When I first heard about their plan, I couldn’t help but recall that the same people were telling us to switch to plastic bags from paper bags because we were going to be saving trees.

I couldn’t help but smile a little when I read this story:

Scientists have discovered that a reusable grocery bag contaminated with what some experts are calling “the perfect pathogens” is responsible for an outbreak of norovirus infections in a group of middle school soccer players, MSNBC’s JoNel Aleccia reports.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with the term “norovirus,” it’s the bug behind the “stomach flu.” You know, the thing that gives you powerful bouts of vomiting or “watery diarrhea” or both (because why not?).

How did this happen? The simplest explanation is that the reusable bag was just plain dirty. It was a playground for bacteria and germs.

So now the reusable bags that are going to save the environment are going make us ill.  Great job environmental activists and liberal city leaders.  What will they come up with next?

Darren over at “Right on Left Coast” (blogroll) has a post that we can both agree on; testing is a totally pointless pursuit unless there is an actual incentive to do well on it.  Case in point; last year I had a couple of Advanced Placement U.S. History students score a 4 on the AP exam (that’s three essays and much tougher multiple choice), yet score barely proficient on the basic state-mandated standards testing.  So which test should my overall accountability as a teacher be tied to?

We just ended the STAR tests this last week and I don’t know if our politicians realize that teachers are simply going through the motions when it comes to these pointless exercises.  Wasting weeks of class instruction with testing bubbles that spell out “Thug Life” is clearly not something that best benefits society.  Neither is driving to the house of a student to drag them to a room to take a test that asks about how ugly Leland Stanford  was or how many hookers bedded down with Jerry Farwell.  It’s degrading.  I’m still waiting for the moment when Ukiah School Board members start showing up outside the windows of testing no-shows with a boom box playing “In Your Eyes.”  They’ll lure the young lads outside and butterfly net them into a waiting van to take them to the friendly confines of Ukiah High School.  There the students will calmly flip off every member of the administration while reminding them that the test means more to the school than to the student, and that they should just give them their end-of-testing ice cream sandwich now and move along.

Coach Brown is absolutely right.  High stakes testing is an essential component of reforming our system of public education.  We must have a reliable method of determining whether students have mastered the content and skills for a specific grade and subject.  Unfortunately, the older students get, the less seriousness with which man of them treat these assessments.

The California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE) has shown us that students can take an assessment seriously when they have a stake in the results.  Our legislators need to find a way to help students care about the results of the California Standards Test (CST) the same way tenth graders care about their CAHSEE results.

The good news is that testing companies are pretty good at determining whether students got a low score because they tried and didn’t know the material vs. they randomly answered the questions, select all A’s or a pattern such as ABCD, etc.  Those tests get removed from the mix when evaluating a school or district.

If school districts got the CST results back in a timely fashion, students could receive credit for their proficiency or lack thereof.  If students couldn’t progress from one grade to the next unless they tested at a specific level on the CST, the test would be real to them and their parents.  At that point, you’d see fewer students taking the tests lightly.  If we’re going to use the test results for serious reasons, we give students a reason to take the test seriously.

This column from John Fensterwald does a good job of explaining how the process works and how it has worked so far.

“Given the substantial fiscal challenges that school districts have faced over the last two decades, the state’s fiscal oversight system has been effective in ensuring that school districts remain fiscally healthy,” the LAO wrote in School District Fiscal Oversight and Intervention, a report released on Monday.

Hopefully the oversight will get back to normal for next year.  Given the state’s continuing deficit, it is likely that K-12 education will once again be on the chopping block and districts will fall further towards the abyss of bankruptcy and state oversight.

Contrary to popular stereotypes, the vast majority of these students are U.S.-born citizens who quickly learn English at home, in the classroom and on the playground.

That’s right.  The majority of English Learners were born in the United States. “In fact, 83 percent of all ‘limited English’ students are actually U.S.-born citizens.”

If U.S. born children can go through 13 years of public education without learning English to a proficient level, something is wrong.  The problem is either we’re over-identifying, poor at reclassifying or our language instruction is a joke.  I’m glad to see someone finally trying to do something to fix it.

Sent via email 2/12/2012:

To the Editor:

I can’t help but be disappointed by your editorial with the incendiary headline of “Rethink UUSD admin boondoggle” that appeared in the February 12th edition of the Ukiah Daily Journal.  Having seen your previous editorials about this topic, it appears that you’re simply recycling the same old points that you’ve raised before which have simple answers if you’d actually asked the district for a response.  As a resident of the district, a parent/grandparent of district students and a former board member, I believe I have some insights into the issues.

You start by sharing your opinion that the district should hold all of its board meetings at the Ukiah Civic Center.  The district has done so many times when it expected large crowds.  From my perspective, the biggest disadvantage of holding all of the meetings at the Civic Center is the extra workload it creates for district staff to move everything required for a board meeting from the district office to the Civic Center and back, with the return trip typically happening after midnight.  Perhaps those who are so excited about holding the meetings at the Civic Center would be willing to come early and stay late to assist in that effort.

By starting with the meeting location issue, you seem to suggest that the only reason the district is building a new district office is to have a large board room.  As has been explained many times by district representatives, the primary reason for building a new district office is to allow a greater percentage of the district office staff to actually have an office in the district office.  As I suggested previously, I don’t think the Ukiah Daily Journal or any other organization would operate very effectively if most of the staff were located in different locations throughout Ukiah.  It is a much more efficient use of staff time and effort to have people working in the same building to the extent possible.  I believe that was one of the reasons the City of Ukiah built its facility.

You also seemed puzzled by why the District Warehouse or the building formerly known as Montgomery Wards isn’t being used as a district office.  Over the last several years the board looked at more than a dozen locations including that building.  Two of the biggest problems with that location were first that it was outside both the Redevelopment District and the city limits which means that the only funds the district had available to utilize for a district office, Redevelopment Funds, were not available to be used for building a district office on that site.  I’m not certain how the elimination of redevelopment districts will impact that issue.  As I understand it, the bigger problem is that the Division of the State Architect (DSA) requirements are that the entire building would need to be retrofitted to meet earthquake requirements even though only part of the building would be needed for a district office.  When the board considered the site previously, the costs to use that building were about twice the cost of the proposed Orchard Avenue location.

Since the district already owns the Orchard Avenue property, your suggestion that tearing down the existing Warehouse building would be cheaper than the cost of purchasing new property is kind of moot.  Anyone who has dealt with environmental regulations knows the process of demolishing a existing building and preparing the property for new construction isn’t always that easy.  Of course the district would also need another warehouse facility, which would involve additional costs.

The Ukiah Valley Lumber location is an interesting suggestion, but of course it wasn’t available when the board looked at the other locations so it seems ridiculous to blame the district for not considering it as an alternative.  Perhaps I’m not remembering correctly, but having shopped there, I don’t recall that store being all that big, certainly not big enough to house all of the district office staff.  It seems doubtful that the acquisition and renovation costs could be less than the cost of building the new district office on the Orchard Avenue parcel.  Perhaps the district will want to look at that suggestion.

Rather than start from scratch, I’d suggest that the three new members of the board review the existing analysis that has been done by district staff and consultants to see why the board selected the Orchard Avenue location.  I’d suggest that they ask their fellow board members to share information about the conversations that happened previously.  I believe if they do so with an open mind, it will be clear to them why the board selected the Orchard Avenue location instead of all the other locations that were considered.  Even though it would make a great newspaper story, starting over now is just an unnecessary waste of district resources.

David Johnston
Ukiah

The California Department of Education just released its annual 1st Interim Report list, which shows which school districts in the state are in danger of insolvency.  This year there are 7 districts with a “negative” certification, which means based on their current projections, they will be unable to meet their financial obligations in the current year or the next year. Notable on this list is Vallejo Unified, who is still under state control from their last bankruptcy.

There are 120 districts with a “qualified” certification, which means they may not be able meet their financial obligations for the next 3 years.  I found it interesting that for the first time in recent memory, my local school district, Ukiah Unified is not on the qualified list.  That’s because Ukiah Unified made the difficult decisions that were necessary in previous year and they’re better able to deal with the uncertainty that remains in this year’s budget.

I also thought it was interesting that San Diego Unified wasn’t on either list given their recent loud concerns about falling into bankruptcy because they refused to make hard decisions in previous years.  Either they’ve recently made some big cuts, have big cuts in their projections, or they’re still in denial.  It will be interesting to see if they end up on the Second Interim Report qualified list.

February 25 Update: I forgot to include a link to this post from Kathryn Baron with her perspective on what this list means to California public education.  She noted that nearly 2,000,000 of the state’s students (about a third) are attending these financially troubled districts.

A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because a state employee told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.

The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day.

The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs – including in-home day care centers – to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones.

The girl’s mother – who said she wishes to remain anonymous to protect her daughter from retaliation – said she received a note from the school stating that students who did not bring a “healthy lunch” would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria, in her case $1.25.

“I don’t feel that I should pay for a cafeteria lunch when I provide lunch for her from home,” the mother wrote in a complaint to her state representative, Republican G.L. Pridgen of Robeson County.

The girl’s grandmother, who sometimes helps pack her lunch, told Carolina Journal that she is a petite, picky 4-year-old who eats white whole wheat bread and is not big on vegetables.

“What got me so mad is, number one, don’t tell my kid I’m not packing her lunch box properly,” the girl’s mother told CJ. “I pack her lunchbox according to what she eats. It always consists of a fruit. It never consists of a vegetable. She eats vegetables at home because I have to watch her because she doesn’t really care for vegetables.”

When the girl came home with her lunch untouched, her mother wanted to know what she ate instead. Three chicken nuggets, the girl answered. Everything else on her cafeteria tray went to waste.

“She came home with her whole sandwich I had packed, because she chose to eat the nuggets on the lunch tray, because they put it in front of her,” her mother said. “You’re telling a 4-year-old. ‘oh. your lunch isn’t right,’ and she’s thinking there’s something wrong with her food.”

What makes this story a great example is that after the child had her home packed lunch taken away and was given a “nutritious school lunch” all she ate were the fried and breaded chicken nuggets.  Great job Department of Health and Human Services, another child saved from a turkey and cheese sandwich and some fruit.  I’m sure those nuggets were much more nutritious than that nasty old sandwich.

What makes it even more crazy is that someone else in the same state agency said the lunch was actually acceptable.

While the mother and grandmother thought the potato chips and lack of vegetable were what disqualified the lunch, a spokeswoman for the Division of Child Development said that should not have been a problem.

“With a turkey sandwich, that covers your protein, your grain, and if it had cheese on it, that’s the dairy,” said Jani Kozlowski, the fiscal and statutory policy manager for the division. “It sounds like the lunch itself would’ve met all of the standard.” The lunch has to include a fruit or vegetable, but not both, she said.

There are no clear restrictions about what additional items – like potato chips – can be included in preschoolers’ lunch boxes.

Where does the craziness stop?  This is what happens when bureaucrats run amok without limits.

I thought this Fox News/Wall Street Journal story about efforts in Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico and Tennessee to require students to be reading at grade-level in the 3rd grade before they could move on to the next grade.

Lawmakers in at least four US states are considering legislation that would make students repeat third grade if they can’t pass state reading exams, reviving debates about whether retaining students boosts achievement or increases their odds of dropping out.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers in Colorado introduced legislation early this month that would prod schools to hold back children in kindergarten through third grade who don’t meet state reading standards. In the early grades, parents could insist the child be promoted, but at third grade, the school district would have the ultimate say.

“The goal is not to retain students, but to get parents, teachers and students all working collaboratively to address the literacy problems when they first show up,” said Colorado state Sen. Mike Johnston, a Democrat who is a sponsor of the bill.

Iowa, New Mexico and Tennessee also are considering bills on the issue.

It will be interesting to see how these bills do and what happens in states that implement the change.

1. The charter school presents an unsound educational program for
   the pupils to be enrolled in the charter school.
2. The petitioners are demonstrably unlikely to successfully
   implement the program set forth in the petition.
3. The petition does not contain the number of signatures
   required by subdivision (a).
4. The petition does not contain an affirmation of each of the
   conditions described in subdivision (d).
5. The petition does not contain reasonably comprehensive
   descriptions of (a number of specific areas covered that need to be covered in the proposal.

The one thing that school district boards are not allowed to consider is the possible impact to the district’s finances from the loss of students to the proposed charter school.  I believe that is an essential aspect of the law.  If school districts could reject charter schools because it will have a negative impact on their fiscal resources, most charters would never have seen the light of day.  Of course adding a charter school in a district will reduce the amount of funding available to the district because it will no longer receive the ADA funding for the students attending the charter school.

That’s where AB 1172 (Mendez) comes in.  This bill would allow districts to reject charters if any of the following conditions are present:

1. The district has received a negative financial certification;
2. The district has received an emergency loan and is operating under the oversight of a state administrator; or
3. The school district, due to declining enrollment of pupils, is in the process of closing a school that a charter school petition has identified as the proposed site for its charter school, and the district has received a qualified financial certification or would receive a qualified financial certification if the charter school petition is approved.

I think this bill is a terrible idea.  Why should the charter school pay for a school district governing board’s poor fiscal management?  The reason the district is in a negative or qualified financial situation is because the board hasn’t taken the necessary steps to address its financial shortfalls.  Sure, a district may fall into qualified as a result of state funding changes, but that is a temporary situation.  By the time the district gets to a negative status, they have had years of warnings that they were in financial problems.  It isn’t the charter school’s fault and they shouldn’t be punished for it.

I sent a letter to my legislator today urging him to vote no on the AB 1172.  I urge you to do the same.

On Wednesday, [the state board] directed staff at the state Department of Education to start gathering information for a potential vote at their next meeting in March on applying this summer.

Even State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson now seems amenable. When Education Secretary Arne Duncan first proposed the waivers in September, Torlakson balked at what he projected to be a $2 billion cost and rigid conditions for meeting the waiver.

“If the administration understands the complexity and the diversity of the state of California, and the financial pressure we’re under, we would design a customized waiver. I believe there is opportunity here,” said Torlakson.

As Torlakson knows, without a waiver no Title I school in California will meet NCLB’s demand that every student score proficient on the California Standards Test. When that happens, they’ll also lose control over a significant portion of their Title I dollars and face a narrow range of federally prescribed improvement options.

Concern over losing that money drew nearly a dozen superintendents from around the state to Sacramento yesterday to plead with the Board to seek a waiver.

“This is a point of desperation,” said Sanger Unified Superintendent Marc Johnson, whose tiny 11,000-student district stands to lose control of $500,000. Sanger has been using that money on its own intervention programs, which he credits with increasing the district’s high school graduation rate to 94 percent.

“Children in this state will be harmed because of the failure of state agencies to take action and embrace this,” said Johnson.

He and the other superintendents said the Board needs to be aware of the demoralizing effect of having schools be labeled as failures and the burdens that come with sanctions.

I hope they’re serious but I suspect they may just be trying to placate Marc Johnson and the other Superintendents by acting like they’re open to waivers without actually having the intent to apply.  I guess we’ll find out soon.