Economic Policy Institute, in Washington, DC.

— Caroline

Catching up wtih School Beat

Lisa Schiff has written another great School Beat article for Beyond Chron: School Beat: Year's End. The end of the school year is an opportune moment to take a long view of what lies ahead, and that's just what Lisa does. Budgets, school closures, planning, enrollmet, superintendent search, BOE elections... there's a lot to take in.

---

As long as we're talking about the School Beat column, check out Amy Ottinger's column from last week: School Beat: The Community Advisory Committee for Special Education And Why It Matters

This past year has been an exciting time for the CAC. We have formulated a Strategic Plan from input gathered at a large community meeting a year ago. Throughout the past year a trained facilitator worked with the CAC board and all who came to the meetings to prioritize, condense and shape that input into a clarified vision and five goals that translate to committees chaired by CAC members. Those committees are:

1. Planning, Monitoring, and Evaluation [...]
2. Promotion of Ongoing, Quality, and Up-to-Date Training and Education to Ensure Student’s Success
3. Leadership Development, Recognition and Outreach [..]
4. Disability and Diversity Awareness [...]
5. Management of the CAC [...]

As Amy notes, there is much work to be done. Outreach is key. If you have an interest in Special Education at SFUSD, check out the article, and make plans to attend a CAC meeting.

Save the School Board Notes series!

Today, Nicole informs us that her notes will go on hiatus while GreatSchools.net evaluates the project:

Sfschoolnotes will be on vacation for the summer while GreatSchools takes the time to re-evaluate our work in San Francisco. As we do that, we'd be interested in your feedback about the value of these notes.

Please send your comments to sfschoolnotes@greatschools.net.

Best,
Nicole Achs Freeling

P.S. If you have found this service useful, please let GreatSchools know at the above noted address so it will continue the service in the fall.

We haven't done so well at inspiring people to fork over their money! (But we haven't given up on that idea.) Maybe some of our regular readers will take the time to write a simple email explaining the value of the School Board Notes that we post here regularly.

Please send quick email expressing your support for this work. A short, simple note will do. This service is too valuable to loose.

Graduation rates reported

Education Week has released a report on graduation rates, Diplomas Count, that attempts to use comparable data to determine a more accurate picture of graduation rates across the country. The Times covers the report in this article: A Third of U.S. Dropouts Never Reach 10th Grade

More than a third of high school dropouts across the nation leave school without ever going beyond the ninth grade, according to a report released here on Tuesday.

The report promises to be an annual survey.

Much of the data is locked behind an EdWeek subscription wall, so I cannot get my hands on the SFUSD data. They are also promising a detailed mapping tool later in the week that will expose data about individual districts. The California state wide graduation results are reported in Diplomas Count—California:

Student Group	California(%)	Nation(%)
All Students	71.0	69.6
By Gender
Male	66.3	65.2
Female	73.7	72.7
By Race and Ethnicity
American Indian/Alaska Native	44.9	47.4
Asian/Pacific Islander	81.3	77.0
Hispanic	60.1	55.6
Black (not Hispanic)	55.7	51.6
White (not Hispanic)	76.8	76.2
By Gender and Race and Ethnicity
Male
American Indian/Alaska Native	**	42.7
Asian/Pacific Islander	78.5	73.1
Hispanic	54.4	50.1
Black (not Hispanic)	50.4	44.3
White (not Hispanic)	73.6	72.4
Female
American Indian/Alaska Native	**	47.5
Asian/Pacific Islander	83.6	79.6
Hispanic	64.1	59.9
Black (not Hispanic)	59.2	57.8
White (not Hispanic)	79.3	77.9

We have blogged about the lack of baseline data about graduation rates. This study, as well as other features of NCLB, promises to fill in some of the missing data. But already the report is accompanied by breathless prose about the graduation crisis. Sorry, we do not know what graduation rates have been historically. So it is premature to say that a 1/3 drop out rate is a crisis or not. We may be doing better than ever for all we know. The terrible performance of some large urban districts is clearly not acceptable, even if it fits with historical norms. Establishing a baseline will enable districts to focus more clearly on the problem and improve performance. We can all get behind that.

School Board Notes 6.20.06

School Board Notes 6.20.06
Committee of the Whole Budget Discussion
By Nicole Achs Freeling
GreatSchools.net Correspondent

Good News, Bad News For Next Year's Budget

The proposed budget for the next school year as presented to the BOE's Committee of the Whole Tuesday includes $3 million more than originally projected but still includes close to $6 million in cuts, including a 1 percent reduction to the weighted student formula and cuts in funding for child care programs, special ed, transportation and nutrition. The Board is scheduled to take a final vote on the budget at its regular board meeting next Tuesday.

In May, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger pledged $2.8 billion more to schools in Proposition 98 funds, which could translate to millions more for SFUSD. However, those funds are too uncertain to figure into the proposed budget for 06/07, which must be adopted by the Board next week. What is certain is a larger-than-expected increase to the cost-of-living adjustment in funding from the state. That increase has enabled the district to add $3 million to the budget, and to shave its projected deficit for the following year (07/08) from $12 million to $5.8 million.

Even with that money however, the proposed budget includes $5.8 million in cuts to cover a shortfall in unrestricted funds (those not earmarked for specific uses) and maintain a required reserve of two percent of its operating budget. It also includes $2.5 million saved from school closures, mergers and relocations, and $4.3 million in one-time revenues from a long-term lease with City College for some of the space made available by the relocations (specifically, Newcomer and Downtown high schools). Still, Board members appeared to agree that this year's budget decisions were less painful than last year's, when the Board made its school closure decisions in conjunction with balancing the budget.

Highlights of the Proposed Budget:

• Total revenues including county programs: $740 million.
• New revenues as of May revise: $3 million
• Projected unrestricted general fund revenues: $356 million
• Projected expenditures (including proposed cuts): $334.3 million
• Beginning unrestricted general fund balance: $10.1 million
• Ending balance: $10.6 million

Proposed Cuts

• 1 percent reduction to the Weighted Student Formula, for a savings of close to $2 million
• $1.2 million reduction in special education
• $800,000 reduction in child development services
• $800,000 reduction to transportation services
• 500,000 reduction in funding for the student nutrition program.
• $500,000 reduction to central office staff

Some of these cuts, said Chief of Policy and Planning Myong Leigh, were balanced out by increases in revenue elsewhere in the budget. In special education, for example, more monies have come in to the district earmarked specifically for that use, so the district is able to budget less from its general fund. Leigh conceded, however, that there were some cuts in services as well.

The reduction in transportation costs comes from changing start times at five pre-K programs to 9:30 from 8:30. The district pays less to Laidlaw, its bus service contractor, if the buses are run during off hours. Child care services have been reduced at Cobb, Drew and Kate Kennedy child development centers. A number of speakers appeared to decry layoffs of 48 people, the equivalent of 25 full time equivalents.

Commissioner Dan Kelly noted that many of these people may be able to be reinstated. "Last year, we were able to offer positions to everybody who was laid off, but you can't count on that when you do the budget."

District Officials Hopeful for More State Funding

District officials discussed how the Governor's pledge of $2.8 billion for schools might affect SFUSD's coffers. The pledge of $2.8 billion more for schools involves one-time payments to redress a backlog of money it owes to school districts for unfunded mandates, measures required by the state for which districts have had to foot the bill. If the monies were divided up according to the share of the state's public school students in the district, it would amount to about $28 million in new funds. However, the district has currently only recorded some $6 to $9 million in monies spent to carry out state mandates.

The Governor's proposal also puts the vast majority of the proposed funds into restricted funds that could only be used for specific purposes, including categorical programs for arts and music, physical education, instructional materials and counselors at the middle and high school levels. The legislature is trying to increase the flexibility in how the funds could be spent by putting over $1 billion in block grants, which could be used for a variety of purposes.

Both the Governor and the Legislature appear to support a move to give the funds to individual schools more than the district, according to Leigh. He said was hopeful that the Prop 98 funds would cover, if not exceed, the cuts made to the Weighted Student Formula. The district will not know if more money is coming, however, until after the State adopts its budget at the end of this month. If the money in unrestricted funds significantly exceeds what was projected, it will be up to the Board to decide whether those funds remain in the coffers to help cover next years deficit or are used to restore funding cuts.

Email comments to sfschoolnotes@greatschools.net

Kim's read of the '06-'07 budget proposal

Kim wrote a post about tonight's first reading of the budget over on LeftInSF. This post reviews the budget document that we linked to here last week. The BOE will meet tonight to discuss it. One of her comments concerns "central office" spending:

"District staff is asking increases in the unrestricted fund budgets of the following central offices: Policy and Planning by 9% ($38,670); Board of Education by 18% ($55,886); Research and Planning by 16% ($102,970); Student Attendance Office by 8% ($14,181), Labor Relations by 6% ($20,175) and Real Estate Permits (again, this is expenditures-not revenue) by 284% ($289,271)."

Kim does not directly object to these increases, but she infers that this is undesirable. And with a 7% increase in unrestricted funds it does seem wrong that WSF funding allocations will be cut.

So let's (speculatively) run these down:

Policy and Planning—+$38K—sounds like Myong Leigh's domain. Pretty small potatoes. If this gives us a stronger lobbying presence and has anything to do with retaining Vernon Billy, then I say it's a great idea. As was noted here after the community budget workshop, the state reps from the Bay Area are pretty weak on ed policy. There has been a sea change / power shift in the ed policy world towards the southland. We need more horsepower in Sacramento.

If $55K amounts to an %18 increase for the BOE, that means they spent $310K last year on the BOE. Sounds cheap to me. They don't pay the board, so they may as well support them adequately. They have some important business to attend to this year, no?

Labor relations +$20K, Student attendance +$14K ... ah, ah, ah CHOOO! next...

Research and Planning +$102K, Real Estate Permits +289K... now we're talking real money. Keep in mind that the district has been criticized for the job it did putting the school closure plan together last year. And they have some vacant properties from last year and more slated to be closed this year. Stands to reason that planning and real estate spending will have to increase. Hopefully this increase is a one-time or short-term increase related to closures and consolidations.

I commend Kim for taking the time to pour over the document. Transparency is worthless without someone to actually take the time to look over the books. If the items she's flagged are the most suspect, then it looks pretty good.

But why is the WSF allocation going down by %1 if the unrestricted funds are increasing by %7?

More on the DC meltdown

Brent Staples of the New York Times has chimed in on the recent Washpost expose of a special education crisis in the Washington D.C. schools. In a column titled "How Schools Pay a (Very High) Price for Failing to Teach Reading Properly," he writes:

The instructional techniques for helping [learning-disabled] children are well documented in federally backed research and have been available in various forms from specialized tutors and private schools for more than 50 years. Even so, few public schools actually use the best practices.

This failure to follow best practices is particularly surprising in D.C., which apparently played a central role in a Federal study of how to help struggling readers:

The early intervention study was so successful that it later became a partial basis of the sound reading provision written into the No Child Left Behind law. But researchers who worked in Washington at the time now say that they could barely get an audience with the school system's leadership, which appears to have been invested in unproved strategies and business as usual.

Happy summer vacation

© 2001-2005 Peter A. Norby

Here's hoping you all have a wonderful summer vacation! I know I'm already enjoying it.

Galileo student fights for his life

Photo by Richard Schnitzer, courtesy of Larry Kane

Our thoughts and prayers go out to Tarik Aldalali the Galileo wrestler who is fighting for his life after a horrific traffic accident. As his coach says in today's Chron, "He's won a lot of things he should have lost."

Donations to help with medical expenses may be sent to the Tarik Aldalali Medical Fund, c/o Larry Kane, 405 Howard St., San Francisco, CA 94105.

DonorsChoos Challenge Spotlight: Linocut Printmaking

The second project from our SfSchools Summer of Love Challenge that I would like to shine a spotlight on is Linocut Printmaking. This project comes from a teacher at James Lick MS with an endorsement from one of our sfschools members:

Each year I teach basic printmaking to my 6th, 7th, and 8th grade art students. Most of them have never had any experience with this type of project, let alone any type of art class. It involves sketching scenes of the neighborhood surrounding our school, carving the chosen image into a special type of linoleum, and then inking and printing multiple prints from the "printing plate." Not only does this project excite the students about coming to school, but it builds confidence and pride as each student takes home a matted print at the end of the unit. In the past, we have also used this project as a fundraiser -- students sell their work at the annual art show. Like a gallery, students receive a percentage of the selling price, and the rest goes towards purchasing more supplies for the art studio.

You can check out examples of last year's work online at Artsonia's James Lick Gallery

So go ahead and visit our challenge and make a contribution. Big or small, it all adds up.

NCLB innumeracy

The controversy spawned by the AP article about supposed NCLB loophole appears to have legs. How unfortunate. Over on the Eduwonk blog, guest blogger Dianne Piche reports on a House Education & Workforce Committee hearing about the controversy in her article, Size Does Matter.

I'm dumbfounded. No one gets it. And it is not that hard to grasp. Is simple numeracy too much to ask?

If you try and track progress of statistically insignificant ethnic subgroups, you will harm kids and schools based on meaningless observations. Worse, the whole arrangement penalizes diversity and rewards segregation.

I'm sure there are cases where states are setting the threshold too high, and that some statistically significant subgroups are not being tracked that could be. Fine. It's a simple regulatory problem that can be fixed—preferably by actuaries or other social scientists with a background in statistics. Clearly that is not what will come from Congressional hearings and clueless reporting in the press.

Those who would portray this as a civil rights issue should pause and consider the whole picture. Holding schools responsible for the progress of all children is, of course, a good idea. But regulations that reward segregation are outlandish. Regulations that punish schools arbitrarily on the basis of statistically insignificant aberrations is utterly unjust and cannot be justified.

Bad Idea Shelved

Apparently, District 2 Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier has decided to shelve her proposal for district BOE elections. According to a staff member:

[O]ur intention was to do extensive public outreach to parents, teachers and other stakeholders before moving forward with this Charter Amendment. Due in large part to the Supervisor giving birth to her third child, we were not able to do the outreach that is so important with a measure like this.
As a result, we have decided to hold off on going forward with the
charter amendment at this time.

Whatever the reasons, I'm glad Ms. Alioto-Pier has decided to take this bad idea back to the drawing board.

Update on the E.R. Tayloer missing funds

The E.R. Taylor missing funds story continues to develop, with two new articles in the daily press:
Chron: School PTA funds may be missing -- district attorney investigating
Examiner: Parents: PTA’s $8K was stolen

The district is stepping in to cover the missing $16K, but it's not clear how or when this will happen. As Caroline notes on sfschools, the PTA carries insurance for these kinds of problems. Will this eventually figure into this settlement? Time will tell.

The other interesting news is that the former PTA president resigned and moved to Hayward after the audit was requested. Say what? I guess $16K ain't enough to buy the ticket to Rio...

Special Education Resources for SFUSD Parents

SFUSD maintains a large section of its web site devoted to Special Education. Some of the resources that can be found here are:
-The Special Education Enrollment Guide, which explains the various program options offered by the district, and enrollment procedures, which differ in important ways from general education enrollment procedures.
-The Parent Guide to Special Education, which gives a general summary of special education procedures and parent rights;
-The CAC for Special Education Parent Handbook, which gives SFUSD-specific information about procedures and parent rights;
-The district's Philosophy and Practice Guidelines for special education;
-Problem-solving guidelines;
-A list of links to outside resources that might be helpful to parents of children with disabilities.

Support for Families of Children With Disabilities, and its resource center, Open Gate, are an invaluable local resource for families of children with disabilities. They offer monthly IEP trainings, a book and toy lending library, support groups, a parent mentor program and a very popular resource fair every spring. Open Gate also maintains a help line at 920-5040.

The Community Advisory Committee for Special Education advises the Board of Education on special education policy and planning and is an important vehicle for parents and teachers to have a voice in our district's special education policies and procedures. Meetings are monthly (except July), at Open Gate, 2601 Mission St., with free childcare and interpretation services available. Call 920-5040 for more information.

Protection & Advocacy Inc. offers advocacy services for people with disabilities. The publications section of their web site has a comprehensive section on special education law. Their Special Education Rights and Responsibilities manual is particularly essential reading.

The Community Alliance for Special Education will provide low-cost legal representation in special education disputes, as well as advocates who will attend IEP meetings with families. They co-publish the invaluable Special Education Rights and Responsibilities manual with Protection & Advocacy.

Wrightslaw is the companion web site to the many books on special education law published by well-respected attorney Pete Wright and his wife Pamela Darr Wright. There is a lot of good information here, and parents can subscribe to the Wrightslaw weekly e-newsletter which is always chock-full of tips and other information.

Searching the State of California's database of due process decisions is very interesting, if cautionary, reading for anyone interested in special education reform. Between the lines of the dry legalese, one gets a glimpse into the experiences of families who are in crisis because they do not believe their children's special needs are being adequately met. The decisions also illustrate what a huge, expensive undertaking due process is for both sides; they underscore the need for a more cooperative, collaborative approach to educating children with all manner of disabilities.

Get Paid For Going to IEPs, School Site Council meetings, and Community Advisory Committee meetings!
The state maintains a Family Participation Fund which enables parents of children with disabilities to receive a stipend for attending meetings with decision-makers AND to be reimbursed for expenses like carfare, parking and childcare associated with attending these meetings. Go to www.cafec.org for more information and to download forms and instructions.

Breaking controversy at ER Taylor Elementary

Today's School Board Notes includes a report of a controversy at ER Taylor ES about possible embezzlement of PTA funds raised at the school. The notes mistakenly allege that "millions" are missing, but the actual allegations found in the press (and in the body of the notes) peg the discrepancy at either $8,000 or $16,000—hardly small potatoes for a small school serving a less than affluent community. Both the Chron and the Examiner are running articles about this controversy, with other reports airing on the local TV and radio news outlets.

First, the Chron is running this article: Funds missing from elementary school, PTA says, School district, D.A. looking into case at E.R. Taylor From this article we hear that Ed Jew and some ER Taylor parents are alleging that about $16,000 is missing. They further allege that they have been stonewalled by the school site's administration, forcing them to go public. The district and the DA are investigating, but it is not clear who is in the crosshairs -- PTA or SFUSD.

The Examiner has this article: Parents: PTA’s $8K was stolen. Obviously, this article puts the amount in question at $8,000. It add the colorful detail that parents became concerned "after they saw money being taken away in a paper bag late last year at a fundraising event." This article also puts the focus on the principal, alleging that she supplied the falsified bank statement(s) to the parents' group.

We'll be sure to stay tuned to this story and report news as it develops. This is a very troubling allegation, if true. However, it is worth noting that Ed Jew reportedly has ambitions to run for BOE, and this could be a self-serving effort on his part. Something to bear in mind as we watch this story develop.

School Board Notes 6.13.06

School Board Notes
6.13.06
By Nicole Achs Freeling
GreatSchools.net Correspondent

• MillionsThousands Missing From Taylor PTA
• Buena Vista to Lose Critical Funding
• District Will Pursue Bond Issue in November
• SOMA Child Care Programs Still Without a Home
• Last-minute Program Cuts at Kate Kennedy CDC
• District Moves Toward "Green Diesel" Buses

MillionsThousands Missing from Taylor PTA

Representatives from E.R. Taylor Elementary in Portola pressed board members on the alleged embezzlement of millions of dollars from the school's Parent Teacher Association. The scandal centers on allegedly altered bank statements, provided by school administrators to the PTA, which show a balance of $8,000 higher than identical statements provided by Bank of America, where the funds are deposited. Another $8,000 in moneys generated through student fundraising are also not accounted for, parent groups say.

PTA members discovered the discrepancies over a year ago and asked the district to investigate. Some parents allege they were told not by district officials not to go public with the information. Other parents said the first they had learned of the missing money was in reading about it in newspaper reports Tuesday morning.

Board President Norman Yee told reporters that the district launched an investigation when the matter was reported last year, and has since referred the matter to the district attorney's office.

Local activist Ed Jew, representing a group of frustrated parents at the school, asked the board to reimburse the school for the missing funds. "The district has said they aren't going to take any action while it's under investigation. It's always going to be under investigation."

Buena Vista to Lose Critical Funding

A five-year federal grant that has supplied Buena Vista Elementary in the Mission District with close to $300,000 annually sunsets at the end of this week, leaving educators and parents there scrambling to come up with ways to pay for vital school services.

Without the funds, which represents a fifth of the school's budget, Buena Vista will have no money for paraprofessionals, tutoring services and after school programs, school representatives told the Board.

The lack of paraprofessionals could affect student's safety as well as their learning environment, parents said. The school fronts on a park at the corner of Cesar Chavez and Potrero that is a haven for drug dealers and vagabonds. The school has had a paraprofessional stationed at its entrance at all times to prevent unwanted entry. Last year, there was a drive-by shooting in front of the school and a paraprofessional alerted the administration and initiated the lockdown, Buena Vista parent Amy Trusso told the Board.

Parents also expressed concern that the incoming kindergarten classes are slated to have 23 students in a class, with no paraprofessionals, where up to now it has had one teacher or paraprofessional for every ten youngsters. State law mandates no more than 20 kindergartners in a class.

The financial squeeze comes at a time when the school is facing other pressures, such as an a higher percentage of English language learners, a significant number of newcomer students at the higher grade levels and enrollment that is stretching capacity, said parent David Zovickian. "Buena Vista has long been the district's model for Spanish immersion," said Buena Vista parent Amy Trusso, who asked the Board to help the school find other sources of funding. "Now it's on the brink of being identified as an underperforming school."

District Will Pursue Bond Issue in November

The Board began the process to put a bond issue for $400 million to $500 million on the November 7th ballot. The bond would cover safety improvements, class size reduction and school computer equipment upgrades. The debt service would be paid by an assessment of up to $60 per $100,000 of property value. The bond would need to pass with at least 55 percent of the vote.

The Board will discuss the measure further at a Committee of the Whole meeting in late July (date to be determined) and will vote on it at the last regular meeting that month. It has until August 11 to submit the measure for inclusion on the November ballot.

SOMA Child Care Programs Still Without a Home

Families of preschoolers and special education students at Bessie Carmichael in SOMA remain in limbo about the fate of their programs, which have been slated to be relocated after the school year ends Thursday. Ashlyn Kalahele, the parent of a disabled four-year-old, was close to tears as she told the Board how she was notified at the end of May that her daughter's program would be moving. With summer school imminent, she has no idea where the program will be moving to or how she will be able to get her daughter there. Affected families entreated the Board to resolve the issue and find a home for their program.

Last-minute Program Cuts at Kate Kennedy CDC

Parents are also angry about last-minute notification of cuts to the summer program at Kate Kennedy Child Development Center in Noe Valley. Parent advocate Melissa Juedeman told the Board about conflicting memos the families had received. On May 12, according to Juedeman, parents were told that the center would be losing some space but children in the program would not be affected. On May 17, they were told that 5th graders could no longer be accommodated in the summer program. On May 18, "random" kids through the lower grades got notices that they also could no longer be accommodated due to cuts in the program.

District Moves Toward "Green Diesel" Buses

The Board issued a resolution requiring warnings to parents and children riding diesel school buses of the health effects of being exposed to diesel exhaust. The resolution also directed the district to continue its efforts to replace the bus fleet with so-called green diesel buses, which produce far fewer toxic emissions.

In 2005, the district has entered into an agreement with Laidlaw, the transportation provider, to obtain an entirely new fleet of 200 green diesel vehicles by 2007, placing the district among the first to meet strict new clean air emissions standards for California.

Older diesel buses emit nearly twice as much pollution per mile than a big rig truck, and much of the exhaust collects inside the bus, according to the resolution. An estimated 70 percent of the cancer risk from air pollution in the state comes from diesel exhaust, according to the California Air Resources Board; children are especially at risk because their lungs are still developing.

email comments to sfschoolnotes@greatschools.net.

Top Ten Posts from our first year

Everybody loves a top-ten list (even if I find them to be annoying), so here's our very own entry into the genre: The SfSchools.org Top Ten Posts!!!

These are the posts that you, our readers, hit most often. I excluded the front page of the blog, the RSS feed URL, and the monthly archive pages from the voting—which means that these posts below may not be the more widely read posts from the blog. It definitely does not mean that these are the most prominently featured pages in the search indexes—the search engines seem to gravitate to the monthly archive pages. It means that more people browsed their way to the "permalink" for these posts than all the other.

San Francisco Schools Information Map
A word about MySpace.com
San Francisco School Calendar
The Ackerman-must-go movement
SFUSD monitor's 13 fave schools
A charter story that pushes the skepticism buttons
Dallas scandal has SFUSD ties
Mark Sanchez has the floor
Waiting...
School Board Notes 1.12.06

Some curious posts included, and many more that are curiously absent. But the log files don't lie. These are your top ten.

District elections: a solution in search of a problem

Earlier Rachel weighed in with her thoughts on district elections for the BOE. Now I'll step in and repost comments I originally posted to the sfchools list.

I don't really see what benefit Alioto-Pier's proposed district elections for BOE commissioners would offer to San Francisco, nor do I see it helping mitigate any of the problems faced by this district.

• Would it lower the barrier to entry and bring more candidates into the field?
• Would it attract more qualified candidates?
• Would it shield the BOE from opportunistic pols?
• Would it improve constituent access to the BOE?
• Would it help foster stronger, more effective district leadership by the board?

From what I've head, I think the answer would be "no" to all of the above. I think district elections are a solution in search of a problem, but not any problem that the SFUSD board faces.

Let's run down the list.

continue reading...

Would it lower barriers to entry:

It is true that a candidate would have to get fewer votes to win a seat on the board. Mark Sanchez's 93175 votes in the 2004 was the lowest vote tally among the winners. In theory, if the city were carved into seven districts (preserving the current seven member board) then it would only take about 13,000 votes to win a seat. But it is not that easy. First, would each member face re-election every two years instead of every four years? That would double the cost. Would each viable candidate still need a professional campaign organization? That is probably the biggest cost for any candidate currently, and it would not be reduced. Either costs would go up, or candidates would have to join slates of candidates and pool campaign expenses — which would erect new barriers to entry.

Direct mail costs would be reduced, but so would the fundraising pool. It might be easier to hit the streets to meet your votes, but the community forums for candidates would change, and probably be less effective. I'm not so sure the BOE candidates nights we've seen in the past were all that effective, but they would be further fragmented and be even less useful — which could be important for candidates that lack name recognition.

To make matters worse, endorsements would be even more decisive and harder to get. Currently, BOE candidates rely heavily on endorsements by institutions like the media, unions, or other pols. In district elections where lesser known candidates would be in the mix, endorsements would be even more important. But the volume of candidates would make it harder for individuals to get a fair hearing with these institutions. Again, the power would shift to the back rooms and endorsements would be made by slates, engineered by power brokers.

Would it attract more qualified candidates:

If the barriers are not lowered — the costs of running not reduced and the power of back stage dealers not reduced — then district elections would not change the nature of the people seated on the board.

No one runs for the BOE for the money. Some who run, and many who are appointed, may use it as a political stepping stone. But that would remain equally true with district races.

Let's suppose that a healthy board requires a mix of different types of expertise. If we speculate that it would be good for a board to include career educators, administrators, experts in educational finances, as well as community leaders, then it's really hard to see how district races would help attract a balanced mix of voices to the table.

In the worst case scenario, district elections might encourage regional parochialism. I doubt it would devolve into fiefdoms, but the risk of parochialism would be greater in the district format than in the current system.

What about opportunistic pols?

The same forces that attract opportunists to the board would remain. Winning candidates would still be able to pull stunts to inject their names into the media and build name recognition — just like our current board does. The same marginal access to the media would be there — but it would take fewer votes to gain a seat. Seems to me that this would attract more opportunists and career builders. These career builders would not be daunted by the need to build a campaign organization nor the need to suck up for endorsements. They'll need all of this for future election fights. What's more in this case the power brokers alone could more or less deliver the seat, and it would ultimately take fewer votes to win.

And let's suppose someone wanted to build a new party. Wouldn't the balkanized BOE be the best way to get a few of their pols seated? Bear in mind that it would take only 13,000 votes on average, but there would almost certainly be some districts where voter turnout is weak and the winning tally would be less, probably much less. Wouldn't it make more sense than ever for the party builders to lock in on these low turnout districts and build their party there?

Would it improve constituent access to the BOE?

For some, maybe. For others, no. If "your" Commissioner was sympathetic to your cause, then yes, access would probably be easier. If not, then you're much more likely to get shut out. If your issue is important to this member's local district, then they might be more motivated to take an interest. If the issue was more of a district-wide issue, then you would be subject to the political whims of your Commissioner. With the current system you get seven chances to find a sympathetic ear. Not such bad odds.

Would it help foster stronger, more effective district leadership by the board?

I think the answer here is an emphatic no. If there is any impact of a district format, it would be to promote narrow interests over collective ones. The BOE ecology would live and die on local impacts. This might enfranchise some districts that have been under represented to their detriment (though I am not really convinced even that would be true) but this would come at the expense of more global concerns, and possibly at the expense of board diversity.

Budget factoid: ADA revenue loss

We have been very critical of charter schools on this blog, and have written extensively on many of the problems associated with their growth. One concern is that charters displace and erode the public schools with which they compete, causing the public schools to loose revenue and staff as students migrate to charters. I have put forth the argument that the growth of charters has played a role in the need to downsize the district and close schools.

The new budget document provides concrete data that puts this concern in perspective. Charters are growing, but charters are a small piece of the pie and the public schools are declining at a much greater rate.

Figure 1A on page 32 charts ADA revenue trends for public and charter schools over the period from FY02-03 through FY05-06. In that period of time we see steady increases in charter school ADA revenue and a stead decline in district ADA. But the total differences over time time period show that the district is loosing ADA revenue far faster than charters are gaining. And the relative sizes of these figures indicates that charters account for less than 4% of the total ADA revenue.

	FY02-03	FY05-06	Change	Pcnt
charter	$1,207	$1,929	$722	3.7%
district	$53,700	$50,850	-$2,850	96.3%
total	$54,908	$52,780	-$2,128

So, even though the growth of charters does come at the expense of district schools, charters remain a small piece of the puzzle. Charters are not the cause of recent declines in district attendance, not by a long shot.

Proposed 06-07 Budget Released

The district has published a draft budget document for the upcoming fiscal year: Recommended Budget for Fiscal Year 2006-2006 (First Reading). To my knowledge, this is just the second year that they have published the budget up on their website. Last year I heard about this via word-of-mouth and could never find a link to it on any publicly accessible web page. This year they are advertising the document on the front page of their website. I appreciate this progress towards ever-increasing fiscal transparency.

One complaint I have is that the district is publishing this document in an unnecessarily restrictive format. It is in the ubiquitous portable document format (PDF), which is fine. However, all of the text, tables, and figures in the document have been "hidden" or protected from computer readers—all of the text in the document has been made inaccessible. You cannot search the document for text, and you cannot copy (via cut and paste) and information from the document. You have to read it—all 170 pages of it. This seriously degrades the utility of this document. For instance, the Superintendent's Budget Message shown below had to be manually transcribed—undoubtedly with transcription errors—because I could not simply cut and paste the words from the original. This is a relatively minor quibble. I'm very pleased to have the information and I applaud the district for making this available.

For those of you that don't relish pouring over the 170 pages of budget proposals, I offer you Superintendent Gwen Chan's budget message from pages 4-5 of the budget proposal:

continue reading...

The development of our annual operating budget is a crucial process in guiding the delivery of the District's resources and services to students. The budget indicates how the District's financial and human resources are to be allocated across schools and departments, each of which has an important role in fulfilling our collective instructional mission.

This proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 is based on information currently known regarding the State's ongoing budget development process. California Education Code requires that school district governing boards adopt a preliminary budget by July 1 or each year. As is the case in many years, this deadline may arrive prior to the adoption of the State budget. However, at this time we and other districts are proceeding with the development of our budget based on the Governor's proposal for K-12 education funding for the upcoming fiscal year.

The District's goals emphasize the achievement of all students, and this budget reflects this priority as well. Funding decisions should consistently be made based first and foremost on student's needs. As Interim Superintendent, I take very seriously my responsibility to recommend budgetary decisions that reflect sound, promising investments in our instructional and youth development strategies.

I am extremely proud of the considerable progress SFUSD has made in helping our students achieve academic success. As a result of hard work and perseverance by educators, students, families, and community partners throughout San Francisco, SFUSD has become California's highest performing urban school district. Despite many challenges, we see more and more signs that our schools are improving. Parents are becoming more aware of the high instructional quality and appealing programs at many of our schools, and more and more schools are gaining state and federal recognition.

I believe we must work to accelerate this progress, and I am committed to making bold decisions to support all schools, including schools where students are struggling academically. Our attention to historically under-performing schools is paying off, as evidenced by the gradual exit of four schools from our STAR intervention program.

At the same time, we must all recognize several troubling conditions that call for our immediate, concentrated efforts. Many of our students face enormous challenges in their home lives, neighborhoods and economic circumstances. Many families are leaving San Francisco due to escalating housing prices and the high cost of living. Long-standing gaps in achievement of different groups of students stubbornly persist. We must respond to each of these challenges, and they must inform our decisions on how funds are allocated.

After four increasingly difficult years of fiscal distress, the immediate budgetary outlook is significantly brighter for SFUSD and other California school districts. Several factors bode well for the upcoming year. First, we have at last managed to provide long-awaited compensation increases to our hard-working employees. It is important to note that the proposed budget considers and incorporates the higher costs associated with these agreements while remaining balanced and providing for minimum required reserve levels.

Additionally, it appears almost certain that the final state budget will include a substantial amount of restricted funding above and beyond the levels reflected in the proposed budget. While our strong preference would be to receive as much unrestricted funding as possible, the additional restricted funding will certainly help SFUSD and our schools make important investments and restore programs and staff that have been cut. Likewise, we are grateful for San Francisco's investment in our schools through the Public Education Enrichment Fund (Proposition H), and the leadership and support of Mayor Gavin Newsom, Supervisor Tom Ammiano, and other members of the Board of Supervisors, and City department heads.

I remind the Board and all community members that the District must remain fiscally cautious, particularly considering financial projections beyond FY 2006-07 when the full cost effects of recently executed collective bargaining agree