For the full length video with a special message for the youngsters, click here...
Monday, May 18, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
The chaotic nature of the public school lottery
From the Mommy Files:
Over the weekend, our family went to dinner at some friends who live a few blocks from us on the Mission District-Noe Valley border. They wanted to show us their new kitchen countertops.
As my girlfriend Jamie (who requested that I change her name for this article) toured me through her small condo, she told me about additional renovations she and her husband plan to make. "We need to get this done in two years," she said, "before we put our place on the market and leave the city."
Two years?
Yes, in two years Jamie's son will be 4-years-old and she hopes to settle into a house in the suburbs before he starts kindergarten. Why?
"I can't deal with the San Francisco public school lottery system," Jamie says. "There's too much uncertainty and it sounds too stressful."
Lottery system?
Yes, you probably already know that if you want to send your child to a public school in San Francisco you have to play 'The Lottery'--though the San Francisco Unified School District prefers to call it a choice system because any student can apply to any school in the district.
Parents pick seven schools where they'd be happy sending their child and then turn their list into the district. Sounds simple, right?
Well, there's a catch. Around 80 percent of all families get one of their seven choices--a significant portion of those are awarded spots because they already have a sibling at the school. In other words, not everyone wins the lottery and many families end up on wait lists at their favorite schools or they opt for private or leave the city all together.
Why this chaotic mess? Rather than assigning kids to the schools closest to their homes, the district is trying to achieve a blend of students of different backgrounds throughout the city. In theory, it's a smart idea.
But my friend Jamie would rather move to the East Bay than go through this system.
Jamie knows the public schools in San Francisco are good--her husband went to Lawton, after all. She knows about the dedicated parents around the city who are working their butts off to improve their children's schools. She knows about Leonard Flynn, the lovely school a few blocks from her house with a diverse population and a Spanish immersion program. And she knows that if she moves back to Danville where she grew up, her family isn't going to get the same experience. She also knows--because I am always reminding her and I'm a huge advocate for public schools--that I love the S.F. public school where my 6-year-old daughter attends a Mandarin immersion kindergarten.
But Jamie also knows what I went through to get into that school. She's aware of how much time I took off from work to tour schools and develop my list of seven favorites. She listened to me cry when my daughter didn't get into any of them. She heard about all the fights I had with my husband when we were trying to decide whether or not to accept a spot offered by a private school. For two years, she dealt with my panic-stricken state as I made my kindergarten search for my daughter the focus of my life. (You can read about my travails in a recent article in San Francisco magazine.)
I tell Jamie that it was worth it and while I struggled, I also learned a lot and grew as a person. I tell her that the experience helped define my family's values as my husband and I realized that it's important to us that our daughter attend a school with children from varied backgrounds.
Jamie doesn't buy it. "I'm not doing it," she often tells me. "I know that it will make me crazy."
This is one of the problems with San Francisco's infamous Student Assignment System. It scares away people like Jamie. It makes them run for the East Bay Hills. It's not the only problem--and certainly not the biggest one. There are others--such as the fact that some of the schools aren't diverse. But for me, a neurotic Noe Valley mom, it's the problem that I hear about most. I have already lost many city friends to the lottery system--and maybe that's why I so badly want Jamie to stay.
Today, I'm going to be a guest on a segment on KQED radio's Forum show focusing on the Student Assignment System--tune in at 9 a.m. While I struggled with the lottery, I think going through it was worth it and I'm hoping I can encourage discouraged parents to charge on because there's almost always a happy ending. I'm also looking forward to hearing Jane Kim, vice president of the Board of Education, and Orla O'Keeffe, special assistant to the superintendent, talk about the upcoming Student Assignment System redesign.
What are my thoughts on the redesign? In short, I don't think the district should revert to neighborhood schools; we should avoid racial isolation. I believe that the intentions of the current system--to create diverse schools and close the achievement gap--are right-on and those should be maintained. Also the data shows that the majority of parents want some choice in the matter. But I'm hoping the district can make some tweaks that will make the process easier, less stressful, less time-intensive, and get people like Jamie to stay.
Over the weekend, our family went to dinner at some friends who live a few blocks from us on the Mission District-Noe Valley border. They wanted to show us their new kitchen countertops.
As my girlfriend Jamie (who requested that I change her name for this article) toured me through her small condo, she told me about additional renovations she and her husband plan to make. "We need to get this done in two years," she said, "before we put our place on the market and leave the city."
Two years?
Yes, in two years Jamie's son will be 4-years-old and she hopes to settle into a house in the suburbs before he starts kindergarten. Why?
"I can't deal with the San Francisco public school lottery system," Jamie says. "There's too much uncertainty and it sounds too stressful."
Lottery system?
Yes, you probably already know that if you want to send your child to a public school in San Francisco you have to play 'The Lottery'--though the San Francisco Unified School District prefers to call it a choice system because any student can apply to any school in the district.
Parents pick seven schools where they'd be happy sending their child and then turn their list into the district. Sounds simple, right?
Well, there's a catch. Around 80 percent of all families get one of their seven choices--a significant portion of those are awarded spots because they already have a sibling at the school. In other words, not everyone wins the lottery and many families end up on wait lists at their favorite schools or they opt for private or leave the city all together.
Why this chaotic mess? Rather than assigning kids to the schools closest to their homes, the district is trying to achieve a blend of students of different backgrounds throughout the city. In theory, it's a smart idea.
But my friend Jamie would rather move to the East Bay than go through this system.
Jamie knows the public schools in San Francisco are good--her husband went to Lawton, after all. She knows about the dedicated parents around the city who are working their butts off to improve their children's schools. She knows about Leonard Flynn, the lovely school a few blocks from her house with a diverse population and a Spanish immersion program. And she knows that if she moves back to Danville where she grew up, her family isn't going to get the same experience. She also knows--because I am always reminding her and I'm a huge advocate for public schools--that I love the S.F. public school where my 6-year-old daughter attends a Mandarin immersion kindergarten.
But Jamie also knows what I went through to get into that school. She's aware of how much time I took off from work to tour schools and develop my list of seven favorites. She listened to me cry when my daughter didn't get into any of them. She heard about all the fights I had with my husband when we were trying to decide whether or not to accept a spot offered by a private school. For two years, she dealt with my panic-stricken state as I made my kindergarten search for my daughter the focus of my life. (You can read about my travails in a recent article in San Francisco magazine.)
I tell Jamie that it was worth it and while I struggled, I also learned a lot and grew as a person. I tell her that the experience helped define my family's values as my husband and I realized that it's important to us that our daughter attend a school with children from varied backgrounds.
Jamie doesn't buy it. "I'm not doing it," she often tells me. "I know that it will make me crazy."
This is one of the problems with San Francisco's infamous Student Assignment System. It scares away people like Jamie. It makes them run for the East Bay Hills. It's not the only problem--and certainly not the biggest one. There are others--such as the fact that some of the schools aren't diverse. But for me, a neurotic Noe Valley mom, it's the problem that I hear about most. I have already lost many city friends to the lottery system--and maybe that's why I so badly want Jamie to stay.
Today, I'm going to be a guest on a segment on KQED radio's Forum show focusing on the Student Assignment System--tune in at 9 a.m. While I struggled with the lottery, I think going through it was worth it and I'm hoping I can encourage discouraged parents to charge on because there's almost always a happy ending. I'm also looking forward to hearing Jane Kim, vice president of the Board of Education, and Orla O'Keeffe, special assistant to the superintendent, talk about the upcoming Student Assignment System redesign.
What are my thoughts on the redesign? In short, I don't think the district should revert to neighborhood schools; we should avoid racial isolation. I believe that the intentions of the current system--to create diverse schools and close the achievement gap--are right-on and those should be maintained. Also the data shows that the majority of parents want some choice in the matter. But I'm hoping the district can make some tweaks that will make the process easier, less stressful, less time-intensive, and get people like Jamie to stay.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Why would haters want a Hate Crimes Bill?
Rep. Steve King (R-Batshittia) introduced an amendment to the hate crimes bill calling for the term "sexual orientation" to exclude "pedophiles" even though the bill specifically defines sexual orientation as "consensual homosexuality or heterosexuality." Pedophelia, as everyone knows, is nonconsensual no matter who engages in it.
Not only was King insinuating the derogatory stereotype that homosexuals are pedophiles, but his amendment would've further validated this stereotype by writing it into the legal record. By the way, Joe the Plumber -- another very serious leader of the Republican Party -- advanced the same stereotype this week when he said that he'd never let his "gay friends" anywhere near his kids. Classy. Nevertheless, King making this kind of distinction is sort of like amending civil rights legislation with: "the term 'African Americans' shall not include anyone who rapes white women." It elevates a stereotype while denying one exists. Pretty slick -- in a creepy, sinister kind of way.
From the Huffington Post. Read entire article here...
Not only was King insinuating the derogatory stereotype that homosexuals are pedophiles, but his amendment would've further validated this stereotype by writing it into the legal record. By the way, Joe the Plumber -- another very serious leader of the Republican Party -- advanced the same stereotype this week when he said that he'd never let his "gay friends" anywhere near his kids. Classy. Nevertheless, King making this kind of distinction is sort of like amending civil rights legislation with: "the term 'African Americans' shall not include anyone who rapes white women." It elevates a stereotype while denying one exists. Pretty slick -- in a creepy, sinister kind of way.
From the Huffington Post. Read entire article here...
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Peoria – the proverbial tale of two cities. One tale is about a Peoria where the youngest member of Congress can thrive and be on the world stage by the age of 26; and the other tale is about a Peoria, that has produced a 13 year old bank robber – a throw away child (if the State’s Attorney is to be believed).
Deonte Moore is just the most recent example of the plague of gang/youth violence that we face daily. Gangs do not exist in a vacum. They are born out of an environment of poverty, lack of jobs, training, educational opportunities, and an absence of inclusion and spiritual engagement. We should be deeply disturbed that our Community has produced (and subsequently failed) Deonte Moore.
On February 13, 2009, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced H.R.1064 and S. 435, identical House and Senate bills to fund prevention and intervention programs that are comprehensive, community-centered and evidence-based efforts to combat gangs and youth violence. The Bill is called theYouth PROMISE Bill.
Deonte Moore is just the most recent example of the plague of gang/youth violence that we face daily. Gangs do not exist in a vacum. They are born out of an environment of poverty, lack of jobs, training, educational opportunities, and an absence of inclusion and spiritual engagement. We should be deeply disturbed that our Community has produced (and subsequently failed) Deonte Moore.
On February 13, 2009, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced H.R.1064 and S. 435, identical House and Senate bills to fund prevention and intervention programs that are comprehensive, community-centered and evidence-based efforts to combat gangs and youth violence. The Bill is called theYouth PROMISE Bill.
PROMISE stands for Prison Reduction through Opportunities, Mentoring, Intervention, Support, and Education and is sponsored by Representatives Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-VA) and Michael Castle (R-DE) as well as Senators Robert Casey (D-PA) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME). In response to gang bills that emphasized suppression and incarceration over prevention and intervention, Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va) introduced legislation that champions evidenced-based practices and provides an alternative approach for lawmakers looking for effective responses to youth crime and delinquency.
The Youth PROMISE Act builds upon evidence-based methods proven to reduce youth violence and delinquency at the community level. Under the Youth PROMISE Act, communities facing the greatest youth gang and crime challenges will come together – via a local council that includes law enforcement, community-based organizations, schools, faith organizations, health, social service, and mental health providers – to develop and implement a comprehensive plan for evidence-based prevention and intervention strategies targeted at young people and their families to make our communities safer, reduce victimization, and help at-risk young people to lead law-abiding and healthy lives, free from gang and/or other criminal involvement.
The Peoria Community is rich with resources, inclusive of a superstar Congressman named Aaron Schock. What better person to get behind this Bill and push for it’s passing than Aaron Schock. After all the travesty that surrounds Deonte Moore is playing out right here in his home town. Congressman Aaron Schock should care about the passing of this Bill.
I encourage all readers of this blog to write Congressman Schock, tell him it is okay to support this important act. As a matter of fact we need to contact all Sentators and Representatives now and ask for their support of S. 435 and H.R. 1064. Go here to sign a letter.
The Youth PROMISE Act builds upon evidence-based methods proven to reduce youth violence and delinquency at the community level. Under the Youth PROMISE Act, communities facing the greatest youth gang and crime challenges will come together – via a local council that includes law enforcement, community-based organizations, schools, faith organizations, health, social service, and mental health providers – to develop and implement a comprehensive plan for evidence-based prevention and intervention strategies targeted at young people and their families to make our communities safer, reduce victimization, and help at-risk young people to lead law-abiding and healthy lives, free from gang and/or other criminal involvement.
The Peoria Community is rich with resources, inclusive of a superstar Congressman named Aaron Schock. What better person to get behind this Bill and push for it’s passing than Aaron Schock. After all the travesty that surrounds Deonte Moore is playing out right here in his home town. Congressman Aaron Schock should care about the passing of this Bill.
I encourage all readers of this blog to write Congressman Schock, tell him it is okay to support this important act. As a matter of fact we need to contact all Sentators and Representatives now and ask for their support of S. 435 and H.R. 1064. Go here to sign a letter.
Click below to view a Section-by-Section Summary of the bill, including a list of current co-sponsors. Section-by-Section Summary
Friday, May 1, 2009
School Activity Fund Frauds: An Accident Waiting to Happen
From auditnet.blogspot.com:
The following article appeared in the Washington Post on November 9, 2007 (Student Money Vanishes, but Few Are Punished Activity Funds Are Often Plundered and Mismanaged by Adults):I have maintained for a long time that management of these funds was an accident waiting to happen.
As an internal auditor for Fairfax County Public Schools I observed firsthand the types of abuses that occur regularly in school activity funds. Despite reporting mechanisms such as independent audits that show control weaknesses many of the abuses are repeated year after year. This is in large part due to who controls the funds, lack of effective policies and procedures, and an overall position that these are not material to the financial statements and therefore do not warrant attention.
Across the United States millions of dollars are collected each year for student activity funds. These funds are under the direct control of the principal of the school. While the funds may seem immaterial (from several hundred dollars up to hundreds of thousands of dollars) when you consider the amounts collected by school district the number easily reach millions of dollars a year.
Student activity money is collected from vending machines, sporting events, bake sales and other activities approved by the school principal.
The funds are supposed to be used to promote the general welfare, education and morale of students through activities such as field trips, school publications etc.
The funds are the responsibility of the school principal.School districts are supposed to have policies and procedures covering the collection, safeguarding, and expenditure of school activity funds.
The funds should be audited each year by an independent accounting firm.
However the reality is that procedures for collection, safeguarding and dissemination are not always followed. Not all the money collected is recorded in the school's accounting system. Funds are not promptly deposited and are kept in insecure locations (unlocked desks) or safes with access by multiple personnel. Funds are spent for purposes other than the benefit of students.
School principals routinely give the responsibility for oversight of the funds to individuals not properly trained. Due to lack of internal resources (such as internal auditors) funds are not audited on a regular basis. Additionally the school districts external auditors may not even be aware of the funds available and therefore do not look at whether appropriate internal controls are in place.
read more here...
While at Fairfax County Public Schools I reviewed reports issued by an external auditor hired on a contract basis to review the school activity funds. The control weaknesses identified by the external auditor occurred year after year without little if any changes. In addition eventhough the State Education Department mandated that EVERY SCHOOL ACTIVITY FUND BE AUDITED EVERY YEAR, there was no requirement that the State Education Department be provided with a copy of the report. The cost to the County was over $250,000 and was borne by the taxpayers rather than being paid for by the Student Activity funds (over $40 million dollars collected).There needs to be greater oversight by school officials including internal auditors.
There should be minimum standards for individuals responsible for student activity funds. Additionally when problems are identified prompt action needs to be taken. The cost of independent audits or audit oversight for these activity funds should be be funded by proceeds collected.There are many public school districts where the internal audit department has responbility for auditing school activity funds. Unfortunately many of those same public school districts do not adequately fund internal audit functions to maintain effective oversight of internal controls for student activity funds or other school district operations.
What happened in the District of Columbia should be a wake up call for public school districts across the United States.
The following article appeared in the Washington Post on November 9, 2007 (Student Money Vanishes, but Few Are Punished Activity Funds Are Often Plundered and Mismanaged by Adults):I have maintained for a long time that management of these funds was an accident waiting to happen.
As an internal auditor for Fairfax County Public Schools I observed firsthand the types of abuses that occur regularly in school activity funds. Despite reporting mechanisms such as independent audits that show control weaknesses many of the abuses are repeated year after year. This is in large part due to who controls the funds, lack of effective policies and procedures, and an overall position that these are not material to the financial statements and therefore do not warrant attention.
Across the United States millions of dollars are collected each year for student activity funds. These funds are under the direct control of the principal of the school. While the funds may seem immaterial (from several hundred dollars up to hundreds of thousands of dollars) when you consider the amounts collected by school district the number easily reach millions of dollars a year.
Student activity money is collected from vending machines, sporting events, bake sales and other activities approved by the school principal.
The funds are supposed to be used to promote the general welfare, education and morale of students through activities such as field trips, school publications etc.
The funds are the responsibility of the school principal.School districts are supposed to have policies and procedures covering the collection, safeguarding, and expenditure of school activity funds.
The funds should be audited each year by an independent accounting firm.
However the reality is that procedures for collection, safeguarding and dissemination are not always followed. Not all the money collected is recorded in the school's accounting system. Funds are not promptly deposited and are kept in insecure locations (unlocked desks) or safes with access by multiple personnel. Funds are spent for purposes other than the benefit of students.
School principals routinely give the responsibility for oversight of the funds to individuals not properly trained. Due to lack of internal resources (such as internal auditors) funds are not audited on a regular basis. Additionally the school districts external auditors may not even be aware of the funds available and therefore do not look at whether appropriate internal controls are in place.
read more here...
While at Fairfax County Public Schools I reviewed reports issued by an external auditor hired on a contract basis to review the school activity funds. The control weaknesses identified by the external auditor occurred year after year without little if any changes. In addition eventhough the State Education Department mandated that EVERY SCHOOL ACTIVITY FUND BE AUDITED EVERY YEAR, there was no requirement that the State Education Department be provided with a copy of the report. The cost to the County was over $250,000 and was borne by the taxpayers rather than being paid for by the Student Activity funds (over $40 million dollars collected).There needs to be greater oversight by school officials including internal auditors.
There should be minimum standards for individuals responsible for student activity funds. Additionally when problems are identified prompt action needs to be taken. The cost of independent audits or audit oversight for these activity funds should be be funded by proceeds collected.There are many public school districts where the internal audit department has responbility for auditing school activity funds. Unfortunately many of those same public school districts do not adequately fund internal audit functions to maintain effective oversight of internal controls for student activity funds or other school district operations.
What happened in the District of Columbia should be a wake up call for public school districts across the United States.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Why School Boards Won't Tell You the Reasons for Employee Discipline or Dismissal
Boards of education are sometimes asked by news reporters or other citizens to explain the reasons when they fire an administrator, teacher or other employee. Some school boards, in fact, are publicly criticized when they refuse to divulge such reasons or do not speak out in defense of a dismissal.
The Illinois Association of School Boards believes such criticism is almost always unwarranted and unfair. The public needs to know that a school board must treat information regarding an employee dismissal as completely confidential.
The fact is, a public right to know rarely if ever attaches to an employee dismissal, especially when the employer is a public body. Even in those rare situations involving criminal misconduct, responsibility for publicly releasing information about formal charges would rest, not with the public employer, but with law enforcement officials.
Under any circumstances imaginable, it would be improper for the members of a school board to comment publicly regarding an employee dismissal for at least three reasons:
1) Barring some heinous misconduct on the part of the employee, no employer should wish to make future employment any more difficult than necessary.
2) Releasing stigmatizing information on an employee, even in the form of accusations or opinions, will increase the level of hostility and make an amicable settlement of an employment dispute impossible. The cost of going to court is many times greater than the cost of an out-of-court settlement and is not a prudent use of dollars that should be spent on educating children.
3) Public employees have constitutionally protected interests in personal reputation, integrity and the right to future employment opportunities. A public body that divulges stigmatizing information in dismissing an employee jeopardizes the constitutional rights of that employee and creates an intricate and costly web of procedural due process requirements. Even where stigmatizing information is believed to be true, efforts to prove it in court carry enormous financial risks.
These are among the reasons that Illinois law specifically exempts the discussion of employee performance or conduct from open meetings requirements and shields personnel records from public scrutiny.
The Illinois Association of School Boards recognizes the public's right to know as an essential element of self-government and urges boards of education to operate as openly as possible. At the same time, however, IASB recognizes that the public's right to know is not without limit and must be weighed against such factors as individual rights of privacy and the need to protect the citizenry from unnecessary financial liability.
Costly litigation, regardless of whether it results in financial judgments against the public body, creates tax burdens that must be weighed against the public's desire to know the reasons for a public employee's dismissal.
Attorneys advise school boards not to disclose information regarding the dismissal of any employee. Following such legal advice is a wise course, especially when public pressure tempts members of the public body to speak out and let taxpayers finance the huge court costs, legal fees and damage settlements that are sure to follow.
Taxpayers and the news media alike should congratulate any school board for following its attorney's advice when such advice reduces the school district's exposure to litigation and possible liability for damages.
The Illinois Association of School Boards recommends careful consideration of these legal issues before asking members of a board of education to divulge reasons for an employee dismissal.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE -- This document is copyrighted © by the Illinois Association of School Boards. IASB hereby grants to school districts and other Internet users the right to download, print and reproduce this document provided that (a) the Illinois Association of School Boards is noted as publisher and copyright holder of the document and (b) any reproductions of this document are disseminated without charge and not used for any commercial purpose.
The Illinois Association of School Boards believes such criticism is almost always unwarranted and unfair. The public needs to know that a school board must treat information regarding an employee dismissal as completely confidential.
The fact is, a public right to know rarely if ever attaches to an employee dismissal, especially when the employer is a public body. Even in those rare situations involving criminal misconduct, responsibility for publicly releasing information about formal charges would rest, not with the public employer, but with law enforcement officials.
Under any circumstances imaginable, it would be improper for the members of a school board to comment publicly regarding an employee dismissal for at least three reasons:
1) Barring some heinous misconduct on the part of the employee, no employer should wish to make future employment any more difficult than necessary.
2) Releasing stigmatizing information on an employee, even in the form of accusations or opinions, will increase the level of hostility and make an amicable settlement of an employment dispute impossible. The cost of going to court is many times greater than the cost of an out-of-court settlement and is not a prudent use of dollars that should be spent on educating children.
3) Public employees have constitutionally protected interests in personal reputation, integrity and the right to future employment opportunities. A public body that divulges stigmatizing information in dismissing an employee jeopardizes the constitutional rights of that employee and creates an intricate and costly web of procedural due process requirements. Even where stigmatizing information is believed to be true, efforts to prove it in court carry enormous financial risks.
These are among the reasons that Illinois law specifically exempts the discussion of employee performance or conduct from open meetings requirements and shields personnel records from public scrutiny.
The Illinois Association of School Boards recognizes the public's right to know as an essential element of self-government and urges boards of education to operate as openly as possible. At the same time, however, IASB recognizes that the public's right to know is not without limit and must be weighed against such factors as individual rights of privacy and the need to protect the citizenry from unnecessary financial liability.
Costly litigation, regardless of whether it results in financial judgments against the public body, creates tax burdens that must be weighed against the public's desire to know the reasons for a public employee's dismissal.
Attorneys advise school boards not to disclose information regarding the dismissal of any employee. Following such legal advice is a wise course, especially when public pressure tempts members of the public body to speak out and let taxpayers finance the huge court costs, legal fees and damage settlements that are sure to follow.
Taxpayers and the news media alike should congratulate any school board for following its attorney's advice when such advice reduces the school district's exposure to litigation and possible liability for damages.
The Illinois Association of School Boards recommends careful consideration of these legal issues before asking members of a board of education to divulge reasons for an employee dismissal.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE -- This document is copyrighted © by the Illinois Association of School Boards. IASB hereby grants to school districts and other Internet users the right to download, print and reproduce this document provided that (a) the Illinois Association of School Boards is noted as publisher and copyright holder of the document and (b) any reproductions of this document are disseminated without charge and not used for any commercial purpose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)